The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325
ANTE-NICENE FATHERS
VOLUME 4.
Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second.
Chronologically arranged, with brief notes and prefaces, by
A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D.
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Fathers of the Third Century:
Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second.
——————————
AMERICAN EDITION.
Chronologically arranged, with brief notes and prefaces, by
A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D.
Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω.
The Nicene Council
Introductory Notice.
————————————
[a.d. 200–250.] This fourth volume of our series is an exceptional one. It presents, under one cover, specimens of two of the noblest of the Christian Fathers; both of them exceptionally great in their influence upon the ages; both of them justly censurable for pitiable faults; each of them, in spite of such failings, endeared to the heart of Christendom by their great services to the Church; both of them geographically of Africa, but the one essentially Greek and the other a Latin; the one a builder upon the great Clementine foundations, the other himself a founder, the brilliant pioneer of Latin Christianity. The contrasts and the concurrences of such minds, and in them of the Alexandrian and Carthaginian schools, are most suggestive, and should be edifying.
The works of both, as here given, are fractional. Tertullian overflows into this volume, after filling one before; the vast proportions of Origen’s labours forced the Edinburgh publishers to give specimens only.
Minucius Felix and Commodian are thrown in as a sort of appendix to Tertullian, and illustrate the school and the Church of the same country. The Italian type does not yet appear. Latin Christianity is essentially North-African, and is destined to continue such, conspicuously, till it has culminated in the genius of Augustine. From the first, the Orientals speculate concerning God; the Westerns deal with man. Both schools “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” And, once for all, it may be said, that if their language necessarily lacks the precision of technical theology, and enables those who have little sympathy with them to set them one against another on some points, and so to impair their value as witnesses, it is quite as easy, and far more just, to show the harmony of their ideas, even when they differ in their forms of speech. This has been triumphantly done by Bull, just as the same writer harmonizes St. James and St. Paul, working down to their common base in the Rock of Ages. The test of Ante-Nicene unity is the Nicene Symbol, in which the primitive writings find their ultimate expression. That Clement and Tertullian alike would have recognized as the faith; for the earlier Fathers were, in fact, its authors. The Nicene Fathers were compilers only, and professed only to embody in the Symbol what their predecessors had established and maintained.
Let it be borne in mind that there is only one Œcumenical Symbol. The Creed called the Apostles’ is unknown to the East save as an orthodox confession of their Western brethren. The “Athanasian Creed” is only a Western hymn, like the Te Deum, and has no œcumenical warrant as a symbol, though it embodies the common doctrine. The Filioque, wherever it appears, is apocryphal, and has no œcumenical force; while it is heretical (in Catholic theology) if it be held in a sense which destroys the One Source of divinity in the Father, its fons et origo. Surely, it is a noble exercise of mind and heart to see, in the splendid result of the Ante-Nicene conflicts with error, and in the enduring truth and perennial freshness of the Nicene Creed, the fulfilment of the promise of the Great Head of the Church, that the Spirit should abide with them for ever, and guide them into all truth.
For the favour and generous spirit with which his Christian brethren have welcomed and encouraged this undertaking, the editor is grateful to them, and to the common Lord and Master of us all.
October, 1885.
Tertullian.
————————————
Part Fourth.
I.
On the Pallium. [Written, according to
Neander, about a.d. 208.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Time Changes Nations’ Dresses—and Fortunes.
Men of Carthage, ever
princes of Africa, ennobled by ancient memories, blest with modern
felicities, I rejoice that times are so prosperous with you that you
have leisure to spend and pleasure to find in criticising dress.
These are the “piping times of peace” and plenty.
Blessings rain from the empire and from the sky. Still, you too
of old time wore your garments—your tunics—of another
shape; and indeed they were in repute for the skill of the weft, and
the harmony of the hue, and the due proportion of the size, in that
they were neither prodigally long across the shins, nor immodestly
scanty between the knees, nor niggardly to the arms, nor tight to the
hands, but, without being shadowed by even a girdle arranged to divide
the folds, they stood on men’s backs with quadrate
symmetry. The garment of the mantle extrinsically—itself
too quadrangular—thrown back on either shoulder, and meeting
closely round the neck in the gripe of the buckle, used to repose on
the shoulders. [See Elucidation I.] Utica (Oehler). i.e., in Adrumetum
(Oehler). Sæcularium. i.e., Etruscans, who were
supposed to be of Lydian origin. i.e., your gown. A Roman knight and
mime-writer.
“Back-twisted-horned, wool-skinned, stones-dragging,”
but a beam-like engine it is, which does military service in battering walls—never before poised by any, the redoubted Carthage,
“Keenest in pursuits of war,” Virg.,
Æn., i. 14.
is said to have been the first of all to have equipped for the
oscillatory work of pendulous impetus; Or,
“attack.” Caput
vindicantis. But some read
capite: “which avenges itself with its
head.” See Virg.,
Æn., iii. 415 (Oehler).
Chapter II.—The Law of Change, or Mutation, Universal.
Draw we now our material from some other source,
lest Punichood either blush or else grieve in the midst of
Romans. To change her habit is, at all events, the stated
function of entire nature. The very world Mundus. See Adv.
Herm., c. xxv. ad fin. (Oehler). As being “the ears
of an ass.” Mundus.
Oehler’s pointing is disregarded. Mundus.
Oehler’s pointing is disregarded. Mundus.
Oehler’s pointing is disregarded. Metatio nostra, i.e., the
world. i.e., blind.
Cf. Milton, P. L., iii. 35, with the preceding and subsequent
context. Alluding to the Sibylline
oracles, in which we read (l. iii.), Καὶ Σάμος
ἄμμος ἔσῃ,
καὶ Δῆλος
ἄδηλος and again (l. iv.),
Δῆλος
οὐκ ἔτι
δῆλος, ἄδηλα
δὲ πάντα τοῦ
Δήλου (Oehler). See Apolog.,
c. xi. med.; ad Nat., l. i. c. ix. med.; Plato,
Timæus, pp. 24, 25 (Oehler). Oehler’s apt
conjecture, “et solum sua dabat,” is substituted for the
unintelligible “et solus audiebat” of the
mss., which Rig. skilfully but ineffectually
tries to explain. The
“camp” of Cambyses, said by Herod. (iii. 26) to have been
swallowed up in the Libyan Syrtes (Salm. in Oehler). It was one
detachment of his army. Milton tells similar tales of the
“Serbonian bog.” P.L., ii.
591–594. Ævi. Mundi. “Alias versura
compensati redit;” unless we may read
“reddit,” and take “versura” as a
nominative: “the turn of compensation at some other time
restores.” This rendering,
which makes the earth the subject, appears to give at least an
intelligible sense to this hopelessly corrupt passage.
Oehler’s pointing is disregarded; and his rendering not strictly
adhered to, as being too forced. If for Oehler’s
conjectural “se demum intellegens” we might read
“se debere demum intellegens,” or
simply “se debere intellegens,” a
good sense might be made, thus: “understanding at
last” (or, simply, “understanding”) “that it
was her duty to cultivate all (parts of her
surface).” Comp. Sæculum. Oehler understands
this of Clodius Albinus, and the Augusti mentioned above
to be Severus and his two sons Antonius and Geta. But see Kaye,
pp. 36–39 (ed. 3, 1845).
Chapter III.—Beasts Similarly Subject to the Law of Mutation.
Beasts, too, instead of a garment, change their form. And yet the peacock withal has plumage for a garment, and a garment indeed of the choicest; nay, in the bloom of his neck richer than any purple, and in the effulgence of his back more gilded than any edging, and in the sweep of his tail more flowing than any train; many-coloured, diverse-coloured, and versi-coloured; never itself, ever another, albeit ever itself when other; in a word, mutable as oft as moveable. The serpent, too, deserves to be mentioned, albeit not in the same breath as the peacock; for he too wholly changes what has been allotted him—his hide and his age: if it is true, (as it is,) that when he has felt the creeping of old age throughout him, he squeezes himself into confinement; crawls into a cave and out of his skin simultaneously; and, clean shorn on the spot, immediately on crossing the threshold leaves his slough behind him then and there, and uncoils himself in a new youth: with his scales his years, too, are repudiated. The hyena, if you observe, is of an annual sex, alternately masculine and feminine. I say nothing of the stag, because himself withal, the witness of his own age, feeding on the serpent, languishes—from the effect of the poison—into youth. There is, withal,
“A tardigrade field-haunting quadruped,
Humble and rough.”
The tortoise of Pacuvius, you think? No.
There is another beastling which the versicle fits; in size, one of the
moderate exceedingly, but a grand name. If, without previously
knowing him, you hear tell of a chameleon, you will at once apprehend
something yet more huge united with a lion. But when you stumble
upon him, generally in a vineyard, his whole bulk sheltered beneath a
vine leaf, you will forthwith laugh at the egregious audacity of the
name, in Reflecti: perhaps a
play upon the word = to turn back, or (mentally) to reflect.
Much had to be said in order that, after due
preparation, we might arrive at man. From whatever
beginning you admit him as springing, naked at all events and
ungarmented he came from his fashioner’s hand: afterwards,
at length, without waiting for permission, he possesses himself, by a
premature grasp, of wisdom. Then and there hastening to forecover
what, in his newly made body, it was not yet due to modesty (to
forecover), he surrounds himself meantime with fig-leaves:
subsequently, on being driven from the confines of his birthplace
because he had sinned, he went, skinclad, to the world Orbi. i.e., a place which
he was to work, as condemned criminals worked mines. Comp. de
Pu., c. xxii. sub init.; and see
But these are secrets, nor does their knowledge
appertain to all. Come, let us hear from your own store—(a
store) which the Egyptians narrate, and Alexander Alexander Polyhistor, who
dedicated his books on the affairs of the Phrygians and Egyptians to
his mother (Rig. in Oehler). The Egyptian Liber, or
Bacchus. See de Cor., c. vii. (Rig. in Oehler).
The ingenuities, therefore, of the tailoring art, superadded to, and following up, so abundant a store of materials—first with a view to coveting humanity, where Necessity led the way; and subsequently with a view to adorning withal, ay, and inflating it, where Ambition followed in the wake—have promulgated the various forms of garments. Of which forms, part are worn by particular nations, without being common to the rest; part, on the other hand, universally, as being useful to all: as, for instance, this Mantle, albeit it is more Greek (than Latin), has yet by this time found, in speech, a home in Latium. With the word the garment entered. And accordingly the very man who used to sentence Greeks to extrusion from the city, but learned (when he was now advanced in years) their alphabet and speech—the self-same Cato, by baring his shoulder at the time of his prætorship, showed no less favour to the Greeks by his mantle-like garb.
Chapter IV.—Change Not Always Improvement.
Why, now, if the Roman fashion is (social)
salvation to every one, are you nevertheless Greek to a degree, even in
points not honourable? Or else, if it is not so, whence in the
world is it that provinces which have had a better training, provinces
which nature adapted rather for surmounting by hard struggling the
difficulties of the soil, derive the pursuits of the
wrestling-ground—pursuits which fall into a sad old age Male
senescentia. Rig. (as quoted by Oehler) seems to interpret,
“which entail a feeble old age.” Oehler
himself seems to take it to mean “pursuits which are growing very
old, and toiling to no purpose.” Or, as some take it,
with wax (Oehler). Used as a depilatory.
The transfer of dress approximates to culpability
just in so far as it is not custom, but nature, which suffers the
change. There is a wide enough difference between the honour due
to time, and religion. Let Custom show fidelity to Time, Nature
to God. To Nature, accordingly, the Larissæan hero Achilles. ᾽Αχιλλεύς: from
ἀ privative, and χεῖλος, the
lip. See Oehler. The Centaur Chiron,
namely. Deianira, of whom he had
begotten Pyrrhus (Oehler). See the note on this word
in de Idol., c. xviii. Hom., Od.,
xvi. 294 (Oehler).
Still more disgraceful was the case when lust
transfigured a man in his dress, than when some maternal dread did
so: and yet adoration is offered by you to me, whom you ought to
blush at,—that Clubshaftandhidebearer, who exchanged for womanly
attire the whole proud heritage of his name! Such licence was
granted to the secret haunts of Lydia, Jos. Mercer, quoted by
Oehler, appears to take the meaning to be, “to his clandestine
Lydian concubine;” but that rendering does not seem
necessary. Viraginis; but perhaps =virginis. See the Vulg. in
But, again, he who had formerly rivalled the
Tirynthian i.e., Hercules. Or, “which are now
attributed to Novius.” Novius was a writer of that kind of
farce called “Atellanæ fabulæ;” and one of his
farces—or one attributed to him in Tertullian’s
day—was called “The Fullers.”
Of Physco and Sardanapalus I must be silent, whom,
but for their eminence in lusts, no one would recognise as kings.
But I must be silent, for fear lest even they set up a muttering
concerning some of your Cæsars, equally lost to shame; for fear
lest a mandate have been given to canine i.e., cynical; comp. de
Pa., c. ii. ad init. i.e., Domitian, called by
Juv. calvum Neronem, Sat. iv. 38.
Nor less warmly does the force of
vainglory Alexander. Comp. de
Idol., c. viii. med. i.e., one who affects
Tyrian—dresses in Tyrian purple. Empedocles (Salm. in
Oehler). I have adopted
Oehler’s suggestion, and inserted these words. i.e., of Cloacina or
Cluacina (="the Purifier,” a name of Venus; comp. White and
Riddle), which Tertullian either purposely connects with
“cloaca,” a sewer (with which, indeed, it may be
really connected, as coming derivatively from the same root),
and takes to mean “the nymphs of the sewers”
apparently. The nymphs above named
(Oehler). i.e., are worn by his
votaries. i.e., Christianity.
Cf.
Chapter V.—Virtues of the Mantle. It Pleads in Its Own Defence.
“Still,” say you, “must we thus
change from gown Toga. Or,
“forcipes.” Of course the meaning is,
“on the doffing of which a man congratulates himself more,”
etc.; but Tertullian as it were personifies the act of doffing, and
represents it as congratulating the doffer; and I have scrupulously
retained all his extravagances, believing them (in the present treatise
at least) to be intentional. A Cynic philosopher. “Inhumano;”
or, perhaps, “involving superhuman effort.” Oehler attempts to defend
the common reading, “humerum velans exponit vel
includit;” but the correction of Salmasius and Lud. de la
Cerda which he quotes, “vel exponit,” is
followed in preference. If Oehler’s reading be retained, we
may render: “a covering for the shoulder, it exposes or
encloses it at will.” i.e., the
“shoeing” appropriate to the mantle will consist at
most of sandals; “shoes” being (as has been
said) suited to the gown.
“Erat.”—Oehler, who refers to “errat” as
the general reading, and (if adopted) renders: “This
sentiment errs (or wanders) in all directions;” making
olim = passim. Reckoning the 1000
sesterces at their pre-Augustan value, £8, 17s. 1d.
“Promulsis”—a tray on which the first
course (“promulsis” or
“antecœna”) was served, otherwise called
“promulsidare.” As Pliny (quoted by
Oehler) tells us was the case. Or,
“adulterated.” Reckoning the 1000
sesterces at the post-Augustan value, £7, 16s. 3d.
Chapter VI.—Further Distinctions, and Crowning Glory, of the Pallium.
“‘With speech,’ says (my antagonist), ‘you have tried to persuade me,—a most sage medicament.’ But, albeit utterance be mute—impeded by infancy or else checked by bashfulness, for life is content with an even tongueless philosophy—my very cut is eloquent. A philosopher, in fact, is heard so long as he is seen. My very sight puts vices to the blush. Who suffers not, when he sees his own rival? Who can bear to gaze ocularly at him at whom mentally he cannot? Grand is the benefit conferred by the Mantle, at the thought whereof moral improbity absolutely blushes. Let philosophy now see to the question of her own profitableness; for she is not the only associate whom I boast. Other scientific arts of public utility I boast. From my store are clothed the first teacher of the forms of letters, the first explainer of their sounds, the first trainer in the rudiments of arithmetic, the grammarian, the rhetorician, the sophist, the medical man, the poet, the musical timebeater, the astrologer, and the birdgazer. All that is liberal in studies is covered by my four angles. ‘True; but all these rank lower than Roman knights’ Well; but your gladiatorial trainers, and all their ignominious following, are conducted into the arena in togas. This, no doubt, will be the indignity implied in ‘From gown to Mantle!’” Well, so speaks the Mantle. But I confer on it likewise a fellowship with a divine sect and discipline. Joy, Mantle, and exult! A better philosophy has now deigned to honour thee, ever since thou hast begun to be a Christian’s vesture!
————————————
I.
(The garment…too quadrangular, p. 5.)
Speaking of the Greek
priests of Korfou, the erudite Bishop of Lincoln, lately deceased, has
remarked, “There is something very picturesque in the appearance
of these persons, with their black caps resembling the modius
seen on the heads of the ancient statues of Serapis and Osiris, their
long beards and pale complexions, and their black flowing
cloak,—a relic, no doubt, of the old ecclesiastical garment
of which Tertullian wrote.” These remarks Wordsworth’s
Greece, p. 263. London, 1839.
He thus identifies the pallium with the
gown of Justin Martyr; See vol. i. p. 160, this
series.
Tertullian rarely acknowledges his obligations to
other Doctors; but Justin’s example and St. Paul’s cloak
must have been in his thoughts when he rejected the toga, and
claimed the pallium, as a Christian’s attire. Our
Edinburgh translator has assumed that it was the “ascetics’
mantle,” and perhaps it was. But it was assuming a
questionable point (See Kaye, p. 49) to give it this name in the title,
and I have retained it untranslated. See note on p. 160 of vol.
i., this series.
“The pallium,” says a learned
author, See his valuable and
exhaustive treatise, the Vestiarium Christianum, especially pp.
73, 125, 233, 490. Also, for the Gallicanum, p. 204 and
Appendix E., with pp. 210, 424. For the Græcum, pp.
xii. (note), xv. 73, 127, 233.
II.
(Superstition, p. 10, near note 9.)
The pall afterwards imposed upon Anglican and other primates by the Court of Rome was at first a mere complimentary present from the patriarchal see of the West. It became a badge of dependence and of bondage (obsta principiis). Only the ornamental bordering was sent, “made of lamb’s-wool and superstition,” says old Fuller, for whose amusing remarks see his Church Hist., vol. i. p. 179, ed. 1845. Rome gives primitive names to middle-age corruptions: needless to say the “pall” of her court is nothing like the pallium of our author.
On the Apparel of Women. [Written about
a.d. 202. See Kaye, p. 56.]
Book I.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Introduction. Modesty in Apparel Becoming to Women, in Memory of the Introduction of Sin into the World Through a Woman.
If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is
the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at
all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first
“known the Lord,” Comp. Satisfactionis. Comp. Sæculo. Resignatrix.
Comp. the phrase “a fountain sealed” in
“Suasisti” is the reading of the mss.; “persuasisti,” a conjectural
emendation adopted by Rig. See Rerum. i.e., Chinese.
Chapter II.—The Origin
of Female Ornamentation, Traced Back to the Angels Who Had
Fallen. Comp. with this chapter,
de Idol., c. ix.; de Or., c. xxii.; de Cult. Fem.,
l. ii. c. x.; de Virg. Vel., c. vii.
For they, withal, who instituted them are
assigned, under condemnation, to the penalty of death,—those
angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men; so that
this ignominy also attaches to woman. For when to an age Sæculo. Curiositatem. Comp.
de Idol., c. ix., and Quo oculorum exordia
producuntur. Comp. ii. 5. “Jam,” i.e.,
without going any farther. Comp. c. iv. et seqq. Sicut. But Pam. and
Rig. read “sive.” i.e., the
angelic lovers. Comp. See Comp. de Idol., c.
vi. Comp. See
Chapter
III.—Concerning the Genuineness of “The Prophecy of
Enoch.” [Elucidation.]
I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, Comp. de Idol.,
c. iv. See “Nomine;”
perhaps ="account.” Comp. Prædicatis.
If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by
so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to
warrant Tueretur. In spiritu. Instrumentum.
But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached
likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by
us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture
suitable for edification is divinely inspired.” See See
Chapter IV.—Waiving the Question of the Authors, Tertullian Proposes to Consider the Things on Their Own Merits.
Grant now that no mark of pre-condemnation has
been branded on womanly pomp by the (fact of the) fate Exitu. Matrimonium carnis.
Female habit carries with it a twofold
idea—dress and ornament. By “dress” we mean
what they call “womanly gracing;” Mundum muliebrem.
Comp. Liv. xxxiv. 7. Immundum muliebrem. Jam hinc; comp.
ad. Ux., i. 1 ad init. and ad fin., and 8 ad
fin.
Chapter V.—Gold and Silver Not Superior in Origin or in Utility to Other Metals.
Gold and silver, the principal material causes of
worldly Sæcularis. De suo. Comp.
de Bapt., c. xvii. sub fin.
Chapter VI.—Of Precious Stones and Pearls.
But, in the next place, what am I to interpret those
jewels to be which vie with gold in haughtiness, except little pebbles
and stones and paltry particles of the self-same earth; but yet not
necessary either for laying down foundations, or rearing party-walls,
or supporting pediments, or giving density to roofs? The only
edifice which they know how to rear is this silly pride of women:
because they require slow rubbing that they may shine, and artful
underlaying that they may show to advantage, and careful piercing that
they may hang; and (because they) render to gold a mutual assistance in
meretricious allure Peloris.
Comp. Hor., S., ii. 4, 32, and Macleane’s note
there. See
Chapter VII.—Rarity the Only Cause Which Makes Such Things Valuable.
It is only from their rarity and outlandishness
that all these things possess their grace; in short, within their own
native limits they are not held of so high worth. Abundance is
always contumelious toward itself. There are some barbarians with
whom, because gold is indigenous and plentiful, it is customary to keep
(the criminals) in their convict establishments chained with gold, and
to lade the wicked with riches—the more guilty, the more
wealthy. At last there has really been found a way to prevent
even gold from being loved! We have also seen at Rome the
nobility of gems blushing in the presence of our matrons at the
contemptuous usage of the Parthians and Medes, and the rest of their
own fellow-countrymen, only that (their gems) are not generally
worn with a view to ostentation. Emeralds Smaragdi. Comp.
Chapter VIII.—The Same Rule Holds with Regard to Colours. God’s Creatures Generally Not to Be Used, Except for the Purposes to Which He Has Appointed Them.
Similarly, too, do even the servants Or,
“slaves.” Comp. de
Pæn., c. v. med. Comp. c. vi. above. Sæcularium. i.e., the treatise de
Spectaculis. Rebus.
“Affici”—a rare use rather of “afficere,”
but found in Cic. Or perhaps “is
fed” thereby; for the word is “vescitur.”
“Conditio”—a rare use again. Sæcularis.
Chapter IX.—God’s Distribution Must Regulate Our Desires, Otherwise We Become the Prey of Ambition and Its Attendant Evils.
For, as some particular things distributed by God over
certain individual lands, and some one Or,
“moderation.” “Saltus et
insulæ,” i.e., as much as would purchase them.
Book II.
Chapter I.—Introduction. Modesty to Be Observed Not Only in Its Essence, But in Its Accessories.
Handmaids of the living God, my fellow-servants
and sisters, the right which I enjoy with you—I, the most
meanest Postremissimus. Consecrato. See Comp. de Idol.,
c. ii. Cultus et ornatus.
For the distinction between them, see b. i. c. iv. Comp. de
Pæn., c. i. Or,
“execution.” See
Chapter II.—Perfect Modesty Will Abstain from Whatever Tends to Sin, as Well as from Sin Itself. Difference Between Trust and Presumption. If Secure Ourselves, We Must Not Put Temptation in the Way of Others. We Must Love Our Neighbour as Ourself.
You must know that in the eye of perfect, that is,
Christian, modesty, (carnal) desire of one’s self (on the part of
others) is not only not to be desired, but even execrated, by
you: first, because the study of making personal grace (which we
know to be naturally the inviter of lust) a mean of pleasing does not
spring from a sound conscience: why therefore excite toward
yourself that evil (passion)? why invite (that) to which you profess
yourself a stranger? secondly, because we ought not to open a way to
temptations, which, by their instancy, sometimes achieve (a wickedness)
which God expels from them who are His; (or,) at all events, put the
spirit into a thorough tumult by (presenting) a stumbling-block (to
it). We ought indeed to walk so holily, and with so entire
substantiality Substantia. Comp.
Timor. The second
“non,” or else the first, must apparently be omitted. “Qui,”
Oehler; “quæ,” Rig. Comp. de
Pæn. c. iii. (latter half). Tu facta
es. Comp. Comp. Jam…sciatis. Accusandus. Comp. Sectatorum. Comp. “Salutem
contumelia redemit;” the “insult” being the denial of
her as his wife.
Chapter III.—Grant that Beauty Be Not to Be Feared: Still It is to Be Shunned as Unnecessary and Vainglorious.
Let it now be granted that excellence of form be
not to be feared, as neither troublesome to its possessors, nor
destructive to its desirers, nor perilous to its compartners; Conjunctis. Angelis Dei. Comp.
the opening sentence of the book. Comp. ad Ux., b.
i. c. iv. See
Stuporata. Bonis. Sectatores. Comp. Non adjuvare, sed etiam
impedire, debet.
Chapter IV.—Concerning the Plea of “Pleasing the Husband.”
As if I were speaking to Gentiles, addressing you
with a Gentile precept, and (one which is) common to all, (I would
say,) “You are bound to please your husbands
only.” Comp. Comp. Compositione sui. Bonis. Bona. Simplicem.
Chapter V.—Some Refinements in Dress and Personal Appearance Lawful, Some Unlawful. Pigments Come Under the Latter Head.
These suggestions are not made to you, of course,
to be developed into an entire crudity and wildness of appearance; nor
are we seeking to persuade you of the good of squalor and slovenliness;
but of the limit and norm and just measure of cultivation of the
person. There must be no overstepping of that line to which
simple and sufficient refinements limit their desires—that line
which is pleasing to God. For they who rub Urgent. Comp.
de Pæn., c. xi. “Fuligine,”
lit. “soot.” Comp. b. i. c. ii. See c. ii. ad
fin. Comp. b. i. c. viii. Infingitur. i.e., subject to
whom. Disciplinis. Species. Credite.
Chapter VI.—Of Dyeing the Hair.
I see some (women) turn (the colour of) their hair
with saffron. They are ashamed even of their own nation,
(ashamed) that their procreation did not assign them to Germany and to
Gaul: thus, as it is, they transfer their hair Jam capillos: so
Oehler and Rig. But the others read patriam capillo:
“they change their country by the instrumentality of their
hair.” Comp. ad
Ux., b. i. c. vi. Aram. See Gratia faciliorem. Comp. Comp. Comp. Sæculo.
Chapter VII.—Of Elaborate Dressing of the Hair in Other Ways, and Its Bearing Upon Salvation.
What service, again, does all the labour spent in
arranging the hair render to salvation? Why is no rest
allowed to your hair, which must now be bound, now loosed, now
cultivated, now thinned out? Some are anxious to force their hair
into curls, some to let it hang loose and flying; not with good
simplicity: beside which, you affix I know not what enormities of
subtle and textile perukes; now, after the manner of a helmet of
undressed hide, as it were a sheath for the head and a covering for the
crown; now, a mass (drawn) backward toward the neck. The wonder
is, that there is no (open) contending against the Lord’s
prescripts! It has been pronounced that no one can add to his own
stature. Mensuram. See
Exuvias.
“Alieni:” perhaps here ="alien,”
i.e., “heathen,” as in other places. Gehennæ. Comp. See Comp. ad
Ux., b. ii. c. iii. Ambitu
(habitu is a conjectural emendation noticed by Oehler)
capitis. See Comp. Or, “within the
limits of the flesh and the spirit.”
Chapter VIII.—Men Not Excluded from These Remarks on Personal Adornment.
Of course, now, I, a man, as being
envious Æmulus. Gravitatis. Metus. Detrahuntur. Gravitas. Comp. de
Pa., c. xv. ad fin. Gravitate. Gravitatem. Contemplatione.
Chapter IX.—Excess
in Dress, as Well as in Personal Culture, to Be Shunned.
Arguments Drawn from
Wherefore, with regard to clothing also, and all
the remaining lumber of your self-elaboration, Impedimenta
compositionis. De suo. Comp.
de Bapt., c. xvii. (sub. fin.), de Cult.
Fem., b. i. c. v. (med.). See c. iii. Repastinantes. Mundo; κόσμῳ. See
Habitus; σχῆμα,
ib. Κόσμου,
ib. Fortem. Comp. Mundum. In extimatione
temporali. See Sæculo. Comp. Sæcularia.
Chapter X.—Tertullian Refers Again to the Question of the
Origin of All These Ornaments and Embellishments. Comp. i. cc. ii. iii. v.
vii. viii.
It was God, no doubt, who showed the way to dye
wools with the juices of herbs and the humours of conchs! It had
escaped Him, when He was bidding the universe to come into
being, Universa nasci. Veritate. Illustrium.
Now, granting that God did foresee these things;
that God permitted them; that Esaias finds fault with no garment of
purple, De conchylio. κοσύμβους.
Lunulas = μηνίσκους, ib. Or,
“foreseen.” Sæculo. Or,
“slaves.” Timuerit. Timebit. Verebitur.
Chapter XI.—Christian Women, Further, Have Not the Same Causes for Appearing in Public, and Hence for Dressing in Fine Array as Gentiles. On the Contrary, Their Appearance Should Always Distinguish Them from Such.
Moreover, what causes have you for appearing in
public in excessive grandeur, removed as you are from the occasions
which call for such exhibitions? For you neither make the circuit
of the temples, nor demand (to be present at) public shows, nor have
any acquaintance with the holy days of the Gentiles. Now it is
for the sake of all these public gatherings, and of much seeing and
being seen, that all pomps (of dress) are exhibited before the public
eye; either for the purpose of transacting the trade of voluptuousness,
or else of inflating “glory.” You, however,
have no cause of appearing in public, except such as is serious.
Either some brother who is sick is visited, or else the sacrifice is
offered, or else the word of God is dispensed. Whichever of these
you like to name is a business of sobriety Gravitatis. Et composito et
soluto. See Comp. de Idol.,
c. xiv. Sordidior. Or
“pleasure:” placitum.
Chapter XII.—Such Outward Adornments Meretricious, and Therefore Unsuitable to Modest Women.
Let us only wish that we may be no cause for just
blasphemy! But how much more provocative of blasphemy is it that
you, who are called modesty’s priestesses, should appear in
public decked and painted out after the manner of the
immodest? Else, (if you so do,) what inferiority would the
poor unhappy victims of the public lusts have (beneath you)? whom,
albeit some laws were (formerly) wont to restrain them from (the use
of) matrimonial and matronly decorations, now, at all events, the daily
increasing depravity of the age Sæculi. Debita. Or,
“city.” Or, “sits on high
above.” Comp. Comp. Congressus. Videri pudicam.
Chapter XIII.—It is Not Enough that God Know Us to Be Chaste: We Must Seem So Before Men. Especially in These Times of Persecution We Must Inure Our Bodies to the Hardships Which They May Not Improbably Be Called to Suffer.
Perhaps some (woman) will say: “To me
it is not necessary to be approved by men; for I do not require the
testimony of men: Comp. Comp. See See See Supellectilem. Effeminari virtus. Comp.
————————————
(The Prophecy of Enoch, p. 15.)
Dr. Davidson is the author of a useful article on “Apocalyptic Literature,” from which we extract all that is requisite to inform the reader of the freshest opinion as seen from his well-known point of view. He notes Archbishop Lawrence’s translation into English, and that it has been rendered back again into German by Dillman (1853), as before, less accurately, by Hoffmann. Ewald, Lücke, Koestlin, and Hilgenfeld are referred to, and an article of his own in Kitto’s Cyclopædia. We owe its re-appearance, after long neglect, to Archbishop Lawrence (1838), and its preservation to the Abyssinians. It was rescued by Bruce, the explorer, in an Æthiopic version; and the first detailed announcement of its discovery was made by De Sacy, 1800. Davidson ascribes its authorship to pre-Messianic times, but thinks it has been interpolated by a Jewish Christian. Tertullian’s negative testimony points the other way: he evidently relies upon its “Christology” as genuine; and, if interpolated in his day, he could hardly have been deceived.
Its five parts are: I. The rape of women by
fallen angels, and the giants that were begotten of them. The
visions of Enoch begun. II. The visions continued, with views of
the Messiah’s kingdom. III. The physical and astronomical
mysteries treated of. IV. Man’s mystery revealed in dreams
from the beginning to the end of the Messianic kingdom. V. The
warnings of Enoch to his own family and to mankind, with appendices,
which complete the book. The article in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible is accessible, and need only be referred
to as well worth perusal; and, as it abounds in references to the
entire literature of criticism respecting it, it is truly
valuable. It seems to have been written by Westcott. See also Pusey’s
reply to Dr. Farrar.
The fact that St. Jude refers to Enoch’s
prophesyings no more proves that this book is other than apocryphal
than St. Paul’s reference to Jannes and Jambres makes Scripture
of the Targum. The apostle Jude does, indeed, authenticate that
particular saying by inspiration of God, and doubtless it was
traditional among the Jews. St. Jerome’s references to this
quotation may be found textually in Lardner. Credibility,
etc., iv. pp. 460–462.
On the Veiling of Virgins. [Written,
possibly, as early as a.d. 204.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Truth Rather to Be Appealed to Than Custom, and Truth Progressive in Its Developments.
Having already undergone
the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in Latin also that it
behoves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed
the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted
by truth, on which no one can impose prescription—no space of
times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. For
these, for the most part, are the sources whence, from some ignorance
or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is
successionally confirmed into an usage, and thus is maintained in
opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has surnamed Himself
Truth, See Comp. Comp. Comp.
Chapter II.—Before Proceeding Farther, Let the Question of Custom Itself Be Sifted.
But I will not, meantime, attribute this usage to Truth. Be it, for a while, custom: that to custom I may likewise oppose custom.
Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric
provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered.
There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice
obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian
Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which
were founded by apostles or apostolic men; and antecedently, I think,
to certain (founders, who shall be nameless). Those Churches
therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same authority of custom
(to appeal to); in opposing phalanx they range “times” and
“teachers,” more than these later (Churches do). What
shall we observe? What shall we choose? We cannot
contemptuously reject a custom which we cannot condemn, inasmuch as it
is not “strange,” since it is not among
“strangers” that we find it, but among those, to wit, with
whom we share the law of peace and the name of brotherhood. They
and we have one faith, one God, the same Christ, the same hope, the
same baptismal sacraments; let me say it once for all, we are one
Church. Comp.
Still, here (as generally happens in all cases of
various practice, of doubt, and of uncertainty), examination ought to
have been made to see which of two so diverse customs were the more
compatible with the discipline of God. And, of course, that ought
to have been chosen which keeps virgins veiled, as being known to God
alone; who (besides that glory must be sought from God, not from
men Comp. Sancti. Sanctæ.
Chapter III.—Gradual Development of Custom, and Its Results. Passionate Appeal to Truth.
But not even between customs have those most
chaste Sanctissimi. The allusion is perhaps
to Comp.
Chapter IV.—Of the
Argument Drawn from
But in so far as it is the custom to argue even
from the Scriptures in opposition to truth, there is immediately urged
against us the fact that “no mention of virgins is made by the
apostle where he is prescribing about the veil, but that
‘women’ only are named; whereas, if he had willed virgins
as well to be covered, he would have pronounced concerning
‘virgins’ also together with the ‘women’ named;
just as,” says (our opponent), “in that passage where he is
treating of marriage,
But we withal retort the self-same line of
argument. For he who knew elsewhere how to make mention of each
sex—of virgin I mean, and woman, that is,
not-virgin—for distinction’s sake; in these
(passages), in which he does not name a virgin, points
out (by not making the distinction) community of condition.
Otherwise he could here also have marked the difference between
virgin and woman, just as elsewhere he says,
“Divided is the woman and the
virgin.”
Nor yet, because in that case “divided is both woman and virgin,” will this division exert its patronizing influence in the present case as well, as some will have it. For how many sayings, uttered on another occasion, have no weight—in cases, to wit, where they are not uttered—unless the subject-matter be the same as on the other occasion, so that the one utterance may suffice! But the former case of virgin and woman is widely “divided” from the present question. “Divided,” he says, “is the woman and the virgin.” Why? Inasmuch as “the unmarried,” that is, the virgin, “is anxious about those (things) which are the Lord’s, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but the married,” that is, the not-virgin, “is anxious how she may please her husband.” This will be the interpretation of that “division,” having no place in this passage (now under consideration); in which pronouncement is made neither about marriage, nor about the mind and the thought of woman and of virgin, but about the veiling of the head. Of which (veiling) the Holy Spirit, willing that there should be no distinction, willed that by the one name of woman should likewise be understood the virgin; whom, by not specially naming, He has not separated from the woman, and, by not separating, has conjoined to her from whom He has not separated her.
Is it now, then, a “novelty” to use
the primary word, and nevertheless to have the other (subordinate
divisions) understood in that word, in cases where there is no
necessity for individually distinguishing the (various parts of the)
universal whole? Naturally, a compendious style of speech is both
pleasing and necessary; inasmuch as diffuse speech is both tiresome and
vain. So, too, we are content with general words, which
comprehend in themselves the understanding of the specialties.
Proceed we, then, to the word itself. The word (expressing the)
natural (distinction) is female. Of the natural
word, the general word is woman. Of the
general, again, the special is virgin, or
wife, or widow, or whatever other names, even of
the
Chapter V.—Of the Word Woman, Especially in Connection with Its Application to Eve.
But since they use the name of woman in such a way as to think it inapplicable save to her alone who has known a man, the pertinence of the propriety of this word to the sex itself, not to a grade of the sex, must be proved by us; that virgins as well (as others) may be commonly comprised in it.
When this kind of second human being was made by
God for man’s assistance, that female was forthwith named
woman; still happy, still worthy of paradise, still
virgin. “She shall be called,” said (Adam),
“Woman.” And accordingly you have the name,—I
say, not already common to a virgin,
but—proper (to her; a name) which from the beginning was
allotted to a virgin. But some ingeniously will have it
that it was said of the future, “She shall be
called woman,” as if she were destined to be so when she
had resigned her virginity; since he added withal: “For
this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and be conglutinated to
his own woman; and the two shall be one flesh.” Let
them therefore among whom that subtlety obtains show us first, if she
were surnamed woman with a future reference, what name she
meantime received. For without a name expressive of her
present quality she cannot have been. But what kind of
(hypothesis) is it that one who, with an eye to the future, was called
by a definite name, at the present time should have nothing for a
surname? On all animals Adam imposed names; and on none on the
ground of future condition, but on the ground of the present purpose
which each particular nature served;
This name was at that time the only one she had,
and (that) when nothing was (as yet) said prophetically. For when
the Scripture records that “the two were naked, Adam and his
woman,” neither does this savour of the future, as if it
said “his woman” as a presage of
“wife;” but because his woman Mulier, throughout.
If the case is so, it is apparent that she was not
surnamed woman on account of a future
To this is added, that (Adam) himself published
the reason of the name. For, after saying, “She shall be
called woman,” he said, “inasmuch as she hath been
taken out of man”—the man himself withal being still a
virgin. But we will speak, too, about the name of
man Viri: so
throughout. See
Thus in this case too it is shown, that it was not from a future (circumstance) that she was at that time named woman, who was shortly after to receive the name which would be proper to her future condition.
Sufficient answer has been made to this part (of the question).
Chapter VI.—The Parallel Case of Mary Considered.
Let us now see whether the apostle withal observes
the norm of this name in accordance with Genesis, attributing it to
the sex; calling the virgin Mary a woman, just as
Genesis (does) Eve. For, writing to the Galatians,
“God,” he says, “sent His own Son, made of a
woman,” [i.e., Ebion, founder of
the Ebionites.]
But to these two (arguments), again, there is one who appears to himself to have made an ingenious answer; (to the effect that) inasmuch as Mary was “betrothed,” therefore it is that both by angel and apostle she is pronounced a woman; for a “betrothed” is in some sense a “bride.” Still, between “in some sense” and “truth” there is difference enough, at all events in the present place: for elsewhere, we grant, we must thus hold. Now, however, it is not as being already wedded that they have pronounced Mary a woman, but as being none the less a female even if she had not been espoused; as having been called by this (name) from the beginning: for that must necessarily have a prejudicating force from which the normal type has descended. Else, as far as relates to the present passage, if Mary is here put on a level with a “betrothed,” so that she is called a woman not on the ground of being a female, but on the ground of being assigned to a husband, it immediately follows that Christ was not born of a virgin, because (born) of one “betrothed,” who by this fact will have ceased to be a virgin. Whereas, if He was born of a virgin—albeit withal “betrothed,” yet intact—acknowledge that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman. Here, at all events, there can be no semblance of speaking prophetically, as if the apostle should have named a future woman, that is, bride, in saying “made of a woman.” For he could not be naming a posterior woman, from whom Christ had not to be born—that is, one who had known a man; but she who was then present, who was a virgin, was withal called a woman in consequence of the propriety of this name,—vindicated, in accordance with the primordial norm, (as belonging) to a virgin, and thus to the universal class of women.
Chapter VII.—Of the Reasons Assigned by the Apostle for Bidding Women to Be Veiled.
Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether the self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the community of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established, while the self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in each case.
If “the man is head of the
woman,”
Chapter VIII.—The Argument E Contrario.
The contraries, at all events, of all these
(considerations) effect that a man is not to cover his
head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted with
excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him;
because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because
his Head is Christ. See
Chapter IX.—Veiling Consistent with the Other Rules of Discipline Observed by Virgins and Women in General.
Let us now see whether, as we have shown the arguments drawn from nature and the matter itself to be applicable to the virgin as well (as to other females), so likewise the precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women have an eye to the virgin.
It is not permitted to a woman to speak in
the church;
Chapter X.—If the Female Virgins are to Be Thus Conspicuous, Why Not the Male as Well?
Nor, similarly, (is it permitted) on the ground of
any distinctions whatever. Otherwise, it were sufficiently
discourteous, that while females, subjected as they are
throughout to men, bear in their front an honourable mark of their
virginity, whereby they may be looked up to and gazed at on all sides
and magnified by the brethren, so many men-virgins, so many
voluntary eunuchs, should carry their glory in secret, carrying no
token to make them, too, illustrious. For they,
too, will be bound to claim some distinctions for
themselves—either the feathers of the Garamantes, or else the
fillets of the barbarians, or else the cicadas of the Athenians, or
else the curls of the Germans, or else the tattoo-marks of the Britons;
or else let the opposite course be taken, and let them lurk in the
churches with head veiled. Sure we are that the Holy
Spirit could rather have made some such concession to males, if
He had made it to females; forasmuch as, besides the authority
of sex, it would have been more becoming that males should have
been honoured on the ground of continency itself likewise. The
more their sex is eager and warm toward females, so much the
more toil does the continence of (this) greater ardour involve; and
therefore the worthier is it of all ostentation, if ostentation of
virginity is dignity. For is not continence withal
superior to virginity, whether it be the continence of the
widowed, or of those who, by consent, have already renounced the
common disgrace (which matrimony involves)? See So Oehler and
others. But one ms. reads
“concupiscentiæ fructum” for
“concupiscentiam fructus;” which would make the sense
somewhat plainer, and hence is perhaps less likely to be the genuine
reading.
Chapter XI.—The Rule of Veiling Not Applicable to Children.
But what we intermitted above for the sake of the subsequent discussion—not to dissipate its coherence—we will now discharge by an answer. For when we joined issue about the apostle’s absolute definition, that “ every woman” must be understood (as meaning woman) of even every age, it might be replied by the opposite side, that in that case it behoved the virgin to be veiled from her nativity, and from the first entry of her age (upon the roll of time).
But it is not so; but from the time when she
begins to be self-conscious, and to awake to the sense of her own
nature, and to emerge from the virgin’s (sense), and to
experience that novel (sensation) which belongs to the succeeding
age. For withal the founders of the race, Adam and Eve, so long
as they were without intelligence, went “naked;” but after
they tasted of “the tree of recognition,” they were first
sensible of nothing more than of their cause for shame. Thus they
each marked their intelligence of their own sex by a covering. See ch. vii. above. See
Chapter XII.—Womanhood Self-Evident, and Not to Be Concealed by Just Leaving the Head Bare.
Recognise the woman, ay, recognise the
wedded woman, by the testimonies both of body
Oehler’s
“immutare” appears certainly to be a misprint
for “immature.” Vertunt: or
perhaps “change the style of.” But comp. (with
Oehler) de Cult. Fem., l. ii. c. vi. i.e., without appealing
to any further proof.
Chapter XIII.—If Unveiling Be Proper, Why Not Practise It Always, Out of the Church as Well as in It?
If on account of men As distinguished from
the “on account of the angels” of c. xi. i.e., for the sake
of the brethren, who (after all) are men, as the
heathens are (Oehler, after Rig.). i.e., as Rig. quoted by
Oehler explains it, in inducing the heathens to practise it. See
Chapter XIV.—Perils to the Virgins Themselves Attendant Upon Not-Veiling.
They report a saying uttered at one time by some
one when first this question was mooted, “And how shall we invite
the other (virgins) to similar conduct?” Forsooth,
it is their numbers that will make us happy, and not the grace of God
and the merits of each individual! Is it virgins who
(adorn or commend) the Church in the sight of God, or the Church which
adorns or commends virgins? (Our objector) has therefore
confessed that “glory” lies at the root of the
matter. Well, where glory is, there is solicitation; where
solicitation, there compulsion; where compulsion, there necessity;
where necessity, there infirmity. Deservedly, therefore, while
they do not cover their head, in order that they may be solicited for
the sake of glory, they are forced to cover their bellies by the ruin
resulting from infirmity. For it is emulation, not religion,
which impels them. Sometimes it is that
god— Comp. See So Oehler, with Rig.,
seems to understand “publicato bono suo.” But it may
be doubted whether the use of the singular “bono,” and the
sense in which “publicare” and “bonum” have
previously occurred in this treatise, do not warrant the rendering,
“and elated by the public announcement of their good
deed”—in self-devotion. Comp. “omnis publicatio
virginis bonæ” in c. iii., and similar phrases.
Perhaps the two meanings may be intentionally implied.
These crimes does a forced and unwilling
virginity incur. The very concupiscence of non-concealment
is not modest: it experiences somewhat which is no mark of a
virgin,—the study of pleasing, of course, ay, and (of
pleasing) men. Let her strive as much as you please with
an honest mind; she must necessarily be imperilled by the public
exhibition Comp. the note above on
“publicato bono suo.”
Chapter XV.—Of Fascination.
Nay, but true and absolute and pure
virginity fears nothing more than itself. Even
female eyes it shrinks from encountering. Other eyes
itself has. It betakes itself for refuge to the veil of the head
as to a helmet, as to a shield, to protect its glory against the blows
of temptations, against the dam of scandals, against suspicions and
whispers and emulation; (against) envy also itself. For there is
a something even among the heathens to be apprehended, which they call
Fascination, the too unhappy result of excessive praise and
glory. This we sometimes interpretatively ascribe to the devil,
for of him comes hatred of good; sometimes we attribute it to God, for
of Him comes judgment upon haughtiness, exalting, as He does, the
humble, and depressing the elated. Comp.
Chapter XVI.—Tertullian, Having Shown His Defence to Be Consistent with Scripture, Nature, and Discipline, Appeals to the Virgins Themselves.
Herein consists the defence of our opinion, in
accordance with Scripture, in accordance with Nature, in accordance
with Discipline. Scripture founds the law; Nature joins to attest
it; Discipline exacts it. Which of these (three) does a custom
founded on (mere) opinion appear in behalf of? or what is the colour of
the opposite view? God’s is Scripture; God’s is
Nature; God’s is Discipline. Whatever is contrary to these
is not God’s. If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is
manifest; and concerning Nature’s testimony Scripture cannot be
uncertain. See See
It remains likewise that we turn to (the
virgins) themselves, to induce them to accept these
(suggestions) the more willingly. I pray you, be you mother, or
sister, or virgin-daughter—let me address you according to
the names proper to your years—veil your head: if a mother,
for your sons’ sakes; if a sister, for your brethren’s
sakes; if a daughter for your fathers’ sakes. All ages are
perilled in your person. Put on the panoply of modesty; surround
yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex,
which must neither allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to other
people’s. Wear the full garb of woman, to preserve
the standing of virgin. Belie somewhat of your inward
consciousness, in order to exhibit the truth to God alone. And
yet you do not belie yourself in appearing as a bride. For
wedded you are to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your flesh;
to Him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in accordance with
the will of your Espoused. Christ is He who bids the espoused and
wives of others veil themselves; See
Chapter XVII.—An Appeal to the Married Women.
But we admonish you, too, women of the
second (degree of) modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to
outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an
hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means
to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For
some, with their turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their
head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head
properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over
the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions—I
suppose for fear of pressing the head—and not reaching quite to
the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able
to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the
whole head constitutes “the woman.”
It is incumbent, then, at all times and in every place, to walk mindful of the law, prepared and equipped in readiness to meet every mention of God; who, if He be in the heart, will be recognised as well in the head of females. To such as read these (exhortations) with good will, to such as prefer Utility to Custom, may peace and grace from our Lord Jesus Christ redound: as likewise to Septimius Tertullianus, whose this tractate is.
————————————
I.
(Vicar of the Lord, p. 27.)
The recurrence of this
emphatic expression in our author is worthy of special note. He
knew of no other “Vicar of Christ” than the promised
Paraclete, who should bring all Christ’s words to remembrance,
and be “another Comforter.” Let me quote from Dr.
Scott The Christian
Life, vol. iii. p. 64.
II.
(She shall be called woman, p. 31.)
The Vulgate reads, preserving something of the original epigrammatic force, “Vocabitur Vir-ago, quoniam de Vir-o sumpta est.” The late revised English gives us, in the margin, Isshah and Ish, which marks the play upon words in the Hebrew,—“She shall be called Isshah because she was taken out of Ish.” This Epithalamium is the earliest poem, and Adam was the first poet.
As to the argument of our author, it is quite enough to say, that, whatever we may think of his refinements upon St. Paul, he sticks to the inspired text, and enforces God’s Law in the Gospel. Let us reflect, moreover, upon the awful immodesty of heathen manners (see Martial, passim), and the necessity of enforcing a radical reform. All that adorns the sex among Christians has sprung out of these severe and caustic criticisms of the Gentile world and its customs. And let us reflect that there is a growing licence in our age, which makes it important to revert to first principles, and to renew the apostolic injunctions, if not as Tertullian did, still as best we may, in our own times and ways.
III.
(These crimes, p. 36.)
The iniquity here pointed at has become of
frightful magnitude in the United States of America. We shall
hear of it again when we come to Hippolytus. Tertullian speaks
of the heathen as “decimated by abortions.” See ad
Uxor., p. 41, infra. Lippincotts,
Philadelphia, 1868.
Hippolytus speaks of the crime which had shocked
Tertullian as assuming terrible proportions at Rome in the time of
Callistus Bunsen, vol. i. p.
134.
To His Wife. [Written
circa a.d. 207. Tertullian
survived his wife; and we cannot date these books earlier than about
the time of his writing the De Pallio, in the opinion of
some.]
Book I.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Design of the Treatise. Disavowal of Personal Motives in Writing It.
I have thought it meet, my
best beloved fellow-servant in the Lord, even from this early
period, Jam hinc. Sæculo. Fidei. Sæcularibus. Posteritati; or, with
Mr. Dodgson, “our future.” Deputantur. Solidum; alluding to
certain laws respecting a widow’s power of receiving “in
its entirety” her deceased husband’s property. Fidei commissum.
The precept, therefore, which I give you is, that,
with all the constancy you may, you do, after our departure, renounce
nuptials; not that you will on that score confer any benefit on me,
except in that you will profit yourself. But to Christians, after
their departure from the world, Sæculo.
Nulla…neminem—two negatives. See Jam hinc. See
beginning of chapter.
Chapter II.—Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy.
We do not indeed forbid the union of man and
woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for
the replenishment of the earth Orbi. Sæculo. Sane. “Fas,”
strictly divine law, opp. to “jus,” human
law; thus “lawful,” as opp. to
“legal.” Plurifariam matrimoniis
uti. The neut. pl. “matrimonia” is sometimes
used for “wives.” Comp. c. v. ad fin.
and de Pæn., c. xii. ad fin. Sermo, i.e., probably
the personal Word. Comp. de Or., c. i. ad init. Sæculi.
The meaning here seems clearly to be, as in the text, “the Jewish
age” or dispensation; as in the passages referred
to—
Chapter III.—Marriage Good: Celibacy Preferable.
But let it not be thought that my reason for
premising thus much concerning the liberty granted to the old, and the
restraint imposed on the later time, is that I may lay a foundation for
teaching that Christ’s advent was intended to dissolve wedlock,
(and) to abolish marriage talons; as if from this period
onward “Jam hinc,”
i.e., apparently from the time of Christ’s advent. Comp. de Idol.,
c. xxiii., and the note there on “se negant.” i.e., in martyrdom, on
the ground of that open confession. Non obest. Laqueum = βρόχον
( See note 13.
But we read “that the flesh is
weak;” Adulamur:
“we fawn upon,” or “caress,” or
“flatter.” Comp. de Pæn., c. vi. sub
init.: “flatter their own sweetness.” “Firmum,”
opp. to “infirmam” above. In the passage there
referred to ( Tuemur. Mr.
Dodgson renders, “guard not.” Species. i.e., apparently
second marriages: “disjunctis a
matrimonio” can scarcely include such as were never
“juncti;” and comp. the “præmissis
maritis” below. Comp. Dignationem. Or,
“temporary.”
On the other hand, this worldly
concupiscence (to which I referred) has, as its causes, glory,
cupidity, ambition, want of sufficiency; through which causes it trumps
up the “necessity” for marrying,—promising itself,
forsooth, heavenly things in return—to lord it, (namely,) in
another’s family; to roost Incubare. Cædere sumptum. Comp. Comp. Recogita.
Chapter V.—Of the Love of Offspring as a Plea for Marriage.
Further reasons for marriage which men allege for
themselves arise from anxiety for posterity, and the bitter, bitter
pleasure of children. To us this is idle. For why
should we be eager to bear children, whom, when we have them, we desire
to send before us (to glory) Comp. c. iv. above
“præmissis maritis;” “when their husbands have
preceded them (to glory).” Sæculo. i.e., to get
children. Expugnantur.
“Parricidiis.” So Oehler seems to understand it.
Therefore, whether it be for the sake of the
flesh, or of the world, Sæculi.
“Expiasse”—a rare but Ciceronian use of the word. Denotat. Sæculi. Sæculi. Comp.
Or, “short”
(Eng. ver.);
“Matrimonia,” neut. pl. again for the fem., the abstract
for the concrete. See c. ii., “to multiply wives,”
and the note there. In the Greek (
Chapter VI.—Examples of Heathens Urged as Commendatory of Widowhood and Celibacy.
But if they who have (wives) are (thus)
bound to consign to oblivion what they have, how much more are they who
have not, prohibited from seeking a second time what they no
longer have; so that she whose husband has departed from the world
should thenceforward impose rest on her sex by abstinence from
marriage—abstinence which numbers of Gentile women devote to the
memory of beloved husbands! When anything seems difficult, let us
survey others who cope with still greater difficulties. How many
are there who from the moment of their baptism set the seal (of
virginity) upon their flesh? How many, again, who by equal mutual
consent cancel the debt of matrimony—voluntary eunuchs Comp. de Pa.,
xiii., and i.e., Gentile
women. Oehler marks this as a
question. Comp. Pietatis. Gehennæ; comp.
de Pæn., c. xii. ad init.
Chapter VII.—The Death of a Husband is God’s Call to the Widow to Continence. Further Evidences from Scripture and from Heathenism.
To us continence has been pointed out by the Lord of
salvation as an instrument for attaining i.e., eternal life;
comp. “consecutio æternitatis,” de
Bapt., c. ii. Sæculo. Mundo.
“Matrimonio,” or “by matrimony.” Comp.
“Matrimonio,” or “by matrimony.” Comp.
Or, “been
able”—valuimus. But comp. c. vi. See c. iii.,
“quod autem necessitas præstat, depretiat
ipsa,” etc. Aram. Comp. de Cor., c.
i., “et de martyrii candida melius
coronatus,” and Oehler’s note. Sæculi. Or, “Pontifex
maximus.” Or, “has been
decreed by.”
Chapter VIII.—Conclusion.
For, concerning the honours which widowhood enjoys
in the sight of God, there is a brief summary in one saying of His
through the prophet: “Do thou So Oehler reads,
with Rhenanus and the mss. The other edd.
have the plural in each case, as the LXX. in the passage referred to
( So Oehler reads,
with Rhenanus and the mss. The other edd.
have the plural in each case, as the LXX. in the passage referred to
( Desideraveris.
Oehler reads “desideres.” Comp. c. iii. Sæculum. A verse said to be
Menander’s, quoted by St. Paul, i.e., here “female
companions.”
Comp. c. i. i.e., if I be called
before you; comp. c. i.
Book II.
Chapter I.—Reasons Which Led to the Writing of This Second Book.
Very lately, best beloved fellow-servant in the
Lord, I, as my ability permitted, entered for your benefit at some
length into the question what course is to be followed by a holy woman
when her marriage has (in whatever way) been brought to an end.
Let us now turn our attention to the next best advice, in regard of
human infirmity; admonished hereto by the examples of certain, who,
when an opportunity for the practice of continence has been offered
them, by divorce, or by the decease of the husband, have not only
thrown away the opportunity of attaining so great a good, but not even
in their remarriage have chosen to be mindful of the rule that
“above all Potissimum; Gr.
“μόνον,” Proclivium. Necessitatibus. Exerte. Comp. the
use of “exertus” in de Bapt., cc. xii. and
xviii.
Chapter II.—Of the
Apostle’s Meaning in
Therefore, when in these days a certain woman
removed her marriage from the pale of the Church, and united herself to
a Gentile, and when I remembered that this had in days gone by been
done by others: wondering at either their own waywardness or else
the double-dealing
Prævaricationem. Comp. de Pæn., c. iii.:
“Dissimulator et prævaricator perspicaciæ
suæ (Deus) non est.” Mulieris. Femina. Comp. Comp. i.e., St. Paul, who, as
inspired by the Holy Spirit, is regarded by Tertullian as merged, so to
speak, in the Spirit. “Exemplum,”
a rarer use of the word, but found in Cic. The reference is to
Detrimenta. Districta (? =dis-stricta, “doubly strict”). Comp. See Comp.
Chapter III.—Remarks on Some of the “Dangers and Wounds” Referred to in the Preceding Chapter.
If these things are so, it is certain that
believers contracting marriages with Gentiles are guilty of
fornication, Comp. de Pa., c.
xii. (mid.), and the note there. Comp. The translator has
ventured to read “die illo” here, instead of
Oehler’s “de illo.” See the last reference,
and De proximo. Comp.
de Pa., cc. v. and vii. “Deo de proximo
amicus;” “de proximo in Deum
peccat.”
Let us now recount the other dangers or wounds (as
I have said) to faith, foreseen by the apostle; most grievous not to
the flesh merely, but likewise to the spirit too. For who would
doubt that faith undergoes a daily process of obliteration by
unbelieving intercourse? “Evil confabulations corrupt good
morals;” Comp. b. i. c. viii.
sub. fin., where Tertullian quotes the same passage, but renders
it somewhat differently. Comp. Sæculares.
Chapter IV.—Of the Hindrances Which an Unbelieving Husband Puts in His Wife’s Way.
But let her see to (the question) how she
discharges her duties to her husband. To the Lord, at all events,
she is unable to give satisfaction according to the requirements of
discipline; having at her side a servant of the devil, his
lord’s agent for hindering the pursuits and duties of
believers: so that if a station For the meaning of
“statio,” see de Or., c. xix.
Chapter V.—Of Sin and Danger Incurred Even with a “Tolerant” Husband.
“But some husband does endure our
(practices), and not annoy us.” Here, therefore,
there is a sin; in that Gentiles know our (practices); in that
we are subject to the privity of the unjust; in that it is thanks to
them that we do any (good) work. He who “endures” (a
thing) cannot be ignorant of it; or else, if he is kept in ignorance
because he does not endure (it), he is feared. But since
Scripture commands each of two things—namely, that we work for
the Lord without the privity of any second person, Comp. Insignia. Comp. de Idol.,
c. xi. sub fin.
“Speculatorem;” also = "an" executioner. Comp.
Chapter VI.—Danger of Having to Take Part in Heathenish Rites, and Revels.
The handmaid of God Comp. Nominibus; al.
honoribus.
Sanctis—iniquis. Comp. St. Paul’s antithesis of
ἀδίκων and ἁγίων in See See So Oehler understands
(apparently) the meaning to be. The translator is inclined to
think that, adopting Oehler’s reading, we may perhaps take the
“Dei” with “aliquid,” and the
“cœnans” absolutely, and render, “From the
tavern, no doubt, while supping, she will hear some (strain) of
God,” in allusion to the former sentence, and to such passages as
Chapter VII.—The Case of a Heathen Whose Wife is Converted After Marriage with Him Very Different, and Much More Hopeful.
If these things may happen to those women also
who, having attained the faith while in (the state of) Gentile
matrimony, continue in that state, still they are excused, as having
been “apprehended by God” Comp. Comp. Tertullian here and in
other places appears, as the best editors maintain, to use the
masculine gender for the feminine. Magnalia. Comp.
Timore. Comp. de
Or., c. iii. (med.), “angelorum
candidati;” and de Bapt., c. x. sub fin.,
“candidatus remissionis.”
Chapter VIII.—Arguments Drawn Even from Heathenish Laws to Discountenance Marriage with Unbelievers. The Happiness of Union Between Partners in the Faith Enlarged on in Conclusion.
Let us further inquire, as if we were in very deed
inquisitors of divine sentences, whether Oehler refers us
to Tac., Ann., xii. 53, and the notes on that passage.
(Consult especially Orelli’s edition.) The translator
inclines to think that Tertullian, desiring to keep up the parallelism
of the last-mentioned case, in which (see note 1) the
slave’s master had to give the “warning,”
means by “domino” here, not “the Lord,”
who on his hypothesis is the woman’s Master, not the
slave’s, but the “lord” of the
“unbeliever,” i.e., the devil: so that the meaning
would be (with a bitter irony, especially if we compare the end of the
last chapter, where “the Evil One” is said to
“procure” these marriages, so far is he from
“condemning” them): “Forsooth, they”
(i.e., the Christian women) “will deny that a formal warning has
been given them by the lord:” (of the unbelievers, i.e.,
the Evil One) “through an apostle of his!” If the
other interpretation be correct, the reference will be to c. ii.
above.
What am I to fasten on as the cause of this
madness, except the weakness of faith, ever prone to the concupiscences
of worldly Sæcularium. Censum. Invecta. Comp.
de Pa., c. xiii. ad init. Filii. Comp. de Or., c.
v. ad fin.; de Pa., c. ix. ad fin.; ad
Ux., i. c. v. ad init. Comp.
These are the things which that utterance of
Comp.
Elucidation.
————————————
(Marriage lawful, p. 39.)
St. Peter was a married
apostle, and the traditions of his wife which connect her married life
with Rome itself render it most surprising that those who claim to be
St. Peter’s successors should denounce the marriage of the clergy
as if it were crime. The touching story, borrowed from Clement of
Alexandria, is related by Eusebius. “And will they,”
says Clement, “reject even the apostles? Peter and Philip,
indeed, had children; Philip also gave his daughters in marriage to
husbands; and Paul does not demur, in a certain Epistle, to mention his
own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his
ministry the better.” Of St. Peter and his wife, Eusebius
subjoins, “Such was the marriage of these blessed ones, and such
was their perfect affection.” Eccl. Hist., Book III.
cap. xxx.
The Easterns to this day perpetuate the marriage of the clergy, and enjoin it; but unmarried men only are chosen to be bishops. Even Rome relaxes her discipline for the Uniats, and hundreds of her priesthood, therefore, live in honourable marriage. Thousands live in secret marriage, but their wives are dishonoured as “concubines.” It was not till the eleventh century that the celibate was enforced. In England it was never successfully imposed; and, though the “priest’s leman” was not called his wife (to the disgrace of the whole system), she was yet honoured (see Chaucer), and often carried herself too proudly.
The enormous evils of an enforced celibacy need
not here be remarked upon. The history of Sacerdotal
Celibacy, by Henry C. Lea Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin, & Co., second edition, enlarged, 1884.
On Exhortation to Chastity.
[Written, possibly,
circa a.d. 204.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Introduction. Virginity Classified Under Three Several Species.
I doubt not, brother, that
after the premission in peace of your wife, you, being wholly bent upon
the composing of your mind (to a right frame), are seriously thinking
about the end of your lone life, and of course are standing in need of
counsel. Although, in cases of this kind, each individual ought
to hold colloquy with his own faith, and consult its strength; still,
inasmuch as, in this (particular) species (of trial), the necessity
of the flesh (which generally is faith’s antagonist at the
bar of the same inner consciousness, to which I have alluded) sets
cogitation astir, faith has need of counsel from without, as an
advocate, as it were, to oppose the necessities of the
flesh: which necessity, indeed, may very easily be
circumscribed, if the will rather than the indulgence of
God be considered. No one deserves (favour) by availing himself
of the indulgence, but by rendering a prompt obedience to the will, (of
his master). Comp. c. iii. and the
references there. Comp. Comp. Comp. ad Ux., b.
i. c. viii. Comp. Comp.
Chapter II.—The Blame of Our Misdeeds Not to Be Cast Upon God. The One Power Which Rests with Man is the Power of Volition.
What moderation, in short, is there in that
utterance, “The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away; as seemed
(good) to the Lord, so hath it been done!” Adulari. Comp.
de Pæn., c. vi. sub init.; ad Ux., b. i. c. iv.
ad init. Or,
“from”—de. i.e., eternal
life: as in de Bapt., c. ii.; ad Ux.,
b. i. c. vii. ad init. De Pæn., c.
xii. ad fin. In obaudientiam
venerat.
Chapter
III.—Of Indulgence and Pure Volition. The Question
Illustrated. From
For what things are manifest we all know;
and in what sense these very things are manifest must be
thoroughly examined. For, albeit some things seem to savour of
“the will of God,” seeing that they are allowed by
Him, it does not forthwith follow that everything which is
permitted proceeds out of the mere and absolute will of him who
permits. Indulgence is the source of all
permission. And albeit indulgence is not independent of
volition, still, inasmuch as it has its cause in him to whom the
indulgence is granted, it comes (as it were) from unwilling
volition, having experienced a producing cause of itself which
constrains volition. See what is the nature of a volition
of which some second party is the cause. There is, again, a
second species of pure volition to be considered. God
wills us to do some acts pleasing to Or, “decreed
by.”
If, therefore, second marriage finds the source of its
allowance in that “will of God” which is
Chapter IV.—Further Remarks Upon the Apostle’s Language.
However, touching second marriage, we know plainly
that the apostle has pronounced: “Thou hast been loosed
from a wife; seek not a wife. But if thou shalt marry, thou wilt
not sin.” Or, “to be a
believer;”
Chapter V.—Unity of Marriage Taught by Its First Institution, and by the Apostle’s Application of that Primal Type to Christ and the Church.
For the laying down Dirigendam. Or, “but no
plurality of wives.” Apud Deum.
Chapter VI.—The Objection from the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Answered.
“But withal the blessed patriarchs,”
you say, “made mingled alliances not only with more wives (than
one), but with concubines likewise.” Shall that, then, make
it lawful for us also to marry without limit? I grant that it
will, if there still remain types—sacraments of something
future—for your nuptials to figure; or if even now there is room
for that command, “Grow and multiply;” Repastinationis.
Comp. de Cult. Fem., l. ii. c. ix.,
repastinantes. Comp. See
Chapter VII.—Even the Old Discipline Was Not Without Precedents to Enforce Monogamy. But in This as in Other Respects, the New Has Brought in a Higher Perfection.
Why, moreover, should we not rather recognise,
from among (the store of) primitive precedents, those which communicate
with the later (order of things) in respect of discipline, and transmit
to novelty the typical form of antiquity? For look, in the old
law I find the pruning-knife applied to the licence of repeated
marriage. There is a caution in Leviticus: “My
priests shall not pluralize marriages.” I cannot find any such
passage. Oehler refers to Comp. Sacerdotibus. See
Chapter VIII.—If It Be Granted that Second Marriage is Lawful, Yet All Things Lawful are Not Expedient.
Let it now be granted that repetition of marriage
is lawful, if everything which is lawful is good. The same
apostle exclaims: “All things are lawful, but all are not
profitable.” See See In occasionem.
Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery.
If we look deeply into his meanings, and interpret
them, second marriage will have to be termed no other than a species of
fornication. For, since he says that married persons make this
their solicitude, “how to please one another” Sibi,
“themselves,” i.e., mutually. See But compare, or rather,
contrast, herewith, ad Ux., l. i. cc. ii. iii. Comp. ad Ux., l.
i. c. viii.; c. i. above; and de Virg. Vel., c. x. Comp. ad Ux., l.
i. c. v. ad fin.
Chapter X.—Application of the Subject. Advantages of Widowhood.
Renounce we things carnal, that we may at length bear
fruits spiritual. Seize the opportu Dimisisti,
al. amisisti ="you have lost.” Or,
“amass”—negotiaberis. See Comp. Placet sibi. See i.e., guilty. See See See See A Marcionite prophetess,
also called Priscilla.
Chapter XI.—The More the Wives, the Greater the Distraction of the Spirit.
For (in that case) the shame is double; inasmuch as, in second marriage, two wives beset the same husband—one in spirit, one in flesh. For the first wife you cannot hate, for whom you retain an even more religious affection, as being already received into the Lord’s presence; for whose spirit you make request; for whom you render annual oblations. Will you stand, then, before the Lord with as many wives as you commemorate in prayer; and will you offer for two; and will you commend those two (to God) by the ministry of a priest ordained (to his sacred office) on the score of monogamy, or else consecrated (thereto) on the score even of virginity, surrounded by widows married but to one husband? And will your sacrifice ascend with unabashed front, and—among all the other (graces) of a good mind—will you request for yourself and for your wife chastity?
Chapter XII.—Excuses Commonly Urged in Defence of Second Marriage. Their Futility, Especially in the Case of Christians, Pointed Out.
I am aware of the excuses by which we colour our
insatiable carnal appetite. Comp. herewith, ad
Ux., l. i. c. iv. Or
“purses.” Comp. Or
“age”—sæculo. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Chapter XIII.—Examples from Among the Heathen, as Well as from the Church, to Enforce the Foregoing Exhortation.
To this my exhortation, best beloved brother,
there are added even heathenish examples; which have often been set by
ourselves as well (as by others) in evidence, when anything good and
pleasing to God is, even among “strangers,” recognised and
honoured with a testimony. In short, monogamy among the heathen
is so held in highest honour, that even virgins, when legitimately
marrying, have a woman never married but once appointed them as
brideswoman; and if you say that “this is for the sake of
the omen,” of course it is for the sake of a good omen;
again, that in some solemnities and official functions,
single-husbandhood takes the precedence: at all events, the wife
of a Flamen must be but once married, which is the law of the Flamen
(himself) too. For the fact that the chief pontiff himself must
not iterate marriage is, of course, a glory to monogamy. When,
however, Satan affects God’s sacraments, it is a challenge to us;
nay, rather, a cause for blushing, if we are slow to exhibit to God a
continence which some render to the devil, by perpetuity sometimes of
virginity, sometimes of widowhood. We have heard of Vesta’s
virgins, and Juno’s at the town Ægium (Jos.
Scaliger, in Oehler). But Tertullian overlooks
the fact that both Ovid and Virgil represent her as more than willing
to marry Æneas. [Why should he note the fables of
poets? This testimony of a Carthaginian is historic evidence of
the fact.] Comp.
Elucidation.
————————————
(Albeit they be laics, p. 54.)
In the tract on
Baptism Chap. vi. vol. iii. p.
672, this series. Hooker, Eccl.
Polity, b. iii. cap. i. 14.
On Monogamy. [Written against
orthodoxy, say circa a.d.
208. But see Elucidation I.].
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Different Views in Regard to Marriage Held by Heretics, Psychic, and Spiritualists.
Heretics do away with
marriages; Psychics accumulate them. The former marry not
even once; the latter not only once. What dost
thou, Law of the Creator? Between alien eunuchs and thine own
grooms, thou complainest as much of the over-obedience of thine own
household as of the contempt of strangers. They who abuse thee,
do thee equal hurt with them who use thee not. In fact, neither
is such continence laudable because it is heretical, nor such licence
defensible because it is psychical. The former is blasphemous,
the latter wanton; the former destroys the God of marriages, the latter
puts Him to the blush. Among us, however, whom the
recognition of spiritual gifts entitles to be deservedly called
Spiritual, continence is as religious as licence is modest; since both
the one and the other are in harmony with the Creator. Continence
honours the law of marriage, licence tempers it; the former is not
forced, the latter is regulated; the former recognises the power of
free choice, the latter recognises a limit. We admit one
marriage, just as we do one God. The law of marriage reaps an
accession of honour where it is associated with shamefastness.
But to the Psychics, since they receive not the Spirit, the things
which are the Spirit’s are not pleasing. Thus, so long as
the things which are the Spirit’s please them not, the things
which are of the flesh will please, as being the contraries of the
Spirit. “The flesh,” saith (the apostle),
“lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh.” In ævum;
εἰς τὸν
αἱῶνα (LXX.); in æternum
(Vulg.).
Chapter II.—The Spiritualists Vindicated from the Charge of Novelty.
And so they upbraid the discipline of monogamy
with being a heresy; nor is there any other cause whence they find
themselves compelled to deny the Paraclete more than the fact that they
esteem Him to be the institutor of a novel discipline, and a discipline
which they find most harsh: so that this is already the first
ground on which we must join issue in a general handling (of the
subject), whether there is room for maintaining that the Paraclete has
taught any such thing as can either be charged with novelty, in
opposition to catholic tradition, Comp. See
Now concerning each point the Lord Himself has
pronounced. For in saying, “I still have many things to say
unto you, but ye are not yet able to bear them: when the Holy
Spirit shall be come, He will lead you into all truth,” See
Chapter III.—The Question of Novelty Further Considered in Connection with the Words of the Lord and His Apostles.
But (as for the question) whether monogamy be
“burdensome,” let the still shameless “infirmity of
the flesh” look to that: let us meantime come to an
agreement as to whether it be “novel.” This (even)
broader assertion we make: that even if the Paraclete had in this
our day definitely prescribed a virginity or continence total and
absolute, so as not to permit the heat of the flesh to foam itself down
even in single marriage, even thus He would seem to be introducing
nothing of “novelty;” seeing that the Lord Himself opens
“the kingdoms of the heavens” to
“eunuchs,” See See Comp. ad Ux., l.
i. c. iii.; de Cult. Fem., l. ii. c. x. sub fin.; and
de Ex. Cast., c. iii., which agrees nearly verbatim with what
follows.
What, now, if he accommodatingly grants all indulgence
to marry on the ground of his own (that is, of human) sense, out of the
necessity which we have mentioned, inasmuch as “better it is to
marry than to burn?” In fact, when he There is no such passage
in any Epistle of St. John. There is one similar in
Therefore, if all these (considerations)
obliterate the licence of marrying, whether we look into the condition
on which the licence is granted, or the preference of continence which
is imposed, why, after the apostles, could not the same Spirit,
supervening for the purpose of conducting disciplehood Disciplinam. Comp.
Chapter IV.—Waiving Allusion to the Paraclete, Tertullian Comes to the Consideration of the Ancient Scriptures, and Their Testimony on the Subject in Hand.
Waiving, now, the mention of the Paraclete, as of
some authority of our own, evolve we the common instruments of the
primitive Scriptures. This very thing is demonstrable by
us: that the rule of monogamy is neither novel nor strange, nay
rather, is both ancient, and proper to Christians; so that you may be
sensible that the Paraclete is rather its restitutor than
institutor. As for what pertains to antiquity, what more
ancient formal type can be brought forward, than the very original
fount of the human race? One female did God fashion for the male,
culling one rib of his, and (of course) (one) out of a plurality.
But, moreover, in the introductory speech which preceded the work
itself, He said, “It is not good for the man that he be alone;
let us make an help-meet for him.” For He would have said
“helpers” if He had destined him to have more wives (than
one). He added, too, a law concerning the future; if, that is,
(the words) “And two shall be (made) into one
flesh”—not three, nor more; else they would be no more
“two” if (there were) more—were prophetically
uttered. The law stood (firm). In short, the unity of
marriage lasted to the very end in the case of the authors of our race;
not because there were no other women, but because the reason
why there were none was that the first-fruits of the race might
not be contaminated by a double marriage. Otherwise, had God (so)
willed, there could withal have been (others); at all events, he
might have taken from the abundance of his own daughters—having
no less an Eve (taken) out of his own bones and flesh—if piety
had allowed it to be done. But where the first crime (is found)
homicide, inaugurated in fratricide—no crime was so worthy of the
second place as a double marriage. For it makes no difference
whether a man have had two wives singly, or whether individuals (taken)
at the same time have made two. The number of (the individuals)
conjoined and separate is the same. Still, God’s
institution, after once for all suffering violence through Lamech,
remained firm to the very end of that race. Second Lamech there
arose none, in the Septuagies
septies. See
But again: the reformation of the second
human race is traced from monogamy as its mother. Once more,
“two (joined) into one flesh” undertake (the duty of)
“growing and multiplying,”—Noah, (namely), and his
wife, and their sons, in single marriage. Comp. Comp. See
Chapter V.—Connection of These Primeval Testimonies with Christ.
Thus far for the testimony of things primordial,
and the sanction of our origin, and the prejudgment of the divine
institution, which of course is a law, not (merely) a memorial inasmuch
as, if it was “so done from the beginning,” we find
ourselves directed to the beginning by Christ: just as, in the
question of divorce, by saying that that had been permitted by Moses on
account of their hard-heartedness but from the beginning it had not
been so, He doubtless recalls to “the beginning” the (law
of) the individuity of marriage. And accordingly, those whom God
“from the beginning” conjoined, “two into one
flesh,” man shall not at the present day separate. See See
Chapter VI.—The Case of Abraham, and Its Bearing on the Present Question.
But let us proceed with our inquiry into some
eminent chief fathers of our origin: for there are some to whom
our monogamist parents Adam and Noah are not pleasing, nor perhaps
Christ either. To Abraham, in fine, they appeal; prohibited
though they are to acknowledge any other father than God. See This is an error.
Comp. See See See
Thenceforward let matters see to themselves.
Figures are one thing; laws another. Images are one thing;
statutes another. Images pass away when fulfilled: statutes
remain permanently to be fulfilled. Images prophesy:
statutes govern. What that digamy of Abraham portends, the same
apostle fully teaches, See See
These accordingly, I suppose, are they in whom my
origin is counted. All others I ignore. And if I glance
around at their examples—(examples) of some David heaping up
marriages for himself even through sanguinary means, of some Solomon
rich in wives as well as in other riches—you are bidden to
“follow the better things;” See Dei de proximo
arbitrum. See
Chapter VII.—From Patriarchal, Tertullian Comes to Legal, Precedents.
After the ancient examples of the patriarchs, let
us equally pass on to the ancient documents of the legal Scriptures,
that we may treat in order of all our canon. And since there are
some who sometimes assert that they have nothing to do with the law
(which Christ has not dissolved, but fulfilled), See See See See See Comp. de Ex.
Cast., c. vi. See
“Adimit;” but the two mss.
extant of this treatise read “admittit” =admits. Summus sacerdos et
magnus patris. But Oehler notices a conjecture of Jos. Scaliger,
“agnus patris,” when we must unite “the High Priest
and Lamb of the Father.” De suo. Comp.
de Bapt., c. xvii., ad fin.; de Cult. Fem., l. i. c. v.,
l. ii. c. ix.; de Ex. Cast., c. iii. med.; and for the
ref. see See
Chapter VIII.—From the Law Tertullian Comes to the Gospel. He Begins with Examples Before Proceeding to Dogmas.
Turning now to the law, which is properly
ours—that is, to the Gospel—by what kind of examples are we
met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately
present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two
priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one
modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the
forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one
proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting “more than a
prophet,” See See See See See See Alios post nuptias
pueros. The reference seems to be to See See See See See
Chapter IX.—From Examples Tertullian Passes to Direct Dogmatic Teachings. He Begins with the Lord’s Teaching.
But grant that these argumentations may be thought to be
forced and founded on con See See
So far as regards the non-destruction of
the will of God, and the restruction of the law of “the
beginning.” But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not
another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the
beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce:
the fact that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the
ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have
married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits
adultery. See Comp. Comp.
Chapter X.—St. Paul’s Teaching on the Subject.
From this point I see that we are challenged by an
appeal to the apostle; for the more easy apprehension of whose meaning
we must all the more earnestly inculcate (the assertion), that a woman
is more bound when her husband is dead not to admit (to marriage)
another husband. For let us reflect that divorce either is caused
by discord, or else causes discord; whereas death is an event resulting
from the law of God, not from an offence of man; and that it is a debt
which all owe, even the unmarried. Therefore, if a divorced
woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as
body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of
these—injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of
complaint—is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how
much more will one who, neither by her own nor her hus See Comp. Comp.
Since this is so, how will a woman have room for another husband, who is, even to futurity, in the possession of her own? (Moreover, we speak to each sex, even if our discourse address itself but to the one; inasmuch as one discipline is incumbent [on both].) She will have one in spirit, one in flesh. This will be adultery, the conscious affection of one woman for two men. If the one has been disjoined from her flesh, but remains in her heart—in that place where even cogitation without carnal contact achieves beforehand both adultery by concupiscence, and matrimony by volition—he is to this hour her husband, possessing the very thing which is the mean whereby he became so—her mind, namely, in which withal, if another shall find a habitation, this will be a crime. Besides, excluded he is not, if he has withdrawn from viler carnal commerce. A more honourable husband is he, in proportion as he is become more pure.
Chapter XI.—Further Remarks Upon St. Paul’s Teaching.
Grant, now, that you marry “in the
Lord,” in accordance with the law and the apostle—if,
notwithstanding, you care even about this—with what face do you
request (the solemnizing of) a matrimony which is unlawful to those of
whom you request it; of a monogamist bishop, of presbyters and deacons
bound by the same solemn engagement, of widows whose Order you have in
your own person refused? And they, plainly, will give husbands
and wives as they would morsels of bread; for this is their rendering
of “To every one who asketh thee thou shalt give!” See See c. v. above. See de Ex. Cast.,
c. vii. Comp.
This will be the interpretation of that passage, to be examined as to whether it be congruous with the time and the occasion, and with the examples and arguments preceding as well as with the sentences and senses succeeding, and primarily with the individual advice and practice of the apostle himself: for nothing is so much to be guarded as (the care) that no one be found self-contradictory.
Chapter XII.—The Explanation of the Passage Offered by the Psychics Considered.
Listen, withal, to the very subtle argumentation on the contrary side. “So true is it,” say (our opponents), “that the apostle has permitted the iteration of marriage, that it is only such as are in the Clerical Order that he has stringently bound to the yoke of monogamy. For that which he prescribes to certain (individuals) he does not prescribe to all.” Does it then follow, too, that to bishops alone he does not prescribe what he does enjoin upon all; if what he does prescribe to bishops he does not enjoin upon all? or is it therefore to all because to bishops? and therefore to bishops because to all? For whence is it that the bishops and clergy come? Is it not from all? If all are not bound to monogamy, whence are monogamists (to be taken) into the clerical rank? Will some separate order of monogamists have to be instituted, from which to make selection for the clerical body? (No); but when we are extolling and inflating ourselves in opposition to the clergy, then “we are all one:” then “we are all priests, because He hath made us priests to (His) God and Father.” When we are challenged to a thorough equalization with the sacerdotal discipline, we lay down the (priestly) fillets, and (still) are on a par! The question in hand (when the apostle was writing), was with reference to Ecclesiastical Orders—what son of men ought to be ordained. It was therefore fitting that all the form of the common discipline should be set forth on its fore-front, as an edict to be in a certain sense universally and carefully attended to, that the laity might the better know that they must themselves observe that order which was indispensable to their overseers; and that even the office of honour itself might not flatter itself in anything tending to licence, as if on the ground of privilege of position. The Holy Spirit foresaw that some would say, “All things are lawful to bishops;” just as that bishop of Utina of yours feared not even the Scantinian law. Why, how many digamists, too, preside in your churches; insulting the apostle, of course: at all events, not blushing when these passages are read under their presidency!
Come, now, you who think that an exceptional law
of monogamy is made with reference to bishops, abandon withal your
remaining disciplinary titles, which, together with monogamy, are
ascribed to bishops. See
“But again, writing to Timotheus, he
‘wills the very young (women) to marry, bear children, act the
housewife.’”
“We read him withal writing to the
Romans: ‘But the woman who is under an husband, is bound to
her husband (while) living; but if he shall have died, she has been
emancipated from the law of the husband.’ Doubtless, then,
the husband living, she will be thought to commit adultery if she shall
have been joined to a second husband. If, however, the husband
shall have died, she has been freed from (his) law, (so) that she is
not an adulteress if made (wife) to another husband.” Comp. the marginal
reading in the Eng. ver., Comp.
Chapter XIV.—Even If the Permission Had Been Given by St. Paul in the Sense Which the Psychics Allege, It Was Merely Like the Mosaic Permission of Divorce—A Condescension to Human Hard-Heartedness.
Now, if the apostle had even absolutely permitted
marriage when one’s partner has been lost subsequently to
(conversion to) the faith, he would have done (it), just as (he did)
the other (actions) which he did adversely to the (strict) letter of
his own rule, to suit the circumstances of the times:
circumcising Timotheus Comp. See See
And here, accordingly, we will render the supplement of
this (his) meaning. For if Christ abrogated what Moses enjoined,
because “from the beginning (it) was not so;” and
(if)—this being so—Christ will not therefore be reputed to
have come from some other Power; why may not the Paraclete, too, have
abrogated an indulgence which Paul granted—because second
marriage withal “was not from the beginning”—without
deserving on this account to be regarded with suspicion, as if he were
an alien spirit, provided only that the superinduction be worthy of God
and of Christ? If it was worthy of God and of Christ to check
“hard-heartedness” when the time (for its indulgence) was
And how long will this most shameless
“infirmity” persevere in waging a war of extermination
against the “better things?” The time for its
indulgence was (the interval) until the Paraclete began His operations,
to whose coming were deferred by the Lord (the things) which in His day
“could not be endured;” which it is now no longer competent
for any one to be unable to endure, seeing that He through whom the
power of enduring is granted is not wanting. How long shall we
allege “the flesh,” because the Lord said, “the flesh
is weak?” See See
Chapter XV.—Unfairness of Charging the Disciples of the New Prophecy with Harshness. The Charge Rather to Be Retorted Upon the Psychics.
What harshness, therefore, is here on our part, if
we renounce (communion with) such as do not the will of God? What
heresy, if we judge second marriage, as being unlawful, akin to
adultery? For what is adultery but unlawful marriage? The
apostle sets a brand upon those who were wont entirely to forbid
marriage, who were wont at the same time to lay an interdict on meats
which God has created. See See
Chapter XVI.—Weakness of the Pleas Urged in Defence of Second Marriage.
But I smile when (the plea of) “infirmity of the
flesh” is advanced in opposition (to us: infirmity) which
is (rather) to be called the height of strength. Iteration of
marriage is an affair of strength: to rise again from the ease of
continence to the works of the flesh, is (a thing requiring)
substantial reins. Such “infirmity” is See See Concussione. Comp.
Mundi. Comp.
Chapter
XVII.—Heathen Examples Cry Shame Upon This “Infirmity of
the Flesh.” Spado.
They will have plainly a specious privilege to
plead before Christ—the everlasting “infirmity of the
flesh!” But upon this (infirmity) will sit in judgment no
longer an Isaac, our monogamist father; or a John, a noted voluntary
celibate Comp. ad Ux., l.
i. cc. vi. vii.; and de Ex. Cast., c. xiii. See Or
“chastity.” Comp. See
————————————
I.
(About 160 years having elapsed, pp. 59, 61.)
If the First Epistle to
the Corinthians was written a.d. 57, and if our
author speaks with designed precision, and not in round numbers, the
date of this treatise should be a.d.
217—a date which I should prefer to accept. Bishop
Kaye, P. 40,
Kaye’s Tertullian.
On the general subject Kaye bids us read cap. 3,
with cap. 14, to grasp the argument of our enthusiast. P. 24,
Kaye’s Tertullian. Comp. Bacon,
Essays, No. viii., Of Marriage and Single Life.
Our author seems struggling here, according to my view, with his own rule of prescription. He would free the doctrine from the charge of novelty by pointing it out in the Scripture of a hundred and sixty years before. But how instinctively the Church ruled against this sophistry, condemning in advance that whole system of “development” which a modern Tertullian defends on grounds quite as specious, under a Montanistic subjection that makes a Priscilla of the Roman pontiff. Let me commend the reader to the remarks upon Tertullian of the “judicious Hooker,” in book ii. capp. v. 5, 6; also book iv. cap. vii. 4, 5, and elsewhere.
II.
(Abrogated indulgence (comp. capp. 2 and 3), p. 70.)
Poor Tertullian is at war with himself in all the
works which he indites against Catholic orthodoxy. In the tract
De Exhort. Castitatis he gives one construction to
Comp. Ex.
Cast., cap. viii. p. 55, supra, with the
Monogam., cap. viii. p. 65, supra. Comp. Apparel of Women,
ii. cap. ix. p. 23, supra.
In England the principles of the Monogamia were revived by the eccentric Whiston (circa a.d. 1750), and attracted considerable attention among the orthodox,—a fact pleasantly satirized by Goldsmith in his Vicar of Wakefield.
On the general subject comp. Chrysost., tom. iii. p. 226: “Laus Maximi, et quales ducendæ sint uxores.”
On Modesty. [Written not
earlier than a.d. 208; probably very much
later. See Bp. Kaye’s very important remarks on this
treatise, p. 224.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Modesty, the flower of manners, the honour of our bodies, the grace of the sexes, the integrity of the blood, the guarantee of our race, the basis of sanctity, the pre-indication of every good disposition; rare though it is, and not easily perfected, and scarce ever retained in perpetuity, will yet up to a certain point linger in the world, if nature shall have laid the preliminary groundwork of it, discipline persuaded to it, censorial rigour curbed its excesses—on the hypothesis, that is, that every mental good quality is the result either of birth, or else of training, or else of external compulsion.
But as the conquering power of things evil is on
the increase—which is the characteristic of the last
times Comp. Sæculi. Sæculo. Comp.
In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted
the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set
forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex
Maximus [This is irony; a
heathen epithet applied to Victor (or his successor), ironically,
because he seemed ambitious of superiority over other bishops.] Zephyrinus (de Genoude):
Zephyrinus or (his predecessor) Victor. J. B. Lightfoot, Ep.
ad Phil., 221, 222, ed. 1, 1868. [See also Robertson,
Ch. Hist., p. 121. S.]
This too, therefore, shall be a count in my
indictment against the Psychics; against the fellowship of sentiment
also which I myself formerly maintained with them; in order that they
may the more cast this in my teeth for a mark of fickleness.
Repudiation of fellowship is never a pre-indication of sin. As if
it were not easier to err with the majority, when it is in the company
of the few that truth is loved! But, however, a profitable
fickleness shall no more be a disgrace to me, than I should wish a
hurtful one to be an ornament. I blush not at an error which I
have ceased to hold, because I am delighted at having ceased to hold
it, because I recognise myself to be better and more modest. No
one blushes at his own improvement. Even in Christ, knowledge had
its stages of growth; See Comp. See
Chapter II.—God Just as Well as Merciful; Accordingly, Mercy Must Not Be Indiscriminate.
“But,” say they, “God is
‘good,’ and ‘most good,’ See See Comp. Comp. Comp. See Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Or rather incest, as
appears by See Comp.
Chapter III.—An Objection Anticipated Before the Discussion Above Promised is Commenced.
But before doing this, I will make short work with an answer which meets us from the opposite side, in reference to that species of repentance which we are just defining as being without pardon. “Why, if,” say they, “there is a repentance which lacks pardon, it immediately follows that such repentance must withal be wholly unpractised by you. For nothing is to be done in vain. Now repentance will be practised in vain, if it is without pardon. But all repentance is to be practised. Therefore let (us allow that) all obtains pardon, that it may not be practised in vain; because it will not be to be practised, if it be practised in vain. Now, in vain it is practised, if it shall lack pardon.” Justly, then, do they allege (this argument) against us; since they have usurpingly kept in their own power the fruit of this as of other repentance—that is, pardon; for, so far as they are concerned, at whose hands (repentance) obtains man’s peace, (it is in vain). As regards us, however, who remember that the Lord alone concedes (the pardon of) sins, (and of course of mortal ones,) it will not be practised in vain. For (the repentance) being referred back to the Lord, and thenceforward lying prostrate before Him, will by this very fact the rather avail to win pardon, that it gains it by entreaty from God alone, that it believes not that man’s peace is adequate to its guilt, that as far as regards the Church it prefers the blush of shame to the privilege of communion. For before her doors it stands, and by the example of its own stigma admonishes all others, and calls at the same time to its own aid the brethren’s tears, and returns with an even richer merchandise—their compassion, namely—than their communion. And if it reaps not the harvest of peace here, yet it sows the seed of it with the Lord; nor does it lose, but prepares, its fruit. It will not fail of emolument if it do not fail in duty. Thus, neither is such repentance vain, nor such discipline harsh. Both honour God. The former, by laying no flattering unction to itself, will more readily win success; the latter, by assuming nothing to itself, will more fully aid.
Chapter IV.—Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.
Having defined the distinction (between the kinds) of repentance, we are by this time, then, able to return to the assessment of the sins—whether they be such as can obtain pardon at the hand of men. In the first place, (as for the fact) that we call adultery likewise fornication, usage requires (us so to do). “Faith,” withal, has a familiar acquaintance with sundry appellations. So, in every one of our little works, we carefully guard usage. Besides, if I shall say “adulterium,” and if “stuprum,” the indictment of contamination of the flesh will be one and the same. For it makes no difference whether a man assault another’s bride or widow, provided it be not his own “female;” just as there is no difference made by places—whether it be in chambers or in towers that modesty is massacred. Every homicide, even outside a wood, is banditry. So, too, whoever enjoys any other than nuptial intercourse, in whatever place, and in the person of whatever woman, makes himself guilty of adultery and fornication. Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well—connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church—run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions—impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes—beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.
Chapter V.—Of the Prohibition of Adultery in the Decalogue.
Of how deep guilt, then, adultery—which is
likewise a matter of fornication, in accordance with its criminal
function—is to be accounted, the Law of God first comes to hand
to show us; if it is true, (as it is), that after interdicting the
superstitious service of alien gods, and the making of idols
themselves, after commending (to religious observance) the veneration
of the Sabbath, after commanding a religious regard toward parents
second (only to that) toward God, (that Law) laid, as the next
substratum in strengthening and fortifying such counts, no other
precept than “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” For
after spiritual chastity and sanctity followed corporeal
integrity. And this (the Law) accordingly fortified, by
immediately prohibiting its foe, adultery. Understand,
consequently, what kind of sin (that must be), the repression of which
(the Law) ordained next to (that of) idolatry. Nothing that is a
second is remote from the first; nothing is so close to the first as
Chapter VI.—Examples of Such Offences Under the Old Dispensation No Pattern for the Disciples of the New. But Even the Old Has Examples of Vengeance Upon Such Offences.
Plainly, if you show by what patronages of
heavenly precedents and precepts it is that you open to adultery
alone—and therein to fornication also—the gate of
repentance, at this very line our hostile encounter will forthwith
cross swords. Yet I must necessarily prescribe you a law, not to
stretch out your hand after the old things, Comp. Comp. There is no passage, so
far as I am aware, in Isaiah containing this distinct assertion.
We have almost the exact words in Comp. Comp. Comp. See See See See See See See See See See See Or,
“chastity.” Comp. Comp.
Chapter VII.—Of the Parables of the Lost Ewe and the Lost Drachma.
You shall have leave to begin with the parables,
where you have the lost ewe re-sought by the Lord, and carried back on
His shoulders. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Similarly, the parable of the drachma, Comp. Comp.
Finally, if you are mindful of the prophets, when
they are chiding the shepherds, there is a word—I think it is
Ezekiel’s: “Shepherds, behold, ye devour the milk,
and clothe you with the fleeces: what is strong ye have slain;
what is weak ye have not tended; what is shattered ye have not bound;
what has been driven out ye have not brought back; what has perished ye
have not re-sought.” See
By comparison, even in this way, of this our interpretation with theirs, the arguments of both the ewe and the drachma will all the more refer to the heathen, that they cannot possibly apply to the Christian guilty of the sin for the sake of which they are wrested into a forced application to the Christian on the opposite side.
Chapter VIII.—Of the Prodigal Son.
But, however, the majority of interpreters of the
parables are deceived by the self-same result as is of very frequent
occurrence in the case of embroidering garments with purple. When
you think that you have judiciously harmonized the proportions of the
hues, and believe yourself to have succeeded in skilfully giving
vividness to their mutual combination; presently, when each body (of
colour) and (the various) lights are fully developed, the convicted
diversity will expose all the error. In the self-same darkness,
accordingly, with regard to the parable of the two sons also, they are
led by some figures (occurring in it), which harmonize in hue with the
present (state of things), to wander out of the path of the true light
of that comparison which the subject-matter of the parable
presents. For they set down, as represented in the two sons, two
peoples—the elder the Jewish, the younger the Christian:
for they cannot in the sequel arrange for the Christian sinner, in the
person of the younger son, to obtain pardon, unless in the person of
the elder they first portray the Jewish. Now, if I shall succeed
in showing that the Jewish fails to suit the comparison of the elder
son, the consequence of course will be, that the Christian will not be
admissible (as represented) by the joint figure of the younger
son. For although the Jew withal be called “a son,”
and an “elder one,” inasmuch as he had priority in
adoption; See Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. See Or
“age”—sæculi. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Chapter IX.—Certain General Principles of Parabolic Interpretation. These Applied to the Parables Now Under Consideration, Especially to that of the Prodigal Son.
We, however, who do not make the parables the
sources whence we devise our subject-matters, but the subject-matters
the sources whence we interpret the parables, do not labour hard,
either, to twist all things (into shape) in the exposition, while we
take care to avoid all contradictions. Why “an hundred
sheep?” and why, to be sure, “ten drachmas?”
And what is that “besom?” Necessary it was that He
who was desiring to express the extreme pleasure which the salvation of
one sinner gives to God, should name some special quantity of a
numerical whole from which to describe that “one” had
perished. Necessary it was that the style of one engaged in
searching for a “drachma” in a “house,” should
be aptly fitted with the helpful accompaniment of a “besom”
as well as of a “lamp.” For curious niceties of this
kind not only render some things suspected, but, by the subtlety of
forced explanations, generally lead away from the truth. There
are, moreover, some points which are just simply introduced with a view
to the structure and disposition and texture of the parable, in order
that they may be worked up throughout to the end for which the typical
example is being provided. Now, of course the (parable of) the
two sons will point to the same end as (those of) the drachma and the
ewe: for it has the self-same cause (to call it forth) as those
to which it coheres, and the selfsame “muttering,” of
course, of the Pharisees at the intercourse between the Lord and
heathens. Or else, if any doubts that in the land of Judea,
subjugated as it had been long since by the hand of Pompey and of
Lucullus, the publicans were heathens, let him read Deuteronomy:
“There shall be no tribute-weigher of the sons of
Israel.” Oehler refers to
Extraneum.
Comp. such phrases as “strange children,”
See See
Now we must proceed, in the case of the prodigal
son, to consider first that which is more useful; for no adjustment of
examples, albeit in the most nicely-poised balance, shall be admitted
if it shall prove to be most hurtful to salvation. But the whole
system of salvation, as it is comprised in the maintenance of
discipline, we see is being subverted by that interpretation which is
affected by the opposite side. For if it is a Christian
who, after wandering far from his Father, squanders, by living
heathenishly, the “substance” received from God his
Father,—(the substance), of course, of baptism—(the
substance), of course, of the Holy Spirit, and (in consequence) of
eternal hope; if, stripped of his mental “goods,” he has
even handed his service over to the prince of the world Sæculi. Comp.
Besides the reference to
See See Sæculi. See Comp.
But it is more (to the point) that it is not lawful to draw conclusions about anything else than the subject which was immediately in hand. In short, if it were lawful to transfer the parables to other ends (than they were originally intended for), it would be rather to martyrdom that we would direct the hope drawn from those now in question; for that is the only thing which, after all his substance has been squandered, will be able to restore the son; and will joyfully proclaim that the drachma has been found, albeit among all (rubbish) on a dungheap; and will carry back into the flock on the shoulders of the Lord Himself the ewe, fugitive though she have been over all that is rough and rugged. But we prefer, if it must be so, to be less wise in the Scriptures, than to be wise against them. We are as much bound to keep the sense of the Lord as His precept. Transgression in interpretation is not lighter than in conversation.
Chapter X.—Repentance More Competent to Heathens Than to Christians.
When, therefore, the yoke which forbade the discussion of these parables with a view to the heathens has been shaken off, and the necessity once for all discerned or admitted of not interpreting otherwise than is (suitable to) the subject-matter of the proposition; they contend in the next place, that the official proclamation of repentance is not even applicable to heathens, since their sins are not amenable to it, imputable as they are to ignorance, which nature alone renders culpable before God. Hence the remedies are unintelligible to such to whom the perils themselves are unintelligible: whereas the principle of repentance finds there its corresponding place where sin is committed with conscience and will, where both the fault and the favour are intelligible; that he who mourns, he who prostrates himself, is he who knows both what he has lost and what he will recover if he makes to God the offering of his repentance—to God who, of course, offers that repentance rather to sons than to strangers.
Was that, then, the reason why Jonah thought not
repentance necessary to the heathen Ninevites, when he tergiversated in
the duty of preaching? or did he rather, foreseeing the mercy of God
poured forth even upon strangers, fear that that mercy would, as it
were, destroy (the credit of) his proclamation? and accordingly, for
the sake of a profane city, not yet possessed of a knowledge of God,
still sinning in ignorance, did the prophet well-nigh perish? Comp. See See
Nay, but I will even contend that repentance is
more competent to natural sinners than to voluntary. For
he will merit its fruit who has not yet used more than he who
has already withal abused it; and remedies will be more
effective on their first application than when outworn. No doubt
the Lord is “kind” to “the
unthankful,” Comp.
Come, you rope-walker upon modesty, and chastity, and
every kind of sexual sanctity, who, by the instrumentality of a
discipline of this nature remote from the path of truth, mount with
uncertain footstep upon a most slender thread, balancing flesh with
spirit, moderating your animal principle by faith, tempering your eye
by fear; why are you thus wholly engaged in a single step? Go on,
if you succeed in finding power and will, while you are so secure, and
i.e., the
“Shepherd” of Hermas. See de Or., c. xvi.
Chapter XI.—From Parables Tertullian Comes to Consider Definite Acts of the Lord.
From the side of its pertinence to the Gospel, the
question of the parables indeed has by this time been disposed
of. If, however, the Lord, by His deeds withal, issued any
such proclamation in favour of sinners; as when He permitted contact
even with his own body to the “woman, a
sinner,”—washing, as she did, His feet with tears, and
wiping them with her hair, and inaugurating His sepulture with
ointment; as when to the Samaritaness—not an adulteress by her
now sixth marriage, but a prostitute—He showed (what He did show
readily to any one) who He was; Comp. c. iii. above. Comp.
Chapter XII.—Of the Verdict of the Apostles, Assembled in Council, Upon the Subject of Adultery.
Accordingly, these who have received
“another Paraclete” in and through the apostles,—(a
Paraclete) whom, not recognising Him even in His special prophets, they
no longer possess in the apostles either;—come, now, let them,
even from the apostolic instrument, teach us the possibility that the
stains of a flesh which after baptism has been repolluted, can by
repentance be washed away. Do we not, in the apostles also,
recognise the form of the Old Law with regard to the demonstration of
adultery, how great (a crime) it is; lest perchance it be esteemed more
trivial in the new stage of disciplines than in the old? When
first the Gospel thundered and shook the old system to its base, when
dispute was being held on the question of retaining or not the Law;
this is the first rule which the apostles, on the authority of the Holy
Spirit, send out to those who were already beginning to be gathered to
their side out of the nations: “It has seemed
(good),” say they, “to the Holy Spirit and to us to cast
upon you no ampler weight than (that) of those (things) from which it
is necessary that abstinence be observed; from sacrifices, and from
fornications, and from blood: See See Sæculo.
Chapter XIII.—Of St. Paul, and the Person Whom He Urges the Corinthians to Forgive.
We know plainly at this point, too, the suspicions
which they raise. For, in fact, they suspect the Apostle Paul of
having, in the second (Epistle) to the Corinthians, granted pardon to
the self-same fornicator whom in the first he has publicly sentenced to
be “surrendered to Satan, for the destruction of the
flesh,” See See Comp. Comp. Comp. Ævo. Comp.
Chapter XIV.—The Same Subject Continued.
And—these intervening points having
accordingly been got rid of—I return to the second of
Corinthians; in order to prove that this saying also of the apostle,
“Sufficient to such a man be this rebuke which (is
administered) by many,” is not suitable to the person of the
fornicator. For if he had sentenced him “to be surrendered
to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” of course he had
condemned rather than rebuked him. Some other,
then, it was to whom he willed the “rebuke” to be
sufficient; if, that is, the fornicator had incurred not
“rebuke” from his sentence, but
“condemnation.” For I offer you withal, for your
investigation, this very question: Whether there were in the
first Epistle others, too, who “wholly saddened” the
apostle by “acting disorderly,” Comp. Comp. See Comp.
But I will rather take my stand at that point where the
apostle is more fervent, where the fornicator himself has troubled
others also. “As if I be not about to come unto you, some
are inflated. But I will come with more speed, if the Lord shall
have permitted, and will learn not the speech of those who are
inflated, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech,
but in power. And what will ye? shall I come unto you in a rod,
or in a spirit of lenity?” For what was to succeed?
“There is heard among you generally fornication, and such
fornication as (is) not (heard) even among the Gentiles, that one
should have his own father’s wife. And are ye inflated, and
have ye not rather mourned, that he who hath committed
And thus we see in this place the apostle’s
severity divided, against one who was “inflated,” and one
who was “incestuous:” (we see the apostle) armed
against the one with “a rod,” against the other with a
sentence,—a “rod,” which he was threatening; a
sentence, which he was executing: the former (we see) still
brandishing, the latter instantaneously hurtling; (the one) wherewith
he was rebuking, and (the other) wherewith he was condemning. And
certain it is, that forthwith thereafter the rebuked one indeed
trembled beneath the menace of the uplifted rod, but the condemned
perished under the instant infliction of the penalty. Immediately
the former retreated fearing the blow, the latter paying the
penalty. When a letter of the self-same apostle is sent a second
time to the Corinthians, pardon is granted plainly; but it is uncertain
to whom, because neither person nor cause is advertised. I
will compare the cases with the senses. If the
“incestuous” man is set before us, on the same platform
will be the “inflated” man too. Surely the analogy of
the case is sufficiently maintained, when the “inflated” is
rebuked, but the “incestuous” is condemned. To the
“inflated” pardon is granted, but after rebuke; to the
“incestuous” no pardon seems to have been granted, as under
condemnation. If it was to him for whom it was feared that he
might be “devoured by mourning” that pardon was being
granted, the “rebuked” one was still in danger of being
devoured, losing heart on account of the commination, and mourning on
account of the rebuke. The “condemned” one, however,
was permanently accounted as already devoured, alike by his fault and
by his sentence; (accounted, that is, as one) who had not to
“mourn,” but to suffer that which, before suffering
it, he might have mourned. If the reason why pardon was being
granted was “lest we should be defrauded by Satan,” the
loss against which precaution was being taken had to do with that which
had not yet perished. No precaution is taken in the use of a
thing finally despatched, but in the case of a thing still safe.
But the condemned one—condemned, too, to the possession of
Satan—had already perished from the Church at the moment
when he had committed such a deed, not to say withal at the moment of
being forsworn by the Church itself. How should (the Church) fear
to suffer a fraudulent loss of him whom she had already lost on his
ereption, and whom, after condemnation, she could not have held?
Lastly, to what will it be becoming for a judge to grant indulgence? to
that which by a formal pronouncement he has decisively settled, or to
that which by an interlocutory sentence he has left in suspense?
And, of course, (I am speaking of) that judge who is not wont
“to rebuild those things which he has destroyed, lest he be held
a transgressor.” Comp.
Come, now, if he had not “wholly
saddened” so many persons in the first Epistle; if he had
“rebuked” none, had “terrified” Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Chapter XV.—The Same Subject Continued.
If you hammer out the sequel of that Epistle to
illustrate the meaning of the apostle, neither will that sequel be
found to square with the obliteration of incest; lest even here the
apostle be put to the blush by the incongruity of his later
meanings. For what kind (of hypothesis) is it, that the very
moment after making a largess of restoration to the privileges of
ecclesiastical peace to an incestuous fornicator, he should forthwith
have proceeded to accumulate exhortations about turning away from
impurities, about pruning away of blemishes, about exhortations to
deeds of sanctity, as if he had decreed nothing of a contrary nature
just before? Compare, in short, (and see) whether it be his
province to say, “Wherefore, having this ministration, in
accordance with (the fact) that we have obtained mercy, we faint not;
but renounce the secret things of disgrace,”
Chapter XVI.—General Consistency of the Apostle.
Necessary it is, therefore, that the (character of the)
apostle should be continuously pointed Comp. Comp.
Now, if in all cases he says it is best for a man
thus to be; “Thou art joined to a wife, seek not loosing”
(that you may give no occasion to adultery); “thou art loosed
from a wife, seek not a wife,” that you may reserve an
opportunity for yourself: “but withal, if thou shalt have
married a wife, and if a virgin shall have married, she sinneth not;
pressure, however, of the flesh such shall have,”—even here
he is granting a permission by way of “sparing
them.” Mundo. Puto: Gr.
δοκῶ.
Who is this your most audacious asserter of all immodesty, plainly a “most faithful” advocate of the adulterous, and fornicators, and incestuous, in whose honour he has undertaken this cause against the Holy Spirit, so that he recites a false testimony from (the writings of) His apostle? No such indulgence granted Paul, who endeavours to obliterate “necessity of the flesh” wholly from (the list of) even honourable pretexts (for marriage unions). He does grant “indulgence,” I allow;—not to adulteries, but to nuptials. He does “spare,” I allow;—marriages, not harlotries. He tries to avoid giving pardon even to nature, for fear he may flatter guilt. He is studious to put restraints upon the union which is heir to blessing, for fear that which is heir to curse be excused. This (one possibility) was left him—to purge the flesh from (natural) dregs, for (cleanse it) from (foul) stains he cannot. But this is the usual way with perverse and ignorant heretics; yes, and by this time even with Psychics universally: to arm themselves with the opportune support of some one ambiguous passage, in opposition to the disciplined host of sentences of the entire document.
Chapter XVII.—Consistency of the Apostle in His Other Epistles.
Challenge me to front the apostolic line of
battle; look at his Epistles: they all keep guard in defence of
modesty, of chastity, of sanctity; they all aim their missiles against
the interests of luxury, and lasciviousness, and lust. What, in
short, does he write to the Thessalonians withal? “For our
consolation See This exact expression
does not occur; but comp. Comp. the last reference
and See As he did to the
Galatians: see See Comp.
Chapter XVIII.—Answer to a Psychical Objection.
“But these (passages),” says (our opponent), “will pertain to the interdiction of all immodesty, and the enforcing of all modesty, yet without prejudice to the place of pardon; which (pardon) is not forthwith quite denied when sins are condemned, since the time of the pardon is concurrent with the condemnation which it excludes.”
This piece of shrewdness on the part of the Psychics was (naturally) sequent; and accordingly we have reserved for this place the cautions which, even in the times of antiquity, were openly taken with a view to the refusing of ecclesiastical communion to cases of this kind.
For even in the Proverbs, which we call
Parœmiæ, Solomon specially (treats) of the adulterer
(as being) nowhere admissible to expiation. “But the
adulterer,” he says, “through indigence of senses acquireth
perdition to his own soul; sustaineth dolors and disgraces. His
ignominy, moreover, shall not be wiped away for the age. For
indignation, full of jealousy, will not spare the man in the day of
judgment.” i.e., the voice of this
“blessed man,” this true “Asher.”
What if, even here, you should conceive to reply
that communion is indeed denied to sinners, very especially such as had
been “polluted by the flesh,” Comp. Comp. See See cc. iii. and xi.,
above.
Chapter XIX.—Objections from the Revelation and the First Epistle of St. John Refuted.
But how far (are we to treat) of Paul; since even
John appears to give some secret countenance to the opposite side? as
if in the Apocalypse he has manifestly assigned to fornication the
auxiliary aid of repentance, where, to the angel of the Thyatirenes,
the Spirit sends a message that He “hath against him that he kept
(in communion) the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet, and
teacheth, Or, “saith and
teacheth that she is a prophet.” i.e., of
heathen and heretic. See the end of the
foregoing chapter.
In short, this Apocalypse, in its later passages,
has assigned “the infamous and fornicators,” as well as
“the cowardly, and unbelieving, and murderers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters,” who have been guilty of any such crime while
professing the faith, to “the lake of fire,”
From the Epistle also of John they forthwith cull
(a proof). It is said: “The blood of His Son
purifieth us utterly from every sin.” Iniquitatem =ἀνομίαν. Iniquitas; ἀνομία ="lawlessness.” See
“It is therefore nearly equivalent to saying that
John has forgotten himself; asserting, in the former part of his
Epistle, that we are not without sin, but now prescribing that we do
not sin at all: and in the one case flattering us somewhat with
hope of pardon, but in the other as
Thus John’s rule of diversity will be
established; arranging as he does a distinction of sins, while he now
admits and now denies that the sons of God sin. For (in making
these assertions) he was looking forward to the final clause of his
letter, and for that (final clause) he was laying his preliminary
bases; intending to say, in the end, more manifestly: “If
any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall
make request, and the Lord shall give life to him who sinneth not unto
death. For there is a sin unto death: not concerning that
do I say that one should make request.” So Oehler; but it
appears that a “non” must have been omitted.
Chapter XX.—From Apostolic Teaching Tertullian Turns to that of Companions of the Apostles, and of the Law.
The discipline, therefore, of the apostles
properly (so called), indeed, instructs and determinately directs, as a
principal point, the overseer of all sanctity as regards the temple of
God to the universal eradication of every sacrilegious outrage upon
modesty, without any mention of restoration. I wish, however,
redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular
comrade of the apostles,—(a testimony) aptly suited for
confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his
masters. For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews
under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God,
as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the
uninterrupted observance of abstinence: “Or else, I alone
and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?” Comp.
For excellently was he wont to interpret the law, and
keep its figures even in (the dispensation of) the Truth itself.
It was with a reference, in short, to this species of discipline that
the caution was taken in the case of the leper: “But if the
speckled appearance shall have become efflorescent over the skin, and
shall have covered the whole skin from the head even unto the feet
through all the visible surface, then the priest, when he shall have
seen, shall utterly cleanse him: since he hath wholly turned into
white he is clean. But on the day that there See Sæculo. See See Comp. See Comp.
Chapter XXI.—Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys.
If the apostles understood these (figurative
meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with
regard to them than even apostolic men). But I will descend even
to this point of contest now, making a separation between the
doctrine of apostles and their power. Discipline
governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that
power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God. What, moreover, used
(the Spirit) to teach? That there must be no communicating with
the works of darkness. Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Kaye suggests
“apostolica et prophetica”—“apostolic and
prophetic evidences;” which is very probable. Comp.
“But,” you say, “the
Church has the power of forgiving sins.” This I
acknowledge and adjudge more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete
Himself in the persons of the new prophets, saying, “The Church
has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit
others withal.” “What if a pseudo-prophetic spirit
has made that declaration?” Nay, but it would have been
more the part of a subverter on the one hand to commend himself on the
score of clemency, and on the other to influence all others to
sin. Or if, again, (the pseudo-prophetic spirit) has been eager
to affect this (sentiment) in accordance with “the Spirit of
truth,” Comp.
I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to “the Church.”
If, because the Lord has said to Peter,
“Upon this rock will I build My Church,” See Comp.
What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and
your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with
the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will
correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a
prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally,
the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One
Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. See de Or., c.
ii. See
Chapter XXII.—Of Martyrs, and Their Intercession on Behalf of Scandalous Offenders.
But you go so far as to lavish this
“power” upon martyrs withal! No sooner has any one,
acting on a preconceived arrangement, put on the bonds—(bonds),
moreover, which, in the nominal custody now in vogue, Comp. de Je., c.
xii.
Sæculi. See See See See See See
I have, even now, a test whereby to prove (the
presence of) Christ (in you). If Christ is in the martyr for this
reason, that the martyr may absolve adulterers and fornicators, let Him
tell publicly the secrets of the heart, that He may thus concede
(pardon to) sins; and He is Christ. For thus it was that the Lord
Jesus Christ showed His power: “Why think ye evil in your
hearts? For which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Thy sins
are remitted thee; or, Rise and walk? Therefore, that ye may know
the Son of man to have the power upon earth of remitting sins, I say to
thee, paralytic, Rise, and walk.” See Comp. de Monog.,
c. xv.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(The Shepherd of Hermas, p. 85.)
Here, and in chap. xx. below, Tertullian’s
rabid utterances against the Shepherd may be balanced by what he
had said, less unreasonably, in his better mood. On Prayer, vol.
iii. cap. xvi. p. 686, supra, where he speaks respectfully. Vol. ii. p. 22 (also
p. 43), this series.
II.
(Clasping the knees of all, p. 86.)
Here is a portrait of the early penitential discipline
sufficiently terrible, and it conforms to the apostolic pictures of the
same. “Tell it unto the Church,” says our Lord
(
III.
(Remedial discipline, p. 87.)
Powerfully as Tertullian states his view of this
apostolic “delivering unto Satan” as for final perdition,
it is not to be gainsaid that (
IV.
(Personally upon Peter, p. 99.)
See what has been said before. But note our author (now writing against the Church, and as a Montanist) has no idea that the personal prerogative of St. Peter had descended to any bishop. More when we come to Cyprian, and see vol. iii. p. 630, this series.
On Fasting. [Written, say,
circa a.d. 208.]
In Opposition to the Psychics.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Connection of Gluttony and Lust. Grounds of Psychical Objections Against the Montanists.
I should wonder at the Psychics, if they were
enthralled to voluptuousness alone, which leads them to repeated
marriages, if they were not likewise bursting with gluttony, which
leads them to hate fasts. Lust without voracity would certainly
be considered a monstrous phenomenon; since these two are so united and
concrete, that, had there been any possibility of disjoining them, the
pudenda would not have been affixed to the belly itself rather than
elsewhere. Look at the body: the region (of these members)
is one and the same. In short, the order of the vices is
proportionate to the arrangement of the members. First, the
belly; and then immediately the materials of all other species of
lasciviousness are laid subordinately to daintiness: through love
of eating, love of impurity finds passage. I recognise,
therefore, animal i.e., Psychic.
It is really irksome to engage with such:
one is really ashamed to wrangle about subjects the very defence of
which is offensive to modesty. For how am I to protect chastity
and sobriety without taxing their adversaries? What those
adversaries are I will once for all mention: they are the
exterior and interior botuli of the Psychics. It is these
which raise controversy with the Paraclete; it is on this account that
the New Prophecies are rejected: not that Montanus and Priscilla
and Maximilla preach another God, nor that they disjoin Jesus Christ
(from God), nor that they overturn any particular rule of faith or
hope, but that they plainly teach more frequent fasting than
marrying. Concerning the limit of marrying, we have already
published a defence of monogamy. [Which is a note of
time, not unimportant.]
Chapter II.—Arguments of the Psychics, Drawn from the Law, the Gospel, the Acts, the Epistles, and Heathenish Practices.
For, so far as pertains to fasts, they oppose to us the
definite days appointed by God: as when, in Leviticus, the Lord
enjoins upon Moses the tenth day of the seventh month (as) a day of
Comp. Comp. Comp. So Oehler
punctuates. The reference is to See See See
By the instrumentalities of these and similar
passages, they subtlely tend at last to such a point, that every one
who is somewhat prone to appetite finds it possible to regard as
superfluous, and not so very necessary, the duties of abstinence from,
or diminution or delay of, food, since “God,” forsooth,
“prefers the works of justice and of innocence.” And
we know the quality of the hortatory addresses of carnal conveniences,
how easy it is to say, “I must believe with my whole
heart; Comp.
Chapter III.—The Principle of Fasting Traced Back to Its Earliest Source.
Accordingly we are bound to affirm, before proceeding further, this (principle), which is in danger of being secretly subverted; (namely), of what value in the sight of God this “emptiness” you speak of is: and, first of all, whence has proceeded the rationale itself of earning the favour of God in this way. For the necessity of the observance will then be acknowledged, when the authority of a rationale, to be dated back from the very beginning, shall have shone out to view.
Adam had received from God the law of not tasting
“of the tree of recognition of good and evil,” with the
doom of death to ensue upon tasting. See Comp. See The reference is to
Chapter IV.—The Objection is Raised, Why, Then, Was the Limit of Lawful Food Extended After the Flood? The Answer to It.
This rationale was constantly kept in the eye of
the providence of God—modulating all things, as He does, to suit
the exigencies of the times—lest any from the opposite side, with
the view of demolishing our proposition, should say: “Why,
in that case, did not God forthwith institute some definite restriction
upon food? nay, rather, why did He withal enlarge His permission?
For, at the beginning indeed, it had only been the food of herbs and
trees which He had assigned to man: ‘Behold, I have given
you all grass fit for sowing, seeding seed, which is upon the earth;
and every tree which hath in itself the fruit of seed fit for sowing
shall be to you for food.’ See See See
Chapter V.—Proceeding to the History of Israel, Tertullian Shows that Appetite Was as Conspicuous Among Their Sins as in Adam’s Case. Therefore the Restraints of the Levitical Law Were Imposed.
At length, when a familiar people began to be
chosen by God to Himself, and the restoration of man was able to be
essayed, then all the laws and disciplines were imposed, even such as
curtailed food; certain things being prohibited as unclean, in order
that man, by observing a perpetual abstinence in certain particulars,
might at last the more easily tolerate absolute fasts. For the
first People had withal reproduced the first man’s crime, being
found more prone to their belly than to God, when, plucked out from the
harshness of Egyptian servitude “by the mighty hand and sublime
arm” Comp. See See Comp. See See
Chapter VI.—The Physical Tendencies of Fasting and Feeding Considered. The Cases of Moses and Elijah.
Now, if there has been temerity in our retracing
to primordial experiences the reasons for God’s having laid, and
our duty (for the sake of God) to lay, restrictions upon food, let us
consult common conscience. Nature herself will plainly tell with
what qualities she is ever wont to find us endowed when she sets us,
before taking food and drink, with our saliva still in a virgin
state, to the transaction of matters, by the sense especially whereby
things divine are handled; whether (it be not) with a mind much more
vigorous, with a heart much more alive, than when that whole habitation
of our interior man, stuffed with meats, inundated with wines,
fermenting for the purpose of excremental secretion, is already being
turned into a premeditatory of privies, (a premeditatory) where,
plainly, nothing is so proximately supersequent as the savouring of
lasciviousness. “The people did eat and drink, and they
arose to play.” Comp. See See Comp. See See See
On the other hand, he whose “heart”
was habitually found “lifted up” See Twice over. See
See See See See See Comp. See
Chapter VII.—Further Examples from the Old Testament in Favour of Fasting.
And thus we have already proceeded to examples, in order that, by its profitable efficacy, we may unfold the powers of this duty which reconciles God, even when angered, to man.
Israel, before their gathering together by Samuel
on occasion of the drawing of water at Mizpeh, had sinned; but so
immediately do they wash away the sin by a fast, that the peril of
battle is dispersed by them simultaneously (with the water on the
ground). At the very moment when Samuel was offering the
holocaust (in no way do we learn that the clemency of God was more
procured than by the abstinence of the people), and the aliens
were advancing to battle, then and there “the Lord thundered with
a mighty voice upon the aliens, and they were thrown into confusion,
and fell in a mass in the sight of Israel; and the men of Israel went
forth out of Mizpeh, and pursued the aliens, and smote them unto
Bethor,”—the unfed (chasing) the fed, the unarmed the
armed. Such will be the strength of them who “fast to
God.” See
Similarly, when the king of the Assyrians,
Sennacherib, after already taking several cities, was volleying
blasphemies and menaces against Israel through Rabshakeh, nothing else
(but fasting) diverted him from his purpose, and sent him into the
Ethiopias. After that, what else swept away by the hand of the
angel an hundred eighty and four thousand from his army than Hezekiah
the king’s humiliation? if it is true, (as it is), that on
hearing the announcement of the harshness of the foe, he rent his
garment, put on sackcloth, and bade the elders of the priests,
similarly habited, approach God through Isaiah—fasting being, of
course, the escorting attendant of their prayers. See
Through this attendant of mourning, and (this)
hunger, even that sinful state, Nineveh, is freed from the predicted
ruin. For repentance for sins had sufficiently commended the
fast, keeping it up in a space of three days, starving out even the
cattle with which God was not angry. See See See See
Nor is it merely change of nature, or aversion of
perils, or obliteration of sins, but likewise the recognition of
mysteries, which fasts will merit from God. Look at
Daniel’s example. About the dream of the King of Babylon
all the sophists are troubled: they affirm that, without external
aid, it cannot be discovered by human skill. Daniel alone,
trusting to God, and knowing what would tend to the deserving of
God’s favour, requires a space of three days, fasts with his
fraternity, and—his prayers thus commended—is instructed
throughout as to the order and signification of the dream; quarter is
granted to the tyrant’s sophists; God is glorified; Daniel is
honoured; destined as he was to receive, even subsequently also, no
less a favour of God in the first year, of King Darius, when, after
care See
Chapter VIII.—Examples of a Similar Kind from the New.
We produce, too, our remaining (evidences).
For we now hasten to modern proofs. On the threshold of the
Gospel, See
By and by the Lord Himself consecrated His own
baptism (and, in His own, that of all) by fasts; See See c. ii. Comp.
Thereafter He prescribed to fasts a law—that
they are to be performed “without sadness:” See See
Chapter IX.—From Fasts Absolute Tertullian Comes to Partial Ones and Xerophagies.
This principal species in the category of dietary
restriction may already afford a prejudgment concerning the inferior
operations of abstinence also, as being themselves too, in proportion
to their measure, useful or necessary. For the exception of
certain kinds from use of food is a partial fast. Let us
therefore look into the question of the novelty or vanity of
xerophagies, to see whether in them too we do not find an operation
alike of most ancient as of most efficacious religion. I return
to Daniel and his brethren, preferring as they did a diet of vegetables
and the beverage of water to the royal dishes and decanters, and being
found as they were therefore “more handsome” (lest any be
apprehensive on the score of his paltry body, to boot!), besides being
spiritually cultured into the bargain. See
I return likewise to Elijah. When the ravens had
been wont to satisfy him with “bread and See See See See
Chapter X.—Of Stations, and of the Hours of Prayer.
In like manner they censure on the count of
novelty our Stations as being enjoined; some, moreover, (censure
them) too as being prolonged habitually too late, saying that this duty
also ought to be observed of free choice, and not continued beyond the
ninth hour,—(deriving their rule), of course, from their own
practice. Well: as to that which pertains to the question
of injunction, I will once for all give a reply to suit all
causes. Now, (turning) to the point which is proper to this
particular cause—concerning the limit of time, I mean—I
must first demand from themselves whence they derive this prescriptive
law for concluding Stations at the ninth hour. If it is from the
fact that we read that Peter and he who was with him entered the temple
“at the ninth (hour), the hour of prayer,” who will prove
to me that they had that day been performing a Station, so as to
interpret the ninth hour as the hour for the conclusion and discharge
of the Station? Nay, but you would more easily find that Peter at
the sixth hour had, for the sake of taking food, gone up first
on the roof to pray; See The reference is to
See
These (arguments), moreover, (we have advanced)
for their sakes who think that they are acting in conformity with
Peter’s model, (a model) of which they are ignorant: not as
if we slighted the ninth hour, (an hour) which, on the fourth and sixth
days of the week, we most highly honour; but because, of those things
which are observed on the ground of tradition, we are bound to adduce
so much the more worthy reason, that they lack the authority of
Scripture, until by some signal celestial gift they be either confirmed
or else corrected. “And if,” says (the apostle),
“there are matters which ye are ignorant about, the Lord will
reveal to you.” See See
But let it suffice to have thus far joined issue on the argumentative challenge; rebutting, as I have done, conjectures by conjectures, and yet (as I think) by conjectures more worthy of a believer. Let us see whether any such (principle) drawn from the ancient times takes us under its patronage.
In Exodus, was not that position of Moses,
battling against Amalek by prayers, maintained as it was perseveringly
even till “sunset,” a “late Station?” See See
At all events, Saul himself, when engaged in
battle, manifestly enjoined this duty: “Cursed (be)
the man who shall have eaten bread until evening, until I avenge me on
mine enemy;” and his whole people tasted not (food), and (yet)
the whole earth was breakfasting! So solemn a sanction, moreover,
did God confer on the edict which enjoined that Station, that Jonathan
the son of Saul, although it had been in ignorance of the fast having
been appointed till a late hour that he had allowed himself a taste of
honey, was both presently convicted, by lot, of sin, and with
difficulty exempted from punishment through the prayer of the
People: See See Comp. δε Ορ., c. xxviii.
Chapter XI.—Of the Respect Due to “Human Authority;” And of the Charges of “Heresy” And “Pseudo-Prophecy.”
But all these (instances) I believe to be unknown
to those who are in a state of agitation at our proceedings; or else
known by the reading alone, not by careful study as well; in accordance
with the greater bulk of “the unskilled” Comp.
The question, however, still lies before us, that
some of these observances, having been commanded by God to man, have
constituted this practice legally binding; some, offered by man to God,
have discharged some votive obligation. Still, even a vow, when
it has been accepted by God, constitutes a law for the time to come,
owing to the authority of the Acceptor; for he who has given his
approbation to a deed, when done, has given a mandate for its doing
thenceforward. And so from this consideration, again, the
wrangling of the opposite party is silenced, while they say:
“It is either a pseudo-prophecy, if it is a spiritual voice which
institutes these your solemnities; or else a heresy, if it is a human
presumption which devises them.” For, while censuring that
form in which the ancient economies ran their course, and at the same
time drawing out of that form arguments to hurl back (upon us) which
the very adversaries of the ancient economies will in their turn be
able to retort, they will be bound either to reject those arguments, or
else to undertake these proven duties (which they impugn):
necessarily so; chiefly because these very duties (which they impugn),
from whatsoever institutor they are, be he a spiritual man or merely an
ordinary believer, direct their course to the honour of the same God as
the ancient economies. For, indubitably, both heresy and
pseudo-prophecy will, in the eyes of us who are all priests of one only
God the Creator and of His Christ, be judged by diversity of
divinity: and so far forth I defend this side indifferently,
offering my opponents to join issue on whatever ground they
choose. “It is the spirit of the devil,” you say, O
Psychic. And how is it that he enjoins duties which belong to our
God, and enjoins them to be offered to none other than our God?
Either contend that the devil works with our God, or else let the
Paraclete be held to be Satan. But you affirm it is “a
human Antichrist:” for by this name heretics are called in
John. See
Chapter XII—Of the Need for Some Protest Against the Psychics and Their Self-Indulgence.
For, by this time, in this respect as well as
others, “you are reigning in wealth and satiety” See the Vulg. in
Plainly, your habit is to furnish cookshops
in the prisons to untrustworthy martyrs, for fear they should miss
their accustomed usages, grow weary of life, (and) be stumbled at the
novel discipline of abstinence; (a discipline) which not even the
well-known Pristinus—your martyr,
Chapter XIII.—Of the Inconsistencies of the Psychics.
You lay down a prescription that this faith has
its solemnities “appointed” by the Scriptures or the
tradition of the ancestors; and that no further addition in the way of
observance must be added, on account of the unlawfulness of
innovation. Stand on that ground, if you can. For, behold,
I impeach you of fasting besides on the Paschal-day, beyond the limits
of those days in which “the Bridegroom was taken away;” and
interposing the half-fasts of Stations; and you, (I find), sometimes
living on bread and water, when it has seemed meet to each (so to
do). In short, you answer that “these things are to be done
of choice, not of command.” You have changed your ground,
therefore, by exceeding tradition, in undertaking observances which
have not been “appointed.” But what kind of deed is
it, to permit to your own choice what you grant not to the command of
God? Shall human volition have more licence than Divine
power? I am mindful that I am free from the
world,
But it is enough for me that it is a customary practice
for the bishops withal to issue mandates for fasts to the universal
commonalty of the Church; I do not mean for the special purpose of
collecting contributions of alms, as your beggarly fashion has it, but
sometimes too from some particular cause of ecclesiastical
solicitude. And accordingly, if you practise ταπεινοφρόνησις
at the bidding of a man’s edict, and all unitedly, how is
it that in our case you set a brand upon the very unity also of our
fastings, and xerophagies, and Stations?—unless, perhaps, it is
against the decrees of the senate and the mandates of the emperors
which are opposed to “meetings” that we are sinning!
The Holy Spirit, when He was preaching in whatsoever lands He chose,
and through whomsoever He chose, was wont, from foresight of the
imminence either of temptations to befall the Church, or of plagues to
befall the world, in His character of Paraclete (that is, Advocate for
the purpose of winning over the judge by prayers), to issue mandates
for observances of this nature; for instance, at the present time, with
the view of practising the discipline of sobriety and abstinence:
we, who receive Him, must necessarily observe also the appointments
which He then made. Look at the Jewish calendar, and you will
find it nothing novel that all succeeding posterity guards with
hereditary scrupulousness the precepts given to the fathers.
Besides, throughout the provinces of Greece there are held in definite
localities those councils gathered out of the universal Churches, by
whose means not only all the deeper questions are handled for the
common benefit, but the actual representation of the whole Christian
name is celebrated with great veneration. (And how worthy a thing
is this, that, under the auspices of faith, men should congregate from
all quarters to Christ! “See, how good and how enjoyable
for brethren to dwell in unity!” See Comp.
Chapter XIV.—Reply to the Charge of “Galaticism.”
Being, therefore, observers of
“seasons” for these things, and of “days, and months,
and years,” Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp.
Chapter XV.—Of the Apostle’s Language Concerning Food.
The apostle reprobates likewise such as “bid
to abstain from meats; but he does so from the foresight of the Holy
Spirit, precondemning already the heretics who would enjoin
perpetual abstinence to the extent of destroying and despising
the works of the Creator; such as I may find in the person of a
Marcion, a Tatian, or a Jupiter, the Pythagorean heretic of to-day; not
in the person of the Paraclete. For how limited is the extent of
our “interdiction of meats!” Two weeks of
xerophagies in the year (and not the whole of these,—the
Sabbaths, to wit, and the Lord’s days, being excepted) we offer
to God; abstaining from things which we do not reject, but
defer. But further: when writing to the Romans, the
apostle now gives you a home-thrust, detractors as you are of
this observance: “Do not for the sake of food,” he
says, “undo
How unworthy, also, is the way in which you
interpret to the favour of your own lust the fact that the Lord
“ate and drank” promiscuously! But I think that He
must have likewise “fasted” inasmuch as He has pronounced,
not “the full,” but “the hungry and thirsty,
blessed:” Comp. See Hor.,
Od., i. 1, 12, and Macleane’s note there. See
Chapter XVI.—Instances from Scripture of Divine Judgments Upon the Self-Indulgent; And Appeals to the Practices of Heathens.
For even if He does prefer “the works
of righteousness,” still not without a sacrifice, which
See This seems an
oversight; see See
These will be warnings both to people and to
bishops, even spiritual ones, in case they may ever have been guilty of
incontinence of appetite. Nay, even in Hades the admonition has
not ceased to speak; where we find in the person of the rich feaster,
convivialities tortured; in that of the pauper, fasts refreshed;
having—(as convivialities and fasts alike had)—as
preceptors “Moses and the prophets.”
Chapter XVII.—Conclusion.
“Old” you are, if we will say the
truth, you who are so indulgent to appetite, and justly do you vaunt
your “priority:” always do I recognise the savour of
Esau, the hunter of wild beasts: so unlimitedly studious are you
of catching fieldfares, so do you come from “the field” of
your most lax discipline, so faint are you in spirit. Comp.
To the indictment of your appetite pertains (the charge)
that “double honour” is with you Mundi: cf.
κοσμοκράτορας,
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Greater licence, p. 104.)
In this treatise, which is
designed to justify the extremes of Montanistic fasts,
Tertullian’s genius often surprises us by his ingenuity.
This is one of the instances where the forensic orator comes out,
trying to outflank and turn the position of an antagonist who has
gained an advantage. The fallacy is obvious. Kaye cites, in
comparison, a passage II. cap. 10, p. 23,
supra. Cap. 8, p. 55,
supra.
Fasting was ordained of Christ Himself as a means to an end. It is here reduced from its instrumental character, and made an excuse for dividing the household of faith, and for cruel accusations against brethren.
In our age of an entire relaxation of discipline, the enthusiast may nevertheless awaken us, perhaps, to honest self-examination as to our manner of life, in view of the example of Christ and His apostles, and their holy precepts.
II.
(Provinces of Greece, p. 111.)
We have here an interesting hint as to the ἀρχαῖα ἔθη
to which the Council of Nice See our minor
titlepage.
III.
(An over-fed Christian, p. 114.)
“Are we not carnal” (psychics) in our
days? May not the very excesses of Tertullian sting and reproach
us with the charge of excessive indulgence ( Capp. 2, 13, 14,
supra. Cap. 14. See
De Orat., cap. 19, p. 687. The
Xerophagiæ, cap. 2, p. 103.
IV.
(Practise emaciation, p. 114.)
Think of our Master’s fast among the wild
beasts! Let us condescend to go back to Clement, to Origen, and
to Tertullian to learn the practical laws of the Gospel against
avarice, luxury, and “the deceitfulness of sin.” I am
emboldened to say this by some remarkable words which I find, to my
surprise, thrown out in a scientific work Scientific
Culture, by J. P. Cooke, professor of chemistry, etc. New
York, 1884. This is ambiguous, but
I merely note it.
De Fuga in Persecutione. [Written, say,
circa a.d. 208.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
1. My brother Fabius, you very lately asked,
because some news or other were communicated, whether or not we ought
to flee in persecution. For my part, having on the spot made some
observations in the negative suited to the place and time, I also,
owing to the rudeness of some persons, took away with me the subject
but half treated, meaning to set it forth now more fully by my pen; for
your inquiry had interested me in it, and the state of the times had
already on its own account pressed it upon me. As persecutions in
increasing number threaten us, so the more are we called on to give
earnest thought to the question of how faith ought to receive them, and
the duty of carefully considering it concerns you no less, who no
doubt, by not accepting the Comforter, the guide to all truth, have, as
was natural, opposed us hitherto in regard to other questions
also. We have therefore applied a methodical treatment, too, to
your inquiry, as we see that we must first come to a decision as to how
the matter stands in regard to persecution itself, whether it comes on
us from God or from the devil, that with the less difficulty we may get
on firm ground as to our duty to meet it; for of everything one’s
knowledge is clearer when it is known from whom it has its
origin. It is enough indeed to lay it down, (in bar of all
besides,) that nothing happens without the will of God. But lest
we be diverted from the point before us, we shall not by this
deliverance at once give occasion to the other discussions if one make
answer—Therefore evil and sin are both from God; the devil
henceforth, and even we ourselves, are entirely free. The
question in hand is persecution. With respect to this, let me in
the meantime say, that nothing happens without God’s will; on the
ground that persecution is especially worthy of God, and, so to speak,
requisite, for the approving, to wit, or if you will, the rejection of
His professing servants. For what is the issue of persecution,
what other result comes of it, but the approving and rejecting of
faith, in regard to which the Lord will certainly sift His
people? Persecution, by means of which one is declared either
approved or rejected, is just the judgment of the Lord. But the
judging properly belongs to God alone. This is that fan which
even now cleanses the Lord’s threshing-floor—the Church, I
mean—winnowing the mixed heap of believers, and separating the
grain
2. If, because injustice is not from God,
but from the devil, and persecution consists of injustice (for what
more unjust than that the bishops of the true God, that all the
followers of the truth, should be dealt with after the manner of the
vilest criminals?), persecution therefore seems to proceed from the
devil, by whom the injustice which constitutes persecution is
perpetrated, we ought to know, as you have neither persecution without
the injustice of the devil, nor the trial of faith without persecution,
that the injustice necessary for the trial of faith does not give a
warrant for persecution, but supplies an agency; that in reality, in
reference to the trial of faith, which is the reason of persecution,
the will of God goes first, but that as the instrument of persecution,
which is the way of trial, the injustice of the devil follows.
For in other respects, too, injustice in proportion to the enmity it
displays against righteousness affords occasion for attestations of
that to which it is opposed as an enemy, that so righteousness may be
perfected in injustice, as strength is perfected in weakness.
3. Seeing therefore, too, these cases occur
in persecutions more than at other times, as there is then among us
more of proving or rejecting, more of abusing or punishing, it must be
that their general occurrence is permitted or commanded by Him at whose
will they happen even partially; by Him, I mean, who says, “I am
He who make peace and create evil,”
4. Well, then, if it is evident from whom persecution proceeds, we are able at once to satisfy your doubts, and to decide from these introductory remarks alone, that men should not flee in it. For if persecution proceeds from God, in no way will it be our duty to flee from what has God as its author; a twofold reason opposing; for what proceeds from God ought not on the one hand to be avoided, and it cannot be evaded on the other. It ought not to be avoided, because it is good; for everything must be good on which God has cast His eye. And with this idea has perhaps this statement been made in Genesis, “And God saw because it is good;” not that He would have been ignorant of its goodness unless He had seen it, but to indicate by this expression that it was good because it was viewed by God. There are many events indeed happening by the will of God, and happening to somebody’s harm. Yet for all that, a thing is therefore good because it is of God, as divine, as reasonable; for what is divine, and not reasonable and good? What is good, yet not divine? But if to the universal apprehension of mankind this seems to be the case, in judging, man’s faculty of apprehension does not predetermine the nature of things, but the nature of things his power of apprehension. For every several nature is a certain definite reality, and it lays it on the perceptive power to perceive it just as it exists. Now, if that which comes from God is good indeed in its natural state (for there is nothing from God which is not good, because it is divine, and reasonable), but seems evil only to the human faculty, all will be right in regard to the former; with the latter the fault will lie. In its real nature a very good thing is chastity, and so is truth, and righteousness; and yet they are distasteful to many. Is perhaps the real nature on this account sacrificed to the sense of perception? Thus persecution in its own nature too is good, because it is a divine and reasonable appointment; but those to whom it comes as a punishment do not feel it to be pleasant. You see that as proceeding from Him, even that evil has a reasonable ground, when one in persecution is cast out of a state of salvation, just as you see that you have a reasonable ground for the good also, when one by persecution has his salvation made more secure. Unless, as it depends on the Lord, one either perishes irrationally, or is irrationally saved, he will not be able to speak of persecution as an evil, which, while it is under the direction of reason, is, even in respect of its evil, good. So, if persecution is in every way a good, because it has a natural basis, we on valid grounds lay it down, that what is good ought not to be shunned by us, because it is a sin to refuse what is good; besides that, what has been looked upon by God can no longer indeed be avoided, proceeding as it does from God, from whose will escape will not be possible. Therefore those who think that they should flee, either reproach God with doing what is evil, if they flee from persecution as an evil (for no one avoids what is good); or they count themselves stronger than God: so they think, who imagine it possible to escape when it is God’s pleasure that such events should occur.
6. Nay, says some one, he fulfilled the
command, when he fled from city to city. For so a certain
individual, but a fugitive likewise, has chosen to maintain, and others
have done the same who are unwilling to understand the meaning of that
declaration of the Lord, that they may use it as a cloak for their
cowardice, although it has had its persons as well as its times and
reasons to which it specially applies. “When they
begin,” He says, “to persecute you, flee from city to
city.”
7. Let us now see whether also the rest of our Lord’s ordinances accord with a lasting command of flight. In the first place, indeed, if persecution is from God, what are we to think of our being ordered to take ourselves out of its way, by the very party who brings it on us? For if He wanted it to be evaded, He had better not have sent it, that there might not be the appearance of His will being thwarted by another will.
For He wished us either to suffer persecution or
to flee from it. If to flee, how to suffer? If to suffer,
how to flee? In fact, what utter inconsistency in the decrees of
One who commands to flee, and yet urges to suffer, which is the very
opposite! “Him who will confess Me, I also will confess
before My Father.”
8. He sometimes also fled from violence
Himself, but for the same reason as had led Him to command the apostles
to do so: that is, He wanted to fulfil His ministry of teaching;
and when it was finished, I do not say He stood firm, but He had no
desire even to get from His Father the aid of hosts of angels:
finding fault, too, with Peter’s sword. He likewise
acknowledged, it is true, that His “soul was troubled, even unto
death,”
9. The teaching of the apostles was surely
in everything according to the mind of God: they forgot and
omitted nothing of the Gospel. Where, then, do you show that they
renewed the command to flee from city to city? In fact, it was
utterly impossible that they should have laid down anything so utterly
opposed to their own examples as a command to flee, while it was just
from bonds, or the islands in which, for confessing, not fleeing from
the Christian name, they were confined, they wrote their letters to the
Churches. Paul
10. But some, paying no attention to the
exhortations of God, are readier to apply to themselves that Greek
versicle of worldly wisdom, “He who fled will fight again;”
perhaps also in the battle to flee again. And when will he who,
as a fugitive, is a defeated man, be conqueror? A worthy soldier
he furnishes to his commander Christ, who, so amply armed by the
apostle, as soon as he hears persecution’s trumpet, runs off from
the day of persecution. I also will produce in answer a quotation
taken from the world: “Is it a thing so very sad to
die?” Æneid,
xii. 646.
11. Thus ought every servant of God to feel
and act, even one in an inferior place, that he may come to have a more
important one, if he has made some upward step by his endurance of
persecution. But when persons in authority themselves—I
mean the very deacons, and presbyters, and bishops—take to
flight, how will a layman be able to see with what view it was said,
Flee from city to city? Thus, too, with the leaders turning their
backs, who of the common rank will hope to persuade men to stand firm
in the battle? Most assuredly a good shepherd lays down his life
for the sheep, according to the word of Moses, when the Lord Christ had
not as yet been revealed, but was already shadowed forth in
himself: “If you destroy this people,” he says,
“destroy me also along with it.”
12. So far, my brother, as the question proposed
by you is concerned, you have our opinion in answer and
encouragement. But he who inquires whether persecution ought to
be shunned by us must now be prepared to consider the following
question also: Whether, if we should not flee from it, we should
at least buy ourselves off from it. Going further than you
expected, therefore, I will also on this point give you my advice,
distinctly affirming that persecution, from which it is evident we must
not flee, must in like manner not even be bought off. The
difference lies in the payment; but as flight is a buying off without
money, so buying off is money-flight. Assuredly you have here too
the counselling of fear. Because you fear, you buy yourself off;
and so you flee. As regards your feet, you have stood; in respect
of the money you have paid, Stephanas is
perhaps intended.—Tr.
13. But also to every one who asks me I will
give on the plea of charity, not under any intimidation. Who
asks?
14. But how shall we assemble together? say
you; how shall we observe the ordinances of the Lord? To be sure,
just as the apostles also did, who were protected by faith, not by
money; which faith, if it can remove a mountain, can much more remove a
soldier. Be your safeguard wisdom, not a bribe. For you
will not have at once complete security from the people also, should
you buy off the interference of the soldiers. Therefore all you
need for your protection is to have both faith and wisdom: if you
do not make use of these, you may lose even the deliverance which you
have purchased for yourself; while, if you do employ them, you can have
no need of any ransoming. Lastly, if you cannot assemble by day,
you have the night, the light of Christ luminous against its
darkness. You cannot run about among them one after
another. Be content with a church of threes. It is better
that you sometimes should not see your crowds, than subject yourselves
(to a tribute bondage). Keep pure for Christ His betrothed
virgin; let no one make gain of her. These things, my brother,
seem to you perhaps harsh and not to be endured; but recall that God
has said, “He who receives it, let him receive
it,”
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Persecutions threaten, p. 116.)
We have reserved this heroic tract to close our series of the ascetic essays of our author because it places even his sophistical enthusiasm in a light which shows much to admire. Strange that this defiant hero should have died (as we may infer) in his bed, and in extreme old age. Great man, how much, alike for weal and woe, the ages have been taught by thee!
This is the place for a tabular view of the ten
persecutions of the Ante-Nicene Church. They are commonly
enumerated as follows: See what Gibbon
can say to minimize the matter (in cap. xvi. 4, vol. ii. p. 45,
New York).
1. Under Nero——a.d. 64.
2. Under Trajan——a.d. 95.
3. Under Trajan——a.d. 107.
4. Under Hadrian (a.d. 118 and)——a.d. 134.
5. Under Aurelius (a.d. 177) and Severus——a.d. 202.
6. Under Maximin——a.d. 235.
7. Under Decius——a.d. 250.
8. Under Valerian——a.d. 254.
9. Under Aurelian——a.d. 270.
10. Under Diocletian (a.d. 284 and)——a.d. 303.
1. Under Antoninus Pius——a.d. 151.
2. Under Commodus——a.d. 185.
3. Under Alexander Severus——a.d. 223.
4. Under Philip——a.d. 248.
5. Under Diocletian——a.d. 284 till a.d. 303.
In thus chastising and sifting his Church in the years of her gradual growth “from the smallest of all seeds,” we see illustrations of the Lord’s Epistles to the seven churches of the Apocalypse. Who can doubt that Tertullian’s writings prepared the North-African Church for the Decian furnace, and all believers for the “seven times hotter” fires of Diocletian?
II.
(To the fearful, p. 120.)
In the Patientia Cap. xiii. I. cap. iii. pp. 46, 138. In his disgraceful
chap. xvi.
III.
(Enormous gains from numbers, p. 124.)
Christians were now counted by millions. The following tabular view of the Christian population of the world from the beginning has been attributed to Sharon Turner. I do not find it in any of his works with which I am familiar. The nineteenth century is certainly credited too low, according to the modern computists; but I insert it merely for the centuries we are now considering.
Growth of the Church in Numbers.
1. First century——500,000
2. Second century——2,000,000
3. Third century——5,000,000
4. Fourth century——10,000,000
5. Fifth century——15,000,000
6. Sixth century——20,000,000
7. Seventh century——24,000,000
8. Eighth century——30,000,000
9. Ninth century——40,000,000
10. Tenth century——50,000,000
11. Eleventh century——70,000,000
12. Twelfth century——80,000,000
13. Thirteenth century——75,000,000
14. Fourteenth century——80,000,000
15. Fifteenth century——100,000,000
16. Sixteenth century——125,000,000
17. Seventeenth century——155,000,000
18. Eighteenth century——200,000,000
19. Nineteenth century——400,000,000
Appendix. [Elucidation.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
1. A Strain of Jonah the Prophet.
After the living, aye—enduring death
Of Sodom and Gomorrah; after fires
Penal, attested by time-frosted plains
Of ashes; after fruitless apple-growths,
5 Born but to feed the eye; after the death
Of sea and brine, both in like fate involved;
While whatsoe’er is human still retains
In change corporeal its penal badge: These two lines, if
this be their true sense, seem to refer to Lot’s wife. But
the grammar and meaning of this introduction are alike obscure.
A city—Nineveh—by stepping o’er
10 The path of justice and of equity,
On her own head had well-nigh shaken down
More fires of rain supernal. For what
dread
“Metus;” used, as in other places, of godly
fear.
Dwells in a mind subverted? Commonly
Tokens of penal visitations prove
15 All vain where error holds possession. Still,
Kindly and patient of our waywardness,
And slow to punish, the Almighty Lord
Will launch no shaft of wrath, unless He first
Admonish and knock oft at hardened hearts,
20 Rousing with mind august presaging seers.
For to the merits of the Ninevites
The Lord had bidden Jonah to foretell
Destruction; but he, conscious that He spare;
The subject, and remits to suppliants
25 The dues of penalty, and is to good
Ever inclinable, was loth to face
That errand; lest he sing his seerly strain
In vain, and peaceful issue of his threats
Ensue. His counsel presently is flight:
30 (If, howsoe’er, there is at all the power
God to avoid, and shun the Lord’s right hand
’Neath whom the whole orb trembles and is held
In check: but is there reason in the act
Which in Lit.
“from,” i.e., which, urged by a heart which is that
of a saint, even though on this occasion it failed, the prophet
dared.
35 On the beach-lip, over against the shores
Of the Cilicians, is a city poised, Libratur.
Far-famed for trusty port—Joppa her name.
Thence therefore Jonah speeding in a barque
Seeks Tarsus,
“Tarshish,” Eng. ver.; perhaps Tartessus in Spain.
For this question, and the “trustiness” of Joppa (now
Jaffa) as a port, see Pusey on
40 Of the same God; Ejusdem per signa
Dei.
If, fleeing from the Lord upon the lands,
He found Him in the waves. For suddenly
A little cloud had stained the lower air
With fleecy wrack sulphureous, itself i.e., the cloud.
45 By the wind’s seed excited: by degrees,
Bearing a brood globose, it with the sun
Cohered, and with a train caliginous
Shut in the cheated day. The main becomes
The mirror of the sky; the waves are dyed so
50 With black encirclement; the upper air
Down rushes into darkness, and the sea
Uprises; nought of middle space is left;
While the clouds touch the waves, and the waves all
Are mingled by the bluster of the winds
55 In whirling eddy. ’Gainst the renegade,
’Gainst Jonah, diverse frenzy joined to rave,
While one sole barque did all the struggle breed
’Twixt sky and surge. From this side and from that
Pounded she reels; ’neath each wave-breaking blow
60 The forest of her tackling trembles all;
Staggered by shock on shock, all palpitates;
And, from on high, her labouring mass of yard
Creaks shuddering; and the tree-like mast itself
65 Bends to the gale, misdoubting to be riven.
Meantime the rising
Genitus (Oehler); geminus
(Migne) ="twin clamour,” which is not inapt.
Tries every chance for barque’s and dear life’s sake:
To pass from hand to hand
Mandare (Oehler). If this be the true
reading, the rendering in the text seems to represent the meaning; for
“mandare” with an accusative, in the sense of
“to bid the tardy coils tighten the girth’s
noose,” seems almost too gross a solecism for even so lax a
Latinist as our present writer. Migne, however, reads
mundare—to “clear”
the tardy coils, i.e., probably from the wash and weed with which the
gale was cloying them.
To tighten the girth’s noose: straitly to bind
70 The tiller’s struggles; or, with breast opposed,
T’ impel reluctant curves. Part, turn by turn,
With foremost haste outbale the reeking well
Of inward sea. The wares and cargo all
They then cast headlong, and with losses seek
75 Their perils to subdue. At every crash
Of the wild deep rise piteous cries; and out
They stretch their hands to majesties of gods,
Which gods are none; whom might of sea and sky
Fears not, nor yet the less from off their poops
80 With angry eddy sweeping sinks them down.
Unconscious of all this, the guilty one
’Neath the poop’s hollow arch was making sleep
Re-echo stertorous with nostril wide
Inflated: whom, so soon as he who guides
85 The functions of the wave-dividing prow
Saw him sleep-bound in placid peace, and proud
In his repose, he, standing o’er him, shook,
And said, “Why sing’st, with vocal nostril, dreams,
In such a crisis? In so wild a whirl,
90 Why keep’st thou only harbour? Lo! the wave
Whelms us, and our one hope is in the gods.
Thou also, whosoever is thy god,
Make vows, and, pouring prayers on bended knee,
Win o’er thy country’s Sovran!”
Then they vote
95 To learn by lot who is the culprit, who
The cause of storm; nor does the lot belie
Jonah: whom then they ask, and ask again,
“Who? whence? who in the world? from what abode,
What people, hail’st thou?” He avows himself
100 A servant, and an over-timid one,
Of God, who raised aloft the sky, who based
The earth, who corporally fused the whole:
A renegade from Him he owns himself,
And tells the reason. Rigid turned they all
105 With dread. “What grudge, then, ow’st thou us? What now
Will follow? By what deed shall we appease
The main?” For more and far more swelling grew
The savage surges. Then the seer begins
Words prompted by the Spirit of the Lord: Tunc Domini vates
ingesta Spiritus infit. Of course it is a gross offence
against quantity to make a genitive in “us” short, as the
rendering in the text does. But a writer who makes the first
syllable in “clamor” and the last syllable of gerunds in
do short, would scarcely be likely to hesitate about taking
similar liberties with a genitive of the so-called fourth
declension. It is possible, it is true, to take
“vates” and “Spiritus” as in apposition,
and render, “Then the seer-Spirit of the Lord begins to utter
words inspired,” or “Then the seer-Spirit begins to utter
the promptings of the Lord.” But these renderings seem to
accord less well with the ensuing words.
110 “Lo! I your tempest am; I am the sum
Of the world’s Mundi.
“That the sea rises, and the upper air
Down rushes; land in me is far, death near,
And hope in God is none! Come, headlong hurl
115 Your cause of bane: lighten your ship, and cast
This single mighty burden to the main,
A willing prey!” But they—all vainly!—strive
Homeward to turn their course; for helm refused
To suffer turning, and the yard’s stiff poise
120 Willed not to change. At last unto the Lord
They cry: “For one soul’s sake give us not o’er
Unto death’s maw, nor let us be besprent
With righteous blood, if thus Thine own right hand
Leadeth.” And from the eddy’s depth a whale
125 Outrising on the spot, scaly with
shells, i.e., apparently with
shells which had gathered about him as he lay in the deep.
Unravelling his body’s train, ’gan urge
More near the waves, shocking the gleaming brine,
Seizing—at God’s command—the prey; which, rolled
From the poop’s summit prone, with slimy jaws
130 He sucked; and into his long belly sped
The living feast; and swallowed, with the man,
The rage of sky and main. The billowy waste
Grows level, and the ether’s gloom dissolves;
The waves on this side, and the blasts on that,
The placid keel marks out a path secure,
White traces in the emerald furrow bloom.
The sailor then does to the reverend Lord
Of death make grateful offering of his
fear; This seems to be the sense of Oehler’s
“Nauta at tum Domino leti venerando timorem Sacrificat
grates”—“grates” being in apposition with
“timorem.” But Migne reads: “Nautæ
tum Domino læti venerando timorem Sacrificant
grates:”— “The sailors then do to the reverend Lord Gladly make grateful sacrifice of
fear:” and I do not see that Oehler’s reading
is much better.
140 Then enters friendly ports.
Jonah the seer
The while is voyaging, in other craft
Embarked, and cleaving ’neath the lowest waves
A wave: his sails the intestines of the fish,
Inspired with breath ferine; himself, shut in;
145 By waters, yet untouched; in the sea’s heart
And yet beyond its reach; ’mid wrecks of fleets
Half-eaten, and men’s carcasses dissolved
In putrid disintegrity: in life
Learning the process of his death; but still—
150 To be a sign hereafter of the
Lord Comp.
A witness was he (in his very self), These words are not in
the original, but are inserted (I confess) to fill up the line, and
avoid ending with an incomplete verse. If, however, any one is
curious enough to compare the translation, with all its defects, with
the Latin, he may be somewhat surprised to find how very little
alteration or adaptation is necessary in turning verse into verse.
Not of destruction, but of death’s repulse.
————————————
2. A Strain of Sodom.
(Author Uncertain.)
Already had Almighty God wiped off
By vengeful flood (with waters all conjoined
Which heaven discharged on earth and the
sea’s plain Maris æquor.
Outspued) the times of the primeval age:
5 Had pledged Himself, while nether air should bring
The winters in their course, ne’er to decree,
By liquid ruin, retribution’s due;
And had assigned, to curb the rains, the bow
Of many hues, sealing the clouds with band
10 Of purple and of green, Iris its name,
The rain-clouds’ proper baldric. See
But alike
With mankind’s second race impiety
Revives, and a new age of ill once more
Shoots forth; allotted now no more to showers
15 For ruin, but to fires: thus did the land
Of Sodom earn to be by glowing dews
Upburnt, and typically thus portend
The future end. Comp.
(Modesty’s foe) stood in the room of law;
20 Which prescient guest would shun, and sooner choose
At Scythian or Busirian altar’s foot
’Mid sacred rites to die, and, slaughtered, pour
His blood to Bebryx, or to satiate
Libyan palæstras, or assume new forms;
25 By virtue of Circæan cups, than lose
His outraged sex in Sodom. At heaven’s gate
There knocked for vengeance marriages commit
With equal incest common ’mong a race
By nature rebels ’gainst
themselves; The expression,
“sinners against their own souls,” in
30 Done to man’s name and person equally.
But God, forewatching all things, at fix’d time
Doth judge the unjust; with patience tarrying
The hour when crime’s ripe age—not any force
Of wrath impetuous—shall have circumscribed
35 The space for waiting. Whether the
above be the sense of this most obscure triplet I will not presume to
determine. It is at least (I hope) intelligible
sense. But that the reader may judge for himself whether he can
offer any better, I subjoin the lines, which form a sentence alone, and
therefore can be judged of without their context:— “Tempore sed certo Deus omnia
prospectulatus, Judicat injustos, patiens ubi criminis
ætas Cessandi spatium vis nulla coëgerit
iræ.”
Now at length the day
Of vengeance was at hand. Sent from the host
Angelical, two, youths in form, who both
Were ministering spirits, Comp.
The Lord’s divine commissions, come beneath
40 The walls of Sodom. There was dwelling Lot
A transplantation from a pious stock;
He was the only one to think on God:
As oft a fruitful tree is wont to lurk,
45 Guest-like, in forests wild. He, sitting then
Before the gate (for the celestials scarce
Had reached the ramparts), though he knew not them
Divine,
“Divinos;” i.e., apparently “superhuman,”
as everything heavenly is.
Invites, and with ancestral honour greets;
50 And offers them, preparing to abide
Abroad, a hospice. By repeated prayers
He wins them; and then ranges studiously
The sacred pledges Of
hospitality—bread and salt, etc.
“Mensa;” but perhaps
“mensæ” may be suggested—“the sacred
pledges of the board.”
“Dispungit,” which is the only verb in the sentence, and
refers both to pia pignora and to amicos. I use
“quit” in the sense in which we speak of “quitting a
debtor,” i.e., giving him his full due; but the two lines are
very hard, and present (as in the case of those before quoted) a jumble
of words without grammar; “pia pignora mensa Officiisque probis
studio dispungit amicos;” which may be somewhat more literally
rendered than in our text, thus: “he zealously
discharges” (i.e., fulfils) “his sacred pledges”
(i.e., the promised hospitality which he had offered them) “with
(a generous) board, and discharges” (i.e., fulfils his
obligations to) “his friends with honourable
courtesies.”
His friends with courteous offices. The night
55 Had brought repose:
alternate Altera =alterna. But the statement differs from
The night, and Sodom with her shameful law
Makes uproar at the doors. Lot, suppliant wise,
Withstands: “Young men, let not your new fed lust
Enkindle you to violate this youth! “Istam
juventam,” i.e., the two “juvenes” (
60 Whither is passion’s seed inviting you?
To what vain end your lust? For such an end
No creatures wed: not such as haunt the fens;
Not stall-fed cattle; not the gaping brood
Subaqueous; nor they which, modulant
65 On pinions, hang suspended near the clouds;
Nor they which with forth-stretched body creep
Over earth’s face. To conjugal delight
Each kind its kind doth owe: but female still
To all is wife; nor is there one that has
70 A mother save a female one. Yet now,
If youthful vigour holds it right “Fas” =ὅσιον, morally right;
distinct from “jus” or “licitum.”
The flower of modesty, I have within
Two daughters of a nuptial age, in whom
Virginity is swelling in its bloom,
75 Already ripe for harvest—a desire
Worthy of men—which let your pleasure reap!
Myself their sire, I yield them; and will pay
For my guests’ sake, the forfeit of my grief!”
Answered the mob insane: “And who art thou?
80 And what? and whence? to lord it over us,
And to expound us laws? Shall foreigner
Rule Sodom, and hurl threats? Now, then, thyself
For daughters and for guests shalt sate our greed!
One shall suffice for all!” So said, so done:
85 The frantic mob delays not. As, whene’er
A turbid torrent rolls with wintry tide,
And rushes at one speed through countless streams
Of rivers, if, just where it forks, some tree
Meets the swift waves (not long to stand, save while
90 By her root’s force she shall avail to oppose
Her tufty obstacles), when gradually
Her hold upon the undermined soil
Is failing, with her bared stem she hangs,
And, with uncertain heavings to and fro,
95 Defers her certain fall; not otherwise
Lot in the mid-whirl of the dizzy mob
Kept nodding, now almost o’ercome. But power
Divine brings succour: the angelic youths,
Snatching him from the threshold, to his roof
100 Restore him; but upon the spot they mulct
Of sight the mob insane in open day,—
Fit augury of coming penalties!
Then they unlock the just decrees of God:
That penalty condign from heaven will fall
105 On Sodom; that himself had merited
Safety upon the count of righteousness.
“Gird thee, then, up to hasten hence thy flight,
And with thee to lead out what family
Thou hast: already we are bringing on
110 Destruction o’er the city.” Lot with speed
Speaks to his sons-in-law; but their hard heart
Scorned to believe the warning, and at fear
Laughed. At what time the light attempts to climb
The darkness, and heaven’s face wears double hue
115 From night and day, the youthful visitants
Were instant to outlead from Sodoma
The race Chaldæan, i.e., Lot’s race
or family, which had come from “Ur of the Chaldees.”
See
Consign to safety: “Ho! come, Lot! arise,
And take thy yokefellow and daughters twain,
120 And hence, beyond the boundaries be gone,
Preventing I use
“preventing” in its now unusual sense of
“anticipating the arrival of.”
With friendly hands they lead them trembling forth,
And then their final mandates give: “Save, Lot,
Thy life, lest thou perchance should will to turn
125 Thy retroverted gaze behind, or stay
The step once taken: to the mountain speed!”
Lest the celestial wrath-fires should o’ertake
And whelm him: therefore he essays to crave
130 Some other ports; a city small, to wit,
Which opposite he had espied. “Hereto,”
He said, “I speed my flight: scarce with its walls
’Tis visible; nor is it far, nor great.”
They, favouring his prayer, safety assured
135 To him and to the city; whence the spot
Is known in speech barbaric by the name
Segor. Σηγώρ in the LXX.,
“Zoar” in Eng. ver.
Is rising, “Simul
exoritur sol.” But both the LXX. and the Eng.
ver. say the sun was risen when Lot entered the city.
To Sodom conflagration; for his rays
140 He had armed all with fire: beneath him spreads
An emulous gloom, which seeks to intercept
The light; and clouds combine to interweave
Their smoky globes with the confused sky:
Down pours a novel shower: the ether seethes
145 With sulphur mixt with blazing
flames: So Oehler and Migne. But perhaps we
may alter the pointing slightly, and read:— “Down pours a novel shower, sulphur mixt With blazing flames: the ether seethes: the
air Crackles with liquid exust.”
Crackles with liquid heats exust. From hence
The fable has an echo of the truth
Amid its false, that the sun’s progeny
Would drive his father’s team; but nought availed
150 The giddy boy to curb the haughty steeds
Of fire: so blazed our orb: then lightning reft
The lawless charioteer, and bitter plaint
Transformed his sisters. Let Eridanus
See to it, if one poplar on his banks
155 Whitens, or any bird dons plumage there
Whose note old age makes mellow! The story of
Phaëthon and his fate is told in Ov., Met., ii.
1–399, which may be compared with the present piece. His
two sisters were transformed into white poplars, according to some;
alders, according to others. See Virg., Æn., x. 190
sqq., Ec., vi. 62 sqq. His half-brother (Cycnus or Cygnus)
was turned into a swan: and the scene of these transformations is
laid by Ovid on the banks of the Eridanus (the Po). But the fable
is variously told; and it has been suggested that the groundwork of it
is to be found rather in the still-standing of the sun recorded in
Joshua.
Here they mourn
O’er miracles of metamorphosis
Of other sort. For, partner of Lot’s flight,
His wife (ah me, for woman! even then i.e., as she had been
before in the case of Eve. See
160 Intolerant of law!) alone turned back
At the unearthly murmurs of the sky)
Her daring eyes, but bootlessly: not doomed
To utter what she saw! and then and there
Changed into brittle salt, herself her tomb
165 She stood, herself an image of herself,
Keeping an incorporeal form: and still
In her unsheltered station ’neath the heaven
Dures she, by rains unmelted, by decay
And winds unwasted; nay, if some strange hand
170 Deface her form, forthwith from her own store
Her wounds she doth repair. Still is she said
To live, and, ’mid her corporal change, discharge
With wonted blood her sex’s monthly dues.
Gone are the men of Sodom; gone the glare
175 Of their unhallowed ramparts; all the house
Inhospitable, with its lords, is gone:
The champaign is one pyre; here embers rough
And black, here ash-heaps with hoar mould, mark out
The conflagration’s course: evanished
180 Is all that old fertility I have hazarded the bold
conjecture—which I see others (Pamelius at all events) had
hazarded before me—that “feritas” is used by our
author as ="fertilitas.” The word, of course, is very
incorrectly formed etymologically; but etymology is not our
author’s forte apparently. It will also be
seen that there is seemingly a gap at this point, or else some enormous
mistake, in the mss. An attempt has been
made (see Migne) to correct it, but not a very satisfactory one.
For the common reading, which gives two lines, “Occidit illa prior feritas, quam prospiciens
Loth Nullus arat frustra piceas fuligine glebas,” which are evidently entirely unconnected with one another, it is
proposed to read, “Occidit illa prior feritas, quam prospiciens
Loth, Deseruisse pii fertur commercia fratris. Nullas arat,” etc. This use of “fratris” in a wide
sense may be justified from
Seeing outspread before him,…
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
No ploughman spends his fruitless toil on glebes
Pitchy with soot: or if some acres there,
But half consumed, still strive to emulate
185 Autumn’s glad wealth, pears, peaches, and all fruits
Promise themselves full easely This use of
“easely” as a dissyllable is justifiable from Spenser.
In fairest bloom, until the plucker’s hand
Is on them: then forthwith the seeming fruit
Crumbles to dust ’neath the bewraying touch,
190 And turns to embers vain.
Thus, therefore (sky
And earth entombed alike), not e’en the sea
Lives there: the quiet of that quiet sea
Is death! This seems to be the
sense, but the Latin is somewhat strange: “mors est maris
illa quieti,” i.e., illa (quies) maris quieti mors est. The
opening lines of “Jonah” (above) should be compared with
this passage and its context.
Through its anhealant volumes; which beneath
Which cannot from its depths one scaly race,
Or with smooth skin or cork-like fence encased,
Produce, or curled shell in single valve
Or double fold enclosed. Bitumen there
200 (The sooty reek of sea exust) alone,
With its own crop, a spurious harvest yields;
Which ’neath the stagnant surface vivid heat
From seething mass of sulphur and of brine
Maturing tempers, making earth cohere
205 Into a pitch marine. Inque picem dat
terræ hærere marinam.
The heated water’s fatty ooze is borne
Up to the surface; and with foamy flakes
Over the level top a tawny skin
Is woven. They whose function is to catch
210 That ware put to, tilting their smooth skin down
With balance of their sides, to teach the film,
Once o’er the gunnel, to float in: for, lo!
Raising itself spontaneous, it will swim
Up to the edge of the unmoving craft;
215 And will, when pressed, “Pressum”
(Oehler); “pretium” (Migne): “it will yield a
prize, namely, that,” etc.
Immunity from the defiling touch
Of weft which female monthly efflux clothes.
Behold another portent notable,
Fruit of that sea’s disaster: all things cast
220 Therein do swim: gone is its native power
For sinking bodies: if, in fine, you launch
A torch’s lightsome Luciferam.
For fire) therein, the apex of the flame
Will act as sail; put out the flame, and ’neath
225 The waters will the light’s wrecks ruin go!
Such Sodom’s and Gomorrah’s penalties,
For ages sealed as signs before the eyes
Of unjust nations, whose obdurate hearts
God’s fear have quite forsaken, Oehler’s
pointing is disregarded.
230 To reverence heaven-sanctioned
rights, “De cælo
jura tueri;” possibly “to look for laws from
heaven.”
Their gaze unto one only Lord of all.
————————————
3. Genesis.
(Author Uncertain.)
In the beginning did the Lord create
The heaven and earth: Terram. Tellus.
And hidden by the wave, and God immense Immensus. See
note on the word in the fragment “Concerning the Cursing of the
Heathen’s Gods.”
O’er the vast watery plains was hovering,
5 While chaos and black darkness shrouded all:
Which darkness, when God bade be from the
pole Cardine.
Disjoined, He speaks, “Let there be light;” and all
In the clear world Mundo.
The first day’s work had finished, He formed
10 Heaven’s axis white with nascent clouds: the deep
Immense receives its wandering
“Errantia;” so called, probably, either because they appear
to move as ships pass them, or because they may be said to
“wander” by reason of the constant change which they
undergo from the action of the sea, and because of the shifting nature
of their sands.
The rivers manifold with mighty trains.
The third dun light unveiled
earth’s Terrarum.
(Its name assigned “God called the
dry land Earth:”
15 Together on the windy champaigns rise
The flowery seeds, and simultaneously
Fruit-bearing boughs put forth procurvant arms.
The fourth day, with i.e., “together
with;” it begets both sun and moon.
The moon, and moulds the stars with tremulous light
20 Radiant: these elements it i.e., “the
fourth day.”
To th’ underlying world, Mundo.
Which, through their rise and setting, were to change.
Then, on the fifth, the liquid Or,
“lucid”—liquentia.
Their fish, and birds poise in the lower air
25 Their pinions many-hued. The sixth, again,
And over the whole fields diffuses herds
Of quadrupeds; and mandate gave that all
Should grow with multiplying seed, and roam
30 And feed in earth’s immensity.
All these
When power divine by mere command arranged,
Observing that things mundane still would lack
A ruler, thus It i.e., “Power
Divine.”
Assimilated to our own aspect, So Milton and
Shakespeare.
35 Make We a man to reign in the whole orb.”
And him, although He with a single word As (see above, l. 31)
He had all other things.
Could have compounded, yet Himself did deign
To shape him with His sacred own right hand,
Inspiring his dull breast from breast divine.
40 Whom when He saw formed in a likeness such
As is His own, He measures how he broods
Alone on gnawing cares. Straight way his eyes
With sleep irriguous He doth perfuse;
That from his left rib woman softlier
45 May formed be, and that by mixture twin
His substance may add firmness to her limbs.
To her the name of “Life”—which
is called “Eve” See
Is given: wherefore sons, as custom is,
Their parents leave, and, with a settled home,
50 Cleave to their wives.
The seventh came, when God
At His works’ end did rest, decreeing it
Sacred unto the coming ages’ joys.
Straightway—the crowds of living things deployed
Before him—Adam’s cunning skill (the gift
55 Of the good Lord) gives severally to all
The name which still is permanent. Himself,
And, joined with him, his Eve, God deigns address
“Grow, for the times to come, with manifold
Increase, that with your seed the pole and
earth Terræ.
60 Be filled; and, as Mine heirs, the varied fruits
Pluck ye, which groves and champaigns render you,
From their rich turf.” Thus after He discoursed,
In gladsome court The “gladsome
court”—“læta aula”—seems to
mean Eden, in which the garden is said to have been
planted. See
And looks towards the rays of th’ early
sun. i.e., eastward.
See the last reference.
65 These joys among, a tree with deadly fruits,
Breeding, conjoined, the taste of life and death,
Arises. In the midst of the demesne Ædibus in
mediis.
Flows with pure tide a stream, which irrigates
Fair offsprings from its liquid waves, and cuts
70 Quadrified paths from out its bubbling fount
Here wealthy Phison, with auriferous waves,
Swells, and with hoarse tide wears Terit. So
This prasinus, “Onyx,”
Eng. ver. See the following piece, l. 277.
“Bdellium,” Eng. Ver.; ἄνθραξ, LXX.
By name; and raves, transparent in its shoals,
75 The margin of the land of Havilath.
Next Gihon, gliding by the Æthiops,
Enriches them. The Tigris is the third,
Adjoined to fair Euphrates, furrowing
Disjunctively with rapid flood the land
80 Of Asshur. Adam, with his faithful wife,
Placed here as guard and workman, is informed
By such the Thunderer’s Comp.
To pluck together the permitted fruits
Which, with its leafy bough, the unshorn grove
85 Hath furnished; anxious only lest perchance
Ye cull the hurtful apple, Malum.
With a twin juice for functions several.”
And, no less blind meantime than Night herself,
Deep night ’gan hold them, nor had e’en a robe
90 Covered their new-formed limbs.
Amid these haunts,
And on mild berries reared, a foamy snake,
Surpassing living things in sense astute,
Was creeping silently with chilly coils.
He, brooding over envious lies instinct
95 With gnawing sense, tempts the soft heart beneath
The woman’s breast: “Tell me, why shouldst thou dread
The apple’s Mali.
All known fruits hallowed? “Numquid poma
Deus non omnia nota sacravit?”
To cull the honeyed fruits, the golden
world Mundus.
100 Will on its starry pole
return.” The writer, supposing
it to be night (see 88, 89), seems to mean that the serpent hinted that
the fruit would instantly dispel night and restore day. Compare
the ensuing lines.
Refuses, and the boughs forbidden fears
To touch. But yet her breast ’gins be o’er come
With snowy tooth the dainty morsels bit,
105 Stained with no cloud the sky serene up-lit!
Then taste, instilling lure in honeyed jaws,
To her yet uninitiated lord
Constrained her to present the gift; which he
No sooner took, then—night effaced!:—their eyes
110 Shone out serene in the resplendent
world. Mundo.
When, then, they each their body bare espied,
And when their shameful parts they see, with leaves
Of fig they shadow them.
By chance, beneath
The sun’s now setting light, they recognise
115 The sound of the Lord’s voice, and, trembling, haste
To bypaths. Then the Lord of heaven accosts
The mournful Adam: “Say, where now thou art.”
Who suppliant thus answers: “Thine address,
O Lord, O Mighty One, I tremble at,
120 Beneath my fearful heart; and, being bare,
I faint with chilly dread.” Then said the Lord:
“Who hath the hurtful fruits, then, given you?”
“This woman, while she tells me how her eyes
With brilliant day promptly perfused were,
125 And on her dawned the liquid sky serene,
And heaven’s sun and stars, o’ergave them me!”
Forthwith God’s anger frights perturbed Eve,
While the Most High inquires the authorship
Of the forbidden act. Hereon she opes
130 Her tale: “The speaking serpent’s suasive words
I harboured, while the guile and bland request
Misled me: for, with venoms viperous
His words inweaving, stories told he me
Of those delights which should all fruits excel.”
135 Straightway the Omnipotent the dragon’s deeds
Condemns, and bids him be to all a sight
Unsightly, monstrous; bids him presently
With grovelling beast to crawl; and then to bite
And chew the soil; while war should to all time
140 ’Twixt human senses and his tottering self
Be waged, that he might creep, crestfallen, prone,
Behind the legs of men, Virorum.
Close on their heels they may down-trample him.
The woman, sadly caught by guileful words,
145 Is bidden yield her fruit with struggle hard,
And bear her husband’s yoke with patient
zeal. “Servitiumque
sui studio perferre mariti;” or, perhaps, “and drudge in
patience at her husband’s beck.”
“But thou, to whom the sentence
“Sententia:” her sentence, or opinion, as to the
fruit and its effects.
(Who, vanquished, to the dragon pitiless
Yielded) seemed true, shalt through long times deplore
150 Thy labour sad; for thou shalt see, instead
Of wheaten harvest’s seed, the thistle rise,
And the thorn plenteously with pointed spines:
So that, with weary heart and mournful breast,
Full many sighs shall furnish anxious
food; Or, “That with heart-weariness and mournful breast Full many sighs may furnish anxious
food.”
155 Till, in the setting hour of coming death,
To level earth, whence thou thy body draw’st,
Thou be restored.” This done, the Lord bestows
Upon the trembling pair a tedious life;
And from the sacred gardens far removes
160 Them downcast, and locates them opposite,
And from the threshold bars them by mid fire,
Wherein from out the swift heat is evolved
A cherubim, The writer makes
“cherubim”—or
“cherubin”—singular. I have therefore retained
his mistake. What the “hot
point”—“calidus apex”—is, is not
clear. It may be an allusion to the “flaming sword”
(see
And rolls enfolding flames. And lest their limbs
165 With sluggish cold should be benumbed, the Lord
Hides flayed from cattle’s flesh together sews,
With vestures warm their bare limbs covering.
When, therefore, Adam—now believing—felt
(By wedlock taught) his manhood, he confers
170 On his loved wife the mother’s name; and, made
Successively by scions twain a sire,
Gives names to stocks Or,
“origins”—“orsis”—because Cain and
Abel were original types, as it were, of two separate classes of
men.
Hath for his name, to whom is Abel joined.
The latter’s care tended the harmless sheep;
175 The other turned the earth with curved plough.
“Perpetuo;” “in process of time,” Eng. ver.;
μεθ᾽
ἡμέρας, LXX. in
To Him who thunders, offered—as their sense
Prompted them—fruits unlike. The elder one
Offered the first-fruits Quæ prosata
fuerant. But, as Wordsworth remarks on
180 The other pays his vows with gentle lamb,
Bearing in hand the entrails pure, and fat
Snow-white; and to the Lord, who pious vows
Beholds, is instantly acceptable.
Wherefore with anger cold did Cain glow; Quod propter gelida
Cain incanduit ira. If this, which is Oehler’s and
Migne’s reading, be correct, the words gelida and
incanduit seem to be intentionally contrasted, unless
incandescere be used here in a supposed sense of “growing
white,” “turning pale.” Urere is used in
Latin of heat and cold indifferently. Calida would, of
course, be a ready emendation; but gelida has the advantage of
being far more startling.
185 With whom God deigns to talk, and thus begins:
“Tell Me, if thou live rightly, and discern
Things hurtful, couldst thou not then pass thine age
Pure from contracted guilt? Cease to essay
With gnawing sense thy brother’s ruin, who,
190 Subject to thee as lord, his neck shall yield.”
Not e’en thus softened, he unto the fields
Conducts his brother; whom when overta’en
In lonely mead he saw, with his twin palms
Bruising his pious throat, he crushed life out.
195 Which deed the Lord espying from high heaven,
Straitly demands “where Abel is on earth? ”
He says “he will not as his brother’s guard
Be set.” Then God outspeaks to him again:
“Doth not the sound of his blood’s voice, sent up
200 To Me, ascend unto heaven’s lofty pole?
Learn, therefore, for so great a crime what doom
Shall wait thee. Earth, which with thy kinsman’s blood
Hath reeked but now, shall to thy hateful hand
Refuse to render back the cursed seeds
205 Entrusted her; nor shall, if set with herbs,
Produce her fruit: that, torpid, thou shalt dash
Thy limbs against each other with much fear.”……
————————————
4. A Strain of the Judgment of the Lord.
(Author Uncertain.) The reader is
requested to bear in mind, in reading this piece, tedious in its
elaborate struggles after effect, that the constant repetitions of
words and expressions with which his patience will be tried, are due to
the original. It was irksome to reproduce them; but fidelity is a
translator’s first law.
Who will for me in fitting strain adapt
Field-haunting muses? and with flowers will grace
The spring-tide’s rosy gales? And who will give
The summer harvest’s heavy stalks mature?
5 And to the autumn’s vines their swollen grapes?
Or who in winter’s honour will commend
The olives, ever-peaceful? and will ope
Waters renewed, even at their fountainheads?
And cut from waving grass the leafy flowers?
10 Forthwith the breezes of celestial light
I will attune. Now be it granted me
To meet the lightsome Luciferas.
The secret rivers on the fluvial top
Of Helicon, Helicon is not named
in the original, but it seems to be meant.
15 ’Neath other star. i.e., in another clime
or continent. The writer is (or feigns to be) an African.
Helicon, of course, is in Europe.
I will attune in song the eternal flames;
Whence the sea fluctuates with wave immense:
What power Virtus.
And whence the golden light first shot its rays
20 On the new world; or who from gladsome clay
Could man have moulded; whence in empty
world Sæculo.
Our race could have upgrown; and what the greed
Of living which each people so inspires;
What things for ill created are; or what
25 Death’s propagation; whence have rosy wreaths
Sweet smell and ruddy hue; what makes the vine
Ferment in gladsome grapes away; and makes
Full granaries by fruit of slender stalks
distended be; or makes the tree grow ripe
Their increments of vigour various;
And with her young’s soft shadowings protects
The mother. Good it is all things to know
Which wondrous are in nature, that it may
35 Be granted us to recognise through all
The true Lord, who light, seas, sky, earth prepared,
And decked with varied star the new-made
world; Mundum.
And first bade beasts and birds to issue forth;
And gave the ocean’s waters to be stocked
40 With fish; and gathered in a mass the sands,
With living creatures fertilized. Such strains
With stately Compositis.
Healthful will from their fountainheads disclose:
And may this strain of mine the gladsome shower
45 Catch, which from placid clouds doth come, and flows
Deeply and all unsought into men’s souls,
And guide it into our new-fumed lands
In copious rills. I have endeavoured to
give some intelligible sense to these lines; but the absence of syntax
in the original, as it now stands, makes it necessary to guess at the
meaning as best one may.
Now come: if any one
Still ignorant of God, and knowing naught
50 Of life to come, Venturi ævi.
The care-effacing living nymph, and through
The swift waves’ virtue his lost life repair,
And ’scape the penalties of flame
eterne, “But in them
nature’s copy’s not
eterne.”—Shakespeare, Macbeth, act iii.
scene 2.
And rather win the guerdons of the life
55 To come, let such remember God is One,
Alone the object of our prayers; who ’neath
His threshold hath the whole world poised; Himself
Eternally abiding, and to be
Alway for aye; holding the ages Sæcula.
60 Alone, before all ages; Sæcula.
Limitless God; who holds alone His seat
Supernal; supereminent alone
Above high heavens; omnipotent alone;
Whom all things do obey; who for Himself
65 Formed, when it pleased Him, man for aye; and gave
Him to be pastor of beasts tame, and lord
Of wild; who by a word Sermone
tenus: i.e., the exertion (so to speak) needed to do such
mighty works only extended to the uttering of a speech; no more was
requisite. See for a similar allusion to the contrast between the
making of other things and the making of man, the
“Genesis,” 30–39.
And with a word could solid earth suspend;
And quicklier than word Dicto.
70 Disjoined; i.e., from the solid
mass of earth. See
Did love to mould; and furthermore did will
His own fair likeness Faciem.
And by His Spirit on his countenance
The breath “Auram,”
or “breeze.”
Unmindful he
75 Of God, such guilt rashly t’ incur! Beyond
The warning’s range he was not ought to
touch. “Immemor ille Dei temere committere
tale! Non ultra monitum quidquam
contingeret.” Whether I have hit the sense here I know
not. In this and in other passages I have punctuated for
myself.
One fruit illicit, whence he was to know
Forthwith how to discriminate alike
Evil and equity, God him forbade
80 To touch. What functions of the
world Munera mundi.
Permit to man, and sealed the sweet sweet pledge
Of His own love! and jurisdiction gave
O’er birds, and granted him both deep and soil
To tame, and mandates useful did impart
85 Of dear salvation! ’Neath his sway He gave
The lands, the souls of flying things, the race
Feathered, and every race, or tame or wild,
Of beasts, and the sea’s race, and monsterforms
Shapeless of swimming things. But since so soon
90 The primal man by primal crime transgressed
The law, and left the mandates of the Lord
(Led by a wife who counselled all the ills),
By death he ’gan to perish. Woman ’twas
Who sin’s first ill committed, and (the law
95 Transgressed) deceived her husband. Eve, induced
By guile, the thresholds oped to death, and proved
To her own self, with her whole race as well,
A procreatrix of funereal woes.
Hence unanticipated wickedness,
100 Hence death, like seed, for aye, is scattered. Then
More frequent grew atrocious deed; and toil
More savage set the corrupt orb astir:
(This lure the crafty serpent spread, inspired
By envy’s self:) then peoples more invent
105 Practices of ill deeds; and by ill deeds
Gave birth to seeds of wickedness.
And so
The only Lord, whose is the power supreme.
Supreme, and in exalted regions dwells
110 In lofty light for ages, mindful too
Of present time, and of futurity
Prescient beforehand, keeps the progeny
Of ill-desert, and all the souls which move
By reason’s force much-erring man—nor less
115 Their tardy bodies governs He—against
The age decreed, so soon as, stretched in death,
Men lay aside their ponderous limbs, and light
As air, shall go, their earthly bonds undone,
And take in diverse parts their proper spheres
120 (But some He bids be forthwith by glad gales
Recalled to life, and be in secret kept
To wait the decreed law’s awards, until
Their bodies with resuscitated limbs
Revive. These lines,
again, are but a guess at the meaning of the original, which is as
obscure as defiance of grammar can well make it. The sense seems
to be, in brief, that while the vast majority are, immediately on their
death, shut up in Hades to await the “decreed age,” i.e.,
the day of judgment, some, like the children raised by Elijah and
Elisha, the man who revived on touching Elisha’s bones, and the
like, are raised to die again. Lower down it will be seen
that the writer believes that the saints who came out of their graves
after our Lord’s resurrection (see
125 Of their first life, and on their crime and faults
To think, and keep them for their penalties
Which will be far from death; and mindful grow
Of pious duties, by God’s judgments taught;
To wait expectant for their penalty
130 And their descendants’, fruit of their own crime;
Or else to live wholly the life of sheep, Cf.
Without a name; and in God’s ear, now deaf,
Pour unavailing weeping. Shall not God
Almighty, ’neath whose law are all things ruled,
135 Be able after death life to restore?
Or is there ought which the creation’s Lord
Unable seems to do? If, darkness chased,
He could outstretch the light, and could compound
All the world’s mass by a word suddenly,
140 And raise by potent voice all things from nought,
Why out of somewhat i.e., the dust into
which our bodies turn.
The well-known shape which erst had been, which He
Had moulded formerly; and bid the form
Arise assimilated to Himself
145 Again? Since God’s are all things, earth the more
Gives Him all back; for she will, when He bids,
Unweave whate’er she woven had before.
If one, perhaps, laid on sepulchral pyre,
The flame consumed; or one in its blind waves
150 The ocean have dismembered; if of one
The entrails have, in hunger, satisfied
The fishes; or on any’s limbs wild beasts
Have fastened cruel death; or any’s blood,
His body reft by birds, unhid have lain:
155 Yet shall they not wrest from the mighty Lord
His latest dues. Need is that men appear
Quickened from death ’fore God, and at His bar
Stand in their shapes resumed. Thus arid seeds
Are drops into the vacant lands, and deep
160 In the fixt furrows die and rot: and hence
Is not their surface i.e., the surface or
ridge of the furrows.
With stalks repaired? and do they i.e., the furrows.
And yellow with the living grains? and, rich
With various usury, “Some
thirty-fold, some sixty-fold, some an hundred-fold.” See
the parable of the sower.
165 In mass? The stars all set, and, born again,
Renew their sheen; and day dies with its light
Lost in dense night; and now night wanes herself
As light unveils creation presently;
And now another and another day
170 Rises from its own stars; and the sun sets,
Bright as it is with splendour—bearing light;
Light perishes when by the coming eve
The world Mundo.
By her own soot Fuligine.
175 Rises, again a bird, O wondrous sight!
After her burnings! The bare tree in time
Shoots with her leaves; and once more are her boughs
Curved by the germen of the fruits.
While then
The world Mundo.
180 And deeply moved are the high
air’s powers, Virtutibus.
Perhaps the allusion is to
Then comes a crash unwonted, then ensue
Heaven’s mightiest murmurs, on the approach of God,
The whole world’s Mundi.
Forthwith conjoin their rushing march, and God
Angelic bands will from the heaven descend
To earth; all, God’s host, whose is faculty
Divine; in form and visage spirits all
Of virtue: in them fiery vigour is;
190 Rutilant are their bodies; heaven’s might
Divine about them flashes; the whole orb
Hence murmurs; and earth, trembling to her depths
(Or whatsoe’er her bulk is Vel quanta est.
If this be the right sense, the words are probably inserted, because
the conflagration of “the earth and the works that are
therein” predicted in
The roar, parturient of men, whom she,
195 Being bidden, will with grief
upyield. I have ventured to
alter one letter of the Latin; and for “quos reddere jussa
docebit,” read “quos reddere jussa
dolebit.” If the common reading be retained, the
only possible meaning seems to be “whom she will teach to render
(to God) His commands,” i.e., to render obedience to them; or
else, “to render (to God) what they are bidden to render,”
i.e., an account of themselves; and earth, as their mother, giving them
birth out of her womb, is said to teach them to do this. But the
emendation, which is at all events simple, seems to give a better
sense: “being bidden to render the dead, whom she is
keeping, up, earth will grieve at the throes it causes her, but will do
it.”
In wonderment. At last disturbed are
The clouds, and the stars move and quake from height
Of sudden power. Subitæ virtutis
ab alto.
Of potent sound, at once throughout all realms
200 The sepulchres are burst, and every ground
Outpours bones from wide chasms, and opening sand
Outbelches living peoples; to the hair Comis, here “the
heads.”
The members cleave; the bones inwoven are
With marrow; the entwined sinews rule
205 The breathing bodies; and the veins ’gin throb
With simultaneously infused blood:
And, from their caves dismissed, to open day
Souls are restored, and seek to find again
Each its own organs, as at their own place
210 They rise. O wondrous faith! Hence every age
Shoots forth; forth shoots from ancient dust the host
Of dead. Regaining light, there rise again
Mothers, and sires, and high-souled youths, and boys,
And maids unwedded; and deceased old men
215 Stand by with living souls; and with the cries
Of babes the groaning orb resounds. This passage is
imitated from Virgil, Æn., vi. 305 sqq.; Georg., iv.
475 sqq.
Various from their lowest seats will come:
Bands of the Easterns; those which earth’s extreme
Sees; those which dwell in the downsloping clime
220 Of the mid-world, and hold the frosty star’s
Riphæan citadels. Every colonist
Of every land stands frighted here: the boor;
The son of Atreus i.e., “the
king.” The “Atridæ” of Homer are referred
to,—Agamemnon “king of men,” and Menelaus.
Of royalty put off; the rich man mixt
225 Coequally in line with pauper peers.
Deep tremor everywhere: then groans the orb
With prayers; and peoples stretching forth their hands
Grow stupid with the din!
The Lord Himself
Seated, is bright with light sublime; and fire
230 Potent in all the Virtues Or,
“Powers.”
And on His high-raised throne the Heavenly One
Coruscates from His seat; with martyrs hemmed
(A dazzling troop of men), and by His seers
Elect accompanied (whose bodies bright
235 Effulgent are with snowy stoles), He towers
Above them. And now priests in lustrous robes
Attend, who wear upon their marked Insigni. The
allusion seems to be to
Wreaths golden-red; and all submissive kneel
And reverently adore. The cry of all
240 Is one: “O Holy, Holy Holy, God!”
To these I have corrected
“his” for “hic.” If the
latter be retained, it would seem to mean
“hereon.”
The people in twin lines; and orders them
To set apart by number the depraved;
While such as have His biddings followed
245 With placid words He calls, and bids them, clad
With vigour—death quite conquered—ever dwell
Amid light’s inextinguishable airs,
Stroll through the ancients’ ever blooming realm,
Through promised wealth, through ever sunny swards,
250 And in bright body spend perpetual life.
A place there is, beloved of the Lord,
In Eastern coasts, where light is bright and clear,
And healthier blows the breeze; day is eterne,
Time changeless: ’tis a region set apart
255 By God, most rich in plains, and passing blest,
Cardine, i.e.,
the hinge as it were upon which the sun turns in his
course.
There gladsome the air, and is in light
Ever to be; soft is the wind, and breathes
Life-giving blasts; earth, fruitful with a soil
260 Luxuriant, bears all things; in the meads
Flowers shed their fragrance; and upon the plains
The purple—not in envy—mingles all
With golden-ruddy light. One gladsome flower,
With its own lustre clad, another clothes;
265 And here with many a seed the dewy fields
Are dappled, and the snowy tilths are crisped
With rosy flowers. No region happier
Is known in other spots; none which in look
Is fairer, or in honour more excels.
270 Never in flowery gardens are there born
Such lilies, nor do such upon our plains
Outbloom; nor does the rose so blush, what time,
New-born, ’tis opened by the breeze; nor is
The purple with such hue by Tyrian dye
275 Imbued. With coloured pebbles beauteous gleams
The gem: here shines the prasinus; See the
“Genesis,” 73.
The carbuncle; and giant-emerald
Is green with grassy light. Here too are born
The cinnamons, with odoriferous twigs;
280 And with dense leaf gladsome amomum joins
Its fragrance. Here, a native, lies the gold
Of radiant sheen; and lofty groves reach heaven
In blooming time, and germens fruitfullest
Burden the living boughs. No glades like these
285 Hath Ind herself forth-stretcht; no tops so dense
Rears on her mount the pine; nor with a shade
So lofty-leaved is her cypress crisped;
Nor better in its season blooms her bough
In spring-tide. Here black firs on lofty peak
290 Bloom; and the only woods that know no hail
Are green eternally: no foliage falls;
At no time fails the flower. There, too, there blooms
A flower as red as Tarsine purple is:
A rose, I ween, it is (red hue it has,
295 An odour keen); such aspect on its leaves
It wears, such odour breathes. A tree
it Or,
“there.” The question is, whether a different tree is
meant, or the rose just spoken of.
With a new flower, fairest in fruits; a crop
Life-giving, dense, its happy strength does yield.
Rich honies with green cane their fragrance join,
300 And milk flows potable in runners full;
And with whate’er that sacred earth is green,
It all breathes life; and there Crete’s
healing gift This seems to be
marshmallows.
Is sweetly redolent. There, with smooth tide,
Flows in the placid plains a fount: four floods
305 Thence water parted lands. Here again it is plain
that the writer is drawing his description from what we read of the
garden of Eden.
With flowers, I wot, keeps ever spring; no cold
Of wintry star varies the breeze; and earth,
After her birth-throes, with a kindlier blast
Repairs. Night there is none; the stars maintain
310 Their darkness; angers, envies, and dire greed
Are absent; and out-shut is fear, and cares
Driven from the threshold. Here the Evil One
Is homeless; he is into worthy courts
Out-gone, nor is’t e’er granted him to touch
315 The glades forbidden. But here ancient faith
Rests in elect abode; and life here treads,
Joying in an eternal covenant;
And health “Salus,”
health (probably) in its widest sense, both bodily and mental; or
perhaps “safety,” “salvation.”
In placid tilths, ever to live and be
320 Ever in light.
Here whosoe’er hath lived
Pious, and cultivant of equity
And goodness; who hath feared the thundering God
With mind sincere; with sacred duteousness
Tended his parents; and his other life Reliquam vitam,
i.e., apparently his life in all other relations; unless it mean his
life after his parents’ death, which seems less
likely.
325 Spent ever crimeless; or who hath consoled
With faithful help a friend in indigence;
Succoured the over-toiling needy one,
As orphans’ patron, and the poor man’s aid;
Rescued the innocent, and succoured them
330 When press with accusation; hath to guests
His ample table’s pledges given; hath done
All things divinely; pious offices
Enjoined; done hurt to none; ne’er coveted
Another’s: such as these, exulting all
335 In divine praises, and themselves at once
Exhorting, raise their voices to the stars;
Thanksgivings to the Lord in joyous wise
They psalming celebrate; and they shall go
340 When ended hath the Lord these happy gifts,
And likewise sent away to realms eterne
The just, then comes a pitiable crowd
Wailing its crimes; with parching tears it pours
All groans effusely, and attests i.e.,
“appeals to.” So Burke: “I attest
the former, I attest the coming generations.” This
“attesting of its acts” seems to refer to
345 With frequent ululations. At the sight
Of flames, their merit’s due, and stagnant pools
Of fire, wrath’s weapons, they ’gin
tremble all. This seems to be the
sense. The Latin stands thus: “Flammas pro meritis,
stagnantia tela tremiscunt.”
Them an angelic host, upsnatching them,
Forbids to pray, forbids to pour their cries
350 (Too late!) with clamour loud: pardon withheld,
Into the lowest bottom they are hurled!
O miserable men! how oft to you
Hath Majesty divine made itself known!
The sounds of heaven ye have heard; have seen
355 Its lightnings; have experienced its rains
Assiduous; its ires of winds and hail!
How often nights and days serene do make
Your seasons—God’s gifts—fruitful with fair yields!
Roses were vernal; the grain’s summer-tide
360 Failed not; the autumn variously poured
Its mellow fruits; the rugged winter brake
The olives, icy though they were: ’twas God
Who granted all, nor did His goodness fail.
At God earth trembled; on His voice the deep
365 Hung, and the rivers trembling fled and left
Sands dry; and every creature everywhere
Confesses God! Ye (miserable men!)
Have heaven’s Lord and earth’s denied; and oft
(Horrible!) have God’s heralds put to
flight; Or,
“banished.”
370 And rather slain the just with slaughter fell;
And, after crime, fraud ever hath in you
Inhered. Ye then shall reap the natural fruit
Of your iniquitous sowing. That God is
Ye know; yet are ye wont to laugh at Him.
375 Into deep darkness ye shall go of fire
And brimstone; doomed to suffer glowing ires
In torments just. I adopt the correction
(suggested in Migne) of justis for
justas.
To This is an
extraordinary use for the Latin dative; and even if the meaning be
“for (i.e., to suffer) penalty eternal,” it is
scarcely less so.
The ardour of an endless raging hell; Gehennæ.
380 Be urged, a seething mass, through rotant pools
Of flame; and into threatening flame He bids
The elements convert; and all heaven’s fire
Descend in clouds.
Then greedy Tartarus
With rapid fire enclosed is; and flame
385 Is fluctuant within with tempest waves;
And the whole earth her whirling embers blends!
There is a flamy furrow; teeth acute
Are turned to plough it, and for all the
years Or,
“in all the years:” but see note 5 on this
page.
The fiery torrent will be armed: with force
390 Tartarean will the conflagrations gnash
Their teeth upon the world. Mundo.
In seething tide with course precipitate;
Hence flee; thence back are borne in sharp career;
The savage flame’s ire meets them fugitive!
395 And now at length they own the penalty
Their own, the natural issue of their crime.
And now the reeling earth, by not a swain
Possest, is by the sea’s profundity
Prest, at her farthest limit, where the sun
400 (His ray out-measured) divides the orb,
And where, when traversed is the world, Mundo.
Are hidden. Ether thickens. O’er the light
Spreads sable darkness; and the latest flames
Stagnate in secret rills. A place there is
405 Whose nature is with sealed penalties
Fiery, and a dreadful marsh white-hot
With heats infernal, where, in furnaces
Horrific, penal deed roars loud, and seethes,
And, rushing into torments, is up-caught
410 By the flame’s vortex wide; by savage wave
And surge the turbid sand all mingled is
With miry bottom. Hither will be sent,
Groaning, the captive crowd of evil ones,
And wickedness (the sinful body’s train)
415 To burn! Great is the beating there of breasts,
By bellowing of grief accompanied;
Wild is the hissing of the flames, and thence
The ululation of the sufferers!
And flames, and limbs sonorous, “Artusque
sonori,” i.e., probably the arms and hands with which (as has
been suggested just before) the sufferers beat their unhappy
breasts.
420 Afar: more fierce will the fire burn; and up
To th’ upper air the groaning will be borne.
Then human progeny its bygone deeds
Of ill will weigh; and will begin to stretch
Heavenward its palms; and then will wish to know
To know Him had proved useful to them. There,
His life’s excesses, handiworks unjust,
And crimes of savage mind, each will confess,
And at the knowledge of the impious deeds
430 Of his own life will shudder. And now first,
Whoe’er erewhile cherished ill thoughts of God;
Had worshipped stones unsteady, lyingly
Pretending to divinity; hath e’er
Made sacred to gore-stained images
435 Altars; hath voiceless pictured figures feared;
Hath slender shades of false divinity
Revered; whome’er ill error onward hath
Seduced; whoe’er was an adulterer,
Or with the sword had slain his sons; whoe’er
440 Had stalked in robbery; whoe’er by fraud
His clients had deferred; whoe’er with mind
Unfriendly had behaved himself, or stained
His palms with blood of men, or poison mixt
Wherein death lurked, or robed with wicked guise
445 His breast, or at his neighbour’s ill, or gain
Iniquitous, was wont to joy; whoe’er
Committed whatsoever wickedness
Of evil deeds: him mighty heat shall rack,
And bitter fire; and these all shall endure,
450 In passing painful death, their punishment.
Thus shall the vast crowd lie of mourning men!
This oft as holy prophets sang of old,
And (by God’s inspiration warned) oft told
The future, none (’tis pity!) none (alas!)
455 Did lend his ears. But God Almighty willed
His guerdons to be known, and His law’s threats
’Mid multitudes of such like signs promulged.
He ’stablished them i.e., the
“guerdons” and the “threats.”
These likewise uttering words divine; and some,
460 Roused from their sleep, He bids go from their tombs
Forth with Himself, when He, His own tomb burst,
Had risen. Many ’wildered were, indeed,
To see the tombs agape, and in clear light
Corpses long dead appear; and, wondering
465 At their discourses pious, dulcet words!
Starward they stretch their palms at the mere
sound, “Ipsa
voce,” unless it mean “voice and all,” i.e., and
their voice as well as their palms.
And offer God and so—victorious Christ
Their gratulating homage. Certain ’tis
That these no more re-sought their silent graves,
470 Nor were retained within earth’s
bowels shut; See note 1, p.
137.
But the remaining host reposes now
In lowliest beds, until—time’s circuit run—
That great day do arrive.
Now all of you
Own the true Lord, who alone makes this soul
475 Of ours to see His light Here again a
correction suggested in Migne’s ed., of “suam
lucem” for “sua luce,” is
adopted.
(To Tartarus sent) subject to penalties;
And to whom all the power of life and death
Is open. Learn that God can do whate’er
He list; for ’tis enough for Him to will,
480 And by mere speaking He achieves the deed;
And Him nought plainly, by withstanding, checks.
He is my God alone, to whom I trust
With deepest senses. But, since death concludes
Every career, let whoe’er is to-day
485 Bethink him over all things in his mind.
And thus, while life remains, while ’tis allowed
To see the light and change your life, before
The limit of allotted age o’ertake
You unawares, and that last day, which “Qui” is
read here, after Migne’s suggestion, for “quia;” and
Oehler’s and Migne’s punctuation both are set aside.
490 By death’s law fixt, your senseless eyes do glaze,
Seek what remains worth seeking: watchful be
For dear salvation; and run down with ease
And certainty the good course. Wipe away
By pious sacred rites your past misdeeds
495 Which expiation need; and shun the storms,
The too uncertain tempests, of the world. Mundi.
Then turn to right paths, and keep sanctities.
Hence from your gladsome minds depraved crime
Quite banish; and let long-inveterate fault
500 Be washed forth from your breast; and do away
Wicked ill-stains contracted; and appease
Dread God by prayers eternal; and let all
Most evil mortal things to living good
Give way: and now at once a new life keep
505 Without a crime; and let your minds begin
To use themselves to good things and to true:
And render ready voices to God’s praise.
Thus shall your piety find better things
All growing to a flame; thus shall ye, too,
510 Receive the gifts of the celestial
life; Or, “assume the
functions of the heavenly life.”
And, to long age, shall ever live with God,
Seeing the starry kingdom’s golden joys.
————————————
(Author Uncertain.)
Book I.—Of the Divine Unity, and the Resurrection of the Flesh.
Part I.—Of the Divine Unity.
After the Evil One’s impiety
Profound, and his life-grudging mind, entrapped
Seducèd men with empty hope, it laid
Them bare, by impious suasion to false trust
5 In him,—not with impunity, indeed;
For he forthwith, as guilty of the deed,
And author rash of such a wickedness,
Received deserved maledictions. Thus,
Thereafter, maddened, he, most desperate foe,
10 Did more assail and instigate men’s minds
In darkness sunk. He taught them to forget
The Lord, and leave sure hope, and idols vain
Follow, and shape themselves a crowd of gods,
Lots, auguries, false names of stars, the show
15 Of being able to o’errule the births
Of embryos by inspecting entrails, and
Expecting things to come, by hardihood
Of dreadful magic’s renegadoes led,
Wondering at a mass of feigned lore;
20 And he impelled them headlong to spurn life,
Sunk in a criminal insanity;
To joy in blood; to threaten murders fell;
To love the wound, then, in their neighbour’s flesh;
Or, burning, and by pleasure’s heat entrapped,
25 To transgress nature’s covenants, and stain
Pure bodies, manly sex, with an embrace
Unnameable, and uses feminine
Mingled in common contact lawlessly;
Urging embraces chaste, and dedicate
30 To generative duties, to be held
For intercourse obscene for passion’s sake.
Such in time past his deeds, assaulting men,
Through the soul’s lurking-places, with a flow
Of scorpion-venom,—not that men would blame
35 Him, for they followed of their own accord:
His suasion was in guile; in freedom man
Performed it.
Whileas the perfidious one
Continuously through the centuries Sæcula.
Is breathing such ill fumes, and into hearts
40 Seduced injecting his own counselling
And hoping in his folly (alas!) to find
Forgiveness of his wickedness, unware
What sentence on his deed is waiting him;
With words of wisdom’s weaving, The
“tectis” of the edd. I have ventured to alter to
“textis,” which gives (as in my text) a far better
sense.
45 Presaging from God’s Spirit, speak a host
Of prophets. Publicly he i.e., the Evil
One.
Nakedly to speak evil of the Lord,
Hoping by secret ingenuity
He possibly may lurk unseen. At length
50 The soul’s Light i.e., the Son of
God.
The hope of the despairing, mightier
Than foe, enters the lists; the Fashioner,
The Renovator, of the body He;
True Glory of the Father; Son of God;
55 Author unique; a Judge and Lord He came,
The orb’s renowned King; to the opprest
Prompt to give pardon, and to loose the bound;
Whose friendly aid and penal suffering
Blend God and renewed man in one. With child
60 Is holy virgin: life’s new gate opes; words
Of prophets find their proof, fulfilled by facts;
Priests i.e., the Magi.
Wonder the Lord so mean a birth should choose.
Waters—sight memorable!—turn to wine;
65 Eyes are restored to blind; fiends trembling cry,
Outdriven by His bidding, and own Christ!
All limbs, already rotting, by a word
Are healed; now walks the lame; the deaf forthwith
Hears hope; the maimed extends his hand; the dumb
70 Speaks mighty words: sea at His bidding calms,
Winds drop; and all things recognise the Lord:
Confounded is the foe, and yields, though fierce,
Now triumphed over, to unequal i.e., arms which
seemed unequal; for the cross, in which Christ seemed to
be vanquished, was the very means of His triumph. See
When all his enterprises now revoked
75 He i.e., the Enemy.
Soaring; the peoples sealed with holy pledge
Outpoured; i.e., with the Holy
Spirit, the “Pledge” or “Promise” of the Father
(see
Marvellous; The
“mirandæ virtutis opus, invisaque facts,” I take to be
the miracles wrought by the apostles through the might (virtus) of the
Spirit, as we read in the Acts. These were objects of
“envy” to the Enemy, and to such as—like Simon Magus,
of whom we find record—were his servants.
80 Extreme, and of perpetual dark, prepared
For himself by the Lord by God’s decree
Irrevocable; naked and unarmed,
Damned, vanquisht, doomed to perish in a death
Perennial, guilty now, and sure that he
85 No pardon has, a last impiety
Forthwith he dares,—to scatter everywhere
A word for ears to shudder at, nor meet
For voice to speak. Accosting men cast off
From God’s community, i.e., excommunicated,
as Marcion was. The “last impiety” (extremum
nefas), or “last atrocity” (extremum
facinus),—see 218, lower down—seems to mean the
introduction of heretical teaching.
90 Without the light, found mindless, following
Things earthly, them he teaches to become
Depraved teachers of depravity.
By This use of the
ablative, though quite against classical usage, is apparently
admissible in late Latinity. It seems to me that the
“his” is an ablative here, the men being regarded
for the moment as merely instruments, not agents; but it
may be a dative ="to these he preaches,” etc.,
i.e., he dictates to them what they afterwards are to teach in
public.
And realms divided: ill’s cause is the
Lord It must be borne in
mind that “Dominus” (the Lord), and “Deus”
(God), are kept as distinct terms throughout this piece.
95 Who built the orb, fashioned breath-quickened flesh,
And gave the law, and by the seers’ voice spake.
Him he affirms not good, but owns Him just;
Hard, cruel, taking pleasure fell in war;
In judgment dreadful, pliant to no prayers.
100 His suasion tells of other one, to none
E’er known, who nowhere is, a deity
False, nameless, constituting nought, and who
Hath spoken precepts none. Him he calls good;
Who judges none, but spares all equally,
105 And grudges life to none. No judgment waits
The guilty; so he says, bearing about
A gory poison with sweet honey mixt
For wretched men. That flesh can rise—to which
Himself was cause of ruin, which he spoiled
110 Iniquitously with contempt
(whence, i.e., for which
reason.
He hath grief without end), its ever-foe,—
He doth deny; because with various wound
Life to expel and the salvation whence
He fell he strives: and therefore says that Christ
115 Came suddenly to earth, i.e., as Marcion is
stated by some to have taught, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius;
founding his statement upon a perverted reading of
By any compact, partner of the flesh;
But Spirit-form, and body feigned beneath
A shape imaginary, seeks to mock
Men with a semblance that what is not is.
120 Does this, then, become God, to sport with men
By darkness led? to act an impious lie?
Or falsely call Himself a man? He walks,
Is carried, clothed, takes due rest, handled is,
Suffers, is hung and buried: man’s are all
125 Deeds which, in holy body conversant,
But sent by God the Father, who hath all
Created, He did perfect properly,
Reclaiming not another’s but His own;
Discernible to peoples who of old
130 Were hoping for Him by His very work,
And through the prophets’ voice to the round
world Orbi.
Best known: and now they seek an unknown Lord,
Wandering in death’s threshold manifest,
And leave behind the known. False is their faith,
135 False is their God, deceptive their reward,
False is their resurrection, death’s defeat
False, vain their martyrdoms, and e’en Christ’s name
An empty sound: whom, teaching that He came
Like magic mist, they (quite demented) own
140 To be the actor of a lie, and make
His passion bootless, and the populace i.e., of the Jews.
(A feigned one!) without crime! Is God thus true?
Are such the honours rendered to the Lord?
Ah! wretched men! gratuitously lost
145 In death ungrateful! Who, by blind guide led,
Have headlong rushed into the ditch! “In
fossa,” i.e., as Fabricius (quoted in Migne’s ed.) explains
it, “in defossa.” It is the past part. of
fodio.
In dreams the fancied rich man in his store
Of treasure doth exult, and with his hands
Grasps it, the sport of empty hope, so ye, so
150 Deceived, are hoping for a shadow vain
Of guerdon!
Ah! ye silent laughingstocks,
Or doomed prey, of the dragon, do ye hope,
If this line be
correct,—“Speratis pro pace truces homicidia
blanda,”—though I cannot see the propriety of the
“truces” in it, it seems to mean, “Do ye hope or
expect that the master you are serving will, instead of the gentle
peace he promises you, prove a murderer and lead you to death?
No, you do not expect it; but so it is.”
Dare ye blame God, who hath works
155 So great? in whose earth, ’mid profuse displays
Of His exceeding parent-care, His gifts
(Unmindful of Himself!) ye largely praise,
Rushing to ruin! do ye reprobate—
Approving of the works—the Maker’s self,
160 The world’s Mundi.
Ye are yourselves? Who gave those little selves
Great honours; sowed your crops; made all the
brutes Animalia.
Your subjects; makes the seasons of the year
Fruitful with stated months; grants sweetnesses,
165 Drinks various, rich odours, jocund flowers,
And the groves’ grateful bowers; to growing herbs
Grants wondrous juices; founts and streams dispreads
With sweet waves, and illumes with stars the sky
And the whole orb: the infinite sole Lord,
170 Both Just and Good; known by His work; to none
By aspect known; whom nations, flourishing
In wealth, but foolish, wrapped in error’s shroud,
(Albeit ’tis beneath an alien name
They praise Him, yet) their Maker knowing! dread
175 To blame: nor e’en
one The sentence breaks
off abruptly, and the verb which should apparently have gone with
“e’en one” is joined to the “ye” in the
next line.
Thankless, ye choose to speak ill of your Lord!
These cruel deadly gifts the Renegade
Terrible has bestowed, through Marcion—thanks
To Cerdo’s mastership—on you; nor comes
180 The thought into your mind that, from Christ’s name
Seduced, Marcion’s name has carried you
To lowest depths. The Latin is:— “Nec venit in mentem quod vos, a nomine
Christi Seductos, ad Marcionis tulit infima
nomen.” The rendering in my text, I admit, involves
an exceedingly harsh construction of the Latin, but I see not how it is
to be avoided; unless either (1) we take nomen absolutely, and
“ad Marcionis infima” together, and translate, “A
name has carried you to Marcion’s lowest depths;” in which
case the question arises, What name is meant? can it be the name
“Electi”? Or else (2) we take “tulit” as
referring to the “terrible renegade,” i.e., the arch-fiend,
and “infima” as in apposition with “ad Marcionis
nomen,” and translate, “He has carried you to the name of
Marcion—deepest degradation.”
What one displeases you? or what hath God
Done which is not to be extolled with praise?
185 Is it that He permits you, all too long,
(Unworthy of His patience large,) to see
Sweet light? you, who read truths, i.e., the Gospels and
other parts of Holy Scripture.
Teach these your falsehoods, and approve as past
Things which are yet to be? i.e., I take it, the
resurrection. Cf.
190 That we believe your God
incredible? Whether this be
the sense (i.e., “either tell us what it is which displeases you
in our God, whether it be His too great patience in bearing with
you, or what; or else tell us what is to hinder us from
believing your God to be an incredible being”) of
this passage, I will not venture to determine. The last line in
the edd. previous to Oehler’s ran: “Aut
incredibile quid differt credere vestrum?”
Oehler reads “incredibilem” (sc. Deum),
which I have followed; but he suggests, “Aut
incredibilem qui differt cædere
vestrum?” Which may mean “or
else”—i.e., if it were not for his “too great
patience”—“why”—“qui”—“does
He delay to smite your incredible god?” and thus challenge a
contest and prove His own superiority.
Nor marvel is’t if, practiced as he i.e., the
“terrible renegade.”
He captived you unarmed, persuading you
There are two Fathers (being damned by One),
And all, whom he had erst seduced, are gods;
195 And after that dispread a pest, which ran
With multiplying wound, and cureless crime,
To many. Men unworthy to be named,
Full of all magic’s madness, he induced
To call themselves “Virtue Supreme;” and feign
200 (With harlot comrade) fresh impiety;
To roam, to fly. The reference here is
to Simon Magus; for a brief account of whom, and of the other heretics
in this list, down to Hebion inclusive, the reader is referred to the
Adv. omn. Hær., above. The words “to roam, to
fly,” refer to the alleged wanderings of Simon with his paramour
Helen, and his reported attempt (at Rome, in the presence of St. Peter)
to fly. The tale is doubtful.
Of Valentine, and to his Æonage
Assigned heavens thirty, and Profundity
Their sire. The Latin runs thus:— “Et ævo Triginta tribuit cælos, patremque
Profundum.” But there seems a confusion between Valentine
and his æons and Basilides and his heavens. See the Adv.
omn. Hær., above.
205 The body through the flame. That there are gods
So many as the year hath days, he bade
A Basilides to believe, and worlds
As many. Marcus, shrewdly arguing
Through numbers, taught to violate chaste form
210 ’Mid magic’s arts; taught, too, that the Lord’s cup
Is an oblation, and by prayers is turned
To blood. His i.e., the Evil
One’s, as before.
To teach that Christ was born from human seed;
215 Is still left for the Law, and, though Law’s founts
Are lost, i.e., probably
Jerusalem and the temple there.
Unwilling am I to protract in words
His last atrocity, or to tell all
The causes, or the names at length. Enough
220 It is to note his many cruelties
Briefly, and the unmentionable men,
The dragon’s organs fell, through whom he now,
Speaking so much profaneness, ever toils
To blame the Maker of the world. Mundi.
225 Recall your foot from savage Bandit’s cave,
While space is granted, and to wretched men
God, patient in perennial parent-love,
Condones all deeds through error done! Believe
Truly in the true Sire, who built the orb;
230 Who, on behalf of men incapable
To bear the law, sunk in sin’s whirlpool, sent
The true Lord to repair the ruin wrought,
And bring them the salvation promised
Of old through seers. He who the mandates gave
235 Remits sins too. Somewhat, deservedly,
Doth He exact, because He formerly
Entrusted somewhat; or else bounteously,
As Lord, condones as it were debts to slaves:
Finally, peoples shut up ’neath the curse,
240 And meriting the penalty, Himself
Deleting the indictment, bids be washed!
Part II.—Of the Resurrection of the Flesh.
The whole man, then, believes; the whole is washed;
Abstains from sin, or truly suffers wounds
For Christ’s name’s sake: he
rises a true Oehler’s
“versus” (="changed the man rises”) is set aside for
Migne’s “verus.” Indeed it is probably a
misprint.
245 Death, truly vanquish, shall be mute. But not
Part of the man,—his soul,—her
own part i.e., her own dwelling
or “quarters,”—the body, to wit, if the reading
“sua parte” be correct.
Behind, will win the palm which, labouring
And wrestling in the course, combinedly
And simultaneously with flesh, she earns.
250 Great crime it were for two in chains to bear
A weight, of whom the one were affluent
The other needy, and the wretched one
Be spurned, and guerdons to the happy one
Rendered. Not so the Just—fair Renderer
255 Of wages—deals, both good and just, whom we
Believe Almighty: to the thankless kind
Full is His will of pity. Nay, whate’er
He who hath greater mortal need Egestas. Eget.
That, by advancement, to his comrade he
260 May equalled be, that will the affluent
Bestow the rather unsolicited:
So are we bidden to believe, and not
Be willing to cast blame unlawfully
On the Lord in our teaching, as if He
265 Were one to raise the soul, as having met
With ruin, and to set her free from death
So that the granted faculty of life
Upon the ground of sole desert (because
She bravely acted), should abide with
her; I have ventured to
alter the “et viventi” of Oehler
and Migne into “ut vivendi,”
which seems to improve the sense.
270 While she who ever shared the common lot
Of toil, the flesh, should to the earth be left,
The prey of a perennial death. Has, then,
The soul pleased God by acts of fortitude?
By no means could she Him have pleased alone
275 Without the flesh. Hath she
borne penal bonds? It seems to me that
these ideas should all be expressed interrogatively, and I have
therefore so expressed them in my text.
The flesh sustained upon her limbs the bonds.
Contemned she death? But she hath left the flesh
Behind in death. Groaned she in pain?
The flesh is slain and vanquisht by the wound. Repose
280 Seeks she? The flesh, spilt by the sword in dust,
Is left behind to fishes, birds, decay,
And ashes; torn she is, unhappy one!
And broken; scattered, she melts away.
Hath she not earned to rise? for what could she
285 Have e’er committed, lifeless and alone?
What so life-grudging See line 2.
Forbids, the flesh to take God’s gifts, and live
Ever, conjoined with her comrade soul,
And see what she hath been, when formerly
290 Converted into dust? “Cernere quid
fuerit conversa in pulvere quondam.” Whether the meaning be that, as the
soul will be able (as it should seem) to retrace all that she
has experienced since she left the body, so the body, when
revived, will be able as it were to look back upon all that has
happened to her since the soul left her,—something after the
manner in which Hamlet traces the imaginary vicissitudes of
Cæsar’s dust,—or whether there be some great error in
the Latin, I leave the reader to judge.
Bear she to God deserved meeds of praise,
Not ignorant of herself, frail, mortal,
sick. i.e., apparently
remembering that she was so before.
Contend ye as to what the living might Vivida virtus.
295 And potent, grudges life to none? Was this
Death’s captive? I rather incline to read for
“hæc captiva fuit mortis,”
“hæc captiva fuat mortis” = “Is this To be death’s thrall?” “This” is, of course, the
flesh.
Which the Lord hath with wondrous wisdom made,
And art? This by His virtue wonderful
Himself upraises; this our Leader’s self
300 Recalls, and this with His own glory clothes
God’s art and wisdom, then, our body shaped
What can by these be made, how faileth it
To be by virtue reproduced? For “Quod
cupit his fieri, deest hoc virtute reduci,” I
venture to read, “Quod capit,” etc.,
taking “capit” as ="capax est.” “By
these,” of course, is by wisdom and art; and “virtue”
="power.”
Can holy parent-love withstand; (lest else
305 Ill’s cause i.e., the Evil
One.
That man even now saved by God’s gift, may
learn i.e., may learn
to know.
(Mortal before, now robed in light immense
Inviolable, wholly quickened, Oehler’s
“visus” seems to be a mistake for
“vivus,” which is Migne’s
reading; as in the fragment “De exsecrandis gentium
diis,” we saw (sub. fin.)
“videntem” to be a probable misprint
for “viventem.” If, however, it
is to be retained, it must mean “appearing” (i.e., in
presence of God) “wholly,” in body as well as soul.
And body) God, in virtue infinite,
310 In parent-love perennial, through His King
Christ, through whom opened is light’s way; and now,
Standing in new light, filled now with each
gift, i.e., the double gift
of a saved soul and a saved body.
Glad with fair fruits of living Paradise,
May praise and laud Him to eternity, In æternum.
315 Rich in the wealth of the celestial hall.
Book
II.—Of the Harmony of the Old and New Laws. I have so frequently
had to construct my own text (by altering the reading or the
punctuation of the Latin) in this book, that, for brevity’s sake,
I must ask the reader to be content with this statement once for all,
and not expect each case to be separately noted.
After the faith was broken by the dint
Of the foe’s breathing renegades, The
“foe,” as before, is Satan; his “breathing
instruments” are the men whom he uses (cf. Shakespeare’s
“no breather” = no man, in the dialogue between
Orlando and Jacques, As you Like it, act iii. sc. 2); and they
are called “renegades,” like the Evil One himself, because
they have deserted from their allegiance to God in Christ.
With wiles the hidden pest Heresy.
Self-prompted, scornful of the Deity
5 That underlies the sense, he did his plagues
Concoct: skilled in guile’s path, he mixed his own
Words impious with the sayings of the saints.
And on the good seed sowed his wretched tares,
Thence willing that foul ruin’s every cause
10 Should grow combined; to wit, that with more speed
His own iniquitous deeds he may assign
To God clandestinely, and may impale
On penalties such as his suasion led;
False with true veiling, turning rough with smooth,
15 And, (masking his spear’s point with rosy wreaths,)
Slaying the unwary unforeseen with death
Supreme. His supreme wickedness is this:
That men, to such a depth of madness sunk!
Off-broken boughs! Cf.
20 The endlessly-dread Deity; Christ’s deeds
Sublime should follow with false praise, and blame
The former acts, i.e., those recorded
in the Old Testament.
Ne’er seen before, nor heard, nor in a heart
Conceived; I have followed
Migne’s suggestion here, and transposed one line of the
original. The reference seems to be to
25 The impermissible impiety
Of wishing by “wide dissimilitude
Of sense” to prove that the two Testaments
Sound adverse each to other, and the Lord’s
Oppose the prophets’ words; of drawing down
30 All the Law’s cause to infamy; and eke
Of reprobating holy fathers’ life
Of old, whom into friendship, and to share
His gifts, God chose. Without beginning, one
Is, for its lesser part, accepted. Unless some line has
dropped out here, the construction, harsh enough in my English, is yet
harsher in the Latin. “Accipitur” has no
subject of any kind, and one can only guess from what has gone before,
and what follows, that it must mean “one
Testament.”
35 Of one are four, of four one, Harsh still. It
must refer to the four Gospels—the “coat without
seam”—in their quadrate unity; Marcion receiving but
one—St. Luke’s—and that without St. Luke’s
name, and also in a mutilated and interpolated form.
One part is pleasing, three they (in a word)
Reprobate: and they seize, in many ways,
On Paul as their own author; yet was he
Urged by a frenzied impulse of his own
40 To his last words: This seems to be
the sense. The allusion is to the fact that Marcion and his sect
accepted but ten of St. Paul’s Epistles: leaving out
entirely those to Timothy and Titus, and all the other books,
except his one Gospel.
Of the old covenant It seems to me that
the reference here must evidently be to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which treats specially of the old covenant. If so, we have some
indication as to the authorship, if not the date, of the book:
for Tertullian himself, though he frequently cites the Epistle, appears
to hesitate (to say the least) as to ascribing it to St. Paul.
Comp.
Weight apostolic, grace of beaming word,
Dazzles their mind, nor can they possibly
45 Discern the Spirit’s drift. Dull as they are,
Seek they congenial animals!
But ye
Who have not yet, (false deity your guide,
Reprobate in your very mind, The reference seems to
be to
Inmost caves penetrated, learn there flows
50 A stream perennial from its fount, which feeds
A tree, (twice sixfold are the fruits, its grace!)
And into earth and to the orb’s four winds
Goes out: into so many parts doth flow
The fount’s one hue and savour. The reference is to
55 From apostolic word descends the Church,
Out of Christ’s womb, with glory of His Sire
All filled, to wash off filth, and vivify
Dead fates. Fata
mortua. This extraordinary expression appears to mean
“dead men;” men who, through Adam, are fated,
so to speak, to die, and are under the sad fate of being
“dead in trespasses and sins.” See
In its diffusion ’mid the Gentiles, this,
60 By faith elect accepted, Paul hands down
(Excellent doctor!) pure, without a crime;
And from it he forbade Galatian saints
To turn aside withal; whom “brethren false,”
(Urging them on to circumcise themselves,
65 And follow “elements,” leaving behind
Their novel “freedom,”) to “a shadow old
Of things to be” were teaching to be slaves.
These were the causes which Paul had to write
To the Galatians: not that they took out
70 One small part of the Gospel, and held that
For the whole bulk, leaving the greater part
Behind. And hence ’tis no words of a book,
But Christ Himself, Christ sent into the orb,
Who is the gospel, if ye will discern;
75 Who from the Father came, sole Carrier
Of tidings good; whose glory vast completes
The early testimonies; by His work
Showing how great the orb’s Creator is:
Whose deeds, conjoined at the same time with words,
80 Those faithful ones, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
Recorded unalloyed (not speaking words
External), sanctioned by God’s Spirit, ’neath
So great a Master’s eye!
This paschal Lamb
Is hung, a victim, on the tree: Him Paul,
85 Writing decrees to Corinth, with his
torch, I have followed
Oehler’s “face” for the common “phase;”
but what the meaning is I will not venture to decide. It may
probably mean one of two things: (a) that Paul wrote by
torchlight; (b) that the light which Paul holds forth
in his life and writings, is a torch to show the Corinthians and
others Christ.
Hands down as slain, the future life and God
Promised to the fathers, whom before
He had attracted.
See what virtue, see
What power, the paschal image i.e., the legal
passover, “image” or type of “the true
Passover,” Christ. See
90 Will able be to see what power there is
In the true Passover.
Lest well-earned love
Should tempt the faithful sire and seer, Abraham. See
His pledge and heir Isaac, a pledge to
Abraham of all God’s other promises. Forte. I suppose
this means out of the ordinary course of nature; but it is a strange
word to use.
Had given him, to offer him to God
95 (A mighty execution!), there is shown
To him a lamb entangled by the head
In thorns; a holy victim—holy blood
For blood—to God. From whose piacular death,
That to the wasted race Israel, wasted by the
severities of their Egyptian captivity.
100 And pledge of safety, signed are with blood
Their posts and thresholds many:
“Multa;” but
“muta” ="mute” has been
suggested, and is not inapt.
The flesh (a witness credible) is given
For food. The Jordan crossed, the land possessed,
Joshua by law kept Passover with joy,
105 And immolates a lamb; and the great kings
And holy prophets that were after him,
Not ignorant of the good promises
Of sure salvation; full of godly fear
The great Law to transgress, (that mass of types
110 In image of the Supreme Virtue once
To come,) did celebrate in order due
The mirrorly-inspected passover. I have given what appears to be a possible
sense for these almost unintelligible lines. They run as follows
in Oehler:— “Et reliqui magni reges sanctique
prophetæ, Non ignorantes certæ promissa salutis, Ingentemque metu pleni transcendere legem, Venturam summæ virtutis imagine molem, Inspectam e speculo celebrarunt ordine
pascham.” I rather incline to alter them somehow thus :— “Ingentemque metu plenis transcendere
legem, Venturum in summæ virtutis
imagine,—solem Inspectum e speculo,—celebrarunt
ordine pascham;” connecting these three lines with “non ignorantes,” and
rendering:— “Not ignorant of the good promises Of sure salvation; and that One would come, For such as filled are with godly fear The law to overstep, a mighty One, In Highest Virtue’s image,—the Sun seen In mirror:—did in order celebrate The passover.” That is, in brief, they all, in celebrating
the type, looked forward to the Antitype to come.
To times primordial, thou wilt find results
115 Too fatal following impious words. That man
Easily credulous, alas! and stripped
Of life’s own covering, might covered be
With skins, a lamb is hung: the wound slays sins,
Or death by blood effaces or enshrouds
120 Or cherishes the naked with its fleece.
Is sheep’s blood of more worth than human blood,
That, offered up for sins, it should quench wrath?
Or is a lamb (as if he were more dear!)
Of more worth than much people’s? aid immense!
125 As safeguard of so great salvation, could
A lamb, if offered, have been price enough
For the redeemed? Nay: but Almighty God,
The heaven’s and earth’s Creator,
infinite, Immensus.
Living, and perfect, and perennially
130 Dwelling in light, is not appeased by these,
Nor joys in cattle’s blood. Slain be all flocks;
Be every herd upburned into smoke;
That expiatively ’t may pardon win
Of but one sin: in vain at so vile price;
135 Will the stained figure of the Lord—foul flesh—
Prepare, if wise, such honours: This, again, seems to
be the meaning, unless the passage (which is not probable) be
corrupt. The flesh, “foul” now with sin, is called
the “stained image of the Lord,” as having been originally
in His image, but being now stained by guilt.
And faith to mortals promised of old—
Great Reason’s counterpart Faith is called so, as
being the reflection of divine reason.
These boons premeditated and prepared
140 Erst by the Father’s passing parent-love;
That Christ should come to earth, and be a man!
Whom when John saw, baptism’s first opener, John,
Comrade of seers, apostle great, and sent
As sure forerunner, witness faithful; John,
145 August in life, and marked with praise
sublime, i.e., the praise of
Christ Himself. See
He shows, to such as sought of olden time
God’s very Paschal Lamb, that He is come
At last, the expiation of misdeed,
To undo many’s sins by His own blood,
150 In place of reprobates the Proven One,
In place of vile the dear; in body, man;
And, in life, God: that He, as the slain Lamb,
Might us accept, i.e., perhaps
“render acceptable.”
Himself Thus hath it pleased the Lord to spoil
155 Proud death: thus wretched man will able be
To hope salvation. This slain paschal Lamb
Paul preaches: nor does a phantasmal shape
Of the sublime Lord (one consimilar
To Isaac’s silly sheep See above,
91–99.
160 Wherefore He is called Lamb: but ’tis because,
As wool, He these renewed bodies clothes,
Giving to many covering, yet Himself
Never deficient. Thus does the Lord shroud
In His Sire’s virtue, those whom, disarrayed
165 Of their own light, He by His death redeemed,
Virtue which ever is in Him. So, then,
The Shepherd who hath lost the sheep Himself
Re-seeks it. He, prepared to tread the strength
Of the vine, and its thorns, or to o’ercome
170 The wolf’s rage, and regain the cattle lost,
And brave to snatch them out, the Lion He
In sheepskin-guise, unasked presents Himself
To the contemned i.e., teeth
which He contemned, for His people’s sake: not that
they are to us contemptible.
The robber’s bloody jaws.
Thus everywhere
175 Christ seeks force-captured Adam; treads the path
Himself where death wrought ruin; permeates
All the old heroes’ monuments; i.e., perhaps
permeating, by the influence of His death, the tombs of all the old
saints.
Each one; the One of whom all types were full;
Begins e’en from the womb to expel the death
180 Conceived simultaneously with seed
Of flesh within the bosom; purging all
Life’s stages with a silent wisdom; debts
Assuming; i.e., undertaking our
debts in our stead.
Their Maker back the many whom the one Adam. See
185 Had scattered. And, because one direful man
Down-sunk in pit iniquitous did fall,
By dragon-subdued virgin’s It is an idea of the
genuine Tertullian, apparently, that Eve was a “virgin” all
the time she was with Adam in Paradise. A similar idea appears in
the “Genesis” above.
Because he pleased her wittingly; Consilio. Comp.
He left his heavenly covering Called
“life’s own covering” (i.e., apparently his
innocence) in 117, above.
Because dark death coerced them: in like wise
Out of the self-same mass Or,
“ore.”
Renewed now,—the flower of flesh, and host
Of peace,—a flesh from espoused virgin born,
195 Not of man’s seed; conjoined to its own
Artificer; without the debt of death.
These mandates of the Father through bright stars
An angel carries down, that angel-fame
The tidings may accredit; telling how
200 “A virgin’s debts a virgin, flesh’s flesh,
Should pay.” Thus introduced, the Giant-Babe,
The Elder-Boy, the Stripling-Man, pursues
Death’s trail. Thereafter, when completed was
The ripe age of man’s strength, when man is wont
205 To see the lives that were his fellows drop
By slow degrees away, and to be changed
In mien to wrinkles foul and limbs inert,
While blood forsakes his veins, his course he stayed,
And suffered not his fleshly garb to age.
210 Upon what day or in what place did fall
Most famous Adam, or outstretched his hand
Rashly to touch the tree, on that same day,
Returning as the years revolve, within
The stadium of the “tree” the brave Athlete,
215 ’Countering, outstretched His hands, and, penalty
For praise pursuing, Comp.
Because He left death of His own accord
Behind, disrobing Him of fleshly slough,
And of death’s dues; and to the “tree” affixed
220 The serpent’s
spoil—“the world’s Mundi. See
Grand trophy of the renegades: for sign
Whereof had Moses hung the snake, that all,
Who had by many serpents stricken been,
Might gaze upon the dragon’s self, and see
225 Him vanquisht and transfixt.
When, afterwards,
He reached the infernal region’s secret waves,
And, as a victor, by the light which aye
Attended Him, revealed His captive thrall,
And by His virtue thoroughly fulfilled
230 The Father’s bidding, He Himself re-took
The body which, spontaneous, He had left:
This was the cause of death: this same was made
Salvation’s path: a messenger of guile
The former was; the latter messenger
235 Of peace: a spouse her
man Virum.
Did bear a lion: “The Lion of the
tribe of Juda.” Viro. This
use of “man” may be justified, to say nothing of
other arguments, from
A virgin Virgo: a play on
the word in connection with the “viro” and what
follows. Vir.
Proved victor: for a type whereof, while sleep
His i.e.,
Adam’s. The constructions, as will be seen, are oddly
confused throughout, and I rather suspect some transposition of
lines.
240 A woman, Mulier. Mariti.
Awaking, called “flesh from his flesh, and bones
From his own bones;” with a presaging mind
Speaking. Faith wondrous! Paul deservedly,
(Most certain author!) teaches Christ to be
245 “The Second Adam from the
heavens.” See
Using her own examples, doth refulge;
Nor covets out of alien source to show
Her paces keen: Acres gressus.
Needy of virtue of his own! Great Paul
250 These mysteries—taught to him—did teach; to wit,
Discerning that in Christ thy glory is,
O Church! from His side, hanging on high “tree,”
His lifeless body’s “blood and humour” flowed.
The blood the woman Femina.
255 The new gifts of the font: Lavacri.
True mother of a living people; flesh
New from Christ’s flesh, and from His bones a bone.
A spot there is called Golgotha,—of old
The fathers’ earlier tongue thus called its name,—
260 “The skull-pan of a head:” here is earth’s midst;
Here victory’s sign; here, have our elders taught,
There was a great head “Os;”
lit., “face” or “mouth.”
Suffers; with sacred blood the earth Terra.
265 That the old Adam’s dust may able be,
Commingled with Christ’s blood, to be upraised
By dripping water’s virtue. The “one ewe”
That is, which, during Sabbath-hours, alive
The Shepherd did resolve that He would draw
270 Out of th’ infernal pit. This was the cause
Why, on the Sabbaths, He was wont to cure
The prematurely dead limbs of all flesh;
Or perfected for sight the eyes of him
Blind from his birth—eyes which He had not erst
275 Given; or, in presence of the multitude,
Called, during Sabbath-hours, one wholly dead
To life, e’en from the sepulchre. This would seem to
refer to Lazarus; but it seems to be an assumption that his raising
took place on a Sabbath.
The new man’s Maker, the Repairer good
Of th’ old, supplying what did lack, or else
280 Restoring what was lost. About to do—
When dawns “the holy day”—these works, for such
As hope in Him, in plenitude, (to keep
His plighted word,) He taught men thus His power
To do them.
What? If flesh dies, and no hope
285 Is given of salvation, say, what grounds
Christ had to feign Himself a man, and head
Men, or have care for flesh? If He
recalls i.e., to life.
Some few, why shall He not withal recall
All? Can corruption’s power liquefy
290 The body and undo it, and shall not
The virtue of the Lord be powerful
The undone to recall?
They, who believe
Their bodies are not loosed from death, do not
Believe the Lord, who wills to raise His own
295 Works sunken; or else say they that the Good
Wills not, and that the Potent hath not power,—
Ignorant from how great a crime they suck
Their milk, in daring to set things infirm
Above the Strong. I have ventured
to alter the “Morti,” of the edd. into
“Forti;” and “causas” (as we have
seen) seems, in this late Latin, nearly ="res.”
300 And if this i.e., the grain.
It yields not tree-graced fruits. This may seem an
unusual expression, as it is more common to regard the fruit as gracing
the tree, than the tree the fruit. But, in point of fact, the
tree, with its graceful form and foliage, may be said to give a grace
to the fruit; and so our author puts it here: “decoratos
arbore fructus.”
The liquid waters: ’neath the whistling cold
They will become, and ever will be stones,
Unless a mighty power, by leading on
305 Soft-breathing warmth, undo them. The great bunch
Lurks in the tendril’s slender body: if
Thou seek it, it is not; when God doth will,
’Tis seen to be. On trees their leaves, on thorns
The rose, the seeds on plains, are dead and fail,
310 And rise again, new living. For man’s use
These things doth God before his eyes recall
And form anew—man’s, for whose sake at
first I read
“primum” here for
“primus.”
The wealthy One made all things bounteously.
All naked fall; with its own body each
315 He clothes. Why man alone, on whom He showered
Such honours, should He not recall in all
His first perfection “Tantum”
="tantum quantum primo fuerat,” i.e., with a body as well as a
spirit.
He set o’er all?
Flesh, then, and blood are said
To be not worthy of God’s realm, as if
320 Paul spake of flesh materially. He
Indeed taught mighty truths; but hearts inane
Think he used carnal speech: for pristine deeds
He meant beneath the name of “flesh and blood;”
Remembering, heavenly home—slave that he is,
325 His heavenly Master’s words; who gave the name
Of His own honour to men born from Him
Through water, and from His own Spirit poured
A pledge; Pignus:
“the promise of the Father” (
Redeemed, His name of honour they withal
330 Might, when renewed, receive. Because, then, He
Refused, on the old score, the heavenly realm
To peoples not yet from His fount re-born,
Still with their ancient sordid raiment clad—
These are “the dues of death”—saying that that
335 Which human is must needs be born again,—
“What hath been born of flesh is flesh; and what
From Spirit, life;” The reference is to
Changing with glory its old root’s new
seeds, See note on 245,
above.
340 Thus did he speak of
“flesh.” In fine, he said See
This frail garb with a robe must be o’erclad,
This mortal form be wholly covered;
Not that another body must be given,
But that the former one, dismantled, I read
“inermum”—a very rare
form—here for “inermem.”
But there seems a confusion in the text, which here, as elsewhere, is
probably corrupt.
345 Be with God’s kingdom wholly on all sides
Surrounded: “In the moment of a glance,”
He says, “it shall be changed:” as, on the blade,
Dispreads the red corn’s
“Ceræ,” which seems senseless
here, I have changed to “cereris.”
The sun’s glare its own hue; so the same flesh,
350 From “the effulgent
glory” There seems to be a
reference to
Shall ever joy, and joying, Here again I have
altered the punctuation by a very simple change.
Exclaiming that “the body’s cruel foe
Is vanquisht quite; death, by the victory
Of the brave Christ, is swallowed;” See
355 Bearing to God, unto the highest stars.
Book III.—Of the Harmony of the Fathers of the Old and New Testaments.
Now hath the mother, formerly surnamed
Barren, giv’n birth:
From the free woman,
Deservedly, with her proud progeny;
5 Who also leaves ungratefully behind
The waters of the living fount, The Jewish people
leaving Christ, “the fountain of living waters”
(
Errant on heated plains—’neath glowing
star: Et tepidis errans
ardenti sidere potat. See
Now can the Gentiles as their parent claim
Abraham; who, the Lord’s voice following,
10 Like him, have all things left, See
To enter. “Be glad, barren one;” conceive
The promised people; “break thou out, and cry,”
Who with no progeny wert blest; of whom
Spake, through the seers, the Spirit of old time:
15 She hath borne, out of many nations, one;
With whose beginning are her pious limbs
Ever in labour.
Hers “just Abel” See
A pastor and a cattle—master he;
Whom violence of brother’s right hand slew
20 Of old. Her Enoch, signal ornament,
Limb from her body sprung, by counsel strove
To recall peoples gone astray from God
And following misdeed, (while raves on earth
The horde of robber-renegades, i.e., apparently the
“giants;” see
25 The giants’sacrilegious cruel race;
Faithful in all himself. With groaning
deep i.e., over the general
sinfulness.
Did he please God, and by deserved toil
Translated I suggest
“translatus” for
“translatum” here.
With honour high. Perfect in praise, and found
30 Faultless, and just—God
witnessing See
In an adulterous people, Noah (he
Who in twice fifty years Loosely; 120 years is
the number in
By deeds and voice the coming ruin told.
Favour he won, snatched out of so great waves
35 Of death, and, with his progeny, preserved.
Then, in the generation Gente.
Is Abraham, whose sons ye do deny
Yourselves to be; who first—race, country, sire,
All left behind—at suasion of God’s voice
40 Withdrew to realms extern: such honours he
At God’s sublime hand worthily deserved
As to be father to believing tribes
And peoples. Jacob with the patriarchs
(Himself their patriarch) through all his own
45 Life’s space the gladdest times of Christ foresang
By words, act, virtue, toil.
Him follows—free
From foul youth’s stain—Joseph, by slander feigned,
Doomed to hard penalty and gaol: his groans
Glory succeeds, and the realm’s second crown, so
50 And in dearth’s time large power of furnishing
Bread: so appropriate a type of Christ,
So lightsome type of Light, is manifest
To all whose mind hath eyes, that they may see
In a face-mirror Speculo
vultus. The two words seem to me to go together, and,
unless the second be indeed redundant, to mean perhaps a small
hand-mirror, which affords more facilities for minute
examination of the face than a larger fixed one.
Himself
55 The patriarch Judah, see; the origin
“Sortis;” lit. “lot,” here ="the line or
family chosen by lot.” Compare the similar
derivation of “clergy.”
Failed ever from his seed, until the Power
To come, by Gentiles looked for, promised long,
Came.
Moses, leader of the People, (he
60 Who, spurning briefly—blooming riches, left
The royal thresholds,) rather chose to bear
His people’s toils, afflicted, with bowed neck,
By no threats daunted, than to gain himself
Enjoyments, and of many penalties
65 Remission: admirable for such faith
And love, he, with God’s virtue armed, achieved
Great exploits: smote the nation through with plagues;
And left their land behind, and their hard king
Confounds, and leads the People back; trod waves;
70 Sunk the foes down in waters; through a
“tree” Lignum.
Made ever-bitter waters sweet; spake much
(Manifestly to the People) with the
Christ, I have ventured to substitute
“Christo” for
“Christi;” and thus, for “Cum Christi populo manifeste multa
locutus,” read, “Cum Christo (populo manifeste)
multa locutus.” The reference is to the fact, on which
such special stress is laid, of the Lord’s “speaking to
Moses face to face, as a man speaketh with his
friend.” See especially
From whose face light and brilliance in his own
Reflected shone; dashed on the ground the law
75 Accepted through some few, The Latin in Oehler and Migne is thus: “Acceptam legem per paucos fudit in
orbem;” and the reference seems to me to be to
And sure, of his own toils!—smote through the rock;
And, being bidden, shed forth streams; and stretched
His hands that, by a sign, i.e., the sign of the
cross. See Tertullian, adv. Marc., l. iii. c.
xviii. sub. fin.; also adv. Jud., c. x. med.
The foe; of Christ all severally,
all i.e., all the acts and
the experiences of Moses.
80 Combined through Christ, do speak. Great and approved,
He Moses.
But Joshua,
The son of Nun, erst called Oshea—this man
The Holy Spirit to Himself did join
As partner in His name: See
85 The flood; constrained the People to pass o’er;
Freely distributed the land—the prize
Promised the fathers!—stayed both sun and moon
While vanquishing the foe; races extern
And giants’ progeny outdrave; razed groves;
90 Altars and temples levelled; and with mind
Loyal Legitima, i.e.,
reverent of law.
Type of Christ’s name; his virtue’s image.
What
Touching the People’s Judges shall I say
Singly? whose virtues, i.e., virtuous
acts.
95 Recorded, fill whole volumes numerous
With space of words. But yet the order due
Of filling out the body of my words,
Demands that, out of many, I should tell
The life of few.
Of whom when Gideon, guide
100 Of martial band, keen to attack the foe,
(Not keen to gain for his own family,
By virtue, Or,
“valour.” The Latin runs thus: “Acer in hostem. Non virtute sua tutelam
acquirere genti.” I have ventured to read
“suæ,” and connect it with
“genti;” and thus have obtained what seems to me a probable
sense. See
And needing to be strengthened I read
“firmandus” for
“firmatus.”
Excited in his mind, seeks for a sign
105 Whereby he either could not, or could, wage
Victorious war; to wit, that with the dew
A fleece, exposèd for the night, should be
Moistened, and all the ground lie dry around
(By this to show that, with the world, Mundo. I have again ventured
a correction, “coarescere” for
“coalescere.” It makes at
least some sense out of an otherwise (to me)
unintelligible passage, the “palm” being taken as the
well-known symbol of bloom and triumph. So David in
110 The enemies’ palm); and then again, the fleece
Alone remaining dry, the earth by night
Should with the self-same I have changed
“eadem”—which must agree with
“nocte,” and hence give a false sense; for it was
not, of course, on “the same night,” but on the
next, that this second sign was given—into
“eodem,” to agree with
“liquore,” which gives a true one, as the
“moisture,” of course, was the same,—dew,
namely.
Of bandits; with Christ’s People ’countering them
115 Without much soldiery, with
cavalry Equite. It
appears to be used loosely for “men of war” generally.
Three hundred—the Greek letter Tau, in truth,
That number is Which is taken, from
its form, as a sign of the cross; see below.
Of blowers with the mouth: then Refers to the
“when” in 99, above.
The people of Christ’s sheep, from holy seed
120 Born (for the earth means nations various,
And scattered through the orb), which fleece the word
Nourishes; night death’s image; Tau the sign
Of the dear cross; the horn the heraldings
Of life; the torches shining in their
stand Lychno.
The “faces” are probably the
wicks.
125 The glowing Spirit: and this testing, too,
Forsooth, an image of Christ’s virtue
was: “Scilicet hoc
testamen erat virtutis imago.”
To teach that death’s fierce battles should not be
By trump angelic vanquished before
Th’ indocile People be deservedly
130 By their own fault left desolate behind,
And Gentiles, flourishing in faith, received
In praise.
Yea, Deborah, a woman far
Above all fame, appears; who, having braced
Herself for warlike toil, for country’s sake,
135 Beneath the palm-tree sang how victory
Had crowned her People; thanks to whom it was
That the foes, vanquisht, turned at once their backs,
And Sisera their leader fled; whose flight
No man, nor any band, arrested: him,
140 Suddenly renegade, a woman’s hand—
Jael’s The text as it stands is, in
Oehler:— …“Hic Baal Christi victoria signo Extemplo refugam devicit femina ligno;” which I would read:— …“Hunc Jael, Christi victoriæ
signo, Extemplo,” etc.
For token of Christ’s victory.
With firm faith
Jephthah appears, who a deep-wounding vow
Dared make—to promise God a grand reward
145 Of war: him For
“hic” I would incline to read
“huic.”
Had promised what the Lord not wills, first meets
The pledge i.e., child.
Fell by a lot unhoped by any. He,
To keep his promise, broke the sacred laws
150 Of parenthood: the shade of mighty fear
Did in his violent mind cover his vow
Of sin: as solace of his widowed life
For i.e., instead of.
He won.
Nor Samson’s strength, all corporal might
155 Passing, must we forget; the Spirit’s gift
Was this; the power was granted to his
head. i.e., to his unshorn
Nazarite locks.
Alone he for his People, daggerless,
Armless, an ass-jaw grasping, prostrated
A thousand corpses; and no bonds could keep
160 The hero bound: but after his shorn pride
Forsook him thralled, he fell, and, by his death,—
Though vanquisht,—bought his foes back ’neath his power.
Marvellous Samuel, who first received
The precept to anoint kings, to give chrism
165 And show men-Christs, Viros ostendere
Christos.
In life’s space as, e’en after his repose,
To keep prophetic rights. See
Psalmographist
David, great king and prophet, with a voice
Submiss was wont Christ’s future suffering
170 To sing: which prophecy spontaneously
His thankless lawless People did perform:
Whom i.e., to
whom, to David.
Fruit of his womb, “Ex
utero:” a curious expression for a man; but so it is.
He would on his sublime throne set: the Lord’s
175 Fixt faith did all that He had promised.
Corrector of an inert People rose
Emulous i.e., emulous of
David’s virtues.
Iniquitous forgetful men the Law: Comp. especially
All these God’s mandates of old time he first
180 Bade men observe, who ended war by
prayers, Our author is quite
correct in his order. A comparison of dates as given in the
Scripture history shows us that his reforms preceded his war with
Sennacherib.
Not by steel’s point: he, dying, had a grant
Of years and times of life made to his tears:
Deservedly such honour his career
Obtained.
With zeal immense, Josiah, prince
185 Himself withal, in like wise acted: none
So much, before or after!—Idols he
Dethroned; destroyed unhallowed temples; burned
Of prophets false updug; the altars burned,
190 The carcases to be consumed did serve
For fuel!
To the praise of signal faith,
Noble Elijah, (memorable fact!)
Was rapt; The
“tactus” of the Latin is without sense, unless indeed it
refer to his being twice “touched” by an angel. See
Since to the orb he is to come again.
195 His faith unbroken, then, chastening with stripes
People and frenzied king, (who did desert
The Lord’s best service), and with bitter flames
The foes, shut up the stars; kept in the clouds
The rain; showed all collectively that God
200 Is; made their error patent;—for a flame,
Coming with force from heaven at his prayers,
Ate up the victim’s parts, dripping with flood,
Upon the altar:
“Aras” should probably be
“aram.”
So often from on high rushed fire; See
205 Dividing, he made pathless
passable; For
“transgressas et avia fecit,” I read
“transgressus avia fecit,” taking
“transgressus” as a subst.
And, in a chariot raised aloft, was borne
To paradise’s hall.
Disciple his
Elisha was, succeeding to
his lot: Sortis.
Who begged to take to him Elijah’s
lot Sortem.
210 In double measure; so, with forceful stripe,
The People to chastise: Our author has
somewhat mistaken Elisha’s mission apparently; for as there is a
significant difference in the meaning of their respective names, so
there is in their works: Elijah’s miracles being rather
miracles of judgment, it has been remarked; Elisha’s, of
mercy.
A love for the Lord’s cause he breathed. He smote
Through Jordan; made his feet a way, and crossed
Again; raised with a twig the axe down—sunk
215 Beneath the stream; changed into vital meat
The deathful food; detained a second time,
Double in length, The reference is to a
famine in Elisha’s days, which— We only read of
one leprosy which Elisha cleansed—Naaman’s. He
inflicted leprosy on Gehazi, which was “to cleave to him
and to his seed for ever.”
Entangled foes in darkness; and when one
Offcast and dead, by bandits’slaughter slain
220 His limbs, after his death, already hid
In sepulchre, did touch, he—light recalled—
Revived.
Isaiah, wealthy seer, to whom
The fount was oped,—so manifest his faith!
Poured from his mouth God’s word forth. Promised was
225 The Father’s will, bounteous through Christ; through him
It testified before the way of life,
And was approved: Prætestata
viam vitæ atque probata per ipsam est. I
suspect we should read “via,” quantity
being of no importance with our author, and take
“prætestata” as passive: “The way of life
was testified before, and proved, through him.”
And undeserving, the mad People cut
With wooden saw in twain, and took away
230 With cruel death.
The holy Jeremy
Followed; whom the Eternal’s Virtue bade
Be prophet to the Gentiles, and him told
The future: who, because he brooded o’er
His People’s deeds illaudable, and said
235 (Speaking with voice presaging) that, unless
They had repented of betaking them
To deeds iniquitous against their slaves, This seems to be the
meaning, and the reference will then be to
They should be captived, bore hard bonds, shut up
In squalid gaol; and, in the miry pit,
240 Hunger exhausted his decaying limbs.
But, after he did prove what they to hear
Had been unwilling, and the foes did lead
The People bound in their triumphal trains,
Hardly at length his wrinkled right hand lost
245 Its chains: it is agreed that by no death
Nor slaughter was the hero ta’en away.
Faithful Ezekiel, to whom granted was
Rich grace of speech, saw sinners’ secrets; wailed
His own afflictions; prayed for pardon; saw
250 The vengeance of the saints, which is to be
By slaughter; and, in Spirit wrapt, the place
Of the saints’ realm, its steps and accesses,
And the salvation of the flesh, he saw.
Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, too,
255 With Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, come;
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
And Zechariah who did violence
Suffer, and Malachi—angel himself!
Are here: these are the Lord’s seers; and their choir,
260 As still they sing, is heard; and equally
Their proper wreath of praise they all have earned.
How great was Daniel! What a man!
What power!
Who by their own mouth did false witnesses
Bewray, and saved a soul on a false charge
265 Condemned; See the apocryphal
“Susanna.”
Dissolves the limbs of kingdoms; was accused
For his Lord’s was made the lions’ prey;
And, openly preserved For
“servatisque palam cunctis in pace
quievit,” which the edd. give, I suggest
“servatusque,” etc., and take
“palam” for governing “cunctis.”
270 Rested in peace.
His Three Companions, scarce
With due praise to be sung, did piously
Contemn the king’s iniquitous decree,
Out of so great a number: to the flames
Their bodies given were; but they preferred,
275 For the Great Name, to yield to penalties
Themselves, than to an image stretch their palms
On bended knees. Now their o’erbrilliant faith,
Now hope outshining all things, the wild fires
Hath quencht, and vanquisht the iniquitous!
280 Ezra the seer, doctor of Law, and priest
Himself (who, after full times, back did lead
The captive People), with the Spirit filled
Of memory, restored by word of mouth
All the seers’ volumes, by the fires and
mould Ignibus et
multa consumpta volumina vatum.
Multamust, apparently, be an error for some word
signifying “mould” or the like; unless, with the disregard
of construction and quantity observable in this author, it be an
acc. pl. to agree with volumina, so that we
must take “omnia multa
volumina” together, which would alter the whole
construction of the context.
285 Consumèd.
Great above all born from seed
Is John whose praises hardly shall we skill
To tell: the washer Ablutor.
Open forerunner; washer, Ablutor.
Himself first born again from Him: the first
290 Of the new convenant, last of the old,
Was he; and for the True Way’s sake he died,
The first slain victim.
See God-Christ! behold
Alike, His Twelve-Fold
Warrior-Youth! Juventus.
One faith, one dove, one power; the flower of men;
295 Lightening the world Mundo.
And apostolic men; who, speaking truth,
Heard with their ears Salvation, Salutem =Christum. So Simeon, “Mine eyes have seen Thy
salvation,” where the Greek word should be noted and compared
with its usage in the LXX., especially in the Psalms. See
Saw It, and handled with their hand the late
From death recovered body, Comp.
300 As fellow-guests of food therewith, as they
Themselves bear witness.
Him did Paul as well
(Forechosen apostle, and in due time sent),
When rapt into the heavens, See
By Him, he, with his comrade Barnabas,
305 And with the earlier associates
Joined in one league together, everywhere
Among the Gentiles hands the doctrine down
That Christ is Head, whose members are the Church,
He the salvation of the body, He
310 The members’ life perennial;
He, made flesh, He, ta’en away for all, Himself first rose
Again, salvation’s only hope; and gave
The norm to His disciples: they at once
All variously suffered, for His Name,
315 Unworthy penalties.
Such members bears
With beauteous body the free mother, since
She never her Lord’s precepts left behind,
And in His home hath grown old, to her Lord
Ever most choice, having for His Name’s sake
320 Penalties suffered. For since, barren once,
Not yet secure of her futurity,
She hath outgiven a people born of seed
Celestial, and The common reading is,
“Atque suæ famulæ portavit spreta
dolorem,” for which Oehler reads
“portarit;” but I incline rather to
suggest that “portavit” be retained,
but that the “atque” be changed into
“aeque,” thus:
“Aeque suæ famulæ portavit spreta
dolorem;” i.e., Since, like Sarah, the once barren
Christian church-mother hath had children, equally, like Sarah,
hath she had to bear scorn and spleen at her handmaid’s—the
Jewish church-mother’s—hands. Dolorem.
Of her own handmaid; now ’tis time to see
325 This former-barren mother have a son
The heir of her own liberty; not like
The handmaid’s heir, yoked in estate to her,
Although she bare him from celestial seed
Conceived. Far be it that ye should with words
330 Unlawful, with rash voice, collectively
Without distinction, give men exemplary
(Heaven’s glowing constellations, to the mass
Of men conjoined by seed alone or blood),
The rugged bondman’s i.e.,
Ishmael’s.
335 That he may speak in servile style about
A People who the mandates followèd
Of the Lord’s Law. No: but we mean the troop
Of sinners, empty, mindless, who have placed
God’s promises in a mistrustful heart;
Of present life: that troop would have been bound
Capital slavery to undergo,
By their own fault, if sin’s cause shall impose
Law’s yoke upon the mass. For to serve God,
345 And be whole-heartedly intent thereon,
Untainted faith, and freedom, is thereto
Prepared spontaneous.
The just fathers, then,
And holy stainless prophets, many, sang
The future advent of the Lord; and they
350 Faithfully testify what Heaven bids
To men profane: with them the
giants, “Immanes,”
if it be the true reading.
With Christ’s own glory satiated, made
The consorts of His virtue, filling up
The hallowed words, have stablished our faith;
355 By facts predictions proving.
Of these men
Disciples who succeeded them throughout
The orb, men wholly filled with virtue’s breath,
And our own masters, have assigned to us
Honours conjoined with works.
Of whom the first
360 Whom Peter bade to take his place and sit
Upon this chair in mightiest Rome where he
Himself had sat, This is the way Oehler’s punctuation
reads. Migne’s reads as follows:— …“Of whom the first Whom mightiest Rome bade take his place and sit Upon the chair where Peter’s self
had sat,” etc.
And by the mass approved. And after him
Cletus himself the fold’s flock undertook;
365 As his successor Anacletus was
By lot located: Clement follows him;
Well known was he to apostolic men: “Is apostolicis
bene notus.” This may mean, (a) as in our
text; (b) by his apostolically-minded writings—writings
like an apostle’s; or (c) by the apostolic writings, i.e.,
by the mention made of him, supposing him to be the same, in
Next Evaristus ruled without a crime
The law. Legem.
370 Commends the fold: who, after he had filled
His lustral times up, to Telesphorus
Hands it in order: excellent was he,
And martyr faithful. After him succeeds
A comrade in the law, Legis.
375 When lo! the comrade of your wickedness,
Its author and forerunner—Cerdo hight—
Arrived at Rome, smarting with recent wounds:
Detected, for that he was scattering
Voices and words of venom stealthily:
380 For which cause, driven from the band, he bore
This sacrilegious brood, the dragon’s breath
Engendering it. Blooming in piety
United stood the Church of Rome, compact
By Peter: whose successor, too, himself,
385 And now in the ninth place, Hyginus was,
The burden undertaking of his chair.
After him followed Pius—Hermas his
Own brother Germine frater.
Because he spake the words delivered him: An allusion to
the well-known Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas.
390 And Anicetus Our author makes the
name Anicetus. Rig. (as quoted by Oehler) observes that a
comparison of the list of bishops of Rome here given with that given by
Tertullian in de Præscr., c. xxxii., seems to show that
this metrical piece cannot be his.
In pious order undertook. ’Neath whom
Marcion here coming, the new Pontic pest,
(The secret daring deed in his own heart
Not yet disclosed,) went, speaking commonly,
395 In all directions, in his perfidy,
With lurking art. But after he began
His deadly arrows to produce, cast off
Deservedly (as author of a crime
So savage), reprobated by the saints,
400 He burst, a wondrous monster! on our view.
Book
IV.—Of Marcion’s Antitheses. The state of the text
in some parts of this book is frightful. It has been almost
hopeless to extract any sense whatever out of the Latin in many
passages—indeed, the renderings are in these cases little better
than guess-work—and the confusion of images, ideas, and
quotations is extraordinary.
What the Inviolable Power bids
The youthful people, See the preceding
book.
Possesses an eternal hope of praise
(By right assigned) is this: that with great zeal
5 Burning, armed with the love of peace—yet not
As teachers (Christ alone doth all things
teach I have changed the
unintelligible “daret” of the edd. into
“docet.” The reference seems to be to
But as Christ’s household—servants—o’er the earth
They should conduct a massive war; Molem belli deducere
terræ.
The wicked’s lofty towers, savage walls,
10 And threats which ’gainst the holy people’s bands
Rise, and dissolve such empty sounds in air.
Wherefore we, justly speaking emulous
words, Æmulamenta.
Migne seems to think the word refers to Marcion’s
“Antitheses.”
Out of his i.e., apparently
Marcion’s.
The meaning of salvation’s records, Monumenta.
15 Large grace hath poured profusely; and to ope
See the opening of the
preceding book.
Lest any untrained, daring, ignorant,
Fall therein unawares, and (being caught)
Forfeit celestial gifts.
God, then, is One
20 To mortals all and everywhere; a Realm
Eternal, Origin of light profound;
Life’s Fount; a Draught fraught
“Conditus;” i.e., probably (in violation of quantity) the
past part. of “condio” = flavoured, seasoned.
Produced the orb whose bosom all things girds;
Him not a region, not a place, includes as
25 In circuit: matter none perennial
is, I have altered the
punctuation here.
So as to be self-made, or to have been
Ever, created by no Maker: heaven’s,
Earth’s, sea’s, and the
abyss’s Inferni. Locator.
The Spirit; air’s Divider, Builder, Author,
30 Sole God perpetual, Power immense, is
He. These lines are
capable, according to their punctuation, of various renderings, which
for brevity’s sake I must be content to omit.
Him had the Law the
People i.e., the People of
Israel. See the de Idol., p. 148, c. v. note 1.
One God, See
Upon the mount. Him this His Virtue, too,
His Wisdom, Glory, Word, and Son, this Light
35 Begotten from the Light immense, This savours of the
Nicene Creed.
Through the seers’ voices, to be One:
and Paul, Migne’s pointing
is followed, in preference to Oehler’s.
Taking the theme in order up, thus too
Himself delivers; “Father there is
One “Unum
hunc esse Patrem;” i.e., “that this
One (God) is the Father.” But I rather incline to read,
“unumque esse;” or we may
render, “This One is the Sire.”
Through whom were all things made: Christ One, through whom
40 God all things made;” See
That every knee doth bow itself; Ad quem se curvare
genu plane omne fatetur. The reference is to
Is every fatherhood The reference is to
Called: who is zealous with the highest love
Of parent-care His people-ward; and wills
45 All flesh to live in holy wise, and wills
His people to appear before Him pure
Without a crime. With such zeal, by a
law Legitimos. See
book iv. 91.
Guards He our safety; warns us loyal be;
Chastens; is instant. So, too, has the same
50 Apostle (when Galatian brethren
Chiding)—Paul—written that such zeal
hath he. See
The fathers’sins God freely rendered, then,
Slaying in whelming deluge utterly Parents alike with progeny, and e’en
55 Grandchildren in “fourth
generation” Comp.
Descended from the parent-stock, when He
Has then for nearly these nine hundred years
Assisted them. Hard does the judgment seem?
The sentence savage? And in Sodom, too,
60 That the still guiltless little one unarmed
And tender should lose life: for what had e’er
The infant sinned? What cruel thou mayst think,
Is parent-care’s true duty. Lest misdeed
Should further grow, crime’s authors He did quench,
65 And sinful parents’ brood. But, with his sires,
The harmless infant pays not penalties
Perpetual, ignorant and not advanced
In crime: but lest he partner should become
Of adult age’s guilt, death immature
70 Undid spontaneous future ills.
Why, then,
Bids God libation to be poured to Him
With blood of sheep? and takes so stringent means
By Law, that, in the People, none transgress
Erringly, threatening them with instant death
75 By stoning? and why reprobates, again,
These gifts of theirs, and says they are to Him
Unwelcome, while He chides a People prest
With swarm of sin? See
And He, the just, at the same time repel?
80 The causes if thou seekst, cease to be moved
Erringly: for faith’s cause is weightier
Than fancied reason. Causa etenim fidei
rationis imagine major. Comp.
Of fulgent light!—behold what the calf’s blood,
The heifer’s ashes, and each goat, do mean:
85 The one dismissed goes off, the other falls
A victim at the temple.
With calf’s blood
With water mixt the seer Moses. See
Bidden) besprinkled People, vessels all,
Priests, and the written volumes of the Law.
90 See here not their true hope, nor yet a mere
Semblance devoid of virtue: Comp.
To suffer; who upon His shoulders bare
The plough-beam’s hard yokes, Alluding
probably to our Lord’s bearing of the cross-beam of His
cross—the beam being the “yokes,” and the
upright stem of the cross the “plough-beam”—on His
shoulders.—See
95 Brake His own heart with the steel share, and poured
Into the furrows water of His own
Life’s blood. For these “temple-vessels” do
Denote our bodies: God’s true
temple Templum. Comp.
Not dedicated erst; for to Himself
100 He by His blood associated men,
And willed them be His body’s priests, Himself
The Supreme Father’s perfect Priest by right.
Hearing, sight, step inert, He cleansed; and, for
a “book,” Libro. The
reference is to the preceding lines, especially 89, and
Sprinkled, by speaking For this comparison of
“speaking” to “sprinkling,” comp.
105 His witnesses: demonstrating the Law
Bound by His holy blood.
This cause withal
Our victim through “the heifer” manifests
From whose blood taking for the People’s sake
Piacular drops, them the first Levite i.e., the chief of the
Levites, the high priest.
110 Within the veil; and, by God’s bidding, burned
Her corse without the camp’s gates; with whose ash
He cleansed lapsed bodies.
Thus our Lord (who us
By His own death redeemed), without the
camp Comp.
Willingly suffering the violence
115 Of an iniquitous People, did fulfil
The Law, by facts predictions proving; Comp. the preceding
book, 355.
A people of contamination full
Doth truly cleanse, conceding all things, as
The body’s Author rich; within heaven’s veil
120 Gone with the blood which—One for many’s deaths—
He hath outpoured.
A holy victim, then,
Is meet for a great priest; which worthily
He, being perfect, may be proved to have,
And offer. He a body hath: this is
125 For mortals a live victim; worthy this
Of great price did He offer, One for all.
The The passage
which follows is almost unintelligible. The sense which I have
offered in my text is so offered with great diffidence, as I am far
from certain of having hit the meaning; indeed, the state of the text
is such, that any meaning must be a matter of some
uncertainty.
Are men exiled out of the “peoples
twain” i.e., perhaps the
Jewish and Christian peoples. Comp. adv. Jud., c. 1.
As barren; i.e.,
“barren” of faith and good works. The
“goats” being but “kids” (see
130 Spake also, in the Gospel, telling how
The kids are severed from the sheep, and stand
On the left hand See
Who for the Lord’s Name’s sake have suffered: thus
That fruit has veiled their former barrenness:
135 And such, the prophet teaches, on the ground
Of that their final merit worthy are
Of the Lord’s altar: others, cast away
(As was th’ iniquitous rich man, we read,
By Lazarus i.e., Lazarus was not
allowed to help him. In that sense he may be said to have been
“cast away;” but it is Abraham, not Lazarus, who pronounces
his doom. See
140 Exiled, persistent in their stubbornness.
Now a veil, hanging in the midst, did both
Dissever, i.e., in that the
blood of the one was brought within the veil; the other was not.
Divided the one shrine. Ædem.
Were called “Holies of holies.” Stationed there
145 An altar shone, noble with gold; and there,
At the same time, the testaments and ark
Of the Law’s tablets; covered wholly o’er
With lambs’skins The meaning
seems to be, that the ark, when it had to be removed from place
to place, had (as we learn from
Gold-clad; The ark was
overlaid with gold without as well as within. (See
150 The tablets of the Law; here is the urn
Replete with manna; here is Aaron’s rod
Which puts forth germens of the cross Migne supposes some
error in these words. Certainly the sense is dark enough; but see
lower down.
It yielded
“almonds,” according to the Eng. ver. (
155 Fourfold—the cherubim their pinions spread,
And the inviolable sanctities Sagmina.
But the word is a very strange one to use indeed. See the Latin
Lexicons, s.v.
Covered obediently. It might be
questionable whether “jussa” refers to
“cherubim” or to “sagmina.”
Part of the shrine stood open: facing it,
Heavy with broad brass, did an altar stand;
160 And with two triple sets (on each side one)
Of branches woven with the central stem,
A lampstand, and as many i.e., twice three +
the central one = 7.
The golden substance wholly filled with light
The temple. Our author persists in
calling the tabernacle temple.
Thus the temple’s outer face,
165 Common and open, does the ritual
Denote, then, of a people lingering
Beneath the Law; amid whose i.e., the
Law’s.
The Holy Spirit’s sevenfold unity
Ever, the People sheltering.
“Tegebat,” i.e., with the “fiery-cloudy
pillar,” unless it be an error for “regebat,”
which still might apply to the pillar.
170 The Lampstand True and living Lamps do shine
Persistently throughout the Law and Seers
On men subdued in heart. And for a type
Of earth, Terræ.
Was made. Here constantly, in open space,
175 Before all eyes were visible of old
The People’s “works,”
“Operæ,” i.e., sacrifices. The Latin is a
hopeless jumble of words without grammatical sequence, and any
rendering is mere guesswork.
Blood”
Of lawless life. i.e., of animals
which, as irrational, were “without the Law.”
Made victim on behalf of all—denotes
180 The whole earth Terram.
Hence likewise that new covenant author, whom
No language can describe, Disciple John,
Testifies that beneath such altar he
Saw souls which had for Christ’s name suffered,
185 Praying the vengeance of the mighty God
Upon their slaughter. i.e., beneath the
altar. See the
In some unknown part there exists a spot
Open, enjoying its own light; ’tis called
“Abraham’s bosom;” high above
the glooms, Or possibly,
“deeper than the glooms:” “altior a
tenebris.”
190 And far removed from fire, yet
’neath the earth. Terra.
The brazen altar this is called, whereon
(We have recorded) was a dusky veil. See 141, 142,
above.
This veil divides both parts, and leaves the one
Open, from the eternal one distinct
195 In worship and time’s usage. To itself
Tis not unfriendly, though of fainter love,
By time and space divided, and yet linked
By reason. ’Tis one house, though by a veil
Parted it seems: and thus (when the veil burst,
200 On the Lord’s passion) heavenly regions oped
And holy vaults,
Cælataque sancta. We might conjecture
“celataque sancta,” ="and the
sanctuaries formerly hidden.”
Became one house perennial.
Order due
Traditionally has interpreted
The inner temple of the people called
205 After Christ’s Name, with worship heavenly,
God’s actual mandates following; (no “shade”
Is herein bound, but persons real; This sense appears
intelligible, as the writer’s aim seems to be to distinguish
between the “actual” commands of God, i.e., the spiritual,
essential ones, which the spiritual people “follow,” and
which “bind”—not the ceremonial observance of a
“shadow of the future blessings” (see
By the arrival of the “perfect
things.” Comp.
The ark beneath a type points out to us
210 Christ’s venerable body, joined,
through “wood,”
“Lignum:” here probably ="the flesh,” which He
took from Mary; the “rod” (according to our author) which
Isaiah had foretold.
With sacred Spirit: the
aërial Aërial,
i.e., as he said above, “dyed with heaven’s
hue.”
Are flesh not born of seed, outstretcht on
“wood;” “Ligno,”
i.e., “the cross,” represented by the “wood” of
which the tabernacle’s boards, on which the coverings were
stretched (but comp. 147–8, above), were made.
At the same time, with golden semblance
fused, As the flame of the
lamps appeared to grow out of and be fused with the “golden
semblance” or “form” of the lampstand or
candlestick.
Within, the glowing Spirit joined is
215 Thereto; that, with peace Of which the
olive—of which the pure oil for the lamps was to be made:
With Spirit mixt. Of the Lord’s flesh, again,
The urn, golden and full, a type doth bear.
Itself denotes that the new covenant’s Lord
Is manna; in that He, true heavenly Bread,
220 Is, and hath by the Father been
transfused Traditus.
Into that bread which He hath to His saints
Give perfectly to them who (of good works
The lovers ever) have the bonds of peace
225 Kept. And the double tablets of the law
Written all over, these, at the same time,
Signify that that Law was ever hid
In Christ, who mandate old and new fulfilled,
Ark of the Supreme Father as He is,
230 Through whom He, being rich, hath all things given.
The storax-rod, too, nut’s fruit bare itself;
(The virgin’s semblance this, who bare in blood
A body:) on the “wood” In ligno. The
passage is again in an almost desperate state.
Death’s bitter, which within sweet fruit doth lurk,
235 By virtue of the Holy Spirit’s grace:
Just as Isaiah did predict “a rod”
From Jesse’s seed
Issues into the orb.
The altar bright with gold
Denotes the heaven on high, whither ascend
240 Prayers holy, sent up without crime: the Lord
This “altar” spake of, where if one doth gifts
Offer, he must first reconciliate
Peace with his brother:
Can flame unto the stars. Christ, Victor sole
245 And foremost. Primus.
Not of a tree, but prayers. See
The cherubim Here ensues a confused
medley of all the cherubic figures of Moses, Ezekiel, and St. John.
Being, with twice two countenances, one,
And are the one word through fourfold order
led; i.e., by the four
evangelists.
The hoped comforts of life’s mandate new,
250 Which in their plenitude Christ bare Himself
Unto us from the Father. But the wings
In number four times six, The cherubim,
(or, “seraphim” rather,) of
Of the old world denote, witnessing things
Which, we are taught, were after done. On
these These wings.
255 The heavenly words fly through the orb: with these
Christ’s blood is likewise held context, so told
Obscurely by the seers’ presaging mouth.
The number of the wings doth set a seal
Upon the ancient volumes; teaching us
260 Those twenty-four have certainly enough
Which sang the Lord’s ways and the times of peace:
These all, we see, with the new covenant
Cohere. Thus also John; the Spirit thus
To him reveals that in that number stand
265 The enthroned elders white There is again
some great confusion in the text. The elders could not
“stand enthroned:” nor do they stand
“over,” but “around” God’s
throne; so that the “insuper solio” could not apply
to that.
With girding-rope) all things surround, before
The Lord’s throne, and upon the glassy sea
Subigneous: and four living creatures, winged
And full of eyes within and outwardly,
270 Do signify that hidden things are oped,
And all things shut are at the same time seen,
In the word’s eye. The glassy flame-mixt sea
Means that the laver’s gifts, with Spirit fused
Therein, upon believers are conferred.
275 Who could e’en tell what the Lord’s parent-care
Before His judgment-seat, before His bar,
Prepared hath? that such as willing be
His forum and His judgment for themselves
To antedate, should ’scape! that who thus hastes
280 Might find abundant opportunity!
Thus therefore Law and wondrous prophets sang;
Thus all parts of the covenant old and new,
Those sacred rights and pregnant utterances
Of words, conjoined, do flourish. Thus withal,
285 Apostles’ voices witness everywhere;
Nor aught of old, in fine, but to the new
Is joined.
Thus err they, and thus facts retort
Their sayings, who to false ways have declined;
And from the Lord and God, eternal King,
290 Who such an orb produced, detract, and seek
Some other deity ’neath feigned name,
Bereft of minds, which (frenzied) they have lost;
Willing to affirm that Christ a stranger is
To the Law; nor is the world’s Mundi.
295 Salvation of the flesh; nor was Himself
The body’s Maker, by the Father’s
power. Virtute.
Lest with their speech they stain innoxious hearts.
Let therefore us, whom so great grace Honestas.
300 Hath penetrated, and the true celestial words
Of the great Master-Teacher in good ways
Have trained, and given us right
monuments; Or,
“records:” “monumenta,” i.e., the written
word, according to the canon.
Pay honour ever to the Lord, and sing
Endlessly, joying in pure faith, and sure
305 Salvation. Born of the true God, with bread
Perennial are we nourished, and hope
With our whole heart after eternal life.
Book V.—General Reply
to Sundry of Marcion’s Heresies. I make no apology for
the ruggedness of the versification and the obscurity of the sense in
this book, further than to say that the state of the Latin text is such
as to render it almost impossible to find any sense at all in many
places, while the grammar and metre are not reducible to any known
laws. It is about the hardest and most uninteresting book of the
five.
The first Book did the enemy’s words recall
In order, which the senseless renegade
Composed and put forth lawlessly; hence, too,
Touched briefly flesh’s hope, Christ’s victory,
5 And false ways’ speciousness. The next doth teach
The Law’s conjoined mysteries, and what
In the new covenant the one God hath
Delivered. The third shows the race, create
From freeborn mother, to be ministers
10 Sacred to seers and patriarchs; Or, “consecrated
by seers and patriarchs.”
O Christ, in number twice six out of all, i.e., all the number
of Thy disciples.
Chosest; and, with their names, the
lustral Tempora lustri, i.e.,
apparently the times during which these “elders” (i.e., the
bishops, of whom a list is given at the end of book iii.) held
office. “Lustrum” is used of other periods than it
strictly implies, and this seems to give some sense to this difficult
passage.
Of our own elders noted, (times preserved
On record,) showing in whose days appeared
15 The author i.e., Marcion.
Lawless, and roaming, cast forth i.e.,
excommunicated.
The fourth, too, the piacular rites recalls
Of the old Law themselves, and shows them types
In which the Victim True appeared, by saints
20 Expected long since, with the holy Seed.
This fifth doth many twists and knots untie,
Rolls wholly into sight what ills soe’er
Were lurking; drawing arguments, but not
Without attesting prophet.
And although
25 With strong arms fortified we vanquish foes,
Yet hath the serpent mingled so at once
All things polluted, impious, unallowed,
Commaculate,—the blind’s path without light!
A voice contaminant!—that, all the while
30 We are contending the world’s Maker is
Himself sole God, who also spake by voice
Of seers, and proving that there is none else
Unknown; and, while pursuing Him with praise,
Who is by various endearment Complexu vario.
35 Are blaming—among other fallacies—
The Unknown’s tardy times: our subject’s fault
Will scarce keep pure our tongue. Yet, for all that,
Guile’s many hidden venoms us enforce
(Although with double risk Ancipiti quamquam cum
crimine. The last word seems almost
="discrimine;” just as our author uses
“cerno” ="discerno.”
40 Who, then, the God whom ye say is the true,
Unknown to peoples, alien, in a word,
To all the world? Mundo.
Came he from high? If ’tis his
own Cf.
Why seek so late? If not his own, why rob
45 Bandit-like? and why ply with words unknown
So oft throughout Law’s rein a People still
Lingering ’neath the Law? If, too, he comes
To pity and to succour all combined,
And to re-elevate men vanquisht quite
50 By death’s funereal weight, and to release
Spirit from flesh’s bond obscene, whereby
The inner man (iniquitously dwarfed)
Is held in check; why, then, so late appear
His ever-kindness, duteous vigilance?
55 How comes it that he ne’er at all before
Offered himself to any, but let slip
Poor souls in numbers? Whether this be the
sense I know not. The passage is a mass of confusion.
Seeks to regain another’s subjects: ne’er
Expected; not known; sent into the orb.
60 Seeking the “ewe” he had not lost before,
The Shepherd ought i.e., according to
Marcion’s view.
Of flesh, as if his victor-self withal
Had ever been a spirit, and as such i.e., as spirits, like
himself.
Willed to rescue all expelled souls,
The spoiled flesh to earth; wholly to fill
The world Mundum.
To leave the orb void; and to raise the souls
To heaven. Then would human progeny
70 At once have ceased to be born; nor had
Thereafter any scion of your i.e., Marcionite.
Been born, or spread a new pest See book ii. 3.
Or (since at that time i.e., apparently on
the day of Christ’s resurrection.
Is shown to have been done) he should have set
75 A bound to future race; with solid heart
Nuptial embraces would he, in that case
Have sated quite;
Replesset, i.e., replevisset. If this be the
right reading, the meaning would seem to be, “would have taken
away all further desire for” them, as satiety or repletion
takes away all appetite for food. One is almost inclined to
hazard the suggestion “represset,”
i.e., repressisset, “he would have repressed,” but
that such a contraction would be irregular. Yet, with an author
who takes such liberties as the present one, perhaps that might not be
a decisive objection.
Of fruitful seed; made irksome intercourse
With female sex; and closed up inwardly
80 The flesh’s organs genital: our mind
Had had no will, no potent faculty
Our body: after this the “inner man”
Could withal, joined with blood,
“Junctus,” for the edd.’s
“junctis,” which, if retained, will
mean “in the case of beings still joined with (or to)
blood.”
And cleaved to flesh, and would have ever been
85 Perishing. Ever perishes the “ewe:”
And is there then no power of saving her?
Since man is ever being born beneath
Death’s doom, what is the Shepherd’s work, if thus
The “ewe” is stated
“Docetur,” for the edd.’s
“docentur.” The sense seems to
be, if there be any, exceedingly obscure; but for the idea of a
half-salvation—the salvation of the “inner man”
without the outer—being no salvation at all, and unworthy of
“the Good Shepherd” and His work, we may compare the very
difficult passage in the de Pudic., c. xiii. ad fin.
90 In that case, but not rescued, she is proved.
But now choice is allowed of entering
Wedlock, as hath been ever; and that choice
Sure progeny hath yoked: nations are born
And folk scarce numerable, at whose birth
95 Their souls by living bodies are received;
Nor was it meet that Paul (though, for the time,
He did exhort some few, discerning well
The many pressures of a straitened time)
To counsel men in like case to abide
100 As he himself: This sense,
which I deduce from a transposition of one line and the supplying of
the words “he did exhort,” which are not expressed,
but seem necessary, in the original, agrees well with
The tender ages marry, nor defraud
Each other, but their compact’s dues discharge.
But say, whose suasion hath, with fraud astute,
Made you “abide,” and in divided love
105 Of offspring live secure, and commit crime
Adulterous, and lose your life? and, though
’Tis perishing, belie (by verbal name)
That fact. For which cause all the so sweet sounds
Of his voice pours he forth, that “you must do,
110 Undaunted, whatsoever pleases you;”
Outwardly chaste, stealthily stained with crime!
Of honourable wedlock, by this plea,
“Causa;” or perhaps “means.”
It is, of course, the French “chose.”
He hath deprived you. But why more? ’Tis well
(Forsooth) to be disjoined! for the world, too,
115 Expedient ’tis! lest any of your seed
Be born! Then will death’s
organs i.e., you and your
like, through whom sin, and in consequence death, is disseminated.
The while you hope salvation to retain,
Your “total man” quite loses part of man,
With mind profane: but neither is man said
120 To be sole spirit, nor the flesh is called
“The old man;” nor unfriendly are the flesh
And spirit, the true man combined in one,
The inner, and he whom you call
“old foe;” Here, again, for the
sake of the sense, I have transposed a line.
Nor are they seen to have each his own set
125 Of senses. One is ruled; the other rules,
Groans, joys, grieves, loves; himself i.e., “the
other,” the “inner man,” or spirit.
Most dear, too; through which i.e., through
flesh.
Is visible, with which commixt he is
Held ever: to its wounds he care applies;
130 And pours forth tears; and nutriments of food
Takes, through its limbs, often and eagerly:
This hopes he to have ever with himself
Immortal; o’er its fracture doth he groan;
And grieves to quit it limb by limb: fixt time
135 Death lords it o’er the unhappy flesh; that so
From light dust it may be renewed, and death
Unfriendly fail at length, when flesh, released,
Rises again. This will that victory be
Supreme and long expected, wrought by Him,
140 The aye-to-be-revered, who did become
Who man’s redeemed limbs unto the heavens
Hath raised, i.e., in His own
person.
Thither in hope, first to His nation; then
145 To those among all tongues in whom His work
Is ever doing: Minister imbued
With His Sire’s parent-care, seen by the eye
Of the Illimitable, He performed,
By suffering, His missions. I hope I have
succeeded in giving some intelligible sense; but the passage as it
stands in the Latin is nearly hopeless.
What say now
150 The impious voices? what th’ abandoned crew?
If He Himself, God the Creator’s self,
Gave not the Law, I read
“legem” for
“leges.” I read
“valle” for “calle.”
Paved in the waves a path, and freely gave
The seats which He had said of old, why comes
155 He in that very People and that land
Aforesaid? and why rather sought He not
Some other Alios. Altera.
Why, further, did He teach that, through the seers,
(With Name foretold in full, yet not His own,)
160 He had been often sung of? Whence, again,
Could He have issued baptism’s kindly gifts,
Promised by some one else, as His own works?
These gifts men who God’s mandates had transgressed,
And hence were found polluted, longed for,
165 And begged a pardoning rescue from fierce death.
Expected long, they i.e., “the gifts
of baptism.”
Who recognised them when erst heard, and now
Have recognised them, when in due time found,
Christ’s true hand is to give them, this, with voice
170 Paternal, the Creator-Sire Himself
Warns ever from eternity, and claims;
And thus the work of virtue which He framed,
And still frames, arms, and fosters, and doth now
Victorious look down on and reclothe
175 With His own light, should with perennial praise
Abide. This seems to give
sense to a very obscure passage, in which I have been guided more by
Migne’s pointing than by Oehler’s.
What I read here
“quid” for
“quod.”
To make men recognise what God can give
And man can suffer, and thus live? i.e., to make
men live by recognising that. Comp. the Psalmist’s
prayer: “Give me understanding and I shall
live” (
Neither predictions earlier nor facts
180 The latest can suede senseless
frantic The
“furentes” of Pam. and Rig. is
preferred to Oehler’s
“ferentes.”
That God became a man, and (after He
Had suffered and been buried) rose; that they
May credit those so many witnesses
Harmonious,
“Complexis,” lit. “embracing.”
185 With heavenly word, let them
both i.e., both Jews and
Gentile heretics, the “senseless frantic men” just referred
to probably: or possibly the “ambo” may mean
“both sects,” viz., the Marcionites and Manichees,
against whom the writer whom Oehler supposes to be the probable author
of these “Five Books,” Victorinus, a rhetorician of
Marseilles, directed his efforts. But it may again be the acc.
neut. pl., and mean “let them”—i.e., the
“senseless frantic men”—“learn to believe as
to both facts,” i.e., the incarnation and the resurrection;
(see vers. 179, 180;) “the testimony at least of human
reason.”
At least terrestrial reason.
When the Lord
Christ came to be, as flesh, born into the orb
In time of king Augustus’ reign at Rome,
First, by decree, the nations numbered are
190 By census everywhere: this measure, then,
This same king chanced to pass, because the
Will
Supreme, in whose high reigning hand doth lie
The king’s heart, had impelled him: I would suggest here, for “…quia summa voluntas In cujus manu regnantis cor legibus
esset,” something like this, “…quia summa voluntas, In cujus manu regnantis cor
regis, egisset,” which would only add one more to our
author’s false quantities. “Regum egisset”
would avoid even that, while it would give some sense. Comp.
To do it, and the enrolment was reduced
195 To orderly arrangement. Joseph then
Likewise, with his but just delivered wife
Mary, Maria cum conjuge
feta. What follows seems to decide the meaning of
“feta,” as a child could hardly be included in a census
before birth.
Themselves withal are numbered. Let, then, such
As trust to instruments of human skill,
200 Who may (approving of applying them
As attestators of the holy word)
Inquire into this census, if it be
But found so as we say, then afterwards
Repent they and seek pardon while time still
205 Is had Again I have had to
attempt to amend the text of the Latin in order to extract any sense,
and am far from sure that I have extracted the right one.
“Fatentur,” unless our author use it passively ="are
confessed.”
A grave crime, while in our disparagement
They glow, and do resist us, neither call
Christ’s family unknown, nor can “Possunt,”
i.e., probably “have the hardihood.”
They hanged a man, who spake truth, on a
tree: Because Christ
plainly, as they understood Him, “made Himself the Son of
God;” and hence, if they confessed that He had said the truth,
and yet that they hanged Him on a tree, they would be pronouncing their
own condemnation.
210 Ignorant that the Lord’s flesh
which they bound
“Vinctam” for “victam” I
read here.
Was not seed-gendered. But, while partially
They keep a reticence, so partially
They triumph; for they strive to represent
God to the peoples commonly as man.
215 Behold the error which o’ercomes
you both! i.e., you and the
Jews. See above on 185.
This error will our cause assist, the while,
We prove to you those things which certain are.
They do deny Him God; you falsely call
Him man, a body bodiless! and ah!
220 A various insanity of mind
Sinks you; which him who hath presumed to hint
You both do, sinking, sprinkle: Quod qui
præsumpsit mergentes spargitis ambo. What the meaning
is I know not, unless it be this: if any one hints to you that
you are in an error which is sinking you into perdition, you both join
in trying to sink him (if “mergentes” be
active; or “while you are sinking,” if neuter), and in
sprinkling him with your doctrine (or besprinkling him with abuse).
Will then approve Him man alike and God
Commingled, and the world Mundus.
225 No few.
While then the Son Himself of God
Is seeking to regain the flesh’s
limbs, “Dum carnis
membra requirit,” i.e., seeking to regain for God
all the limbs of the flesh as His instruments. Comp.
Already robed as King, He doth sustain
Blows from rude palms; with spitting covered is
His face; a thorn-inwoven crown His head
230 Pierces all round; and to the
tree Ligno.
Is fixed; wine drugged with myrrh,
“Scriblita,” a curious word. Fel miscetur
aceto. The reading may have arisen—and it is
not confined to our author—from confounding ὄξος with οἶνος. Comp.
Is mixt with vinegar; parted His robe, This is an error, if
the “coat” be meant.
And in it Perhaps for
“in illa” we should read
“in illam”—“on it,”
for “in it.”
Each one hath seized he keeps; in murky gloom,
235 As God from fleshly body silently
Outbreathes His soul, in darkness trembling day
Took refuge with the sun; twice dawned one day;
Its centre black night covered: from their base
Mounts move in circle, wholly moved was earth,
240 Saints’ sepulchres stood ope, and all things joined
In fear to see His passion whom they knew!
His lifeless side a soldier with bare spear
Pierces, and forth flows blood, nor water less
Thence followed. These facts they The Jews.
245 And are unwilling the misdeed to own,
Willing to blink the crime.
Can spirit, then,
Without a body wear a robe? or is’t
Susceptible of penalty? the wound
Of violence does it bear? or die? or rise?
250 Is blood thence poured? from what flesh. since ye say
He had none? or else, rather, feigned He? if
’Tis safe for you to say so; though you do
(Headlong) so say, by passing over more
In silence. Is not, then, faith manifest?
255 And are not all things fixed? The day before
He then For “ante
diem quam cum pateretur” I have read
“qua tum.”
And handing down a memorable rite Or,
“deed”—“factum.”
To His disciples, taking bread alike
And the vine’s juice, “My body, and My blood
260 Which is poured Or, “is
being poured”—“funditur.”
And bade it ever afterward be done.
Of what created elements were made,
Think ye, the bread and wine which were (He said)
His body with its blood? and what must be
265 Confessed? Proved He not Himself
the world’s Mundi.
Maker, through deeds? and that He bore at once
A body formed from flesh and blood?
This God
This true Man, too, the Father’s Virtue ’neath
An Image, I read with Migne,
“Patris sub imagine virtus,” in preference to the
conjecture which Oehler follows, “Christi sub imagine
virtus.” The reference seems clearly to be to
270 United both in glory and in
age; Ævo.
Perhaps here ="eternity.”
Because alone He ministers the words
Of the All-Holder; whom He i.e., “The
All-Holder.”
Accepts; Capit.
God’s Son, God’s dearest Minister, is He!
275 Hence hath He generation, hence Name too,
Hence, finally, a kingdom; Lord from Lord;
Stream from perennial Fount! He, He it was
Among them doth profess to have “seen
God” Cf. Jacob’s
words in
280 God is our witness—since the origin
Of this our world, Mundi.
The Father’s words of promise and of charge
From heaven high: He led the People out;
Smote through th’iniquitous nation; was Himself
285 The column both of light and of cloud’s shade;
And dried the sea; and bids the People go
Right through the waves, the foe therein involved
And covered with the flood and surge: a way
Through deserts made He for the followers
290 Of His high biddings; sent down bread in
showers For
“dimisit in umbris” I read here
“demisit in imbris.” If we
retain the former reading, it will then mean, “dispersed during
the shades of night,” during which it was that the manna seems
always to have fallen.
From heaven for the People; brake the rock;
Bedewed with wave the thirsty;
“Sitientis” in Oehler must be a
misprint for “sitientes.”
The mandate of the Law to Moses spake
With thunder, trumpet-sound, and flamey column
295 Terrible to the sight, while men’s hearts shook.
After twice twenty years, with months complete,
Jordan was parted; a way oped; the wave
Stood in a mass; and the tribes shared the land,
Their fathers’ promised boons! The Father’s word,
300 Speaking Himself by prophets’
mouth, that He There ought to be a
“se” in the Latin if this be the meaning.
Would come to earth and be a man, He did
Predict; Christ manifestly to the earth
Foretelling.
Then, expected for our aid,
Life’s only Hope, the Cleanser of our
flesh, For
“Mundator carnis seræ” ="the
Cleanser of late flesh” (which would seem, if it mean
anything, to mean that the flesh had to wait long for its cleansing), I
have read “carnis
nostræ.”
305 Death’s Router, from th’ Almighty Sire’s empire
At length He came, and with our human limbs
He clothed Him.
Adam—virgin—dragon—tree, Lignum.
The cause of ruin, and the way whereby
Rash death us all had vanquisht! by the same
310 Our Shepherd treading, seeking to regain
His sheep—with angel—virgin—His own flesh—
And the “tree’s”
remedy; I have followed the
disjointed style of the Latin as closely as I could here.
And doomed to perish was aye wont to go
To meet his vanquisht peers; hence, interposed,
315 One in all captives’ room, He did sustain
In body the unfriendly penalty
With patience; by His own death spoiling death;
Becomes salvation’s cause; and, having paid
Throughly our debts by throughly suffering
320 On earth, in holy body, everything,
Seeks the infern! here souls, bound for their crime,
Which shut up all together by Law’s weight,
Without a guard, Here we seem to see
the idea of the “limbus patrum.”
Promised of old, hoped for, and tardy, He
325 To the saints’rest admitted, and, with light,
Brought back. For on the third day mounting
up,
“Subiens” ="going beneath,” i.e., apparently
coming beneath the walls of heaven.
A victor, with His body by His Sire’s
Virtue immense, (salvation’s pathway made,)
And bearing God and man is form create,
330 He clomb the heavens, leading back with Him
Captivity’s first-fruits (a welcome gift
And a dear figure i.e., a figure of the
future harvest.
His seat beside light’s Father, and resumed
The virtue and the glory of which, while
335 He was engaged in vanquishing the foe
He had been stripped; I have hazarded the
conjecture “minutus” here for the
edd.’s “munitus.” It adds
one more, it is true, to our author’s false quantities, but that
is a minor difficulty, while it improves (to my mind) the sense
vastly.
With flesh, on our part. Him, Lord, Christ, King, God,
Judgment and kingdom given to His hand,
The father is to send unto the orb.
————————————
(N.B.—It has been impossible to note the changes which I have had to make in the text of the Latin. In some cases they will suggest themselves to any scholar who may compare the translation with the original; and in others I must be content to await a more fitting opportunity, if such ever arise, for discussing them.)
————————————
I.
(Appendix, p. 127.)
About these versifications, which are “poems” only as mules are horses, it is enough to say of them, with Dupin, “They are no more Tertullian’s than they are Virgil’s or Homer’s. The poem called Genesis seems to be that which Gennadius attributes to Salvian, Bishop of Marseilles. That concerning the Judgment of God was, perhaps, composed by Verecundus, an African bishop. In the books Against Marcion there are some opinions different from those of Tertullian. There is likewise a poem To a Senator in Pamelius’ edition, one of Sodom, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum one of Jonas and Nineve; the first of which is ancient, and the other two seem to be by the same author.”
It is worth while to observe that this rhymester
makes two bishops out of one. See p. 156,
supra. See De
Præscrip., cap. xxxii. vol. iii. p. 258.
II.
(Or is there ought, etc., l. 136, p. 137.)
In taking leave of Tertullian, it may be well to say a
word of his famous saying, Certum est quia impossibile
est. It occurs in the tract De Carne
Christi, Cap. v. vol. iii. p.
525.
“Et si sensus deficit,
Adfirmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides sufficit.”
As Jeremy Taylor Christ in the Holy
Sacrament, § xi. 6. De Anima, cap.
xvii. Vol. i. p. 304.
[Translated by the Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D.]
Introductory Note
to
Minucius Felix.
————————————
[a.d. 210.] Though
Tertullian is the founder of Latin Christianity, his contemporary
Minucius Felix gives to Christian thought its earliest clothing in
Latinity. The harshness and provincialism, with the
Græcisms, if not the mere Tertullianism, of
Tertullian, deprive him of high claims to be classed among Latin
writers, as such; but in Minucius we find, at the very fountain-head of
Christian Latinity, a disciple of Cicero and a precursor of Lactantius
in the graces of style. The question of his originality is
earnestly debated among moderns, as it was in some degree with the
ancients. It turns upon the doubt as to his place with respect to
Tertullian, whose Apology he seems to quote, or rather to
abridge. But to me it seems evident that his argument reflects so
strikingly that of Tertullian’s Testimony of the Soul,
coincident though it be with portions of the Apology, that we must make
the date of the Testimony the pivot of our inquiry concerning
Minucius. Now, Tertullian’s Apology preceded the
Testimony, and the latter preceded the essay on the Flesh of
Christ. If the Testimony was quoted or employed by
Minucius, therefore, he could not have written before Possibly as late
as a.d. 230. Comp. Wordsworth,
Hippol., p. 126. A condensed and
valuable view of this matter may be seen in Dr. Schaff’s
History, etc., vol. iii. pp. 834–841.
Like Tertullian, our author appears to have been a jurisconsult, at Rome, at some period of his history. Beautiful glimpses of his life and character and surroundings are gained from his own pages, and nearly all we know about him is to be found therein. So far, he is his own biographer. He probably continued a layman, and may have lived, as some suppose, till the middle of the third century.
It is not unimportant to note that we are still dealing
with “the North-African school,” and that Rome has nothing
to do with the birth of Latin Christianity, as such. We have
entered upon the third Christian century, and as yet the venerable
apostolic see of the West has made no movement whatever towards the
creation of a Latin literature among Christians. So far from
being “the mother and mistress” of the churches, she is yet
voiceless in Christendom; while See Bishop
Jewell, Works, vol. i. pp. 386, 441. Cambridge,
1845.
In our author’s style and thought there is a
charm and a fragrance which associate him, in my mind, with the pure
spirit of “Mathetes,” with whose Epistle to
Diognetus, written nearly a hundred years before, it may be
profitably compared. See also my prefatory remarks to Mathetes,
and the reference to Bunsen which I have suffixed to the Notice of the
Edinburgh editors. Vol. I. of this
series, pp. 23, 24. See also Bunsen, Hippol., i. p.
244.
In the Edinburgh series, Minucius comes into view after Cyprian, and not till the end of the thirteenth volume of that edition. It will gratify the scholar to find it here where it belongs, and not less to note that it has an index of its own, while in the Edinburgh edition its contents are indexed with those of Cyprian. Consequently, the joint index is rendered nearly worthless, and the injury and confusion resulting to the Contents of Cyprian are not inconsiderable.
Here follows the valuable Prefatory Notice of Dr. Wallis:
Minucius Felix is said by
Jerome De Viris
Illustribus, c. 58. [His connection with
the Roman courts is inferred from cap. ii. infra.]
The Octavius, which is here translated, is a supposed argument between the heathen Cæcilius and the Christian Octavius—the writer being requested to arbitrate between the disputants. The date of its composition is still a matter of keen dispute. The settlement of the point hinges upon the answer to the question—Whether, in the numerous passages which are strikingly similar, occurring in the Apologeticus and the Octavius, Tertullian borrowed from Minucius, or Minucius borrowed from Tertullian? If Minucius borrowed from Tertullian, he must have flourished in the commencement of the third century, as the Apologeticus was written about the year 198 a.d. If, on the other hand, Tertullian borrowed from Minucius, the Octavius was written probably about the year 166, and Minucius flourished in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The later date was the one adopted by earlier critics, and the reasons for it are well given by Mr. Holden in his introduction. The earlier date was suggested by Rösler, maintained by Niebuhr, and elaborately defended by Muralto. An exhaustive exhibition of arguments in favour of the earlier date has been given by Adolf Ebert in his paper, Tertullian’s Verhältniss zu Minucius Felix, Leipzig, 1868.
Of the literary character of the dialogue, it is
sufficient to quote the testimony of the late Dean Milman:
“Perhaps no late work, either Pagan or Christian, reminds us of
the golden days of Latin prose so much as the Octavius of
Minucius Felix.” Milman’s
Hist. of Christianity, vol. iii. book iv. ch. iii.
In considering the claim of the dialogue to such praise as this, it must be borne in mind that the text as we have it is very uncertain, and often certainly corrupt; so that many passages seem to us confused, and some hopelessly obscure. Only one manuscript of the work has come down to us; which is now in the Imperial Library in Paris. It is beautifully written. Some editors have spoken of two other mss.; but it is now known that they were wrong. They supposed that the first edition was taken from a different ms. than the Codex Regius, and they were not aware that a codex in Brussels was merely a transcript of the one in Paris.
The Octavius appears in the ms. as the eighth book of Arnobius, and at first it was published as such. To Franciscus Balduinus (1560) is due the merit of having discovered the real author.
[Dr. Wallis, the
learned translator of the Octavius, is described in the
Edinburgh edition as “Senior Priest-Vicar of Wells Cathedral, and
incumbent of Christ Church, Coxley, Somerset.”]
The Octavius of Minucius Felix.
————————————
Chapter I.—Argument: Minucius Relates How Delightful to Him is the Recollection of the Things that Had Happened to Him with Octavius While He Was Associated with Him at Rome, and Especially of This Disputation.
When I consider and
mentally review my remembrance of Octavius, my excellent and most
faithful companion, the sweetness and charm of the man so clings to me,
that I appear to myself in some sort as if I were returning to past
times, and not merely recalling in my recollection things which have
long since happened and gone by. Thus, in the degree in which the
actual contemplation of him is withdrawn from my eyes, it is bound up
in my heart and in my most intimate feelings. And it was not
without reason that that remarkable and holy man, when he departed
this life, left to me an unbounded regret for him, especially
since he himself also glowed with such a love for me at all times,
that, whether in matters of amusement or of business, he agreed with me
in similarity of will, in either liking or disliking the same
things. [Sallust,
Catiline, “Idem facere atque sentire,”
etc. Also, Catiline’s speech, p. 6 of The
Conspiracy.] [Beautiful tribute to
Christian friendship, in a primitive example. We must bear in
mind that the story is of an earlier period than that of the work
itself, written at Cirta.]
Chapter II.—Argument: The Arrival of Octavius at Rome During the Time of the Public Holidays Was Very Agreeable to Minucius. Both of Them Were Desirous of Going to the Marine Baths of Ostia, with Cæcilius Associated with Them as a Companion of Minucius. On Their Way Together to the Sea, Cæcillus, Seeing an Image of Serapis, Raises His Hand to His Mouth, and Worships It.
For, for the sake of business and of visiting me, Octavius had hastened to Rome, having left his home, his wife, his children, and that which is most attractive in children, while yet their innocent years are attempting only half-uttered words,—a language all the sweeter for the very imperfection of the faltering tongue. And at this his arrival I cannot express in words with how great and with how impatient a joy I exulted, since the unexpected presence of a man so very dear to me greatly enhanced my gladness. Therefore, after one or two days, when the frequent enjoyment of our continual association had satisfied the craving of affection, and when we had ascertained by mutual narrative all that we were ignorant of about one another by reason of our separation, we agreed to go to that very pleasant city Ostia, that my body might have a soothing and appropriate remedy for drying its humours from the marine bathing, especially as the holidays of the courts at the vintage-time had released me from my cares. For at that time, after the summer days, the autumn season was tending to a milder temperature. And thus, when in the early morning we were going towards the sea along the shore (of the Tiber), that both the breathing air might gently refresh our limbs, and that the yielding sand might sink down under our easy footsteps with excessive pleasure; Cæcilius, observing an image of Serapis, raised his hand to his mouth, as is the custom of the superstitious common people, and pressed a kiss on it with his lips.
Chapter III.—Argument: Octavius, Displeased at the Act of This Superstitious Man, Sharply Reproaches Minucius, on the Ground that the Disgrace of This Wicked Deed is Reflected Not Less on Himself, as Cæcilius’ Host, Than on Cæcilius.
Then Octavius said: “It is not the part of a
good man, my brother Marcus, so to desert a
Chapter IV.—Argument: Cæcilius, Somewhat Grieved at This Kind of Rebuke Which for His Sake Minucius Had Had to Bear from Octavius, Begs to Argue with Octavius on the Truth of His Religion. Octavius with His Companion Consents, and Minucius Sits in the Middle Between Cæcilius and Octavius.
And thus, while we were all engaged in the
enjoyment of this spectacle, Cæcilius was paying no attention, nor
laughing at the contest; but silent, uneasy, standing apart, confessed
by his countenance that he was grieving for I knew not what. To
whom I said: “What is the matter? Wherefore do I not
recognise, Cæcilius, your usual liveliness? and why do I seek
vainly for that joyousness which is characteristic of your glances even
in serious matters?” Then said he: “For some
time our friend Octavius’ speech has bitterly vexed and worried
me, in which he, attacking you, reproached you with negligence, that he
might under cover of that charge more seriously condemn me for
ignorance. Therefore I shall proceed further: the matter is
now wholly and entirely between me and Octavius. If he is willing
that I, a man of that form of opinion, should argue with him, he will
now at once perceive that it is easier to hold an argument among his
comrades, than to engage in close conflict after the manner of the
philosophers. Let us be seated on those rocky barriers that are
cast there for the protection of the baths, and that run far out into
the deep, that we may be able both to rest after our journey, and to
argue with more attention.” And at his word we sat down, so
that, by covering me on either side, they sheltered me in the midst of
the three. “Ita ut me ex
tribus medium lateris ambitione protegerent."
Chapter V.—Argument: Cæcilius Begins His Argument First of All by Reminding Them that in Human Affairs All Things are Doubtful and Uncertain, and that Therefore It is to Be Lamented that Christians, Who for the Most Part are Untrained and Illiterate Persons, Should Dare to Determine on Anything with Certainty Concerning the Chief of Things and the Divine Majesty: Hence He Argues that the World is Governed by No Providence, and Concludes that It is Better to Abide by the Received Forms of Religion.
“Although to you, Marcus my brother, the subject
on which especially we are inquiring is not in doubt, inasmuch as,
being carefully informed in both kinds of life, you have rejected the
one and assented to the other, yet in the present case your mind must
be so fashioned that you may hold the balance of a most just judge, nor
lean with a disposition to one side (more than another), lest your
decision may seem not to arise so much from our arguments, as to be
originated from your own perceptions. The ms. and first edition read “more;” Ursinus
suggested minus instead of magis. This clause is
otherwise read: “Therefore we must be indignant, nay, must
be grieved.” Otherwise for
“even,” “except.” The reading of
the ms. is “stuprari,” as
above. “Scrutari,” “sciari,” or
“lustrare” and “suspicari,” are proposed
emendations. Or, “although
its weight may have established the earth.” Or, “although
the moisture may have flowed into the sea.” Variously read,
“is raised up,” or “and is raised up.”
The ms. has “attollitur,”
which by some is amended into “et alitur,” or “et
tollitur.” Either
“delectu” or “dilectu.” Or, “it is
extolled.”
Chapter VI.—Argument: The Object of All Nations, and Especially of the Romans, in Worshipping Their Divinities, Has Been to Attain for Their Worship the Supreme Dominion Over the Whole Earth.
“Since, then, either fortune is certain or nature
is uncertain, how much more reverential and “To think of
rather than to know” in some texts. Neander quotes this
passage as illustrating the dissatisfied state of the pagan mind with
the prevailing infidelity at that time. Or, “the great
mother” [i.e., Cybele. S.]. Or, “which
another people, when angry, would have despised.”
Chapter VII.—Argument: That the Roman Auspices and Auguries Have Been Neglected with Ill Consequences, But Have Been Observed with Good Fortune.
“Nor yet by chance (for I would venture in
the meantime even to take for granted the point in debate, and
so to err on the safe side) have our ancestors succeeded in their
undertakings either by the observance of auguries, or by consulting the
entrails, or by the institution of sacred rites, or by the dedication
of temples. Consider what is the record of books. You will
at once discover that they have inaugurated the rites of all kinds of
religions, either that the divine indulgence might be rewarded, or that
the threatening anger might be averted, or that the wrath already
swelling and raging might be appeased. Witness the Idæan
mother, Otherwise, “the
goddess mother.” Scil. Castor
and Pollux. Otherwise, “who
breathless with horses foaming,” etc. Otherwise, “the
offence of Jupiter, the renewal of the games,” etc.
“Therefore, since the consent of all nations
concerning the existence of the immortal gods remains established,
although their nature or their origin remains uncertain, I suffer
nobody swelling with such boldness, and with I know not what
irreligious wisdom, who would strive to undermine or weaken this
religion, so ancient, so useful, so wholesome, even although he may be
Theodorus of Cyrene, or one who is before him, Diagoras the
Melian, According to the
codex, “the Milesian.” [See note in Reeve’s
Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Minucius
Felix, vol. ii. p. 59. S.] Some have corrected
this word, reading “without consideration,” scil.
“inconsulte;” and the four first editions omit the
subsequent words, “concerning the divinity.” There are various
emendations of this passage, but their meaning is somewhat
obscure. One is elaborately ingenious: “Ita illis
pavorum fallax spes solatio redivivo blanditur,” which is said to
imply, “Thus the hope that deceives their fears, soothes them
with the hope of living again.”
Chapter IX.—Argument: The Religion of the Christians is Foolish, Inasmuch as They Worship a Crucified Man, and Even the Instrument Itself of His Punishment. They are Said to Worship the Head of an Ass, and Even the Nature of Their Father. They are Initiated by the Slaughter and the Blood of an Infant, and in Shameless Darkness They are All Mixed Up in an Uncertain Medley.
“And now, as wickeder things advance more
fruitfully, and abandoned manners creep on day by day, those abominable
shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the
whole world. Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out
and execrated. They know one another by secret marks and
insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one
another. Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain
religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and
sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of
that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain
and senseless superstition glories in crimes. Nor, concerning
these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and
various, Otherwise read
“abominable.” This charge, as Oehler
thinks, refers apparently to the kneeling posture in which penitents
made confession before their bishop. This calumny seems to
have originated from the sacrament of the Eucharist. Scil.
Fronto of Cirta, spoken of again in ch. xxxi. [A recent very
interesting discovery goes to show that our author was the chief
magistrate of Cirta, in Algeria, from a.d. 210
to 217. See Schaff, vol. iii. p. 841.]
Chapter X.—Argument: Whatever the Christians Worship, They Strive in Every Way to Conceal: They Have No Altars, No Temples, No Acknowledged Images. Their God, Like that of the Jews, is Said to Be One, Whom, Although They are Neither Able to See Nor to Show, They Think Nevertheless to Be Mischievous, Restless, and Unseasonably Inquisitive.
“I purposely pass over many things, for
those that I have mentioned are already too many; and that all these,
or the greater part of them, are true, the obscurity of their vile
religion declares. For why do they endeavour with such pains to
conceal and to cloak whatever they worship, since honourable things
always rejoice in publicity, while crimes are kept secret? Why
have they no altars, no temples, no acknowledged images? Otherwise, “no
consecrated images.” Otherwise, “we
are contained and bound together.” [These very
accusations, reduced back to Christian language, show that much of the
Creed was, in fact, known to the heathen at this period.]
Chapter XI.—Argument: Besides Asserting the Future Conflagration of the Whole World, They Promise Afterwards the Resurrection of Our Bodies: and to the Righteous an Eternity of Most Blessed Life; To the Unrighteous, of Extreme Punishment.
“And, not content with this wild opinion,
they add to it and associate with it old women’s fables: [ “And I have
already shown, without any trouble,” is another reading. Otherwise,
“without a body or with.” Otherwise, “too
credulous.”
Chapter XII.—Argument: Moreover, What Will Happen to the Christians Themselves After Death, May Be Anticipated from the Fact that Even Now They are Destitute of All Means, and are Afflicted with the Heaviest Calamities and Miseries.
“Neither do you at least take experience
from things present, how the fruitless expectations of vain promise
deceive you. Consider, wretched creatures, (from your lot) while
you are yet living, what is threatening you after death. Otherwise,
“while you consider, while you are yet alive, poor wretches, what
is threatening after death.” Some read, “with
shivering.”
Chapter XIII.—Argument: Cæcilius at Length Concludes that the New Religion is to Be Repudiated; And that We Must Not Rashly Pronounce Upon Doubtful Matters.
“However, if you have a desire to
philosophize, let any one of you who is sufficiently great, imitate, if
he can, Socrates the prince of wisdom. The answer of that man,
whenever he was asked about celestial matters, is well known:
‘What is above us is nothing to us.’ Well,
therefore, did he deserve from the oracle the testimony of singular
wisdom, which oracle he himself had a presentiment of, that he had been
preferred to all men for the reason, not that he had discovered all
things, but because he had learnt that he knew nothing. And thus
the confession This is otherwise
read, “Academic Pyrrhonists.” Cicero, de Natura
Deorum, i. 22.
Chapter XIV.—Argument: With Something of the Pride of Self-Satisfaction, Cæcilius Urges Octavius to Reply to His Arguments; And Minucius with Modesty Answers Him, that He Must Not Exult at His Own by No Means Ordinary Eloquence, and at the Harmonious Variety of His Address.
Thus far Cæcilius; and smiling cheerfully
(for the vehemence of his prolonged discourse had relaxed the ardour of
his indignation), he added: “And what does Octavius venture
to reply to this, a man of the race of Plautus, “Plautinæ
prosapiæ.” The expression is intended as a reproach
against the humble occupations of many of the Christian
professors. Plautus is said, when in need, to have laboured at a
baker’s hand-mill. Cæcilius tells Octavius that he may
be the first among the millers, but he is the last among the
philosophers. Stieber proposes “Christianorum”
instead of “pistorum”—“Christians”
instead of “millers.”
Chapter XV.—Argument: Cæcilius Retorts Upon Minucius, with Some Little Appearance of Being Hurt, that He is Foregoing the Office of a Religious Umpire, When He is Weakening the Force of His Argument. He Says that It Should Be Left to Octavius to Confute All that He Had Advanced.
“You are withdrawing,” says
Cæcilius, “from the office of a religious judge; for it is
very unfair for you to weaken the force of my pleading by the
interpolation of a very important argument, since Octavius has before
him each thing that I have said, sound and unimpaired, if he can refute
it.” “What you are reproving,” said I,
“unless I am mistaken, I have brought forward for the common
advantage, so that by a scrupulous examination we might weigh our
decision, not by the pompous style of the eloquence, but by the solid
character of the matter itself. Nor must our attention, as you
complain, be any longer called away, but with absolute silence let us
listen to the reply of our friend Januarius, Scil.
“Octavius.”
And thus Octavius began: “I will
indeed speak as I shall be able to the best of my powers, and you must
endeavour with me to dilute the very offensive strain of recriminations
in the river Some read, “in
the light.” Cæcilius. Otherwise
“his.” Some read
“cavillaverit” instead of “vacillaverit,” which
would give the sense, “make captious objections.” This is otherwise
given “certainty,” which helps the meaning of the
passage. Otherwise, “Far
from his guileless subtlety is so crafty a trickery.” But
the readings are very unsettled.
Chapter XVII.—Argument: Man Ought Indeed to Know Himself, But This Knowledge Cannot Be Attained by Him Unless He First of All Acknowledges the Entire Scope of Things, and God Himself. And from the Constitution and Furniture of the World Itself, Every One Endowed with Reason Holds that It Was Established by God, and is Governed and Administered by Him.
“Neither do I refuse to admit what
Cæcilius earnestly endeavoured to maintain among the chief
matters, that man ought to know himself, and to look around and see
what he is, whence he is, why he is; whether collected together from
the elements, or harmoniously formed of atoms, or rather made, formed,
and animated by God. And it is this very thing which we cannot
seek out and investigate without inquiry into the universe; since
things are so coherent, so linked and associated together, that unless
you diligently examine into the nature of divinity, you must be
ignorant of that of humanity. Nor can you well perform your
social duty unless you know that community of the world which is common
to all, especially since in this respect we differ from the wild
beasts, that while they are prone and tending to the earth, and are
born to look upon nothing but their food, we, whose countenance is
erect, whose look is turned towards heaven, as is our converse and
reason, whereby we recognise, feel, and imitate God, Some read, “the
Lord God.” Scil.
“atoms.” According to some,
“point out” or “indicate.” Olives ripen in the
month of December.
Chapter XVIII.—Argument: Moreover, God Not Only Takes Care of the Universal World, But of Its Individual Parts. That by the Decree of the One God All Things are Governed, is Proved by the Illustration of Earthly Empires. But Although He, Being Infinite and Immense—And How Great He Is, is Known to Himself Alone—Cannot Either Be Seen or Named by Us, Yet His Glory is Beheld Most Clearly When the Use of All Titles is Laid Aside.
“It would be a long matter to go through
particular instances. There is no member in man which is not
calculated both for the sake of necessity and of ornament; and what is
more wonderful still, all have the same form, but each has certain
lineaments modified, and thus we are each found to be unlike to one
another, while we all appear to be like in general. What is the
reason of our being born? what means the desire of begetting? Is
it not given by God, and that the breasts should become full of milk as
the offspring grows to maturity, and that the tender progeny should
grow up by the nourishment afforded by the abundance of the milky
moisture? Neither does God have care alone for the universe as a
whole, but also for its parts. Britain is deficient in sunshine,
but it is refreshed by the warmth of the sea that flows around
it. The river Nile tempers the dryness of Egypt; the Euphrates
cultivates Mesopotamia; the river Indus makes up for the want of rains,
and is said both to sow and to water the East. Now if, on
entering any house, you should behold everything refined, well
arranged, and adorned, assuredly you would believe that a master
presided over it, and that he himself was much better than all those
excellent things. So in this house of the world, when you look
upon the heaven and the earth, its providence, its ordering, its law,
believe that there is a Lord and Parent of the universe far more
glorious than the stars themselves, and the parts of the whole
world. Unless, perchance—since there is no doubt as to the
ex [In the case of Darius
Hystaspes.] Eteocles and
Polynices. Pompey and
Cæsar. According to some,
“one fate.” These words are
omitted by some editors.
Chapter XIX.—Argument: Moreover, the Poets Have Called Him the Parent of Gods and Men, the Creator of All Things, and Their Mind and Spirit. And, Besides, Even the More Excellent Philosophers Have Come Almost to the Same Conclusion as the Christians About the Unity of God.
“I hear the poets also announcing ‘the
One Father of gods and men;’ and that such is the mind of mortal
men as the Parent of all has appointed His day. Homer,
Odyss., xviii. 136, 137. Virgil,
Æneid, vi. 724. Some read, “For
these things are true.” Virgil,
Georgics, iv. 221; Æneid, i. 743. Otherwise,
“Speusippus.” The ms. here inserts, “Aristoteles of Pontus varies, at
one time attributing the supremacy to the world, at another to the
divine mind.” Some think that this is an interpolation,
others transfer the words to Theophrastus below. Otherwise,
“Aristo the Chian.” [See note on Plato,
chap. xxvi.]
Chapter XX.—Argument: But If the World is Ruled by Providence and Governed by the Will of One God, an Ignorant Antipathy Ought Not to Carry Us Away into the Error of Agreement with It: Although Delighted with Its Own Fables, It Has Brought in Ridiculous Traditions. Nor is It Shown Less Plainly that the Worship of the Gods Has Always Been Silly and Impious, in that the Most Ancient of Men Have Venerated Their Kings, Their Illustrious Generals, and Inventors of Arts, on Account of Their Remarkable Deeds, No Otherwise Than as Gods.
“I have set forth the opinions almost of all
the philosophers whose more illustrious glory it is to have pointed out
that there is one God, although with many names; so that any one might
think either that Christians are now philosophers, or that philosophers
were then already Christians. But if the world is governed by
providence, and directed by the will of one God, antiquity of unskilled
people ought not, however delighted and charmed with its own fables, to
carry us away into the mistake of a mutual agreement, when it is
rebutted by the opinions of its own philosophers, who are supported by
the authority both of reason and of antiquity. For our ancestors
had such an easy faith in falsehoods, that they rashly believed even
other monstrosities as marvellous wonders; Some editors read,
“mere wonders,” apparently on conjecture only. Otherwise, “was
pleased.” Four early editions
read “instantius” for “in statuis,” making the
meaning probably, “more keenly,” “more
directly.”
Chapter XXI.—Argument: Octavius Attests the Fact that Men Were Adopted as Gods, by the Testimony of Euhemerus, Prodicus, Persæus, and Alexander the Great, Who Enumerate the Country, the Birthdays, and the Burial-Places of the Gods. Moreover He Sets Forth the Mournful Endings, Misfortunes, and Deaths of the Gods. And, in Addition, He Laughs at the Ridiculous and Disgusting Absurdities Which the Heathens Continually Allege About the Form and Appearance of Their Gods.
“Read the writings of the Stoics, Otherwise, according
to some, “of the historians.” This treatise is
mentioned by Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ., ch. xxviii.
[See vol. ii. p. 143, this series.] Also by Augustine, de Civ.
Dei., lib. viii. ch. iii. and xxvii. In the fifth chapter
Augustine calls the priest by the name of Leo. This passage is very
doubtful both in its text and its meaning. Otherwise,
“carried about.” Otherwise, “his
approach is drowned.” Otherwise, “do
they not show what are the sports and the honours of your
gods?” These words are very
variously read. Davis conjectures that they should be,
“When Feretrius, he does not hear,” and explains the
allusion as follows: that Jupiter Feretrius could only be
approached with the spolia opima; and Minucius is covertly
ridiculing the Romans, because, not having taken spolia opima
for so long a time, they could not approach Feretrius. Otherwise,
“pointed out,” or “designated.” Otherwise corrupted
into Ætna.
Chapter XXII.—Argument: Moreover, These Fables, Which at First Were Invented by Ignorant Men, Were Afterwards Celebrated by Others, and Chiefly by Poets, Who Did No Little Mischief to the Truth by Their Authority. By Fictions of This Kind, and by Falsehoods of a Yet More Attractive Nature, the Minds of Young People are Corrupted, and Thence They Miserably Grow Old in These Beliefs, Although, on the Other Hand, the Truth is Obvious to Them If They Will Only Seek After It.
“These fables and errors we both learn from
ignorant parents, and, what is more serious still, we elaborate them in
our very studies and instructions, especially in the verses of the
poets, who as much as possible have prejudiced Some read, “and
it is marvellous how these have prejudiced,” etc. Some read, “the
truth itself.” Plat., de Rep.,
lib. iii. Otherwise, “Then
Vulcan fabricates,” etc. Otherwise,
“judgments.”
Chapter XXIII.—Argument: Although the Heathens
Acknowledge Their Kings to Be Mortal, Yet They Feign that They are Gods
Even Against Their Own Will, Not Because of Their Belief in Their
Divinity, But in Honour of the Power that They Have
Exerted.
“It is needless to go through each
individual case, and to develope the entire series of that race, since
in its first parents their mortality is proved, and must have flowed
down into the rest by the very law of their succession, unless perhaps
you fancy that they were gods after death; as by the perjury of
Proculus, Romulus became a god; and by the good-will of the
Mauritanians, Juba is a god; and other kings are divine who are
consecrated, not in the faith of their divinity, but in honour of the
power that they exercised. Moreover, this name is ascribed to
those who are unwilling to bear it. They desire to persevere in
their human condition. They fear that they may be made gods;
although they are already old men, they do not wish it. Therefore
neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of
people that are born, since everything which is born dies. But
that is divine which has neither rising nor setting. For why, if
they were born, are they not born in the present day
also?—unless, perchance, Jupiter has already grown old, and
child-bearing has failed in Juno, and Minerva has grown grey before she
has borne children. Or has that process of generation ceased, for
the reason that no assent is any longer yielded to fables of this
kind? Besides, if the gods could create, “Be
created” is a more probable reading. Otherwise, “that
he had rashly been so deceived by the artificer in the material, as to
make a god.”
[Footbaths. See vol. ii., Theophilus, p. 92, and
Athenagoras, p. 143.]
Chapter XXIV.—Argument: He Briefly Shows, Moreover, What Ridiculous, Obscene, and Cruel Rites Were Observed in Celebrating the Mysteries of Certain Gods.
“How much more truly do dumb animals naturally
judge concerning your gods? Mice, swallows, kites, know that they
have no feeling: they gnaw them, they trample on them, they sit upon
them; and unless you drive them off, they build their nests in the very
mouth of your god. Spiders, indeed, weave their webs over his
face, and suspend their threads from his very head. You wipe,
cleanse, scrape, and you protect and fear those whom you make; while
not one of you thinks that he ought to know God before he worships Him;
desiring without consideration to obey their ancestors, choosing rather
to become an addition to the error of others, than to trust themselves;
in that they know nothing of what they fear. Thus avarice has
been consecrated in gold and silver; thus the form of empty statues has
been established; thus has arisen Roman superstition. And if you
reconsider the rites of these gods, how many things are laughable, and
how many also pitiable! Naked people run about in the raw winter;
some walk bonneted, and carry around old bucklers, or beat drums, or
lead their gods a-begging through the streets. Some fanes it is
permitted to approach once a year, some it is forbidden to visit at
all. There is one place where a man may not go, and there are
some that are sacred from women: it is a crime needing atonement
for a slave even to be present at some ceremonies. Some sacred
places are crowned by a woman having one husband, some by a woman with
many; and she who can reckon up most adulteries is sought after with
most religious zeal. What! would not a man who makes libations of
his own blood, and supplicates (his god) by his own wounds, be better
if he were altogether profane, than religious in such a way is
this? And he whose shameful parts are cut off, how greatly does
he wrong God in seeking to propitiate Him in this manner! since, if God
Chapter XXV.—Argument: Then He Shows that Cæcilius Had Been Wrong in Asserting that the Romans Had Gained Their Power Over the Whole World by Means of the Due Observance of Superstitions of This Kind. Rather the Romans in Their Origin Were Collected by Crime, and Grew by the Terrors of Their Ferocity. And Therefore the Romans Were Not So Great Because They Were Religious, But Because They Were Sacrilegious with Impunity.
“Nevertheless, you will say that that very
superstition itself gave, increased, and established their empire for
the Romans, since they prevailed not so much by their valour as by
their religion and piety. Doubtless the illustrious and noble
justice of the Romans had its beginning from the very cradle of the
growing empire. Did they not in their origin, when gathered
together and fortified by crime, grow by the terror of their own
fierceness? For the first people were assembled together as to an
asylum. Abandoned people, profligate, incestuous, assassins,
traitors, had flocked together; and in order that Romulus himself,
their commander and governor, might excel his people in guilt, he
committed fratricide. Parricidium. Virg.,
Æneid, viii. 635. Some read
“probra” for “morbos,” scil.
“reproaches.”
Chapter XXVI.—Argument: The Weapon that Cæcilius Had Slightly Brandished Against Him, Taken from the Auspices and Auguries of Birds, Octavius Retorts by Instancing the Cases of Regulus, Mancinus, Paulus, and Cæsar. And He Shows by Other Examples, that the Argument from the Oracles is of No Greater Force Than the Others.
“And now I come to those Roman auspices and
auguries which you have collected with extreme pains, and have borne
testimony that they were both neglected with ill consequences, and
observed with good fortune. Certainly Clodius, and Flaminius, and
Junius lost their armies on this account, because they did not judge it
well to wait for the very solemn omen given by the greedy pecking of
the chickens. But what of Regulus? Did he not observe the
auguries, and was taken captive? Mancinus maintained his
religious duty, and was sent under the yoke, and was given up.
Paulus also had greedy chickens at Cannæ, yet he was overthrown
with the greater part of the republic. Reipublicæ; but
it is shrewdly conjectured that the passage was written, “cum
majore R. P. parte”—“with the greater part of
the Roman people,” and the mistake made by the transcriber of the
ms. Otherwise
Hostanes. [Octavius and Minucius
had but one mind (see cap. i. supra), and both were philosophers
of the Attic Academy reflecting Cicero. See my remarks on
Athenagoras, vol. ii. p. 126, this series.] According to some
editors, “warns us that the desire of love is
received.”
Chapter XXVII.—Argument: Recapitulation. Doubtless Here is a Source of Error: Demons Lurk Under the Statues and Images, They Haunt the Fanes, They Animate the Fibres of the Entrails, Direct the Flights of Birds, Govern the Lots, Pour Forth Oracles Involved in False Responses. These Things Not from God; But They are Constrained to Confess When They are Adjured in the Name of the True God, and are Driven from the Possessed Bodies. Hence They Flee Hastily from the Neighbourhood of Christians, and Stir Up a Hatred Against Them in the Minds of the Gentiles Who Begin to Hate Them Before They Know Them.
“These impure spirits, therefore—the
demons—as is shown by the Magi, by the philos Some read
“slumbers” for “all men.” “Cling to”
is another reading.
Chapter XXVIII.—Argument: Nor is It Only Hatred that They Arouse Against the Christians, But They Charge Against Them Horrid Crimes, Which Up to This Time Have Been Proved by Nobody. This is the Work of Demons. For by Them a False Report is Both Set on Foot and Propagated. The Christians are Falsely Accused of Sacrilege, of Incest, of Adultery, of Parricide; And, Moreover, It is Certain and True that the Very Same Crimes, or Crimes Like to or Greater Than These, are in Fact Committed by the Gentiles Themselves.
“But how unjust it is, Otherwise read,
“But how great a fault it is.” “To urge
them” is the reading in some text. “Of all
men” is another reading. Otherwise,
“Hippona.” Otherwise,
“devote,” and other readings.
Chapter XXIX.—Argument: Nor is It More True that a Man Fastened to a Cross on Account of His Crimes is Worshipped by Christians, for They Believe Not Only that He Was Innocent, But with Reason that He Was God. But, on the Other Hand, the Heathens Invoke the Divine Powers of Kings Raised into Gods by Themselves; They Pray to Images, and Beseech Their Genii.
“These, and such as these infamous things,
we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any
more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend
that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we
should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were
true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our
religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, [A reverent allusion
to the Crucified, believed in and worshipped as God.] [ [See Justin
Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, chap. lxxxix. et seqq. vol.
i. p. 244. S.] [See
Reeves’s Apologies (ut supra), vol. ii. p. 144,
note. S.]
Chapter XXX.—Argument: The Story About Christians Drinking the Blood of an Infant that They Have Murdered, is a Barefaced Calumny. But the Gentiles, Both Cruelly Expose Their Children Newly Born, and Before They are Born Destroy Them by a Cruel Abortion. Christians are Neither Allowed to See Nor to Hear of Manslaughter.
“And now I should wish to meet him who says or
believes that we are initiated by the By medicaments and
drinks.
Chapter XXXI.—Argument: The Charge of Our Entertainments Being Polluted with Incest, is Entirely Opposed to All Probability, While It is Plain that Gentiles are Actually Guilty of Incest. The Banquets of Christians are Not Only Modest, But Temperate. In Fact, Incestuous Lust is So Unheard Of, that with Many Even the Modest Association of the Sexes Gives Rise to a Blush.
“And of the incestuous banqueting, the
plotting of demons has falsely devised an enormous fable against us, to
stain the glory of our modesty, by the loathing excited by an
outrageous infamy, that before inquiring into the truth it might turn
men away from us by the terror of an abominable charge. It was
thus your own Fronto [Fronto is
called “our Cirtensian” in cap. ix.
supra; and this suggests that the Octavius was
probably written in Cirta, circaa.d. 210. See supra, p. 178.]
Chapter XXXII.—Argument: Nor Can It Be Said that the Christians Conceal What They Worship Because They Have No Temples and No Altars, Inasmuch as They are Persuaded that God Can Be Circumscribed by No Temple, and that No Likeness of Him Can Be Made. But He is Everywhere Present, Sees All Things, Even the Most Secret Thoughts of Our Hearts; And We Live Near to Him, and in His Protection.
“But do you think that we conceal what we
worship, if we have not temples and altars? And yet what image of
God shall I make, since, if you think rightly, man himself is the image
of God? What temple shall I build to Him, when this whole world
fashioned by His work cannot receive Him? And when I, a man,
dwell far and wide, shall I shut up the might of so great majesty
within one little building? Were it not better that He should be
dedicated in our mind, consecrated in our inmost heart? Shall I
offer victims and sacrifices to the Lord, such as He has produced for
my use, that I should throw back to Him His own gift? It is
ungrateful when the victim fit for sacrifice is a good disposition, and
a pure mind, and a sincere judgment. According to some
editions, “conscience.”
Chapter XXXIII.—Argument: That Even If God Be Said to Have Nothing Availed the Jews, Certainly the Writers of the Jewish Annals are the Most Sufficient Witnesses that They Forsook God Before They Were Forsaken by Him.
“Neither let us flatter ourselves concerning
our multitude. We seem many to ourselves, but to God we are very
few. We distinguish peoples and nations; to God this whole world
is one family. Kings only know all the matters of their kingdom
by the ministrations of their servants: God has no need of
information. We not only live in His eyes, but also in His
bosom. But it is objected that it availed the Jews nothing
that they themselves worshipped the one God with altars and temples,
with the greatest superstition. You are guilty of ignorance if
you are recalling later events while you are forgetful or unconscious
of former ones. For they themselves also, as long as they
worshipped our God—and He is the same God of all—with
chastity, innocency, and religion, as long as they obeyed His wholesome
precepts, from a few became innumerable, from poor became rich, from
being servants became kings; a few overwhelmed many; unarmed men
overwhelmed armed ones as they fled from them, following them up by
God’s command, and with the elements striving on their
behalf. Carefully read over their Scrip [Minucius is blamed
for not introducing more Scripture! He relates his friend’s
argument with a scoffing Pagan. How could Octavius have used the
Scriptures with such an antagonist?] [Wars of the
Jews, b. v. cap. 9, etc.]
Chapter XXXIV.—Argument: Moreover, It is Not at All to Be Wondered at If This World is to Be Consumed by Fire, Since Everything Which Has a Beginning Has Also an End. And the Ancient Philosophers are Not Averse from the Opinion of the Probable Burning Up of the World. Yet It is Evident that God, Having Made Man from Nothing, Can Raise Him Up from Death into Life. And All Nature Suggests a Future Resurrection.
“Further, in respect of the burning up of
the world, it is a vulgar error not to believe either that fire will
fall upon it in an unforeseen way, or that the world will be destroyed
by it. This passage is very
indefinite, and probably corrupt; the meaning is anything but
satisfactory. The general meaning is given freely thus:
“Further, it is a vulgar error to doubt or disbelieve a future
conflagration of the world.” This passage is very
variously read, without substantial alteration of the sense. Otherwise, “to
God Himself alone, the artificer.” This is otherwise
read, “the work of the mimic or buffoon.” Scil. “by
burning.” [
Chapter
XXXV.—Argument: Righteous and Pious Men Shall Be Rewarded
with Never-Ending
“And yet men are admonished in the books and
poems of the most learned poets of that fiery river, and of the heat
flowing in manifold turns from the Stygian marsh,—things which,
prepared for eternal torments, and known to them by the information of
demons and from the oracles of their prophets, they have delivered to
us. And therefore among them also even king Jupiter himself
swears religiously by the parching banks and the black abyss; for, with
foreknowledge of the punishment destined to him, with his worshippers,
he shudders. Nor is there either measure or termination to these
torments. There the intelligent fire πῦρ
σωφρονοῦν is an
expression of Clemens Alexandrinus, so that there is no need for the
emendation of “rapiens” instead of “sapiens,”
suggested by one editor. “Are known
as” is another reading.
Chapter XXXVI.—Argument: Fate is Nothing, Except So Far as Fate is God. Man’s Mind is Free, and Therefore So is His Action: His Birth is Not Brought into Judgment. It is Not a Matter of Infamy, But of Glory, that Christians are Reproached for Their Poverty; And the Fact that They Suffer Bodily Evils is Not as a Penalty, But as a Discipline.
“Neither let any one either take comfort
from, or apologize for what happens from fate. Let what happens
be of the disposition of fortune, yet the mind is free; and therefore
man’s doing, not his dignity, is judged. For what else is
fate than what God has spoken Fatus. Otherwise read,
“both more truly.” Some read, “I
will speak at length.” Probably a better
reading is “strive for them.”
Chapter XXXVII.—Argument: Tortures Most Unjustly Inflicted for the Confession of Christ’s Name are Spectacles Worthy of God. A Comparison Instituted Between Some of the Bravest of the Heathens and the Holy Martyrs. He Declares that Christians Do Not Present Themselves at Public Shows and Processions, Because They Know Them, with the Greatest Certainty, to Be No Less Impious Than Cruel.
“How beautiful is the spectacle to God when
a Christian does battle with pain; when he is drawn up against threats,
and punishments, and tortures; when, mocking
“Arridens,” but otherwise “arripiens,”
scil. “snatching at,” suggesting possibly the idea
of the martyrs chiding the delays of the executioners, or provoking the
rush of the wild beasts. Otherwise,
“unhoped-for.” [This chapter has been supposed to
indicate that the work was written in a time of persecution.
Faint tokens of the same have been imagined also, in capp. 29 and 33,
supra.] This passage is
peculiar; the original is, “Ut ingenium eorum perditæ mentis
licentiæ potestatis liberæ nundinentur,” with various
modifications of reading.
Chapter
XXXVIII.—Argument: Christians Abstain from Things Connected
with Idol Sacrifices, Lest Any One Should Think Either that They Yield
to Demons, or that They are Ashamed of Their Religion. They Do
Not Indeed Despise All the Colour and Scent of Flowers, for They are
Accustomed to Use Them Scattered About Loosely and Negligently, as Well
as to Entwine Their Necks with Garlands; But to Crown the Head of a
Corpse They Think Superfluous and Useless. Moreover, with the
Same
“But that we despise the leavings of
sacrifices, and the cups out of which libations have been poured, is
not a confession of fear, but an assertion of our true liberty.
For although nothing which comes into existence as an inviolable gift
of God is corrupted by any agency, yet we abstain, lest any should
think either that we are submitting to demons, to whom libation has
been made, or that we are ashamed of our religion. But who is he
who doubts of our indulging ourselves in spring flowers, when we gather
both the rose of spring and the lily, and whatever else is of agreeable
colour and odour among the flowers? For these we both use
scattered loose and free, and we twine our necks with them in
garlands. Pardon us, forsooth, that we do not crown our heads; we
are accustomed to receive the scent of a sweet flower in our nostrils,
not to inhale it with the back of our head or with our hair. Nor
do we crown the dead. And in this respect I the more wonder at
you, in the way in which you apply to a lifeless person, or to one who
does not feel, a torch; or a garland The probable reading
here is, “You apply to a lifeless person, either if he has
feeling, a torch; or, if he feels not, a garland.” “We who do
not,” etc., is a conjectural reading, omitting the subsequent
“we.”
Chapter XXXIX.—Argument: When Octavius Had Finished This Address, Minucius and Cæcilius Sate for Some Time in Attentive and Silent Wonder. And Minucius Indeed Kept Silence in Admiration of Octavius, Silently Revolving What He Had Heard.
When Octavius had brought his speech to a close, for some time we were struck into silence, and held our countenances fixed in attention and as for me, I was lost in the greatness of my admiration, that he had so adorned those things which it is easier to feel than to say, both by arguments and by examples, and by authorities derived from reading; and that he had repelled the malevolent objectors with the very weapons of the philosophers with which they are armed, and had moreover shown the truth not only as easy, but also as agreeable.
Chapter XL.—Argument: Then Cæcilius Exclaims that He is Vanquished by Octavius; And That, Being Now Conqueror Over Error, He Professes the Christian Religion. He Postpones, However, Till the Morrow His Training in the Fuller Belief of Its Mysteries.
While, therefore, I was silently turning over
these things in my own mind, Cæcilius broke forth: “I
congratulate as well my Octavius as myself, as much as possible on that
tranquillity in which we live, and I do not wait for the
decision. Even thus we have conquered: not unjustly do I
assume to myself the victory. For even as he is my conqueror, so
I am triumphant over error. Therefore, in what belongs to the
substance of the question, I both confess concerning providence, and I
yield to God; Otherwise read,
“and I believe concerning God.” [i.e., he will become
a catechumen on the morrow.]
Chapter XLI.—Argument: Finally, All are Pleased, and Joyfully Depart: Cæcilius, that He Had Believed; Octavius, that He Had Conquered; And Minucius, that the Former Had Believed, and the Latter Had Conquered.
“But for myself,” said I, “I rejoice
more fully on behalf of all of us; because also Octa
After these things we departed, glad and cheerful: Cæcilius, to rejoice that he had believed; Octavius, that he had succeeded; and I, that the one had believed, and the other had conquered.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Editions, p. 171.)
For an interesting account of the bibliographical history of this work, see Dupin. It passed for the Eight Book of Arnobius until a.d. 1560, and was first printed in its true character at Heidelberg in that year, with a learned preface by Balduinus, who restored it to its true author.
II.
(The neighing of horses, note 1, p. 183.)
It strikes me as singular that the Edinburgh edition, which gives a note to each of the instances that follow, should have left me to supply this reference to the case of Darius Hystaspes. The story is told, as will be remembered by all who have ever read it, by Herodotus, and is certainly one of the most extraordinary in history, when one reflects that a horse elected a great monarch, and one whose life not a little affected the fortunes of mankind. A knavish groom was indeed the engineer of this election, as often, in such events, the secret springs of history are hidden; but, if the story is not wholly a fable, the coincidence of thunder in the heavens is most noteworthy. It seemed to signify the overruling of Providence, and the power of God to turn the folly, not less than the wrath, of men, to God’s praise. See Herod., book iii. cap. lxxxvi.
III.
(From nothing, p. 194.)
From this chapter, if not from others, it had been rashly affirmed that our author imagined that the soul perishes with the body, and is to be renewed out of nothing. The argument is wholly ad hominem, and asserts nothing from the author’s own point of view, as I understand it. He gives what is “sufficient for his argument,” and professes nothing more. He was not a clergyman, nor is his work a sermon to the faithful. He defies any one to deny, that, if God could form man out of nothing, He can make him anew out of nothing. The residue of the argument is a brilliant assertion of the imperishability of matter, in terms which might satisfy modern science; and the implication is, that the soul no more perishes to the sight of God than does the body vaporized and reserved in the custody of the elements.
[Translated by the Rev. Robert Ernest Wallis, Ph.D.]
Introductory Note
to the
Instructions of Commodianus.
————————————
[a.d. 240.] Our
author seems to have been a North-African bishop, of whom little is
known save what we learn from his own writings. He has been
supposed to incline to some ideas of Praxeas, and also to the
Millenarians, but perhaps on insufficient grounds. His
Millenarianism reflects the views of a very primitive age, and that
without the corrupt Chiliasm of a later period, which brought about a
practical repudiation of the whole system. He gives us a
painful picture of the decline of godliness in his days; of which see
Wordsworth’s Hippolytus, p. 140.
As a poetical work the following prose version probably does it no injustice. His versification is pronounced very crabbed, and his diction is the wretched patois of North Africa. But the piety and earnestness of a practical Christian seem everywhere conspicuous in this fragment of antiquity.
The Instructions of Commodianus
in favour of
Christian Discipline,
Against the Gods of the Heathens.
(Expressed in Acrostics.)
I.—Preface.
My preface sets forth the way to the wanderer and
a good visitation when the goal of life shall have come, that he may
become eternal—a thing which ignorant hearts disbelieve. I
in like manner have wandered for a long time, by giving attendance upon
heathen fanes, my parents themselves being ignorant. [Sufficient evidence
of his heathen origin.]
II.—God’s Indignation.
In the law, the Lord of heaven, and earth, and sea has commanded, saying, Worship not vain gods made by your own hands out of wood or gold, lest my wrath destroy you for such things. The people before Moses, unskilled, abiding without law, and ignorant of God, prayed to gods that perished, after the likenesses of which they fashioned vain idols. The Lord having brought the Jews out of the land of Egypt, subsequently imposed on them a law; and the Omnipotent enjoined these things, that they should serve Him alone, and not those idols. Moreover, in that law is taught concerning the resurrection, and the hope of living in happiness again in the world, if vain idols be forsaken and not worshipped.
III.—The Worship of Demons.
When Almighty God, to beautify the nature of the world, willed that that earth should be visited by angels, when they were sent down they despised His laws. Such was the beauty of women, that it turned them aside; so that, being contaminated, they could not return to heaven. Rebels from God, they uttered words against Him. Then the Highest uttered His judgment against them; and from their seed giants are said to have been born. By them arts were made known in the earth, and they taught the dyeing of wool, and everything which is done; and to them, when they died, men erected images. But the Almighty, because they were of an evil seed, did not approve that, when dead, they should be brought back from death. Whence wandering they now subvert many bodies, and it is such as these especially that ye this day worship and pray to as gods.
IV.—Saturn.
And Saturn the old, if he is a god, how does he grow old? Or if he was a god, why was he driven by his terrors to devour his children? But because he was not a god, he consumed the bowels of his sons in a monstrous madness. He was a king upon earth, born in the mount Olympus; and he was not divine, but called himself a god. He fell into weakness of mind, and swallowed a stone for his son. Thus he became a god; of late he is called Jupiter.
V.—Jupiter.
This Jupiter was born to Saturn in the island of Breta;
and when he was grown up, he deprived his father of the kingdom.
He then deluded the wives and sisters of the nobles. Moreover,
Pyracmon, a smith, had made for him a sceptre. In the beginning
God made the heaven, the
VI.—Of the Same Jupiter’s Thunderbolt.
Ye say, O fools, Jupiter thunders. It is he
that hurls thunderbolts; and if it was childishness that thought thus,
why for two hundred years have ye been babies? [An index of
time. He writes, therefore, in the third century.]
VII.—Of the Septizonium and the Stars.
Your want of intelligence deceives you concerning the circle of the zone, and perchance from that you find out that you must pray to Jupiter. Saturn is told of there, but it is as a star, for he was driven forth by Jupiter, or let Jupiter be believed to be in the star. He who controlled the constellations of the pole, and the sower of the soil; he who made war with the Trojans, he loved the beautiful Venus. Or among the stars themselves Mars was caught with her by married jealousy: he is called the youthful god. Oh excessively foolish, to think that those who are born of Maia rule from the stars, or that they rule the entire nature of the world! Subjected to wounds, and themselves living under the dominion of the fates, obscene, inquisitive, warriors of an impious life; and they made sons, equally mortal with themselves, and were all terrible, foolish, strong, in the sevenfold girdle. If ye worship the stars, worship also the twelve signs of the zodiac, as well the ram, the bull, the twins, as the fierce lion; and finally, they go on into fishes,—cook them and you will prove them. A law without law is your refuge: what wishes to be, will prevail. A woman desires to be wanton; she seeks to live without restraint. Ye yourselves will be what ye wish for, and pray to as gods and goddesses. Thus I worshipped while I went astray, and now I condemn it.
VIII.—Of the Sun and Moon.
Concerning the Sun and Moon ye are in error, although they are in our immediate presence; in that ye, as I formerly did, think that you must pray to them. They, indeed, are among the stars; but they do not run of their own accord. The Omnipotent, when He established all things at first, placed them there with the stars, on the fourth day. And, indeed, He commanded in the law that none should worship them. Ye worship so many gods who promise nothing concerning life, whose law is not on the earth, nor are they themselves foretold. But a few priests seduce you, who say that any deity destined to die can be of service. Draw near now, read, and learn the truth.
IX.—Mercury.
Let your Mercury be depicted with a Saraballum, and with wings on his helmet or his cap, and in other respects naked. I see a marvellous thing, a god flying with a little satchel. Run, poor creatures, with your lap spread open when he flies, that he may empty his satchel: do ye from thence be prepared. Look on the painted one, since he will thus cast you money from on high: then dance ye securely. Vain man, art thou not mad, to worship painted gods in heaven? If thou knowest not how to live, continue to dwell with the beasts.
X.—Neptune.
Ye make Neptune a god descended from Saturn; and
he wields a trident that he may spear the fishes. It is plain by
his being thus provided that he is a sea-god. Did not he himself
with Apollo raise up walls for the Trojans? How did that poor
stone-mason become a god? Did not he beget the
cyclops-monster? And was he himself when dead unable to live
again, though his structure admitted of this? We have changed
marhus et into mortuus, and de suo into
denuo.
Ye make Apollo a player on the cithara, and divine. Born at first of Maia, in the isle of Delos, subsequently, for offered wages, a builder, obeying the king Laomedon, he reared the walls of the Trojans. And he established himself, and ye are seduced into thinking him a god, in whose bones the love of Cassandra burned, whom the virgin craftily sported with, and, though a divine being, he is deceived. By his office of augur he was able to know the double-hearted one. Moreover rejected, he, though divine, departed thence. Him the virgin burnt up with her beauty, whom he ought to have burnt up; while she ought first of all to have loved the god who thus lustfully began to love Daphne, and still follows her up, wishing to violate the maid. The fool loves in vain. Nor can he obtain her by running. Surely, if he were a god, he would come up with her through the air. She first came under the roof, and the divine being remained outside. The race of men deceive you, for they were of a sad way of life. Moreover, he is said to have fed the cattle of Admetus. While in imposed sports he threw the quoit into the air, he could not restrain it as it fell, and it killed his friend. That was the last day of his companion Hyacinthus. Had he been divine, he would have foreknown the death of his friend.
XII.—Father Liber—Bacchus.
Ye yourselves say that Father Liber was assuredly twice begotten. First of all he was born in India of Proserpine and Jupiter, and waging war against the Titans, when his blood was shed, he expired even as one of mortal men. Again, restored from his death, in another womb Semele conceived him again of Jupiter, a second Maia, whose womb being divided, he is taken away near to birth from his dead mother, and as a nursling is given to be nourished to Nisus. From this being twice born he is called Dionysus; and his religion is falsely observed in vanity; and they celebrate his orgies such that now they themselves seem to be either foolhardy or burlesquers of Mimnermomerus. They conspire in evil; they practise beforehand with pretended heat, that they may deceive others into saying that a deity is present. Hence you manifestly see men living a life like his, violently excited with the wine which he himself had pressed out; they have given him divine honour in the midst of their drunken excess.
XIII.—The Unconquered One.
The unconquered one was born from a rock, if he is regarded as a god. Now tell us, then, on the other hand, which is the first of these two. The rock has overcome the god: then the creator of the rock has to be sought after. Moreover, you still depict him also as a thief; although, if he were a god, he certainly did not live by theft. Assuredly he was of earth, and of a monstrous nature. And he turned other people’s oxen into his caves; just as did Cacus, that son of Vulcan.
XIV.—Sylvanus.
Whence, again, has Sylvanus appeared to be a god? Perhaps it is agreeable so to call him from this, that the pipe sings sweetly because he bestows the wood; for, perhaps, it might not be so. Thou hast bought a venal master, when thou shalt have bought from him. Behold the wood fails! What is due to him? Art thou not ashamed, O fool, to adore such pictures? Seek one God who will allow you to live after death. Depart from such as have become dead in life.
XV.—Hercules.
Hercules, because he destroyed the monster of the Aventine Mount, who had been wont to steal the herds of Evander, is a god: the rustic mind of men, untaught also, when they wished to return thanks instead of praise to the absent thunderer, senselessly vowed victims as to a god to be besought, they made milky altars as a memorial to themselves. Thence it arises that he is worshipped in the ancient manner. But he is no god, although he was strong in arms.
XVI.—Of the Gods and Goddesses.
Ye say that they are gods who are plainly cruel, and ye say that genesis assigns the fates to you. Now, then, say to whom first of all sacred rites are paid. Between the ways on either side immature death is straying. If the fates give the generations, why do you pray to the god? Thou art vainly deceived who art seeking to beseech the manes, and thou namest them to be lords over thee who are fabricated. Or, moreover, I know not what women you pray to as goddesses—Bellona and Nemesis the goddesses, together with the celestial Fury, the Virgins and Venus, for whom your wives are weak in the loins. Besides, there are in the lanes other demons which are not as yet numbered, and are worn on the neck, so that they themselves cannot give to themselves an account. Plagues ought rather to be exported to the ends of the earth.
XVII.—Of Their Images.
A few wicked and empty poets delude you; while they seek
with difficulty to procure their living, they adorn falsehood to be for
others under the guise of mystery. Thence feigning to be smitten
by some deity, they sing of his majesty, and weary themselves under his
form. Ye have often seen the Dindymarii, with what a din they
enter upon luxuries while they seek to feign
XVIII.—Of Ammydates and the Great God.
We have already said many things of an abominable superstition, and yet we follow up the subject, lest we should be said to have passed anything over. And the worshippers worshipped their Ammydates after their manner. He was great to them when there was gold in the temple. They placed their heads under his power, as if he were present. It came to the highest point that Cæsar took away the gold. The deity failed, or fled, or passed away into fire. The author of this wickedness is manifest who formed this same god, and falsely prophesying seduces so many and so great men, and only was silent about Him who was accustomed to be divine. For voices broke forth, as if with a changed mind, as if the wooden god were speaking into his ear. Say now yourselves if they are not false deities? From that prodigy how many has that prophet destroyed? He forgot to prophesy who before was accustomed to prophesy; so those prodigies are feigned among those who are greedy of wine, whose damnable audacity feigns deities, for they were carried about, and such an image was dried up. For both he himself is silent, and no one prophesies concerning him at all. But ye wish to ruin yourselves.
XIX.—Of the Vain Nemesiaci.
Is it not ignominy, that a prudent man should be seduced and worship such a one, or say that a log is Diana? You trust a man who in the morning is drunk, costive, and ready to perish, who by art speaks falsely what is seen by him. While he lives strictly, he feeds on his own bowels. A detestable one defiles all the citizens; and he has attached to himself—a similar gathering being made—those with whom he feigns the history, that he may adorn a god. He is ignorant how to prophesy for himself; for others he dares it. He places it on his shoulder when he pleases, and again he places it down. Whirling round, he is turned by himself with the tree of the two-forked one, as if you would think that he was inspired with the deity of the wood. Ye do not worship the gods whom they themselves falsely announce; ye worship the priests themselves, fearing them vainly. But if thou art strong in heart, flee at once from the shrines of death.
XX.—The Titans.
Ye say that the Titans are to you Tutans. Ye ask that these fierce ones should be silent under your roof, as so many Lares, shrines, images made like to a Titan. For ye foolishly adore those who have died by an evil death, not reading their own law. They themselves speak not, and ye dare to call them gods who are melted out of a brazen vessel; ye should rather melt them into little vessels for yourselves.
XXI.—The Montesiani.
Ye call the mountains also gods. Let them rule in gold, darkened by evil, and aiding with an averted mind. For if a pure spirit and a serene mind remained to you, thou thyself ought to examine for thyself concerning them. Thou art become senseless as a man, if thou thinkest that these can save thee, whether they rule or whether they cease. If thou seekest anything healthy, seek rather the righteousness of the law, that brings the help of salvation, and says that you are becoming eternal. For what you shall follow in vanity rejoices you for a time. Thou art glad for a brief space, and afterwards bewailest in the depths. Withdraw thyself from these, if thou wilt rise again with Christ.
XXII.—The Dulness of the Age.
Alas, I grieve, citizens, that ye are thus blinded
by the world. One runs to the lot; another gazes on the birds;
another, having shed the blood of bleating animals, calls forth the
manes, and credulously desires to hear vain responses. When so
many leaders and kings have taken counsel concerning life, what benefit
has it been to them to have known even its portents? Learn, I beg
you, citizens, what is good; beware of idol-fanes. Seek, indeed,
all of you, in the law of the Omnipotent. Thus it has pleased the
Lord of lords Himself in the heavens, that demons should wander in the
world for our discipline. And yet, on the other hand, He has sent
out His mandates, that they who forsake their altars shall become
inhabitants of heaven. Whence I am not careful to argue this in a
small treatise. The law teaches; it calls on you in your
midst. Consider for yourselves. Ye have entered upon two
roads; decide upon the right one. [He defers to the
Canon Law and notes the Duæ Viæ.]
XXIII.—Of Those Who are Everywhere Ready.
While thou obeyest the belly, thou sayest that thou art
innocent; and, as if courteously, makest thyself everywhere
ready. Woe to thee, foolish man! thou thyself lookest around upon
death.
XXIV.—Of Those Who Live Between the Two.
Thou who thinkest that, by living doubtfully between the two, thou art on thy guard, goest on thy way stript of law, broken down by luxury. Thou art looking forward vainly to so many things, why seekest thou unjust things? And whatever thou hast done shall there remain to thee when dead. Consider, thou foolish one, thou wast not, and lo, thou art seen. Thou knowest not whence thou hast proceeded, nor whence thou art nourished. Thou avoidest the excellent and benignant God of thy life, and thy Governor, who would rather wish thee to live. Thou turnest thyself to thyself, and givest thy back to God. Thou drownest thyself in darkness, whilst thou thinkest thou art abiding in light. Why runnest thou in the synagogue to the Pharisees, that He may become merciful to thee, whom thou of thy own accord deniest? Thence thou goest abroad again; thou seekest healthful things. Thou wishest to live between both ways, but thence thou shalt perish. And, moreover, thou sayest, Who is He who has redeemed from death, that we may believe in Him, since there punishments are awarded? Ah! not thus, O malignant man, shall it be as thou thinkest. For to him who has lived well there is advantage after death. Thou, however, when one day thou diest, shalt be taken away in an evil place. But they who believe in Christ shall be led into a good place, and those to whom that delight is given are caressed; but to you who are of a double mind, against you is punishment without the body. The course of the tormentor stirs you up to cry out against your brother.
XXV.—They Who Fear and Will Not Believe.
How long, O foolish man, wilt thou not acknowledge Christ? Thou avoidest the fertile field, and castest thy seeds on the sterile one. Thou seekest to abide in the wood where the thief is delaying. Thou sayest, I also am of God; and thou wanderest out of doors. Now at length, after so many invitations, enter within the palace. Now is the harvest ripe, and the time so many times prepared. Lo, now reap! What! dost thou not repent? Thence now, if thou hast not, gather the seasonable wines. The time of believing to life is present in the time of death. The first law of God is the foundation of the subsequent law. Thee, indeed, it assigned to believe in the second law. Nor are threats from Himself, but from it, powerful over thee. Now astounded, swear that thou wilt believe in Christ; for the Old Testament proclaims concerning Him. For it is needful only to believe in Him who was dead, to be able to rise again to live for all time. Therefore, if thou art one who disbelievest that these things shall be, at length he shall be overcome in his guilt in the second death. I will declare things to come in few words in this little treatise. In it can be known when hope must be preferred. Still I exhort you as quickly as possible to believe in Christ.
XXVI.—To Those Who Resist the Law of Christ the Living God.
Thou rejectest, unhappy one, the advantage of heavenly
discipline, and rushest into death while wishing to stray without a
bridle. Luxury and the shortlived joys of the world are ruining
thee, whence thou shalt be tormented in hell for all time. They
are vain joys with which thou art foolishly delighted. Do not
these make thee to be a man dead? Cannot thirty years at length
make thee a wise man? Ignorant how thou hast first strayed, look
upon ancient time, thou thinkest now to enjoy here a joyous life in the
midst of wrongs. These are the ruins of thy friends, wars, or
wicked frauds, thefts with bloodshed: the body is vexed with
sores, and groaning and wailing is indulged; whether a slight disease
invade thee, or thou art held down by long sickness, or thou art
bereaved of thy children, or thou mournest over a lost wife. All
is a wilderness: alas, dignities are hurried down from their
height by vices and poverty; doubly so, assuredly, if thou languishest
long. And callest thou it life when this life of glass is
mortal? Consider now at length that this time is of no avail, but
in the future you have hope without the craft of living.
Certainly the little children which have been snatched away desired to
live. Moreover, the young men who have been deprived of life,
perchance were preparing to grow old, and they themselves were making
ready to enjoy joyful days; and yet we unwillingly lay aside all things
in the world. I have delayed with a perverse mind, and I have
thought that the life of this world was a true one; and I judged that
death would come in
XXVII.—O Fool, Thou Dost Not Die to God.
O fool, thou dost not absolutely die; nor, when dead, dost thou escape the lofty One. Although thou shouldst arrange that when dead thou perceivest nothing, thou shalt foolishly be overcome. God the Creator of the world liveth, whose laws cry out that the dead are in existence. But thou, whilst recklessly thou seekest to live without God, judgest that in death is extinction, and thinkest that it is absolute. God has not ordered it as thou thinkest, that the dead are forgetful of what they have previously done. Now has the governor made for us receptacles of death, and after our ashes we shall behold them. Thou art stripped, O foolish one, who thinkest that by death thou art not, and hast made thy Ruler and Lord to be able to do nothing. But death is not a mere vacuity, if thou reconsiderest in thine heart. Thou mayest know that He is to be desired, for late thou shalt perceive Him. Thou wast the ruler of the flesh; certainly flesh ruled not thee. Freed from it, the former is buried; thou art here. Rightly is mortal man separated from the flesh. Therefore mortal eyes will not be able to be equalled (to divine things). Thus our depth keeps us from the secret of God. Give thou now, whilst in weakness thou art dying, the honour to God, and believe that Christ will bring thee back living from the dead. Thou oughtest to give praises in the church to the omnipotent One.
XXVIII.—The Righteous Rise Again.
Righteousness and goodness, peace and true patience, and care concerning one’s deeds, make to live after death. But a crafty mind, mischievous, perfidious, evil, destroys itself by degrees, and delays in a cruel death. O wicked man, hear now what thou gainest by thy evil deeds. Look on the judges of earth, who now in the body torture with terrible punishments; either chastisements are prepared for the deserving by the sword, or to weep in a long imprisonment. Dost thou, last of all, hope to laugh at the God of heaven and the Ruler of the sky, by whom all things were made? Thou ragest, thou art mad, and now thou takest away the name of God, from whom, moreover, thou shalt not escape; and He will award punishments according to your deeds. Now I would have you be cautious that thou come not to the burning of fire. Give thyself up at once to Christ, that goodness may attend thee.
XXIX.—To the Wicked and Unbelieving Rich Man.
Thou wilt, O rich man, by insatiably looking too much to all thy wealth, squander those things to which thou art still seeking to cling. Thou sayest, I do not hope when dead to live after such things as these. O ungrateful to the great God, who thus judgest thyself to be a god; to Him who, when thou knewest nothing of it, brought thee forth, and then nourished thee. He governs thy meadows; He, thy vineyards; He, thy herd of cattle; and He, whatever thou possessest. Nor dost thou give heed to these things; or thou, perchance, rulest all things. He who made the sky, and the earth, and the salt seas, decreed to give us back again ourselves in a golden age. And only if thou believest, thou livest in the secret of God. Learn God, O foolish man, who wishes thee to be immortal, that thou mayest give Him eternal thanks in thy struggle. His own law teaches thee; but since thou seekest to wander, thou disbelievest all things, and thence thou shalt go into hell. By and by thou givest up thy life; thou shalt be taken where it grieveth thee to be: there the spiritual punishment, which is eternal, is undergone; there are always wailings: nor dost thou absolutely die therein—there at length too late proclaiming the omnipotent God.
XXX.—Rich Men, Be Humble.
Learn, O thou who art about to die, to show
thyself good to all. Why, in the midst of the people, makest thou
thyself to be another than thou art? Thou goest where thou
knowest not, and ignorantly thence thou departest. Thou managest
wickedly with thy very body; thou thirstest always after riches.
Thou exaltest thyself too much on high; and thou bearest pride, and
dost not willingly look on the poor. Now ye do not even feed your
parents themselves when placed under you. Ah, wretched men, let
ordinary men flee far from you. He lived, and I have destroyed
him; the poor man cries out εὕρηκα. By and by
thou shalt be driven with
XXXI.—To Judges.
Consider the sayings of Solomon, all ye judges; in what way, with one word of his, he disparages you. How gifts and presents corrupt the judges, thence, thence follows the law. Ye always love givers; and when there shall be a cause, the unjust cause carries off the victory. Thus I am innocent; nor do I, a man of no account, accuse you, because Solomon openly raises the blasphemy. But your god is your belly, and rewards are your laws. Paul the apostle suggests this, I am not deceitful.
XXXII.—To Self-Pleasers.
If place or time is favourable, or the person has
advanced, let there be a new judge. Why now art thou lifted up
thence? Untaught, thou blasphemest Him of whose liberality thou
livest. In such weakness thou dost not ever regard Him.
Throughout advances and profits thou greedily presumest on
fortune. There is no law to thee, nor dost thou discern thyself
in prosperity. Although they may be counted of gold, let the
strains of the pipe always be raving. If thou hast not adored the
crucifixion of the Lord, thou hast perished. [This is not
Patripassianism. Nor does the “one God” of the next
chapter involve this heresy.]
XXXIII.—To the Gentiles.
O people, ferocious, without a shepherd, now at length wander not. For I also who admonish you was the same, ignorant, wandering. Now, therefore, take the likeness of your Lord. Raise upward your wild and roughened hearts. Enter stedfastly into the fold of your sylvan Shepherd, remaining safe from robbers under the royal roof. In the wood are wolves; therefore take refuge in the cave. Thou warrest, thou art mad; nor dost thou behold where thou abidest. Believe in the one God, that when dead thou mayest live, and mayest rise in His kingdom, when there shall be the resurrection to the just.
XXXIV.—Moreover, to Ignorant Gentiles.
The unsubdued neck refuses to bear the yoke of
labour. Then it delights to be satisfied with herbs in the rich
plains. And still unwillingly is subdued the useful mare, and it
is made to be less fierce when it is first brought into
subjection. O people, O man, thou brother, do not be a brutal
flock. Pluck thyself forth at length, and thyself withdraw
thyself. Assuredly thou art not cattle, thou art not a beast, but
thou art born a man. Do thou thyself wisely subdue thyself, and
enter under arms. Thou who followest idols art nothing but the
vanity of the age. Your trifling hearts destroy you when almost
set free. There gold, garments, silver is brought to the elbows;
there war is made; there love is sung of instead of psalms. Dost
thou think it to be life, when thou playest or lookest forward to such
things as these? Thou choosest, O ignorant one, things that are
extinct; thou seekest golden things. Thence thou shalt not escape
the plague, although thyself art divine. Thou seekest not that
grace which God sent to be read of in the earth, but thus as a beast
thou wanderest. The golden age before spoken of shall come to
thee if thou believest, and again thou shalt begin to live always an
immortal life. That also is permitted to know what thou wast
before. Give thyself as a subject to God, who governs all
things. [Here ends the
apologetic portion.]
XXXV.—Of the Tree of Life and Death.
Adam was the first who fell, and that he might
shun the precepts of God, Belial was his tempter by the lust of the
palm tree. And he conferred on us also what he did, whether of
good or of evil, as being the chief of all that was born from him; and
thence we die by his means, as he himself, receding from the divine,
became an outcast from the Word. We shall be immortal when six
thousand years are accomplished. The tree of the apple being
tasted, death has entered into the world. By this tree of death
we are born to the life to come. On the tree depends the life
that bears fruits—precepts. Now, therefore, pluck Scil.
“capite,” conjectural for “cavete.”
XXXVI.—Of the Foolishness of the Cross.
I have spoken of the twofold sign whence death
proceeded, and again I have said that thence life frequently proceeds;
but the cross has become foolishness to an adulterous people. The
awful King of eternity shadows forth these things by the cross,
that they may now believe on Him. [Or,
“shadows forth Himself.”] “Eusebius
tells of another Enoch, who was not translated without seeing
death.”—Rig. [See
Et inde secunda
terribilem legem primo cum pace revincit.—Davis, conjecturally.
XXXVII.—The Fanatics Who Judaize.
What! art thou half a Jew? wilt thou be half profane? Whence thou shalt not when dead escape the judgment of Christ. Thou thyself blindly wanderest, and foolishly goest in among the blind. And thus the blind leadeth the blind into the ditch. Thou goest whither thou knowest not, and thence ignorantly withdrawest. Let them who are learning go to the learned, and let the learned depart. But thou goest to those from whom thou canst learn nothing. Thou goest forth before the doors, and thence also thou goest to the idols. Ask first of all what is commanded in the law. Let them tell thee if it be commanded to adore the gods; for they are ignored in respect of that which they are especially able to do. But because they are guilty of that very crime, they relate nothing concerning the commandments of God save what is marvellous. Then, however, they blindly lead you with them into the ditch. There are deaths too well known by them to relate, or because the heaping up of the plough closes up the field. The Almighty would not have them understand their King. Why such a wickedness? He Himself took refuge from those bloody men. He gave Himself to us by a superadded law. Thence now they lie concealed with us, deserted by their King. But if you think that in them there is hope, you are altogether in error if you worship God and heathen temples.
XXXVIII.—To the Jews.
Evil always, and recalcitrant, with a stiff neck ye wish not that ye should be overcome; thus ye will be heirs. Isaiah said that ye were of hardened heart. Ye look upon the law which Moses in wrath dashed to pieces; and the same Lord gave to him a second law. In that he placed his hope; but ye, half healed, reject it, and therefore ye shall not be worthy of the kingdom of heaven.
XXXIX.—Also to the Jews.
Look upon Leah, that was a type of the synagogue, which Jacob received as a sign, with eyes so weak; and yet he served again for the younger one beloved: a true mystery, and a type of our Church. Consider what was abundantly said of Rebecca from heaven; whence, imitating the alien, ye may believe in Christ. Thence come to Tamar and the offspring of twins. Look to Cain, the first tiller of the earth, and Abel the shepherd, who was an unspotted offerer in the ruin of his brother, and was slain by his brother. Thus therefore perceive, that the younger are approved by Christ.
XL.—Again to the Same.
There is not an unbelieving people such as yours. O evil men! in so many places, and so often rebuked by the law of those who cry aloud. And the lofty One despises your Sabbaths, and altogether rejects your universal monthly feasts according to law, that ye should not make to Him the commanded sacrifices; who told you to throw a stone for your offence. If any should not believe that He had perished by an unjust death, and that those who were beloved were saved by other laws, thence that life was suspended on the tree, and believe not on Him. God Himself is the life; He Himself was suspended for us. But ye with indurated heart insult Him.
XLI.—Of the
Time of Antichrist. [See Elucidation at
end.]
Isaiah said: This is the man who moveth the world
and so many kings, and under whom
XLII.—Of the Hidden and Holy People of the Almighty Christ, the Living God.
Let the hidden, the final, the holy people be longed for; and, indeed, let it be unknown by us where it abides, acting by nine of the tribes and a half…; and he has bidden to live by the former law. Now let us all live: the tradition of the law is new, as the law itself teaches, I point out to you more plainly. Two of the tribes and a half are left: wherefore is the half of the tribes separated from them? That they might be martyrs, when He should bring war on His elected ones into the world; or certainly the choir of the holy prophets would rise together upon the people who should impose a check upon them whom the obscene horses have slaughtered with kicking heel; nor would the band hurry rashly at any time to the gift of peace. Those of the tribes are withdrawn, and all the mysteries of Christ are fulfilled by them throughout the whole age. Moreover, they have arisen from the crime of two brothers, by whose auspices they have followed crime. Not undeservedly are these bloody ones thus scattered: they shall again assemble on behalf of the mysteries of Christ. But then the things told of in the law are hastening to their completion. The Almighty Christ descends to His elect, who have been darkened from our view for so long a time—they have become so many thousands—that is the true heavenly people. The son does not die before his father, then; nor do they feel pains in their bodies, nor polypus in their nostrils. They who cease depart in ripe years in their bed, fulfilling all the things of the law, and therefore they are protected. They are bidden to pass on the right side of their Lord; and when they have passed over as before, He dries up the river. Nor less does the Lord Himself also proceed with them. He has passed over to our side, they come with the King of heaven; and in their journey, what shall I speak of which God will bring to pass? Mountains subside before them, and fountains break forth. The creation rejoices to see the heavenly people. Here, however, they hasten to defend the captive matron. But the wicked king who possesses her, when he hears, flies into the parts of the north, and collects all his followers. Moreover, when the tyrant shall dash himself against the army of God, his soldiery are overthrown by the celestial terror; the false prophet himself is seized with the wicked one, by the decree of the Lord; they are handed over alive to Gehenna. From him chiefs and leaders are bidden to obey; then will the holy ones enter into the breasts of their ancient mother, that, moreover, they also may be refreshed whom he has evil persuaded. With various punishments he will torment those who trust in him; they come to the end, whereby offences are taken away from the world. The Lord will begin to give judgment by fire.
XLIII.—Of the End of This Age.
The trumpet gives the sign in heaven, the lion
being taken away, and suddenly there is darkness with the din of
heaven. The Lord casts down His eyes, so that the earth
trembles. He cries out, so that all may hear throughout the
world: Behold, long have I been silent while I bore your doings
in such a time. They cry out together, complaining and groaning
too late. They howl, they bewail; nor is there room found for the
wicked. What shall the mother do for the sucking child, when she
herself is burnt up? In the flame of fire the Lord will judge the
wicked. But the fire shall not touch the just, but shall by all
means lick them up. [The translator here
inserts a mark of interrogation. The meaning is: lick up
them (the wicked) who have persecuted them. [
From heaven will descend the city in the first resurrection; this is what we may tell of such a celestial fabric. We shall arise again to Him, who have been devoted to Him. And they shall be incorruptible, even already living without death. And neither will there be any grief nor any groaning in that city. They shall come also who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years. There are prepared all the revenues of the earth, because the earth renewed without end pours forth abundantly. Therein are no rains; no cold comes into the golden camp. No sieges as now, nor rapines, nor does that city crave the light of a lamp. It shines from its Founder. Moreover, Him it obeys; in breadth 12,000 furlongs and length and depth. It levels its foundation in the earth, but it raises its head to heaven. In the city before the doors, moreover, sun and moon shall shine; he who is evil is hedged up in torment, for the sake of the nourishment of the righteous. But from the thousand years God will destroy all those evils.
XLV.—Of the Day of Judgment.
I add something, on account of unbelievers, of the day of judgment. Again, the fire of the Lord sent forth shall be appointed. The earth gives a true groan; then those who are making their journey in the last end, and then all unbelievers, groan. The whole of nature is converted in flame, which yet avoids the camp of His saints. The earth is burned up from its foundations, and the mountains melt. Of the sea nothing remains: it is overcome by the powerful fire. This sky perishes, and the stars and these things are changed. Another newness of sky and of everlasting earth is arranged. Thence they who deserve it are sent away in a second death, but the righteous are placed in inner dwelling-places.
XLVI.—To Catechumens.
In few words, I admonish all believers in Christ,
who have forsaken idols, for your salvation. In the first times,
if in any way thou fallest into error, still, when entreated, do thou
leave all things for Christ; and since thou hast known God, be a
recruit good and approved, and let virgin modesty dwell with thee in
purity. Let the mind be watchful for good things. Beware
that thou fall not into former sins. In baptism the coarse dress
of thy birth is washed. For if any sinful catechumen is marked
with punishment, let him live in the signs of Christianity,
although not without loss. [Catechumens falling
away before baptism must not despair, but persevere and remain under
discipline.]
XLVII.—To the Faithful.
I admonish the faithful not to hold their brethren in hatred. Hatreds are accounted impious by martyrs for the flame. The martyr is destroyed whose confession is of such kind; nor is it taught that the evil is expiated by the shedding of blood. A law is given to the unjust man that he may restrain himself. Thence he ought to be free from craft; so also oughtest thou. Twice dost thou sin against God, if thou extendest strifes to thy brother; whence thou shalt not avoid sin following thy former courses. Thou hast once been washed: shalt thou be able to be immersed again?
XLVIII.—O Faithful, Beware of Evil.
The birds are deceived, and the beasts of the woods in the woods, by those very charms by which their ruin is ever accomplished, and caves as well as food deceive them as they follow; and they know not how to shun evil, nor are they restrained by law. Law is given to man, and a doctrine of life to be chosen, from which he remembers that he may be able to live carefully, and recalls his own place, and takes away those things which belong to death. He severely condemns himself who forsakes rule; either bound with iron, or cast down from his degree; or deprived of life, he loses what he ought to enjoy. Warned by example, do not sin gravely; translated by the laver, rather have charity; flee far from the bait of the mouse-trap, where there is death. Many are the martyrdoms which are made without shedding of blood. Not to desire other men’s goods; to wish to have the benefit of martyrdom; to bridle the tongue, thou oughtest to make thyself humble; not willingly to use force, nor to return force used against thee, thou wilt be a patient mind, understand that thou art a martyr.
XLIX.—To Penitents.
Thou art become a penitent; pray night and day;
yet from thy Mother the Church do not far depart, and the
Highest will be able to be merciful to thee. The confession of
thy fault shall not be in vain. Equally in thy state of
accusation learn to weep manifestly. Then, if thou hast a wound,
seek herbs and a physician; and yet in thy punishments thou shalt be
able to mitigate thy sufferings. For I will even confess that I
alone of you am here, and that terror must be foregone. I have
myself felt the destruction; and therefore I warn those who are
L.—Who Have Apostatized from God.
Moreover, when war is waged, or an enemy attacks, if one be able either to conquer or to be hidden, they are great trophies; but unhappy will he be who shall be taken by them. He loses country and king who has been unwilling to fight worthily for the truth, for his country, or for life. He ought to die rather than go under a barbarian king; and let him seek slavery who is willing to transfer himself to enemies without law. Then, if in warring thou shouldst die for thy king, thou hast conquered, or if thou hast given thy hands, thou hast perished uninjured by law. The enemy crosses the river; do thou hide under thy lurking-place; or, if he can enter or not, do not linger. Everywhere make thyself safe, and thy friends also; thou hast conquered. And take watchful care lest any one enter in that lurking-place. It will be an infamous thing if any one declares himself to the enemy. He who knows not how to conquer, and runs to deliver himself up, has weakly foregone praise for neither his own nor his country’s good. Then he was unwilling to live, since life itself will perish. If any one is without God, or profane from the enemy, they are become as sounding brass, or deaf as adders: such men ought abundantly to pray or to hide themselves.
LI.—Of Infants.
The enemy has suddenly come flooding us over with war; and before they could flee, he has seized upon the helpless children. They cannot be reproached, although they are seen to be taken captive; nor, indeed, do I excuse them. Perhaps they have deserved it on account of the faults of their parents; therefore God has given them up. However, I exhort the adults that they run to arms, and that they should be born again, as it were, to their Mother from the womb. Let them avoid a law that is terrible, and always bloody, impious, intractable, living with the life of the beasts; for when another war by chance should be to be waged, he who should be able to conquer or even rightly to know how to beware.
LII.—Deserters.
For deserters are not called so as all of one kind. One is wicked, another partially withdraws; but yet true judgments are decreed for both. So Christ is fought against, even as Cæsar is obeyed. Seek the refuge of the king, if thou hast been a delinquent. Do thou implore of Him; do thou prostrate confess to Him: He will grant all things whose also are all our things. The camp being replaced, beware of sinning further; do not wander long as a soldier through caves of the wild beasts. Let it be sin to thee to cease from unmeasured doing.
LIII.—To the Soldiers of Christ.
When thou hast given thy name to the warfare, thou art held by a bridle. Therefore begin thou to put away thy former doings. Shun luxuries, since labour is threatening arms. With all thy virtue thou must obey the king’s command, if thou wishest to attain the last times in gladness. He is a good soldier, always wait for things to be enjoyed. Be unwilling to flatter thyself; absolutely put away sloth, that thou mayest daily be ready for what is set before thee. Be careful beforehand; in the morning revisit the standards. When thou seest the war, take the nearest contest. This is the king’s glory, to see the soldiery prepared. The king is present; desire that ye may fight beyond his hope. He makes ready gifts. He gladly looks for the victory, and assigns you to be a fit follower. Do thou be unwilling to spare thyself besides for Belial; be thou rather diligent, that he may give fame for your death.
LIV.—Of Fugitives.
The souls of those that are lost deservedly of themselves separate themselves. Begotten of him, they again recur to those things which are his. The root of Cain, the accursed seed, breaks forth and takes refuge in the servile nation under a barbarian king; and there the eternal flame will torment on the day decreed. The fugitive will wander vaguely without discipline, loosed from law to go about through the defiles of the ways. These, therefore, are such whom no penalty has restrained. If they will not live, they ought to be seen by the idols.
LV.—Of the Seed of the Tares.
Of the seed of the tares, who stand mingled in the Church. When the times of the harvest are filled up, the tares that have sprung up are separated from the fruit, because God had not sent them. The husbandman separates all those collected tares. The law is our field; whoever does good in it, assuredly the Ruler Himself will afford a true repose, for the tares are burned with fire. If, therefore, you think that under one they are delaying, you are wrong. I designate you as barren Christians; cursed was the fig-tree without fruit in the word of the Lord, and immediately it withered away. Ye do not works; ye prepare no gift for the treasury, and yet ye thus vainly think to deserve well of the Lord.
Dost thou dissemble with the law that was given
with such public announcement, crying out in the heavenly word of so
many prophets? If a prophet had only cried out to the
clouds, Or, “If one
prophet only had cried out to the world.”
LVII.—That Worldly Things are Absolutely to Be Avoided.
If certain teachers, while looking for your gifts or fearing your persons, relax individual things to you, not only do I not grieve, but I am compelled to speak the truth. Thou art going to vain shows with the crowd of the evil one, where Satan is at work in the circus with din. Thou persuadest thyself that everything that shall please thee is lawful. Thou art the offspring of the Highest, mingled with the sons of the devil. Dost thou wish to see the former things which thou hast renounced? Art thou again conversant with them? What shall the Anointed One profit thee? Or if it is permitted, on account of weakness, that thou foolishly profane…Love not the world, nor its contents. Such is God’s word, and it seems good to thee. Thou observest man’s command, and shunnest God’s. Thou trustedst to the gift whereby the teachers shut up their mouths, that they may be silent, and not tell thee the divine commands; while I speak the truth, as thou art bound look to the Highest. Assign thyself as a follower to Him whose son thou wast. If thou seekest to live, being a believing man, as do the Gentiles, the joys of the world remove thee from the grace of Christ. With an undisciplined mind thou seekest what thou presumest to be easily lawful, both thy dear actors and their musical strains; nor carest thou that the offspring of such an one should babble follies. While thou thinkest that thou art enjoying life, thou art improvidently erring. The Highest commands, and thou shunnest His righteous precepts.
LVIII.—That the Christian Should Be Such.
When the Lord says that man should eat bread with
groaning, here what art thou now doing, who desirest to live with
joy? Thou seekest to rescind the judgment uttered by the highest
God when He first formed man; thou wishest to abandon the curb of the
law. If the Almighty God have bidden thee live with sweat, thou
who art living in pleasure wilt already be a stranger to Him. The
Scripture saith that the Lord was angry with the Jews. Their
sons, refreshed with food, rose up to play. Now, therefore, why
do we follow these circumcised men? Sponte profectos. Deperdunt.
LIX.—To the Matrons of the Church of the Living God.
Thou wishest, O Christian woman, that the matrons should be as the ladies of the world. Thou surroundest thyself with gold, or with the modest silken garment. Thou givest the terror of the law from thy ears to the wind. Thou affectest vanity with all the pomp of the devil. Thou art adorned at the looking-glass with thy curled hair turned back from thy brow. And moreover, with evil purposes, thou puttest on false medicaments, on thy pure eyes the stibium, with painted beauty, or thou dyest thy hair that it may be always black. God is the overlooker, who dives into each heart. But these things are not necessary for modest women. Pierce thy breast with chaste and modest feeling. The law of God bears witness that such laws fail from the heart which believes; to a wife approved of her husband, let it suffice that she is so, not by her dress, but by her good disposition. To put on clothes which the cold and the heat or too much sun demands, only that thou mayest be approved modest, and show forth the gifts of thy capacity among the people of God. Thou who wast formerly most illustrious, givest to thyself the guise of one who is contemptible. She who lay without life, was raised by the prayers of the widows. She deserved this, that she should be raised from death, not by her costly dress, but by her gifts. Do ye, O good matrons, flee from the adornment of vanity; such attire is fitting for women who haunt the brothels. Overcome the evil one, O modest women of Christ. Show forth all your wealth in giving.
Hear my voice, thou who wishest to remain a Christian woman, in what way the blessed Paul commands you to be adorned. Isaiah, moreover, the teacher and author that spoke from heaven, for he detests those who follow the wickedness of the world, says: The daughters of Zion that are lifted up shall be brought low. It is not right in God that a faithful Christian woman should be adorned. Dost thou seek to go forth after the fashion of the Gentiles, O thou who art consecrated to God? God’s heralds, crying aloud in the law, condemn such to be unrighteous women, who in such wise adorn themselves. Ye stain your hair; ye paint the opening of your eyes with black; ye lift up your pretty hair one by one on your painted brow; ye anoint your cheeks with some sort of ruddy colour laid on; and, moreover, earrings hang down with very heavy weight. Ye bury your neck with necklaces; with gems and gold ye bind hands worthy of God with an evil presage. Why should I tell of your dresses, or of the whole pomp of the devil? Ye are rejecting the law when ye wish to please the world. Ye dance in your houses; instead of psalms, ye sing love songs. Thou, although thou mayest be chaste, dost not prove thyself so by following evil things. Christ therefore makes you, such as you are, equal with the Gentiles. Be pleasing to the hymned chorus, and to an appeased Christ with ardent love fervently offer your savour to Christ.
LXI.—In the Church to All the People of God.
I, brethren, am not righteous who am lifted up out of the filth, nor do I exalt myself; but I grieve for you, as seeing that out of so great a people, none is crowned in the contest; certainly, even if he does not himself fight, yet let him suggest encouragement to others. Ye rebuke calamity; O belly, stuff yourself out with luxury. The brother labours in arms with a world opposed to him; and dost thou, stuffed with wealth, neither fight, nor place thyself by his side when he is fighting? O fool, dost not thou perceive that one is warring on behalf of many? The whole Church is suspended on such a one if he conquers. Thou seest that thy brother is withheld, and that he fights with the enemy. Thou desirest peace in the camp, he outside rejects it. Be pitiful, that thou mayest be before all things saved. Neither dost thou fear the Lord, who cries aloud with such an utterance; even He who commands us to give food even to our enemies. Look forward to thy meals from that Tobias who always on every day shared them entirely with the poor man. Thou seekest to feed him, O fool, who feedeth thee again. Dost thou wish that he should prepare for me, who is setting before him his burial? The brother oppressed with want, nearly languishing away, cries out at the splendidly fed, and with distended belly. What sayest thou of the Lord’s day? If he have not placed himself before, call forth a poor man from the crowd whom thou mayest take to thy dinner. In the tablets is your hope from a Christ refreshed.
LXII.—To Him Who Wishes for Martyrdom.
Since, O son, thou desirest martyrdom, hear.
Be thou such as Abel was, or such as Isaac himself, or Stephen, who
chose for himself on the way the righteous life. Thou indeed
desirest that which is a matter suited for the blessed. First of
all, overcome the evil one with thy good acts by living well; and when
He thy King shall see thee, be thou secure. It is His own time,
and we are living for both; so that if war fails, the martyrs shall go
in peace. Many indeed err who say, With our blood we have
overcome the wicked one; and if he remains, they are unwilling to
overcome. He perishes by lying in wait, and the wicked thus feels
it; but he that is lawful does not feel the punishments applied.
With exclamation and with eagerness beat thy breast with thy
fists. Even now, if thou hast conquered by good deeds, thou art a
martyr in Him. Thou, therefore, who seekest to extol martyrdom
with thy word, in peace clothe thyself with good deeds, and be
secure. [Compare
Clement’s reproof, vol. ii. p. 423, this series.]
LXIII.—The Daily War.
Thou seekest to wage war, O fool, as if wars were at peace. From the first formed day in the end you fight. Lust precipitates you, there is war; fight with it. Luxury persuades, neglect it; thou hast overcome the war. Be sparing of abundance of wine, lest by means of it thou shouldest go wrong. Restrain thy tongue from cursing, because with it thou adorest the Lord. Repress rage. Make thyself peaceable to all. Beware of trampling on thy inferiors when weighed down with miseries. Lend thyself as a protector only, and do no hurt. Lead yourselves in a righteous path, unstained by jealousy. In thy riches make thyself gentle to those that are of little account. Give of thy labour, clothe the naked. Thus shalt thou conquer. Lay snares for no man, since thou servest God. Look to the beginning, whence the envious enemy has perished. I am not a teacher, but the law itself teaches by its proclamation. Thou wearest such great words vainly, who in one moment seekest without labour to raise a martyrdom to Christ.
LXIV.—Of the Zeal of Concupiscence.
In desiring, thence thou perishest, whilst thou art
burning with envy of thy neighbour. Thou
LXV.—They Who Give from Evil.
Why dost thou senselessly feign thyself good by the wound of another? Whence thou bestowest, another is daily weeping. Dost not thou believe that the Lord sees those things from heaven? The Highest says, He does not prove of the gifts of the wicked. Thou shalt break forth upon the wretched when thou shalt have gained a place. One gives gifts that he may make another of no account; or if thou hast lent on usury, taking twenty-four per cent, thou wishest to bestow charity that thou mayest purge thyself, as being evil, with that which is evil. The Almighty absolutely rejects such works as these. Thou hast given that which has been wrung from tears; that candidate, oppressed with ungrateful usuries, and become needy, deplores it. Besides having obtained an opportunity for the exactors, thy enemy for the present is the people; thou consecrated, hast become wicked for reward. Also thou wishest to atone for thyself by the gain of wages. O wicked one, thou deceivest thyself, but none else.
LXVI.—Of a Deceitful Peace.
The arranged time comes to our people; there is peace in the world; and, at the same time, ruin is weighing us down from the enticement of the world, (the destruction) of the reckless people whom ye have rent into schism. Either obey the law of the city, or depart from it. Ye behold the mote sticking in our eyes, and will not see the beam in your own. A treacherous peace is coming to you; persecution is rife; the wounds do not appear; and thus, without slaughter, ye are destroyed. War is waged in secret, because, in the midst of peace itself, scarcely one of you has behaved himself with caution. O badly fortified, and foretold for slaughter, ye praise a treacherous peace, a peace that is mischievous to you. Having become the soldiers of another than Christ, ye have perished.
I warn certain readers only to consider, and to give material to others by an example of life, to avoid strife, and to shun so many quarrels; to repress terror, and never to be proud; moreover, denounce the righteous obedience of wicked men. Make yourselves like to Christ your Master, O little ones. Be among the lilies of the field by your benefits; ye have become blessed when ye bear the edicts; ye are flowers in the congregation; ye are Christ’s lanterns. Keep what ye are, and ye shall be able to tell it.
LXVIII.—To Ministers.
Exercise the mystery of Christ, O deacons, with purity; therefore, O ministers, do the commands of your Master; do not play the person of a righteous judge; strengthen your office by all things, as learned men, looking upwards, always devoted to the Supreme God. Render the faithful sacred ministries of the altar to God, prepared in divine matters to set an example; yourselves incline your head to the pastors, so shall it come to pass that ye may be approved of Christ.
LXIX.—To God’s Shepherds.
A shepherd, if he shall have confessed, has doubled his conflict. Moreover, the apostle bids that such should be teachers. Let him be a patient ruler; let him know when he may relax the reins; let him terrify at first, and then anoint with honey; and let him first observe to do himself what he says. The shepherd who minds worldly things is esteemed in fault, against whose countenance thou mightest dare to say anything. Gehenna itself bubbles up in hell with rumours. Woe to the wretched people which wavers with doubtful brow! if such a shepherd shall be present to it, it is almost ruined. But a devout man restrains it, governing rightly. The swarms are rejoiced under suitable kings; in such there is hope, and the entire Church lives.
LXX.—I Speak to the Elder-Born.
The time demands that I alone should speak to you truth.
He is often admonished by one word which
LXXI.—To Visit the Sick.
If thy brother should be weak—I speak of the poor man—do not empty-handed visit such an one as he lies ill. Do good under God; pay your obedience by your money. Thence he shall be restored; or if he should perish, let a poor man be refreshed, who has nothing wherewith to pay you, but the Founder and Author of the world on his behalf. Or if it should displease thee to go to the poor man, always hateful, send money, and something whence he may recover himself. And, similarly, if thy poor sister lies upon a sick-bed, let your matrons begin to bear her victuals. God Himself cries out, Break thy bread to the needy. There is no need to visit with words, but with benefits. It is wicked that thy brother should be sick through want of food. Satisfy him not with words. He needs meat and drink. Look upon such assuredly weakened, who are not able to act for themselves. Give to them at once. I pledge my word that fourfold shall be given you by God.
LXXII.—To the Poor in Health.
What can healthful poverty do, unless wealth be
present? Assuredly, if thou hast the means, at once communicate
also to thy brother. Be responsible to thyself for one, lest thou
shouldst be said to be proud. I promise that thou shalt live more
secure than the rich man. Receive into thy ears the teaching of
the great Solomon: God hates the poor man to be a pleader on
high. [ [ [
LXXIII.—That Sons are Not to Be Bewailed.
Although the death of sons leaves grief for the heart, yet it is not right either to go forth in black garments, or to bewail them. The Lord prudently says that ye must grieve with the mind, not with outward show, which is finished in the week. In the book of Solomon the promises of the Lord concerning the resurrection are forgotten if thou wouldest make thy sons martyrs, and thus with thy voice will bewail them. Art thou not ashamed without restraint to lament thy sons, like the Gentiles? Thou tearest thy face, thou beatest thy breast, thou takest off thy garments; and dost thou not fear the Lord, whose kingdom thou desirest to behold? Mourn as it is right, but do not do wrong on their behalf. Ye therefore are such. What less than Gentiles are ye? Ye do as the crowds that are descended from the diabolical stock. Ye cry that they are extinct. With what advantage, O false one, thou hast perished! The father has not led his son with grief to be slain at the altar, nor has the prophet mourned over a deceased son with grief, nor even has a weeping parent. But one devoted to God was hastily dying.
LXXIV.—Of Funeral Pomp.
Thou who seekest to be careful of the pomp of death art in error. As a servant of God, thou oughtest even in death to please Him. Alas that the lifeless body should be adorned in death! O true vanity, to desire honour for the dead! A mind enchained to the world; not even in death devoted to Christ. Thou knowest the proverbs. He wished to be carried through the forum. Thus ye, who are like to him, and living with untrained mind, wish to have a happy and blessed day at your death, that the people may come together, and that you may see praise with mourning. Thou dost not foresee whither thou mayest deserve to go when dead. Lo, they are following thee; and thou, perchance, art already burning, being driven to punishment. What will the pomp benefit the dead man? Thou shalt be accused, who seekest them on account of those gatherings. Thou desirest to live under idols. Thou deceivest thyself.
They will assemble together at Easter, that day of ours most blessed; and let them rejoice, who ask for divine entertainments. Let what is sufficient be expended upon them, wine and food. Look back at the source whence these things may be told on your behalf. Ye are wanting in a gift to Christ, in moderate expenditure. Since ye yourselves do it not, in what manner can ye persuade the righteousness of the law to such people, even once in the year? Thus often blasphemy suggests to many concerning you.
LXXVI.—Of Those Who Gossip, and of Silence.
When a thing appears to anybody of no consequence, and is not shunned, and it rushes forth, as if easy, whilst thou abusest it. Fables assist it when thou comest to pour out prayers, or to beat thy breast for thy daily sin. The trumpet of the heralds sounds forth, while the reader is reading, that the ears may be open, and thou rather impedest them. Thou art luxurious with thy lips, with which thou oughtest to groan. Shut up thy breast to evils, or loose them in thy breast. But since the possession of money gives barefacedness to the wealthy, thence every one perishes when they are most trusting to themselves. Thus, moreover, the women assemble, as if they would enter the bath. They press closely, and make of God’s house as if it were a fair. Certainly the Lord frightened the house of prayer. The Lord’s priest commanded with “sursum corda,” when prayer was to be made, that your silence should be made. Thou answerest fluently, and moreover abstainest not from promises. He entreats the Highest on behalf of a devoted people, lest any one should perish, and thou turnest thyself to fables. Thou mockest at him, or detractest from thy neighbour’s reputation. Thou speakest in an undisciplined manner, as if God were absent—as if He who made all things neither hears nor sees.
LXXVII.—To the Drunkards.
I place no limit to a drunkard; but I prefer a beast. From those who are proud in drinking thou withdrawest in thine inner mind, holding the power of the ruler, O fool, among Cyclopes. Thence in the histories thou criest, While I am dead I drink not. Be it mine to drink the best things, and to be wise in heart. Rather give assistance (what more seekest thou to abuse?) to the lowest pauper, and ye shall both be refreshed. If thou doest such things, thou extinguishest Gehenna for thyself.
LXXVIII.—To the Pastors.
Thou who seekest to feed others, and hast prepared what thou couldest by assiduously feeding, hast done rightly. But still look after the poor man, who cannot feed thee again: then will thy table be approved by the one God. The Almighty has bidden such even especially to be fed. Consider, when thou feedest the sick, thou art also lending to the High One. In that thing the Lord has wished that you should stand before Him approved.
LXXIX.—To the Petitioners.
If thou desirest, when praying, to be heard from heaven, break the chains from the lurking-places of wickedness; or if, pitying the poor, thou prayest by thy benefits, doubt not but what thou shalt have asked may be given to the petitioner. Then truly, if void of benefits, thou adorest God, do not thus at all make thy prayers vainly.
LXXX.—The Name of the Man of Gaza.
Ye who are to be inhabitants of the heavens with
God-Christ, hold fast the beginning, look at all things from
heaven. Let simplicity, let meekness dwell in your body. Be
not angry with thy devout brother without a cause, for ye shall receive
whatever ye may have done from him. This has pleased Christ, that
the dead should rise again, yea, with their bodies; and those, too,
whom in this world the fire has burned, when six thousand years are
completed, and the world has come to an end. The heaven in the
meantime is changed with an altered course, for then the wicked are
burnt up with divine fire. The creature with groaning burns with
the anger of the highest God. Those who are more worthy, and who
are begotten of an illustrious stem, and the men of nobility under the
conquered Antichrist, according to God’s command living again in
the world for a thousand years, indeed, that they may serve the saints,
and the High One, under a servile yoke, that they may bear victuals on
their neck. Moreover, that they may be judged again when the
reign is finished. They who make God of no account when the
thousandth year is finished shall perish by fire, when they themselves
shall speak to the mountains. All flesh in the monuments and
tombs is restored according to its deed: they are plunged in
hell; they bear their punishments in the world; they are shown to them,
and they read the things transacted from heaven; the reward according
to one’s deeds in a perpetual tyranny. I cannot comprehend
all things in a little treatise; the curiosity of the learned men shall
find my name in this. [Dr. Schaff says this
Nomen Gazæi may indicate his possession of the wealth
of truth, etc. But, if we read the acrostical initials of the
verses backwards, we find the name Commodianus
Mendicus Christi, which betokens his poverty also, in the spirit of
St. Paul (
————————————
I know nothing of the
second poem of our author, and am indebted for the following
particulars to Dr. Schaff. Hist., vol. ii.
855.
It is an apologetic poem against Jews and Gentiles, written in uncouth hexameters, and discusses in forty-seven sections the doctrine concerning God and the Redeemer and mankind. It treats of the names of Son and Father; and here, probably, he lays himself open to the charge of Patripassian heresy. He passes to the obstacles encountered by the Gospel, warns the Jews and the Gentiles to forsake their unprofitable devotions, and enlarges on the eschatology, as he conceives of it. Let me now quote textually, as follows:—
“The most interesting part of the second poem is the conclusion. It contains a fuller description of Antichrist than the first poem. The author expects that the end of the world will come with the seventh persecution. The Goths will conquer Rome and redeem the Christians; but then Nero will appear as the heathen Antichrist, reconquer Rome, and rage against the Christians three years and a half. He will be conquered in turn by the Jewish and real Antichrist from the East, who, after the defeat of Nero and the burning of Rome, will return to Judea, perform false miracles, and be worshipped by the Jews. At last Christ appears, that is, God himself (from the Monarchian stand-point of the author) with the lost Twelve Tribes [?] as his army, which had lived beyond Persia in happy simplicity and virtue. Under astounding phenomena of nature he will conquer Antichrist and his host, convert all nations, and take possession of the holy city of Jerusalem.”
This idea of a double Antichrist re-appears in Lactantius, Inst. Div., vii. 16 seqq.
This second poem was discovered by Cardinal Pitra in 1852. The two poems were edited by E. Ludwig, Leipzig, 1877 and 1878.
Origen.
[Translated by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.]
Introductory Note
to the
Works of Origen.
————————————
[a.d.
185–230–254.] The reader will remember the rise and
rapid development of the great Alexandrian school, and the predominance
which was imparted to it by the genius of the illustrious
Clement. Vol. ii. p. 105, this
series.
The full details of Origen’s troubled but
glorious career are given by Dr. Crombie, who in my opinion deserves
thanks for the kind and apologetic temper of his estimate of the man
and the sublime doctor, as well as of the period of his life.
Upon the fervid spirit of a confessor in an age of cruelty, lust, and
heathenism, what right have we to sit in judgment? Of one whose
very errors were virtues at their source, how can a Christian of our
self-indulgent times presume to speak in censure? Well might the
Psalmist exclaim,
Justly has it been urged that to those whose colossal labours during the ante-Nicene period exposed them to hasty judgment, and led them into mistakes, much indulgence must be shown. The language of theology was but assuming shape under their processes, and we owe them an incalculable debt of gratitude: but it was not yet moulded into precision; nor had great councils, presided over by the Holy Ghost, as yet afforded those safeguards to freedom of thought which gradually defined the limits of orthodoxy. To no single teacher did the Church defer. Holy Scripture and the quod ab omnibuswere the grand prescription, against which no individual prelate or doctor could prevail, against which no see could uplift a voice, without chastisement and subjection. Over and over again were the bishops of patriarchal and apostolic sees, including Rome, adjudged heretics, and anathematized by the inexorable law of truth, and of “the faith once delivered to the saints,” which not even “an angel from heaven” might presume to change or to enlarge. But before the great Synodical period (a.d. 325 to 451), while orthodoxy is marvellously maintained and witnessed to by Origen and Tertullian themselves, their errors, however serious, have never separated them from the grateful and loving regard of those upon whom their lives of heroic sorrow and suffering have conferred blessings unspeakable. The Church cannot leave their errors uncorrected. Their persons she leaves to the Master’s award: their characters she cherishes, while their faults she deplores.
The great feature of the ante-Nicene theology, even in
the mistakes of the writers, is its reliance on the Holy
Scripture. What wealth of Scripture they lavish in their
pages! We identify the Scriptures by their aid; but, were they
lost in other forms, we might almost restore them from
It is too striking an illustration of the childlike simplicity of the primitive faithful to be passed by, in Origen’s history, that anecdote of his father, Leonides, who was himself a confessor and martyr: how he used to strip the bosom of his almost inspired boy as he lay asleep, and imprint kisses on his naked breast, “the temple of the Holy Ghost.” That blessed Spirit, he believed, was near to his own lips when he thus saluted a Christian child, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” From a child, this other Timothy “knew the Scriptures” indeed. His own doting father imbued him with the literature of the Greeks, but, far better, he taught him to love the lively oracles of the Lord of glory; and in these he became so proficient, even from tender years, that he puzzled his parent with his “understanding and answers,” like the holy Child of Nazareth when He heard the doctors in the Temple, and also “asked them questions.” In will he was also a martyr from his youth, and to the genuine spirit of martyrdom we must attribute that heroic fault of his youth which he lived to condemn in riper years, and which, evil and rash as it was, enabled the Church, once and for all, to give an authoritative interpretation to the language of the Saviour, and to guard her children thenceforth from similar exploits of pious mistake. None can doubt the purity of the motive. Few draw the important inference of the nature of the Church’s conflict with that intolerable prevalence of sensuality and shameless vice which so impressed her children with the import of Christ’s words, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”
Here follows the very full account of the life of Origen by Dr. Crombie, professor of biblical criticism in St. Mary’s College, St. Andrew:
Origen,
surnamed Adamantinus, was born in all
probability at Alexandria, about the year 185 a.d. Cf.
Redepenning’s Origenes, vol. i. pp. 417–420 (Erste
Beilage: über Origenes Geburtsjahr und den Ort, wo er
geboren wurde). [His surname denotes the strength,
clearness, and point of his mind and methods. It is generally
given Adamantius.] Horus vel
Or. Cf. Ibid. (Zweite Beilage:
über Namen und Beinamen der Origenes). [But compare
Cave, vol. i. p. 322. Lives of the Fathers, Oxford,
1840.] Encyclopædie
der Katholischen Theologie, s.v. Origenes. Hist. Eccles.,
b. vi. c. ii. § 9. Hist. Eccles.,
b. vi. c. ii. §§ 10, 11. Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles., b. vi. c. ii.: ῞Επεχε, μὴ δι᾽
ἡμᾶς ἄλλο τὶ
φρονήσης. τῆς ἐξ
ἐκείνου περὶ
τὴν πίστιν
ὀρθοδοξίας
ἐναργῆ
παρείχετο
δείγματα.
Finding his position in his household so uncomfortable, he resolved to enter upon the career of a teacher of grammar, and to support himself by his own exertions. As he had been carefully instructed by his father in Grecian literature, and had devoted himself to study after his death, he was enabled successfully to carry out his intention. And now begins the second stadium of his career.
The diligence and ability with which Origen
prosecuted his profession speedily attracted attention and brought him
many pupils. Among others who sought to avail themselves of his
instructions in the principles of the Christian religion, were two
young men, who afterwards became distinguished in the history of the
Church,—Plutarch, who died the death of martyrdom, and Heraclas,
who afterwards became bishop of Alexandria. It was not, however,
merely by his success as a teacher that Origen gained a
reputation. The brotherly kindness and unwearied affection which
he displayed to all the victims of the persecution, which at that time
was raging with peculiar severity at Alexandria under the prefect
Aquila, and in which many of his old pupils and friends were martyred,
are described as being so marked and conspicuous, as to draw down upon
him the fury of the mob, so that he was obliged on several occasions to
flee from house to house to escape instant death. It is easy to
understand that services of this kind could not fail to attract the
attention of the heads of the Christian community at Alexandria; and
partly, no doubt, because of these, but chiefly on account of his high
literary reputation, Bishop Demetrius appointed him to the office of
master in the Catechetical School, which was at that time vacant (by
the departure of Clement, who had quitted the city on the outbreak of
the persecution), although he was still a layman, and had not passed
his eighteenth year. The choice of Demetrius was amply justified
by the result. Origen discontinued his instructions in
literature, in order to devote himself exclusively to the work of
teaching in the Catechetical School. For his labours he refused
all remuneration. He sold the books which he
possessed,—many of them manuscripts which he himself had
copied,—on condition of receiving from the purchaser four
obols The obol was about
three-halfpence of English money. For a full discussion
of the doubts which have been thrown upon the credibility of Eusebius
in this matter by Schnitzer and Baur, cf. Redepenning, Origenes,
vol. i. pp. 444–458, and Hefele, Encyclopædie der
Katholischen Theologie, s.v. Origenes.
During the episcopate of Zephyrinus
(201–218) Origen visited Rome, [Where he met with
Hippolytus, and heard him preach, according to St. Jerome.] Euseb., Hist.
Eccles., b. vi. c. 19, § 16.
Origen occupied too prominent a position in the
literary Society of the city to be able to remain with safety, and
therefore withdrew to Palestine to his friend Bishop Alexander of
Jerusalem, and afterwards to Cæsarea, where he received an
honourable welcome from Bishop Theoctistus. This step proved the
beginning of his after troubles. These two men, filled with
becoming admiration for the most learned teacher in the Church,
requested him to expound the Scriptures in their presence in a public
assembly of the Christians. Origen, although still a layman, and
without any sacerdotal dignity in the Church, complied with the
request. When this proceeding reached the ears of Demetrius, he
was filled with the utmost indignation. “Such an act was
never either heard or done before, that laymen should deliver
discourses in the presence of the bishops,” Ibid., b. vi.
c. 19.
It was probably during this period that the
commencement of his friendship with Ambrosius is to be dated.
Little is known of this individual. Eusebius Ibid., b. vi.
c. 18. Euseb., Hist.
Eccles., b. vi. c. 23. Euseb., Hist.
Eccles., b. vi. c. 21: παρ᾽ ᾗ
χρόνον
διατρίψας
πλεῖστά τε
ὃσα εἰς τὴν
τοῦ Κυρίου
δόξαν καὶ τῆς
τοῦ θείου
διδασκαλείου
ἀρετῆς
ἐπιδειξάμενος,
ἐπὶ τὰς
συνήθεις
ἔσπευδε
διατριβάς.
These happy years, however, were soon to
end. Origen was called to Greece, probably about the year
228, Cf. Hefele,
Encyclopædie, etc., s.v. Origenes. ᾽Επειγούσης
χρείας
ἐκκλησιαστικῶν
ἕνεκα
πραγμάτων. Cf. Redepenning, vol.
i. p. 406, etc. Cf. ibid. Hist. Eccles.,
b. vi. c. 22. and c. 33. With the exception of
the first book; cf. Migne, vol. ix. pp. 542–632. Cf. Photii
Bibliotheca, ed. Hoeschel, p. 298. Eusebius expressly
mentions that both these works, among others, were published before he
left Alexandria.—Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 24. s.v. Origenes. Hist. Eccles.,
b. vi. c. 19. Ibid. Ibid., b. vi.
c. 8. ὁ ἀκρωτηριάσας
ἑαυτὸν μὴ
γενέσθω
κληρικός. Cf.
Redepenning, vol. i. pp. 208, 216, 218. Cf. Redepenning, vol.
i. p. 409, note 2. Hist. Eccles.,
b. vi. c. 8.
Demetrius did not long survive the execution of his
vengeance against his unfortunate catechist. He died about a year
afterwards, and was succeeded by Heraclas, the friend and former pupil
of Origen. It does not, however, appear that Heraclas made any
effort to have the sentence against Origen recalled, so that he might
return to the early seat of his labours. Origen devoted himself
at Cæsarea chiefly to exegetical studies upon the books of
Scripture, enjoying the countenance and friendship of the two bishops
Alexander and Theoctistus, who are said by Eusebius “to have
attended him the whole time as pupils do their master.” He
speedily raised the theological school of that city to a degree of
reputation which attracted many pupils. Among those who placed
themselves under his instructions were two young Cappadocians, who had
come to Cæsarea with other intentions, but who were so attracted
by the whole character and personality of Origen, that they immediately
became his pupils. The former of these, afterwards Gregory
The persecution under the Emperor Maximin obliged Origen to take refuge in Cæsarea in Cappadocia, where he remained in concealment about two years in the house of a Christian lady named Juliana, who was the heiress of Symmachus, the Ebionite translator of the Septuagint, and from whom he obtained several mss. which had belonged to Symmachus. Here, also, he composed his Exhortation to Martyrdom, which was expressly written for the sake of his friends Ambrosius and Protoctetus, who had been imprisoned on account of their Christian profession, but who recovered their freedom after the death of Maximin,—an event which allowed Origen to return to the Palestinian Cæsarea and to the prosecution of his labours. A visit to Athens, where he seems to have remained some time, and to Bostra in Arabia, in order to bring back to the true faith Bishop Beryllus, who had expressed heterodox opinions upon the subject of the divinity of Christ, (in which attempt he proved successful,) were the chief events of his life during the next five years. On the outbreak of the Decian persecution, however, in 249, he was imprisoned at Tyre, to which city he had gone from Cæsarea for some unknown reason, and was made to suffer great cruelties by his persecutors. The effect of these upon a frame worn out by ascetic labours may be easily conceived. Although he survived his imprisonment, his body was so weakened by his sufferings, that he died at Tyre in 254, in the seventieth year of his age.
The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts. The history of the Church records the names of few whose patience and meekness under unmerited suffering were more conspicuous than his. How very differently would Jerome have acted under circumstances like those which led to Origen’s banishment from Alexandria! And what a favourable contrast is presented by the self-denying asceticism of his whole life, to the sins which stained the early years of Augustine, prior to his conversion! The impression which his whole personality made upon those who came within the sphere of his influence is evidenced in a remarkable degree by the admiring affection displayed towards him by his friend Ambrose and his pupil Gregory. Nor was it friends alone that he so impressed. To him belongs the rare honour of convincing heretics of their errors, and of leading them back to the Church; a result which must have been due as much to the gentleness and earnestness of his Christian character, as to the prodigious learning, marvellous acuteness, and logical power, which entitle him to be regarded as the greatest of the Fathers. It is singular, indeed, that a charge of heresy should have been brought, not only after his death, but even during his life, against one who rendered such eminent services to the cause of orthodox Christianity. But this charge must be considered in reference to the times when he lived and wrote. No General Council had yet been held to settle authoritatively the doctrine of the Church upon any of those great questions, the discussion of which convulsed the Christian world during the two following centuries; and in these circumstances greater latitude was naturally permissible than would have been justifiable at a later period. Moreover, a mind so speculative as that of Origen, and so engrossed with the deepest and most difficult problems of human thought, must sometimes have expressed itself in a way liable to be misunderstood. But no doubt the chief cause of his being regarded as a heretic is to be found in the haste with which he allowed many of his writings to be published. Had he considered more carefully what he intended to bring before the public eye, less occasion would have been furnished to objectors, and the memory of one of the greatest scholars and most devoted Christians that the world has ever seen would have been freed, to a great extent at least, from the reproach of heresy.
Origen was a very voluminous author. Jerome
says that he wrote more than any individual could read; and
Epiphanius Hæres,
lxiv. 63.
The works of the great Adamantinus may be classed under the following divisions:
(1) Exegetical Works.
These comprise Σχόλια, brief notes on Scripture, of which only fragments
remain: Τόμοι, Commentaries, lengthened expositions, of which we
possess considerable portions, including those on Matthew, John, and
Epistle to the Romans; and about 200 Homilies, upon the principal books
of the Old and New Testaments, a full list of which may be seen in
Migne’s edition. In these works his peculiar system of
interpretation found ample scope for exercise; and although he carried
out his principle of allegorizing many things, which in their
historical and literal signification offended his exegetical sense, he
nevertheless maintains that “the passages which hold good in
their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which
contain a purely spiritual meaning.” [De Princip.,
b. iv. i. 19. S.]
(2) Critical Works.
The great critical work of Origen was the Hexapla or Six-columned Bible; an attempt to provide a revised text of the Septuagint translation of Old Testament Scripture. On this undertaking he is said to have spent eight-and-twenty years of his life, and to have acquired a knowledge of Hebrew in order to qualify himself for the task. Each page of this work consisted, with the exception to be noticed immediately, of six columns. In the first was placed the current Hebrew text; in the second, the same represented in Greek letters; in the third, the version of Aquila; in the fourth, that of Symmachus; in the fifth, the text of the LXX., as it existed at the time; and in the sixth, the version of Theodotion. Having come into possession also of certain other Greek translations of some of the books of Scripture, he added these in their appropriate place, so that the work presented in some parts the appearance of seven, eight, or nine columns, and was termed Heptapla, Octopla, or Enneapla, in consequence. He inserted critical marks in the text of the LXX., an asterisk to denote what ought to be added, and an obelus to denote what ought to be omitted; taking the additions chiefly from the version of Theodotion. The work, with the omission of the Hebrew column, and that representing the Hebrew in Greek letters, was termed Tetrapla; and with regard to it, it is uncertain whether it is to be considered a preliminary work on the part of Origen, undertaken by way of preparation for the larger, or merely as an excerpt from the latter. The whole extended, it is said, to nearly fifty volumes, and was, of course, far too bulky for common use, and too costly for transcription. It was placed in some repository in the city of Tyre, from which it was removed after Origen’s death to the library at Cæsarea, founded by Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius. It is supposed to have been burnt at the capture of Cæsarea by the Arabs in 653 a.d. The column, however, containing the version of the LXX. had been copied by Pamphilus and Eusebius, along with the critical marks of Origen, although, owing to carelessness on the part of subsequent transcribers, the text was soon again corrupted. The remains of this work were published by Montfaucon at Paris, 1713, 2 vols. folio; by Bahrdt at Leipsic in 1769; and is at present again in course of publication from the Clarendon press, Oxford, under the editorship of Mr. Field, who has made use of the Syriac-Hexaplar version, and has added various fragments not contained in prior editions. (For a full and critical account of this work, the English reader is referred to Dr. Sam. Davidson’s Biblical Criticism, vol. i. ch. xii., which has been made use of for the above notice.)
His great apologetical work was the treatise undertaken
at the special request of his friend Ambrosius, in answer to the attack
of the heathen philosopher Celsus on the Christian religion, in a work
which he entitled Λόγος
ἀληθής or A True
Discourse. Origen states that he had heard that there were
two individuals of this name, both of them Epicureans, the earlier of
the two having lived in the time of Nero, and the other in the time of
Adrian, or later. Cf. Contra
Celsum, I. c. viii. ad fin. Cf. Redepenning, vol.
ii. p. 131, note 2. Contra Celsum,
I. ch. viii. Preface, b. i. §
6.
(4) Dogmatic Works.
These include the Στρωματεῖς, a work composed in imitation of the
treatise of Clement of the same name, and consisting originally
of ten books, of which only three fragments exist in a Latin
version by Jerome; Migne, vol. i. pp.
102–107. Migne, vol. i.
91–100.
(5) Practical Works.
Under this head we place the little treatise Περὶ
Εὐχῆς, On Prayer, written at the instance of his friend
Ambrose, and which contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer;
the Λόγος
προτρεπτικὸς
εἰς
μαρτύριον, Exhortation to Martyrdom, composed at
the outbreak of the persecution by Maximian, when his friends
Ambrose and Protoctetus were imprisoned. Of his numerous
letters only two have come down entire, viz., that which was
addressed to Julius Africanus, who had questioned the genuineness
of the history of Susanna in the apocryphal additions to the book
of Daniel, and that to Gregory Thaumaturgus on the use of Greek
philosophy in the explanation of Scripture, although, from the
brevity of the latter, it is questionable whether it is more than
a Both of these are
translated in the first volume of Origen’s works in this
series.
(6) Editions of
Origin. Abridged from
Redepenning.
The first published works of Origen were his Homilies, which appeared in 1475, although neither the name of the publisher nor the place of publication is given. These were followed by the treatise against Celsus in the translation of Christopher Persana, which appeared at Rome in 1481; and this, again, by an edition of the Homilies at Venice in 1503, containing those on the first four books of Moses, Joshua, and Judges. The first collective edition of the whole works was given to the world in a Latin translation by James Merlin, and was published in two folio volumes, first at Paris in 1512 and 1519, and afterwards at Paris in 1522 and 1530. A revision of Merlin’s edition was begun by Erasmus, and completed, after his death, by Beatus Rhenanus. This appeared at Basle in 1536 in two folio volumes, and again in 1557 and 1571. A much better and more complete edition was undertaken by the Benedictine Gilbertus Genebrardus, which was published also in two volumes folio at Paris in 1574, and again in 1604 and 1619. Hoeschel published the treatise against Celsus at Augsburg in 1605; Spencer, at Cambridge in 1658 and 1677, to which was added the Philocalia, which had first appeared in a Latin translation by Genebrardus, and afterwards in Greek by Tarinus at Paris in 1618 and 1624, in quarto. Huet, Bishop of Avranches, published the exegetical writings in Greek, including the Commentaries on Matthew and John, in two volumes folio, of which the one appeared at Rouen in 1668, and the other at Paris in 1679. The great edition by the two learned Benedictines of St. Maur—Charles de la Rue, and his nephew Vincent de la Rue—was published at Paris between the years 1733 and 1759. This is a work of immense industry and labour, and remains the standard to the present time. It has been reprinted by Migne in his series of the Greek Fathers, in nine volumes, large 8vo. In Oberthür’s series of the Greek Fathers, seven volumes contain the chief portion of Origen’s writings; while Lommatzsch has published the whole in twenty-five small volumes, Berlin, 1831–48, containing the Greek text alone.
For further information upon the life and opinions
of Origen, the reader may consult Redepenning’s Origenes,
2 vols., Bonn, 1841, 1846; the articles in Herzog’s
Encyclopädie and Wetzer’s and Wette’s
Kirchen-Lexikon, by Kling and Hefele respectively; the brilliant
sketch by Pressensé in his Martyrs and Apologists; Harwood’s
translation.
[In the Edinburgh series the foregoing Life was delayed till the appearance of the second volume. The earlier volume appeared with a preface, as follows:]—
The name of the illustrious
Origen comes before us in this series in connection with his works
De Principiis, Epistola ad Africanum, Epistola
ad Gregorium, i.e.,
Thaumaturgus. [The Messrs. Clark
announced, in their original plan, that, of the manifold works of this
great Father, only these specimens could be given.]
It is in his treatise Περὶ
’Αρχῶν, or, as it is commonly known under the Latin title, De
Princi
It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that Jerome undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. There seems, however, after all, no adequate reason to doubt the substantial orthodoxy of our author, although the bent of his mind and the nature of his studies led him to indulge in many vain and unauthorized speculations.
The Epistle to Africanus was drawn forth by a letter which that learned writer had addressed to Origen respecting the story of Susanna appended to the book of Daniel. Africanus had grave doubts as to the canonical authority of the account. Origen replies to his objections, and seeks to uphold the story as both useful in itself, and a genuine portion of the ancient prophetical writings.
The treatise of Origen Against Celsus is, of all his works, the most interesting to the modern reader. It is a defence of Christianity in opposition to a Greek philosopher named Celsus, who had attacked it in a work entitled ’Αληθὴς Λόγος, that is, The True Word, or The True Discourse. Of this work we know nothing, except from the quotations contained in the answer given to it by Origen. Nor has anything very certain been ascertained respecting its author. According to Origen, he was a follower of Epicures, but others have regarded him as a Platonist. If we may judge of the work by those specimens of it presented in the reply of Origen, it was little better than a compound of sophistry and slander. But there is reason to be grateful for it, as having called forth the admirable answer of Origen. This work was written in the old age of our author, and is composed with great care; while it abounds with proofs of the widest erudition. It is also perfectly orthodox; and, as Bishop Bull has remarked, it is only fair that we should judge from a work written with the view of being considered by the world at large, and with the most elaborate care, as to the mature and finally accepted views of the author.
The best edition of Origen’s works is that superintended by Charles and Charles Vincent de la Rue, Paris, 1783, 4 vols. fol., which is reprinted by Migne. There is also an edition in 25 volumes, based upon that of De la Rue, but without the Latin translation, by Lommatzsch, Berlin, 1831–1848. The De Principiis has been separately edited by Redepenning, Leipzig, 1836. Spencer edited the Contra Celsum, Cambridge, 1677.
[Professor Crombie was assisted in the Contra Celsum by the Rev. W. H. Cairns, M.A., Rector of the Dumfries Academy. Mr. Cairns (since deceased) was the translator of Books VII. and VIII. of that work.]
I have silently corrected numerous typographical errors which exist in the Edinburgh edition, and have sought to secure uniformity in the details of reproducing the work, and, above all, accuracy in all its parts. Particularly, I may mention that the Scripture references needed correction to the extent of more than a hundred places, and that references to classical and other writers were often quite astray. A very few notes, enclosed in brackets, are all that I have deemed it expedient or proper, on my part, to add.
While no one who is aware of human infirmity will ever dare to claim perfection in the typography of a book which has passed through the press under his hands, yet in the present case I venture to assure the student and reader that no pains or effort have been spared in order to make the volume as accurate as possible in this respect. Much experience and training incline me to hope and believe that success has attended my efforts. S.]
————————————
[The great biblical scholar and critic of the first half of the third century deserves a more cordial recognition and appreciation than have always been accorded to him. While it is true that in various matters he has strange, even wild, fancies, and gives utterance to expressions which can hardly, if at all, be justified; while it is also true that he indulges beyond all reason (as it appears to us of the present age) in utterly useless speculations, and carries to excess his great love of allegorizing,—yet these are rather of the nature of possible guesses and surmises on numerous topics, of more or less interest, than deliberate, systematic teaching as matters of faith. He frequently speaks of them in this wise, and does not claim for these guesses and speculations any more credit than they may appear to his readers to be worth. In the great fundamentals of the Christian creed Origen is unquestionably sound and true. He does not always express himself in accordance with the exact definitions which the Church Catholic secured in the century after his decease, as a necessary result of the struggle with Arian and other deadly heresies; but surely, in fairness, he is not to be too severely judged for this. Some writers (e.g., J. M. Neale, in his History of the Patriarchate of Alexandria) give an unfavorable and condemnatory view of Origen and his career, but I am of opinion that Neale and others push their objections much too far. I hold that Bishop Bull, and men like him, are nearer to truth and justice in defending Origen and his lifelong labors in the cause of the Master.
The Περὶ
’Αρχῶν, which has come to us through the professedly
paraphrastic but really unsatisfactory version of Rufinus, is the work
which has given chief offence, and brought much odium upon Origen; but
as this was written in early life, and it is doubtful in how far Origen
is responsible for many things that are in it, it is only fair and just
to judge him by such works as the Κατὰ
Κέλσον and his valuable
Homilies on various books of Holy Scripture. It is matter of deep
regret that the proposal of the Edinburgh publishers, to include in
Origen’s works a translation of his Homilies, did not meet
with sufficient encouragement to warrant them in adding these to the
present series. Book II. cap. ix.
In conclusion, I give a paragraph from the very
valuable Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, by
Dr. F. H. Scrivener, Third edition,
Cambridge, 1883, pp. 418, 509.
“Origen is the most celebrated biblical critic of antiquity. His is the highest name among the critics and expositors of the early Church. He is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the New Testament, and employs language, in describing the then existing state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its present condition, after the changes which sixteen more centuries must needs have produced.…Seldom have such warmth of fancy and so bold a grasp of mind been united with the lifelong, patient industry which procured for this famous man the honourable appellation of Adamantius.” S.]
Prologue of Rufinus.
————————————
I know that very many of
the brethren, induced by their thirst for a knowledge of the
Scriptures, have requested some distinguished men, well versed in Greek
learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make him accessible to
Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and
colleague Jerome is the person
alluded to.
These remarks, therefore, by way of admonition, I have made in the preface, lest slanderous individuals perhaps should think that they had a second time discovered matter of accusation. But let perverse and disputatious men have a care what they are about. For we have in the meantime undertaken this heavy labour, if God should aid your prayers, not to shut the mouths of slanderers (which is impossible, although God perhaps will do it), but to afford material to those who desire to advance in the knowledge of these things. And, verily, in the presence of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I adjure and beseech every one, who may either transcribe or read these books, by his belief in the kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resurrection from the dead, and by that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, that, as he would not possess for an eternal inheritance that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where their fire is not quenched and their worm dieth not, he add nothing to Scripture, and take nothing away from it, and make no insertion or alteration, but that he compare his transcript with the copies from which he made it, and make the emendations and distinctions according to the letter, and not have his manuscript incorrect or indistinct, lest the difficulty of ascertaining the sense, from the indistinctness of the copy, should cause greater difficulties to the readers.
————————————
Preface.
1. All who believe
and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus
Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to His own
declaration, “I am the truth,” [Here, and
frequently elsewhere (some two hundred times in all), Origen, in his
extant works, ascribes the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to
St. Paul. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25) quotes
Origen as saying, “My opinion is this: the thoughts are the
apostle’s; but the diction and phraseology belong to some one who
has recorded what the apostle said, and as one who noted down what his
master dictated. If, then, any Church considers this Epistle as
coming from Paul, let it be commended for this; for neither did those
ancient men deliver it as such without cause. But who it was that
committed the Epistle to writing, is known only to God.”
S.]
2. Since many, however, of those who profess
to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and
trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as,
e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and
not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created
existences, viz., the powers Dominationes. Virtutes.
3. Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to every one, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in the investigation of divine knowledge; leaving, however, the grounds of their statements to be examined into by those who should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and who, especially by means of the Holy Spirit Himself, should obtain the gift of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge: while on other subjects they merely stated the fact that things were so, keeping silence as to the manner or origin of their existence; clearly in order that the more zealous of their successors, who should be lovers of wisdom, might have a subject of exercise on which to display the fruit of their talents,—those persons, I mean, who should prepare themselves to be fit and worthy receivers of wisdom.
Species.
First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being—God from the first creation and foundation of the world—the God of all just men, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sere, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; and that this God in the last days, as He had announced beforehand by His prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ to call in the first place Israel to Himself, and in the second place the Gentiles, after the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself gave the law and the prophets, and the Gospels, being also the God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments.
Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who
came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures;
that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of
all things—“For by Him were all things made”
Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that
the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father
and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished
whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, Innatus. The
words which Rufinus has rendered “natus an innatus”
are rendered by Jerome in his Epistle to Avitus (94 alias
59), “factus an infectus.” Criticising
the errors in the first book of the Principles, he says:
“Origen declares the Holy Spirit to be third in dignity and
honour after the Father and the Son; and although professing ignorance
whether he were created or not (factus an infectus), he indicated
afterwards his opinion regarding him, maintaining that nothing was
uncreated except God the Father.” Jerome, no doubt,
read γενητὸς ἢ
ἀγένητος, and Rufinus
γεννητὸς ἢ
ἀγέννητος.—R.
5. After these points, also, the apostolic
teaching is that the soul, having a substance Substantia. Virtutes.
6. Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teaching of the Church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient clearness. This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the present time are called his angels.
7. This also is a part of the Church’s
teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain
time, and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness. But
what existed
8. Then, finally, that the Scriptures were
written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is
apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of
most. For those (words) which are written are the forms of
certain mysteries, Sacramentorum.
The term ἀσώματον, i.e.,
incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only in many other writings,
but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to
us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of
Peter, Eusebius (Hist.
Eccles., iii. c. 36), treating of Ignatius, quotes from his
Epistle to the Church of Smyrna as follows: “Writing to the
Smyrnæans, he (Ignatius) has employed words respecting Jesus, I
know not whence they are taken, to the following effect:
‘But I know and believe that He was seen after the resurrection;
and when He came to Peter and his companions, He said to them, Take and
handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal
spirit.’” Jerome, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical
writers, says the words are a quotation from the Gospel of the
Nazarenes, a work which he had recently translated. Origen here
quotes them, however, from The Doctrine of Peter, on which
Ruæus remarks that the words might be contained in both of these
apocryphal works. Dæmonium. Subtile.
9. We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call ἀσώματον, or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood,—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. And the same inquiries have to be made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as respecting every soul, and everything possessed of a rational nature.
10. This also is a part of the teaching of
the Church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good
influences, which are His servants in accomplishing the salvation of
men. When these, however, were created, or of what nature they
are, or how they exist, is not clearly stated. Regarding the sun,
moon, and stars, whether they are living beings or without life, there
is no distinct deliverance. [See note,
infra, at end of cap. vi. S.]
Every one, therefore, must make use of elements
and foundations of this sort, according to the precept,
“Enlighten yourselves with the light of
knowledge,”
Chapter I.—On God.
1. I know that some
will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own
Scriptures, God is a body, because in the writings of Moses they find
it said, that “our God is a consuming fire;”
2. If, then, they acquiesce in our
assertion, which reason itself has demonstrated, regarding the nature
of light, and acknowledge that God cannot be understood to be a body in
the sense that light is, similar reasoning will hold true of the
expression “a consuming fire.” For what will God
consume in respect of His being fire? Shall He be thought to
consume material substance, as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what
in this view can be called worthy of the glory of God, if He be a fire,
consuming materials of that kind? But let us reflect that God
does indeed consume and utterly destroy; that He consumes evil
thoughts, wicked actions, and sinful desires, when they find their way
into the minds of believers; and that, inhabiting along with His Son
those souls which are rendered capable of receiving His word and
wisdom, according to His own declaration, “I and the Father shall
come, and We shall make our abode with him?”
3. And since many saints participate in the
Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which
being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the
saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said
to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace.
And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us
take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many
persons who take a part in the science Disciplina. Subsistentia.
4. But we must pass on to the language of
the Gospel itself, in which it is declared that “God is a
Spirit,” and where we have to show how that is to be understood
agreeably to what we have stated. For let us inquire on what
occasion these words were spoken by the Saviour, before whom He uttered
them, and what was the subject of investigation. We find, without
any doubt, that He spoke these words to the Samaritan woman, saying to
her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God ought to be
worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that “God is a Spirit.”
For the Samaritan woman, believing Him to be a Jew, was inquiring of
Him whether God ought to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this
mountain; and her words were, “All our fathers worshipped on this
mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to
worship.”
5. Having refuted, then, as well as we
could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as
in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict
truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being
measured.
“Inæstimabilem.”
6. But it will not appear absurd if we
employ another similitude to make the matter clearer. Our eyes
frequently cannot look upon the nature of the light itself—that
is, upon the substance of the sun; but when we behold his splendour or
his rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or some small openings to
admit the light, we can reflect how great is the supply and source of
the light of the body. So, in like manner. the works of Divine
Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort of rays, as it
were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real substance and
being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of itself to
behold God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world from the
beauty of His works and the comeliness of His creatures. God,
therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as
existing in a body, but as an uncompounded intellectual
nature, “Simplex
intellectualis natura.” “Natura illa
simplex et tota mens.”
7. If there are any now who think that the
mind itself and the soul is a body, I wish they would tell me by way of
answer how it receives reasons and assertions on subjects of such
importance—of such difficulty and such subtlety? Whence
does it derive the power of memory? and whence comes the contemplation
of invisible Some read
“visible.” “Substantia
quædam sensibilis propria.”
8. But perhaps these declarations may seem
to have less weight with those who wish to be instructed in divine
things out of the holy Scriptures, and who seek to have it proved to
them from that source how the nature of God surpasses the nature of
bodies. See, therefore, if the apostle does not say the same
thing, when, speaking of Christ, he declares, that “He is the
image of the invisible God, the first-born of every
creature.” “Constat inter
Patrem et Filium.”
9. Here, if any one lay before us the
passage where it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God,” Cf.
Chapter II.—On Christ.
1. In the first place, we must note that the
nature of that deity which is in Christ in respect
2. Let no one, however, imagine that we mean
anything impersonal Aliquid
insubstantivum. Substantialiter. Ad punctum alicujus
momenti. Omnis virtus ac
deformatio futuræ creaturæ.
3. Now, in the same way in which we have
understood that Wisdom was the beginning of the ways of God, and is
said to be created, forming beforehand and containing within herself
the species and beginnings of all creatures, must we understand her to
be the Word of God, because of her disclosing to all other beings,
i.e., to universal creation, the nature of the mysteries and secrets
which are contained within the divine wisdom; and on this account she
is called the Word, because she is, as it were, the interpreter of the
secrets of the mind. And therefore that language which is found
in the Acts of Paul, This work is mentioned
by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., iii. c. 3 and 25, as among the
spurious writings current in the Church. The Acts of Paul and
Thecla was a different work from the Acts of Paul. The
words quoted, “Hic est verbum animal vivens,” seem
to be a corruption from Or, “and the
Word was God.”
4. This Son, accordingly, is also the truth and life of all things which exist. And with reason. For how could those things which were created live, unless they derived their being from life? or how could those things which are, truly exist, unless they came down from the truth? or how could rational beings exist, unless the Word or reason had previously existed? or how could they be wise, unless there were wisdom? But since it was to come to pass that some also should fall away from life, and bring death upon themselves by their declension—for death is nothing else than a departure from life—and as it was not to follow that those beings which had once been created by God for the enjoyment of life should utterly perish, it was necessary that, before death, there should be in existence such a power as would destroy the coming death, and that there should be a resurrection, the type of which was in our Lord and Saviour, and that this resurrection should have its ground in the wisdom and word and life of God. And then, in the next place, since some of those who were created were not to be always willing to remain unchangeable and unalterable in the calm and moderate enjoyment of the blessings which they possessed, but, in consequence of the good which was in them being theirs not by nature or essence, but by accident, were to be perverted and changed, and to fall away from their position, therefore was the Word and Wisdom of God made the Way. And it was so termed because it leads to the Father those who walk along it.
Whatever, therefore, we have predicated of the
wisdom of God, will be appropriately applied and understood of the Son
of God, in virtue of His being the Life, and the Word, and the Truth
and the Resurrection: for all these titles are derived from His
power and operations, and in none of them is there the slightest ground
for understanding anything of a corporeal nature which might seem to
denote either size, or form, or colour; for those children of men which
appear among us, or those descendants of other living beings,
correspond to the seed of those by whom they were begotten, or derive
from those mothers, in whose wombs they are formed and nourished,
whatever that is, which they bring into this life, and carry with them
when they are born. “Quoniam hi qui
videntur apud nos hominum filii, vel ceterorum animalium, semini eorum
a quibus seminati sunt respondent, vel earum quarum in utero formantur
ac nutriuntur, habent ex his quidquid illud est quod in lucem hanc
assumunt, ac deferunt processuri.” Probably the last two
words should be “deferunt processuris”—“and
hand it over to those who are destined to come forth from them,”
i.e., to their descendants. Subsistentia.
Some would read here, “substantia.” Per adoptionem
Spiritus. The original words here were probably εἰσποίησις
τοῦ
πνεύματος, and
Rufinus seems to have mistaken the allusion to
5. Let us now ascertain how those statements
which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy
Scripture. The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is
the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born
of every creature.” ἀπόῤῥοια.
6. Let us now see how we are to understand the
expression “invisible image,” that we may in this way
perceive how God is rightly called the Father of His Son; and let us,
in the first place, draw our conclusions from what are customarily
called images among men. That is sometimes called an image which
is painted or sculptured on some material substance, such as wood or
stone; and sometimes a child is called the image of his parent, when
the features of the child in no respect belie their resemblance to the
father. I think, therefore, that that man who was formed after
the image and likeness of God may be fittingly compared to the first
illustration. Respecting him, however, we shall see more
precisely, God willing, when we come to expound the passage in
Genesis. But the image Subsistentia.
7. But since we quoted the language of Paul
regarding Christ, where He says of Him that He is “the brightness
of the glory of God, and the express figure of His
person,”
8. But since He is called by the apostle not
only the brightness of His glory, but also the express figure of His
person or subsistence,
9. Let us see now what is the meaning of the
expression which is found in the Wisdom of Solomon, where it is said of
Wisdom that “it is a kind of breath of the power of God, and the
purest efflux of the glory of the Omnipotent, and the splendour of
eternal light, and the spotless mirror of the working or power of God,
and the image of His goodness.” “Hujus ergo
totius virtutis tantæ et tam immensæ vapor, et, ut ita dicam,
vigor ipse in propriâ subsistentiâ effectus, quamvis ex ipsa
virtute velut voluntas ex mente procedat, tamen et ipsa voluntas Dei
nihilominus Dei virtus efficitur.”
Another power accordingly is produced, which
exists with properties of its own,—a kind of breath, as Scripture
says, of the primal and unbegotten power of God, deriving from Him its
being, and never at any time non-existent. For if any one were to
assert that it did not formerly exist, but came afterwards into
existence, let him explain the reason why the Father, who gave it
being, did not do so before. And if he shall grant that there was
once a beginning, when that breath proceeded from the power of God, we
shall ask him again, why not even before the beginning, which he has
allowed; and in this way, ever demanding an earlier date, and going
upwards with our interrogations, we shall arrive at this conclusion,
that as God was always possessed of power and will, there never was any
reason of propriety or otherwise, why He may not have always possessed
that blessing which He desired. By which it is shown that that
breath of God’s power always existed, having no beginning save
God Himself. Nor was it fitting that there should be any other
beginning save God Himself, from whom it derives its birth. And
according to the expression of the apostle, that Christ “is the
power of God,”
10. Let us now examine the expression,
“Wisdom is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty;”
and let us first consider what the glory of the omnipotent God is, and
then we shall also understand what is its efflux. As no one can
be a father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a
servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist
those over whom He may exercise His power; and therefore, that God may
be shown to be almighty, it
11. In the third place, wisdom is called the splendour of eternal light. The force of this expression we have explained in the preceding pages, when we introduced the similitude of the sun and the splendour of its rays, and showed to the best of our power how this should be understood. To what we then said we shall add only the following remark. That is properly termed everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is. And this is the idea conveyed by John when he says that “God is light.” Now His wisdom is the splendour of that light, not only in respect of its being light, but also of being everlasting light, so that His wisdom is eternal and everlasting splendour. If this be fully understood, it clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father but not in time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God Himself.
12. But wisdom is also called the stainless mirror
of the ἐνέργεια or
working of God. We must first understand, then, what the working
of the power of God is. It is a sort of vigour, so to speak, by
which God operates either in creation, or in providence, or in
judgment, or in the disposal and arrangement of individual things, each
in its season. For as the image formed in a mirror unerringly
reflects all the acts and movements of him who gazes on it, so would
Wisdom have herself to be understood when she is called the stainless
mirror of the power and working of the Father: as the Lord Jesus
Christ also, who is the Wisdom of God, declares of Himself when He
says, “The works which the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise.”
13. It remains that we inquire what is the
“image of His goodness;” and here, I think, we must
understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking
of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the primal goodness,
doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the
image of the Father, may certainly also be called with propriety the
image of His goodness. For there is no other second goodness
existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And
therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel,
“There is none good save one only, God the
Father,” [ Abusive [= improperly
used. S.]
Chapter III.—On the Holy Spirit.
1. The next point is to investigate as briefly as
possible the subject of the Holy Spirit. All who perceive, in
whatever manner, the existence of Providence, confess that God, who
created and disposed all things, is unbegotten, and rec
2. Now, what the Holy Spirit is, we are taught in
many passages of Scripture, as by David in the Cf.
3. That all things were created by God, and
that there is no creature which exists but has derived from Him its
being, is established from many declarations of Scripture; those
assertions being refuted and rejected which are falsely alleged by some
respecting the existence either of a matter co-eternal with God, or of
unbegotten souls, in which they would have it that God implanted not so
much the power of existence, as equality and order. For even in
that little treatise called The Pastor or Angel of Repentance,
composed by Hermas, we have the following: “First of all,
believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things; who,
when nothing formerly existed, caused all things to be; who Himself
contains all things, but Himself is contained by none.” Cf. Hermæ
Past., Vision v. Mandat. 1. [See vol. ii. p. 20.] Per quem Spiritus
Sanctus factura esse vel creatura diceretur.
4. Some indeed of our predecessors have
observed, that in the New Testament, whenever the Spirit is named
without that adjunct which denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be
understood; as e.g., in the expression, “Now the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, and peace;” Cf.
5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. And in discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the Father and the Son. I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. In those persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place, who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God.
6. That the working of the Father and the
Son operates both in saints and in sinners, is manifest from this, that
all who are rational beings are partakers of the word, i.e., of reason,
and by this means bear certain seeds, implanted within them, of wisdom
and justice, which is Christ. Now, in Him who truly exists, and
who said by Moses, “I Am Who I
Am,”
7. But if this is to be understood as spoken
of the Spirit of God, since Adam also is found to have prophesied of
some things, it may be taken not as of general application, but as
confined to those who are saints. Finally, also, at the time of
the flood, when all flesh had corrupted their way before God, it is
recorded that God spoke thus, as of undeserving men and sinners:
“My Spirit shall not abide with those men for ever, because they
are flesh.” Terra.
8. Having made these declarations regarding
the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let us
return to the order in which we began the discussion. God the
Father bestows upon all, existence; and participation in Christ, in
respect of His being the word of reason, renders them rational
beings. From which it follows that they are deserving either of
praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice. On this
account, therefore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that those
beings which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by
participating in it. Seeing, then, that firstly, they derive
their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature
from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy
Spirit,—those who have been previously sanctified by the Holy
Spirit are again made capable of receiving Christ, in respect that He
is the righteousness of God; and those who have earned advancement to
this grade by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, will nevertheless
obtain the gift of wisdom according to the power and working of the
Spirit of God. And this I consider is Paul’s meaning, when
he says that to “some is given the word of wisdom, to others the
word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit.” And while
pointing out the individual distinction of gifts, he refers the whole
of them to the source of all things, in the words, “There are
diversities of operations, but one God who worketh all in
all.”
Chapter IV.—On Defection, or Falling Away.
1. To exhibit the nature of defection or falling away, on the part of those who conduct themselves carelessly, it will not appear out of place to employ a similitude by way of illustration. Suppose, then, the case of one who had become gradually acquainted with the art or science, say of geometry or medicine, until he had reached perfection, having trained himself for a lengthened time in its principles and practice, so as to attain a complete mastery over the art: to such an one it could never happen, that, when he lay down to sleep in the possession of his skill, he should awake in a state of ignorance. It is not our purpose to adduce or to notice here those accidents which are occasioned by any injury or weakness, for they do not apply to our present illustration. According to our point of view, then, so long as that geometer or physician continues to exercise himself in the study of his art and in the practice of its principles, the knowledge of his profession abides with him; but if he withdraw from its practice, and lay aside his habits of industry, then, by his neglect, at first a few things will gradually escape him, then by and by more and more, until in course of time everything will be forgotten, and be completely effaced from the memory. It is possible, indeed, that when he has first begun to fall away, and to yield to the corrupting influence of a negligence which is small as yet, he may, if he be aroused and return speedily to his senses, repair those losses which up to that time are only recent, and recover that knowledge which hitherto had been only slightly obliterated from his mind. Let us apply this now to the case of those who have devoted themselves to the knowledge and wisdom of God, whose learning and diligence incomparably surpass all other training; and let us contemplate, according to the form of the similitude employed, what is the acquisition of knowledge, or what is its disappearance, especially when we hear from the apostle what is said of those who are perfect, that they shall behold face to face the glory of the Lord in the revelation of His mysteries.
2. But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness, we have fallen, in what we have said, into a digression, having considered that the subject of the soul, which accidentally came before us, should be touched on, although cursorily, seeing we were discussing a cognate topic relating to our rational nature. We shall, however, with the permission of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, more conveniently consider in the proper place the subject of all rational beings, which are distinguished into three genera and species.
Chapter V.—On Rational Natures.
1. After the dissertation, which we have
briefly conducted to the best of our ability, regarding the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, it follows that we offer a few remarks upon the
subject of rational natures, and on their species and orders, or on the
offices as well of holy as of malignant powers, and also on those which
occupy an intermediate position between these good and evil powers, and
as yet are placed in a state of struggle and trial. For we find
in holy Scripture numerous names of certain orders and offices, not
only of holy beings, but also of those of an opposite description,
which we shall bring before us, in the first place; and the meaning of
which we shall endeavour, in the second place, to the best of our
ability, to ascertain. There are certain holy angels of God whom
Paul terms “ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them
who shall be heirs of salvation.” Officia.
2. Then, in the next place, we must know that
every being which is endowed with reason, and transgresses its statutes
and limitations, is undoubtedly involved in sin by swerving from
rectitude and justice. Every rational creature, therefore, is
capable of earning praise and censure: of praise, if, in
conformity to that reason which he possesses, he advance to better
things; of censure, if he fall away from the plan and
3. After the enumeration, then, of so many
and so important names of orders and offices, underlying which it is
certain that there are personal existences, let us inquire whether God,
the creator and founder of all things, created certain of them holy and
happy, so that they could admit no element at all of an opposite kind,
and certain others so that they were made capable both of virtue and
vice; or whether we are to suppose that He created some so as to be
altogether incapable of virtue, and others again altogether incapable
of wickedness, but with the power of abiding only in a state of
happiness, and others again such as to be capable of either
condition. [See note at end of
chap. vi. S.] Simul cum
substantiæ suæ prolatione—at the same time with the
emanation of their substance. Conditionis
prærogativa. Substantialiter.
4. But that we may not appear to build our
assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground
of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is
only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations
from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be
more credibly maintained. And, firstly, we shall adduce what holy
Scripture contains regarding wicked powers; we shall next continue our
investigation with regard to the others, as the Lord shall be pleased
to enlighten us, that in matters of such difficulty we may ascertain
what is nearest to the truth, or what ought to be our opinions
agreeably to the standard of religion. Now we find in the prophet
Ezekiel two prophecies written to the prince of Tyre, the former of
which might appear to any one, before he heard the second also, to be
spoken of some man who was prince of the Tyrians. In the
meantime, therefore, we shall take nothing from that first prophecy;
but as the second is manifestly of such a kind as cannot be at all
understood of a man, but of some superior power which had fallen away
from a higher position, and had been reduced to a lower and worse
condition, we shall from it take an illustration, by which it may be
demonstrated with the utmost clearness, that those opposing and
malignant powers were not formed or created so by nature, but fell from
a better to a worse position, and were converted into wicked beings;
that those blessed powers also were not of such a nature as to be
unable to admit what was opposed to them if they were so inclined and
became negligent, and did not guard most carefully the blessedness of
their condition. For if it is related that he who is called the
prince of Tyre was amongst the saints, and was without stain, and was
placed in the paradise of God, and adorned also with a crown of
comeliness and beauty, is it to be supposed that such an one could be
in any degree inferior to any of the saints? For he is described
as having been adorned with a crown of comeliness and beauty, and as
having walked stainless in the paradise of God: and how can any
one suppose that such a being was not one of those holy and blessed
powers which, as being placed in a state of happiness, we must believe
to be endowed with no other honour than this? But let us see what
we are taught by the words of the prophecy themselves. “The
word of the Lord,” says the prophet,
“came to me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation over the
prince of Tyre, and say to him, Thus saith the Lord God, Thou hast been the seal of a similitude, and a crown
of comeliness among the delights of paradise; thou wert adorned with
every good stone or gem, and wert clothed with sardonyx, and topaz, and
emerald, and carbuncle, and sapphire, and jasper, set in gold and
silver, and with agate, amethyst, and chrysolite, and beryl, and
onyx: with gold also didst thou fill thy treasures, and thy
storehouses within thee. From the day when thou wert created
along with the cherubim, I placed thee in the holy mount of God.
Thou wert in the midst of the fiery stones: thou wert stainless
in thy days, from the day when thou wert created, until iniquities were
found in thee: from the greatness of thy trade, thou didst fill
thy storehouses with iniquity, and didst sin, and wert wounded from the
mount of God. And a cherub drove thee forth from the midst of the
burning stones; and thy heart was elated because of thy comeliness, thy
discipline was corrupted along with thy beauty: on account of the
multitude of thy sins, I cast thee forth to the earth before kings; I
gave thee for a show and a mockery on account of the multitude of thy
sins, and of thine iniquities: because of thy trade thou hast
polluted thy holy places. And I shall bring forth fire from the
midst of thee, and it shall devour thee, and I shall give thee for
ashes and cinders on the earth in the sight of all who see thee:
and all who know thee among the nations shall mourn over thee.
Thou hast been made destruction, and thou shalt exist no longer for
ever.”
5. Again, we are taught as follows by the
prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet
says, “How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen
from heaven! He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to
the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I shall ascend into
heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne; I shall sit
upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the
north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most
High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world, and to
the foundations of the earth. They who see thee shall be amazed
at thee, and shall say, This is the man who harassed the whole earth,
who moved kings, who made the whole world a desert, who destroyed
cities, and did not unloose those who were in chains. All the
kings of the nations have slept in honour, every one in his own house;
but thou shalt be cast forth on the mountains, accursed with the many
dead who have been pierced through with swords, and have descended to
the lower world. As a garment cloned with blood, and stained,
will not be clean; neither shalt thou be clean, because thou hast
destroyed my land and slain my people: thou shalt not remain for
ever, most wicked seed. Prepare thy sons for death on account of
the sins of thy father, lest they rise again and inherit the earth, and
fill the earth with wars. And I shall rise against them, saith
the Lord of hosts, and I shall cause their name
to perish, and their remains, and their seed.”
Chapter VI.—On the End or Consummation.
1. An end or consummation would seem to be an indication of the perfection and completion of things. And this reminds us here, that if there be any one imbued with a desire of reading and understanding subjects of such difficulty and importance, he ought to bring to the effort a perfect and instructed understanding, lest perhaps, if he has had no experience in questions of this kind, they may appear to him as vain and superfluous; or if his mind be full of preconceptions and prejudices on other points, he may judge these to be heretical and opposed to the faith of the Church, yielding in so doing not so much to the convictions of reason as to the dogmatism of prejudice. These subjects, indeed, are treated by us with great solicitude and caution, in the manner rather of an investigation and discussion, than in that of fixed and certain decision. For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when speaking of the Trinity. But on the present occasion our exercise is to be conducted, as we best may, in the style of a disputation rather than of strict definition.
The end of the world, then, and the final
consummation, will take place when every one shall be subjected to
punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will
bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the
goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to
one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. For thus
says holy Scripture, “The Lord said to My
Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool.”
2. Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all
enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death—the last
enemy—shall be destroyed, and when the kingdom shall be delivered
up by Christ (to whom all things are subject) to God the Father; let
us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate the beginnings of
things. For the end is always like the beginning: and,
therefore, as there is one end to all things, so ought we to understand
that there was one beginning; and as there is one end to many things,
so there spring from one beginning many differences and varieties,
which again, through the goodness of God, and by subjection to Christ,
and through the unity of the Holy Spirit, are recalled to one end,
which is like unto the beginning: all those, viz., who, bending
the knee at the name of Jesus, make known by so doing their subjection
to Him: and these are they who are in heaven, on earth, and under
the earth: by which three classes the whole universe of things is
pointed out, those, viz., who from that one beginning were arranged,
each according to the diversity of his conduct, among the different
orders, in accordance with their desert; for there was no goodness in
them by essential being, as in God and His Christ, and in the Holy
Spirit. For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all
things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others
possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy
blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in
divinity itself. But if they neglect and despise such
participation, then is each one, by fault of his own slothfulness,
made, one more rapidly, another more slowly, one in a greater, another
in a less degree, the cause of his own downfall. And since, as we
have remarked, the lapse by which an individual falls away from his
position is characterized by great
3. It is to be borne in mind, however, that certain beings who fell away from that one beginning of which we have spoken, have sunk to such a depth of unworthiness and wickedness as to be deemed altogether undeserving of that training and instruction by which the human race, while in the flesh, are trained and instructed with the assistance of the heavenly powers; and continue, on the contrary, in a state of enmity and opposition to those who are receiving this instruction and teaching. And hence it is that the whole of this mortal life is full of struggles and trials, caused by the opposition and enmity of those who fell from a better condition without at all looking back, and who are called the devil and his angels, and the other orders of evil, which the apostle classed among the opposing powers. But whether any of these orders who act under the government of the devil, and obey his wicked commands, will in a future world be converted to righteousness because of their possessing the faculty of freedom of will, or whether persistent and inveterate wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature, is a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of, if neither in these present worlds which are seen and temporal, nor in those which are unseen and are eternal, that portion is to differ wholly from the final unity and fitness of things. But in the meantime, both in those temporal worlds which are seen, as well as in those eternal worlds which are invisible, all those beings are arranged, according to a regular plan, in the order and degree of their merits; so that some of them in the first, others in the second, some even in the last times, after having undergone heavier and severer punishments, endured for a lengthened period, and for many ages, so to speak, improved by this stern method of training, and restored at first by the instruction of the angels, and subsequently by the powers of a higher grade, and thus advancing through each stage to a better condition, reach even to that which is invisible and eternal, having travelled through, by a kind of training, every single office of the heavenly powers. From which, I think, this will appear to follow as an inference, that every rational nature may, in passing from one order to another, go through each to all, and advance from all to each, while made the subject of various degrees of proficiency and failure according to its own actions and endeavours, put forth in the enjoyment of its power of freedom of will.
[The language
used by Origen in this and the preceding chapter affords a remarkable
illustration of that occasional extravagance in statements of facts and
opinions, as well as of those strange imaginings and wild speculations
as to the meaning of Holy Scripture, which brought upon him
subsequently grave charges of error and heretical pravity. See
Neander’s History of the Christian Religion and Church during
the First Three Centuries (Rose’s translation), vol. ii. p.
217 et seqq., and Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, vol.
i. p. 102 et seqq. See also Prefatory Note to Origen’s
Works, supra, p. 235. S.]
Chapter VII.—On Incorporeal and Corporeal Beings.
1. The subjects considered in the previous
chapter have been spoken of in general language, the nature of rational
beings being discussed more by way of intelligent inference than strict
dogmatic definition, with the exception of the place where we treated,
to the best of our ability, of the persons of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. We have now to ascertain what those matters are which it
is proper to treat in the following pages according to our dogmatic
belief, i.e., in agreement with the creed of the Church. All
souls and all rational natures, whether holy or wicked, were formed or
created, and all these, according to their proper nature, are
incorporeal; but although incorporeal, they were nevertheless created,
because all things were made by God through Christ, as John teaches in
a general way in his Gospel, saying, “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same
was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and
without Him was nothing made.”
These matters now have been previously mentioned by us, as we are desirous to come in an orderly manner to the investigation of the sun, and moon, and stars by way of logical inference, and to ascertain whether they also ought properly to be reckoned among the principalities on account of their being said to be created in ᾽Αρχάς, i.e., for the government of day and night; or whether they are to be regarded as having only that government of day and night which they discharge by performing the office of illuminating them, and are not in reality chief of that order of principalities.
2. Now, when it is said that all things were
In the first place, then, let us see what reason
itself can discover respecting sun, moon, and stars,—whether the
opinion, entertained by some, of their unchangeableness be
correct,—and let the declarations of holy Scripture, as far as
possible, be first adduced. For Job appears to assert that not
only may the stars be subject to sin, but even that they are actually
not clean from the contagion of it. The following are his
words: “The stars also are not clean in Thy
sight.” [See note,
supra, p. 262. S.]
3. But to arrive at a clearer understanding on these matters, we ought first to inquire after this point, whether it is allowable to suppose that they are living and rational beings; then, in the next place, whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies, or seem to be anterior to them; and also whether, after the end of the world, we are to understand that they are to be released from their bodies; and whether, as we cease to live, so they also will cease from illuminating the world. Although this inquiry may seem to be somewhat bold, yet, as we are incited by the desire of ascertaining the truth as far as possible, there seems no absurdity in attempting an investigation of the subject agreeably to the grace of the Holy Spirit.
We think, then, that they may be designated as
living beings, for this reason, that they are said to receive
commandments from God, which is ordinarily the case only with rational
beings. “I have given a commandment to all the
stars,”
4. And now we have to ascertain whether
those beings which in the course of the discussion we have discovered
to possess life and reason, were endowed with a soul along with their
bodies at the time mentioned in Scripture, when “God made two
great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light
to rule the night, and the stars also,”
5. But let us see whether we can find in
holy Scripture any indications properly applicable to these heavenly
existences. The following is the statement of the Apostle
Paul: “The creature was made subject to vanity, not
willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected the same in hope, because
the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of
God.” Cf.
Let us see now what is the freedom of the creature, or the termination of its bondage. When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father, then also those living things, when they shall have first been made the kingdom of Christ, shall be delivered, along with the whole of that kingdom, to the rule of the Father, that when God shall be all in all, they also, since they are a part of all things, may have God in themselves, as He is in all things.
Chapter VIII.—On the Angels.
1. A similar method must be followed in treating
of the angels; nor are we to suppose that it is the result of accident
that a particular office is assigned to a particular angel: as to
2. And now let us say something regarding those who maintain the existence of a diversity of spiritual natures, that we may avoid falling into the silly and impious fables of such as pretend that there is a diversity of spiritual natures both among heavenly existences and human souls, and for that reason allege that they were called into being by different creators; for while it seems, and is really, absurd that to one and the same Creator should be ascribed the creation of different natures of rational beings, they are nevertheless ignorant of the cause of that diversity. For they say that it seems inconsistent for one and the same Creator, without any existing ground of merit, to confer upon some beings the power of dominion, and to subject others again to authority; to bestow a principality upon some, and to render others subordinate to rulers. Which opinions indeed, in my judgment, are completely rejected by following out the reasoning explained above, and by which it was shown that the cause of the diversity and variety among these beings is due to their conduct, which has been marked either with greater earnestness or indifference, according to the goodness or badness of their nature, and not to any partiality on the part of the Disposer. But that this may more easily be shown to be the case with heavenly beings, let us borrow an illustration from what either has been done or is done among men, in order that from visible things we may, by way of consequence, behold also things invisible.
Paul and Peter are undoubtedly proved to have been
men of a spiritual nature. When, therefore, Paul is found to have
acted contrary to religion, in having persecuted the Church of God, and
Peter to have committed so grave a sin as, when questioned by the
maid-servant, to have asserted with an oath that he did not know who
Christ was, how is it possible that these—who, according to those
persons of whom we speak, were spiritual beings—should fall into
sins of such a nature, especially as they are frequently in the habit
of saying that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits? And if
a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, and as, according to them, Peter
and Paul were sprung from the root of a good tree, how should they be
deemed to have brought forth fruits so wicked? And if they should
return the answer which is generally invented, that it was not Paul who
persecuted, but some other person, I know not whom, who was in Paul;
and that it was not Peter who uttered the denial, but some other
individual in him; how should Paul say, if he had not sinned, that
“I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted
the Church of God?”
3. According to our view, there is no rational
creature which is not capable both of good and evil. But it does
not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit
evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e.,
has become wicked. As we may say that the nature of every man
admits of his being a sailor, but it does not follow from that, that
every man will become so; or, again, it is possible for every one to
learn grammar or medicine, but it is not therefore proved that every
man is either a physician or a grammarian; so, if we say that there is
no nature which may not admit evil, it is not necessarily indicated
that it has done so. For, in our view, not even the devil himself
was incapable of good; but although capable of admitting good, he did
not therefore also desire it, or make any effort after virtue.
4. I am of opinion, then, so far as appears
to me, that the preceding discussion has sufficiently proved that it is
neither from want of discrimination, nor from any accidental cause,
either that the “principalities” hold their dominion, or
the other orders of spirits have obtained their respective offices; but
that they have received the steps of their rank on account of their
merits, although it is not our privilege to know or inquire what those
acts of theirs were, by which they earned a place in any particular
order. It is sufficient only to know this much, in order to
demonstrate the impartiality and righteousness of God, that,
conformably with the declaration of the Apostle Paul, “there is
no acceptance of persons with Him,” Cf.
We think that those views are by no means to be
admitted, which some are wont unnecessarily to advance and maintain,
viz., that souls descend to such a pitch of abasement that they forget
their rational nature and dignity, and sink into the condition of
irrational animals, either large or small; and in support of these
assertions they generally quote some pretended statements of Scripture,
such as, that a beast, to which a [See
Fragment from the First Book of the de Principiis.
Translated by Jerome in His Epistle to Avitus.
“It is an evidence of great negligence and sloth, that each one should fall down to such (a pitch of degradation), and be so emptied, as that, in coming to evil, he may be fastened to the gross body of irrational beasts of burden.”
Another Fragment from the Same.
Translated in the Same Epistle to Avitus.
“At the end and consummation of the world,
when souls and rational creatures shall have been sent forth as from
bolts and barriers, De quibusdam repagulis
atque carceribus. There is an allusion here to the race-course
and the mode of starting the chariots.
Chapter I.—On the World.
1. Although all the discussions in the preceding book have had reference to the world and its arrangements, it now seems to follow that we should specially re-discuss a few points respecting the world itself, i.e., its beginning and end, or those dispensations of Divine Providence which have taken place between the beginning and the end, or those events which are supposed to have occurred before the creation of the world, or are to take place after the end.
In this investigation, the first point which
clearly appears is, that the world in all its diversified and varying
conditions is composed not only of rational and diviner natures, and of
a diversity of bodies, but of dumb animals, wild and tame beasts, of
birds, and of all things which live in the waters; The words “in
aquis” are omitted in Redepenning’s edition. The original of this
sentence is found at the close of the Emperor Justinian’s Epistle
to Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, and, literally translated, is as
follows: “The world being so very varied, and containing so
many different rational beings, what else ought we to say was the cause
of its existence than the diversity of the falling away of those who
decline from unity (τῆς
ἑνάδος) in different
ways?”—Ruæus. Lommatzsch
adds a clause not contained in the note of the Benedictine
editor: “And sometimes the soul selects the life that is in
water” (ἔνυδρον). Lit. “into
various qualities of mind.”
2. But God, by the ineffable skill of His wisdom,
transforming and restoring all things, in whatever manner they are
made, to some useful aim, and to the common advantage of all, recalls
those very creatures which differed so much from each other in mental
conformation to one agreement of labour and purpose; so that, although
they are under the influence of different motives, they nevertheless
complete the fulness and perfection of one world, and the very variety
of minds tends to one end of perfection. For it is one power
which grasps and holds together all the diversity of the world, and
leads the different movements towards one work, lest so immense an
undertaking as that of the world should be dissolved by the dissensions
of souls. And for this reason we think that God, the Father of
all things, in order to ensure the salvation of all His creatures
through the ineffable plan of His word and wisdom, so arranged each of
these, that every spirit, whether soul or rational existence, however
called, should not be compelled by force, against the liberty of his
own will, to any other course than that to which the motives of his own
mind led him (lest by so doing the power of exercising free-will should
seem to be taken away, which certainly would produce a change in the
nature of the being itself); and that the varying purposes of these
would be suitably and usefully adapted to the harmony of one world, by
some of them requiring help, and others being able to give it, and
others again being the cause of struggle and contest to those who are
making progress, amongst whom their diligence “Et diversi
motus propositi earum (rationabilium subsistentiarum) ad unius mundi
consonantiam competenter atque utiliter aptarentur, dum aliæ
juvari indigent, aliæ juvare possunt, aliæ vero
proficientibus certamina atque agones movent, in quibus eorum
probabilior haberetur industria, et certior post victoriam reparati
gradus statio teneretur, quæ per difficultates laborantium
constitisset.”
3. Although the whole world is arranged into
offices of different kinds, its condition, nevertheless, is not to be
supposed as one of internal discrepancies and discordances; but as our
one body is provided with many members, and is held together by one
soul, so I am of opinion that the whole world also ought to be regarded
as some huge and immense animal, which is kept together by the power
and reason of God as by one soul. This also, I think, is
indicated in sacred Scripture by the declaration of the prophet,
“Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord;”
4. If now, in the course of our discussion, it has
been ascertained that these things are so, it seems to follow that we
next consider the nature of corporeal being, seeing the diversity in
the world cannot exist without bodies. It is evident from the
nature of things themselves, that bodily nature admits of diversity and
variety of change, so that it is capable of undergoing all possible
transformations, as, e.g., the conversion of wood into fire, of fire
into smoke, of smoke into air, of oil into fire. Does not food
itself, whether of man or of animals, exhibit the same ground of
change? For whatever we take as food, is converted into the
substance of our body. But how water is changed into earth or
into air, and air again into fire, or fire into air, or air into water,
although not difficult to explain, yet on the present occasion it is
enough merely to mention them, as our object is to discuss the nature
of bodily matter. By matter, therefore, we understand that which
is placed under bodies, viz., that by which, through the bestowing and
implanting of qualities, bodies exist; and we mention four
qualities—heat, cold, dryness, humidity. These four
qualities being implanted in the ὕλη, or
matter (for matter is found to exist in its own nature without those
qualities before mentioned), produce the different kinds of
bodies. Although this matter is, as we have said above, according
to its own proper nature without qualities, it is never found to exist
without a quality. And I cannot understand how so many
distinguished men have been of opinion that this matter, which is so
great, and possesses such properties as to enable it to be sufficient
for all the bodies in the world which God willed to exist, and to be
the attendant and slave of the Creator for whatever forms and species
He wished in all things, receiving into itself whatever qualities He
desired to bestow upon it, was uncreated, i.e., not formed by God
Himself, who is the Creator of all things, but that its nature and
power were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they
should find fault with those who deny either God’s creative power
or His providential administration of the world, and accuse them of
impiety for thinking that so great a work as the world could exist
without an architect or overseer; while they themselves incur a similar
charge of impiety in saying that matter is uncreated, and co-eternal
with the uncreated God. According to this view, then, if we
suppose for the sake of argument that matter did not exist, as these
maintain, saying that God could not create anything when nothing
existed, without doubt He would have been idle, not having matter on
which to operate, which matter they say was furnished Him not by His
own arrangement, but by accident; and they think that this, which was
discovered by chance, was able to suffice Him for an undertaking of so
vast an extent, and for the manifestation of the power of His might,
and by admitting the plan of all His wisdom, might be distinguished and
formed into a world. Now this appears to me to be very absurd,
and to be
5. But that we may believe on the authority
of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of
Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure
torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, “I ask of thee,
my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which
are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these
things when they did not exist.” Hermæ
Past., book ii. [See vol. ii. p. 20, of this series.
S]
Chapter II.—On the Perpetuity of Bodily Nature.
1. On this topic some are wont to inquire whether, as the Father generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in them; so also a similar kind of union or relationship can be understood as subsisting between rational natures and bodily matter. And that this point may be more fully and thoroughly examined, the commencement of the discussion is generally directed to the inquiry whether this very bodily nature, which bears the lives and contains the movements of spiritual and rational minds, will be equally eternal with them, or will altogether perish and be destroyed. And that the question may be determined with greater precision, we have, in the first place, to inquire if it is possible for rational natures to remain altogether incorporeal after they have reached the summit of holiness and happiness (which seems to me a most difficult and almost impossible attainment), or whether they must always of necessity be united to bodies. If, then, any one could show a reason why it was possible for them to dispense wholly with bodies, it will appear to follow, that as a bodily nature, created out of nothing after intervals of time, was produced when it did not exist, so also it must cease to be when the purposes which it served had no longer an existence.
2. If, however, it is impossible for this point to
be at all maintained, viz., that any other nature than the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit can live without a body, the necessity of logical
reasoning compels us to understand that rational natures were indeed
created at the beginning, but that material substance was separated
from them only in thought and understanding, and appears to have been
formed for them, or after them, and that they never have lived nor do
live without it; for an incorporeal life will rightly be considered a
prerogative of the Trinity alone. As we have remarked above,
therefore, that material substance of this world, possessing a nature
admitting of all possible transformations, is, when dragged down to
beings of a lower order, moulded into the crasser and more solid
condition of a body, so as to distinguish those visible and varying
forms of the world; but when it becomes the servant of more perfect and
more blessed beings, it shines in the splendour of celestial bodies,
and adorns either the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection
with the clothing of a spiritual body, out of all which will be filled
up the diverse and varying state of the one world. But if any one
should desire to discuss these matters more fully, it will be
necessary, with all reverence and fear of God, to examine the sacred
Scriptures with greater attention and diligence, to ascertain whether
the secret and hidden sense within them may perhaps reveal anything
regarding these matters; and something may be discovered in their
abstruse and mysterious language, through the demonstration of the Holy
Spirit to those who
Chapter III.—On the Beginning of the World, and Its Causes.
1. The next subject of inquiry is, whether there was any other world before the one which now exists; and if so, whether it was such as the present, or somewhat different, or inferior; or whether there was no world at all, but something like that which we understand will be after the end of all things, when the kingdom shall be delivered up to God, even the Father; which nevertheless may have been the end of another world,—of that, namely, after which this world took its beginning; and whether the various lapses of intellectual natures provoked God to produce this diverse and varying condition of the world. This point also, I think, must be investigated in a similar way, viz., whether after this world there will be any (system of) preservation and amendment, severe indeed, and attended with much pain to those who were unwilling to obey the word of God, but a process through which, by means of instruction and rational training, those may arrive at a fuller understanding of the truth who have devoted themselves in the present life to these pursuits, and who, after having had their minds purified, have advanced onwards so as to become capable of attaining divine wisdom; and after this the end of all things will immediately follow, and there will be again, for the correction and improvement of those who stand in need of it, another world, either resembling that which now exists, or better than it, or greatly inferior; and how long that world, whatever it be that is to come after this, shall continue; and if there will be a time when no world shall anywhere exist, or if there has been a time when there was no world at all; or if there have been, or will be several; or if it shall ever come to pass that there will be one resembling another, like it in every respect, and indistinguishable from it.
2. That it may appear more clearly, then,
whether bodily matter can exist during intervals of time, and whether,
as it did not exist before it was made, so it may again be resolved
into non-existence, let us see, first of all, whether it is possible
for any one to live without a body. For if one person can live
without a body, all things also may dispense with them; seeing our
former treatise has shown that all things tend towards one end.
Now, if all things may exist without bodies, there will undoubtedly be
no bodily substance, seeing there will be no use for it. But how
shall we understand the words of the apostle in those passages, in
which, discussing the resurrection of the dead, he says, “This
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. When this corruptible shall have put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall
be brought to pass the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up
in victory! Where, O death, is thy victory? O death, thy
sting has been swallowed up: the sting of death is sin, and the
strength of sin is the law.” Dogmatibus.
Schnitzer says that “dogmatibus” here yields no
sense. He conjectures δείγμασι, and
renders “proofs,” “marks.”
3. But, nevertheless, those who think that
rational creatures can at any time lead an existence out of the body,
may here raise such questions as the following. If it is true
that this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on
immortality, and that death is swallowed up at the end; this shows that
nothing else than a material nature is to be destroyed, on which death
could operate, while the mental acumen of those who are in the body
seems to be blunted by the nature of corporeal matter. If,
however, they are out of the body, then they will altogether escape the
annoyance arising from a disturbance of that kind. But as they
will not be able immediately to escape all bodily clothing, they are
just to be considered as inhabiting more refined and purer bodies,
which possess the property of being no longer overcome by death, or of
being wounded by its sting; so that at last, by the gradual
disappearance of the material nature, death is both swallowed up, and
even at the end exterminated, and all its sting completely blunted by
the divine grace which the soul has been rendered capable of receiving,
and has thus deserved to obtain incorruptibility and immortality.
And then it will be deservedly said by all, “O death, where is
thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of
death is sin.” If these conclusions, then, seem to hold
good, it follows that we must believe our condition at some future time
to be incorporeal; and if this is admitted, and all are said to be
subjected to Christ, this (incorporeity) also must necessarily be
bestowed on all to whom the subjection to Christ extends; since all who
are subject to Christ will be in the end subject to God the Father, to
whom Christ is said to deliver up the kingdom; and thus it appears that
then also the need of bodies will cease. This passage is
found in Jerome’s Epistle to Avitus; and, literally
translated, his rendering is as follows: “If these (views)
are not contrary to the faith, we shall perhaps at some future time
live without bodies. But if he who is perfectly subject to Christ
is understood to be without a body, and all are to be subjected to
Christ, we also shall be without bodies when we have been completely
subjected to Him. If all have been subjected to God, all will lay
aside their bodies, and the whole nature of bodily things will be
dissolved into nothing; but if, in the second place, necessity shall
demand, it will again come into existence on account of the fall of
rational creatures. For God has abandoned souls to struggle and
wrestling, that they may understand that they have obtained a full and
perfect victory, not by their own bravery, but by the grace of
God. And therefore I think that for a variety of causes are
different worlds created, and the errors of those refuted who contend
that worlds resemble each other.” A fragment of the Greek
original of the above is found in the Epistle of Justinian to the
patriarch of Constantinople. “If the things subject to
Christ shall at the end be subjected also to God, all will lay aside
their bodies; and then, I think, there will be a dissolution
(ἀνάλυσις) of the
nature of bodies into non-existence (εἰς τὸ μὴ
ὄν), to come a second time into existence, if
rational (beings) should again gradually come down (ὑποκαταβῇ).”
Now let us see what can be said in answer to those who make these assertions. For it will appear to be a necessary consequence that, if bodily nature be annihilated, it must be again restored and created; since it seems a possible thing that rational natures, from whom the faculty of free-will is never taken away, may be again subjected to movements of some kind, through the special act of the Lord Himself, lest perhaps, if they were always to occupy a condition that was unchangeable, they should be ignorant that it is by the grace of God and not by their own merit that they have been placed in that final state of happiness; and these movements will undoubtedly again be attended by variety and diversity of bodies, by which the world is always adorned; nor will it ever be composed (of anything) save of variety and diversity,—an effect which cannot be produced without a bodily matter.
4. And now I do not understand by what proofs they
can maintain their position, who assert that worlds sometimes come into
existence which are not dissimilar to each other, but in all respects
equal. For if there is said to be a world similar in all respects
(to the present), then it will come to pass that Adam and Eve will do
the same things which they did before: there will be a second
time the same deluge, and the same Moses will again lead a nation
numbering nearly six hundred thousand out of Egypt; Judas will also a
second time betray the Lord; Paul will a second time keep the garments
of those who stoned Stephen; and everything which has been done in this
life will be said to be repeated,—a state of things which I think
cannot be established by any reasoning, if souls are actuated by
freedom of will, and maintain either their advance or retrogression
according to the power of their will. For souls are
5. But this world, which is itself called an
age, is said to be the conclusion of many ages. Now the holy
apostle teaches that in that age which preceded this, Christ did not
suffer, nor even in the age which preceded that again; and I know not
that I am able to enumerate the number of anterior ages in which He did
not suffer. I will show, however, from what statements of Paul I
have arrived at this understanding. He says, “But now once
in the consummation of ages, He was manifested to take away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself.” In sæculum et
adhuc. Cf.
6. Having discussed these points regarding
the nature of the world to the best of our ability, it does not seem
out of place to inquire what is the meaning of the term world, which in
holy Scripture is shown frequently to have different
significations. For what we call in Latin mundus, is
termed in Greek κόσμος, and κόσμος
signifies not only a world, but also an ornament. Finally,
in Isaiah, where the language of reproof is directed to the chief
daughters of Sion, and where he says, “Instead of an ornament of
a golden head, thou wilt have baldness on account of thy
works,” Cf. Clemens Rom., Ep. i.,
ad Cor., c. 20. [See vol. i. p. 10, of this series.
S.]
7. Having sketched, then, so far as we could
understand, these three opinions regarding the This passage is
found in Jerome’s Epistle to Avitus, and, literally
translated, is as follows: “A threefold suspicion,
therefore, is suggested to us regarding the end, of which the reader
may examine which is the true and better one. For we shall either
live without a body, when, being subject to Christ, we shall be subject
to God, and God shall be all in all; or, as things subject to Christ
will be subject along with Christ Himself to God, and enclosed in one
covenant, so all substance will be reduced to the best quality and
dissolved into an ether, which is of a purer and simpler nature; or at
least that sphere which we have called above ἀπλανῆ, and whatever is contained
within its circumference (circulo), will be dissolved into
nothing, but that one by which the anti-zone (ἀντιζώνη) itself is
held together and surrounded will be called a good land; and, moreover,
another sphere which surrounds this very earth itself with its
revolution, and is called heaven, will be preserved for a habitation of
the saints.” Omnique hoc mundi
statu, in quo planetarum dicuntur sphæræ, supergresso atque
superato.
Chapter IV.—The God of the Law and the Prophets, and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is the Same God.
1. Having now briefly arranged these points
in order as we best could, it follows that, agreeably to our intention
from the first, we refute those who think that the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ is a different God from Him who gave the answers of the
law to Moses, or commissioned the prophets, who is the God of our
fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For in this article of faith,
first of all, we must be firmly grounded. We have to consider,
then, the expression of frequent recurrence in the Gospels, and
subjoined to all the acts of our Lord and Saviour, “that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by this or that prophet,” it being
manifest that the prophets are the prophets of that God who made the
world. From this therefore we draw the conclusion, that He who
sent the prophets, Himself predicted what was to be foretold of
Christ. And there is no doubt that the Father Himself, and not
another different from Him, uttered these predictions. The
practice, moreover, of the Saviour or His apostles, frequently quoting
illustrations from the Old Testament, shows that they attribute
authority to the ancients. The injunction also of the Saviour,
when exhorting His disciples to the exercise of kindness, “Be ye
perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect; for He
commands His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain
on the just and on the unjust,”
2. It would be tedious to collect out of all
the passages in the Gospels the proofs by which the God of the law and
of the Gospels is shown to be one and the same. Let us touch
briefly upon the Acts of the Apostles,
3. But as those who uphold this heresy are
sometimes accustomed to mislead the hearts of the simple by certain
deceptive sophisms, I do not consider it improper to bring forward the
assertions which they are in the habit of making, and to refute their
deceit and falsehood. The following, then, are their
declarations. It is written, that “no man hath seen God at
any time.” Aliud sit videre et
videri, et aliud nôsse et nosci, vel cognoscere atque
cognosci.
4. And now, if, on account of those expressions
which occur in the Old Testament, as when God is said to be angry or to
repent, or when any other human affection or passion is described, (our
opponents) think that they are furnished with grounds for refuting us,
who maintain that God is altogether impassible, and is to be regarded
as wholly free from all affections of that kind, we have to show them
that similar statements are found even in the parables of the Gospel;
as when it is said, that he who planted a vineyard, and let it out to
husbandmen, who slew the servants that were sent to them, and at last
put to death even the son,
Chapter V.—On Justice and Goodness.
1. Now, since this consideration has weight with some, that the leaders of that heresy (of which we have been speaking) think they have established a kind of division, according to which they have declared that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God of the law and the prophets is just, but not good; I think it necessary to return, with as much brevity as possible, an answer to these statements. These persons, then, consider goodness to be some such affection as would have benefits conferred on all, although the recipient of them be unworthy and undeserving of any kindness; but here, in my opinion, they have not rightly applied their definition, inasmuch as they think that no benefit is conferred on him who is visited with any suffering or calamity. Justice, on the other hand, they view as that quality which rewards every one according to his deserts. But here, again, they do not rightly interpret the meaning of their own definition. For they think that it is just to send evils upon the wicked and benefits upon the good; i.e., so that, according to their view, the just God does not appear to wish well to the bad, but to be animated by a kind of hatred against them. And they gather together instances of this, wherever they find a history in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, relating, e.g., the punishment of the deluge, or the fate of those who are described as perishing in it, or the, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by a shower of fire and brimstone, or the falling of all the people in the wilderness on account of their sins, so that none of those who had left Egypt were found to have entered the promised land, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. Whereas from the New Testament they gather together words of compassion and piety, through which the disciples are trained by the Saviour, and by which it seems to be declared that no one is good save God the Father only; and by this means they have ventured to style the Father of the Saviour Jesus Christ a good God, but to say that the God of the world is a different one, whom they are pleased to term just, but not also good.
2. Now I think they must, in the first
place, be required to show, if they can, agreeably to their own
definition, that the Creator is just in punishing according to their
deserts, either those who perished at the time of the deluge, or the
inhabitants of Sodom, or those who had quitted Egypt, seeing we
sometimes behold committed crimes more wicked and detestable than those
for which the above-mentioned persons were destroyed, while we do not
yet see every sinner paying the penalty of his misdeeds. Will
they say that He who at one time was just has been made good? Or
will they rather be of opinion that He is even now just, but is
patiently enduring human offences, while that then He was not even
just, inasmuch as He exterminated innocent and sucking children along
with cruel and ungodly giants? Now, such are their opinions,
because they know not how to understand anything beyond the letter;
otherwise they would show how it is literal justice for sins to be
visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation,
and on children’s children after them. By us, however, such
things are not understood literally; but, as Ezekiel taught [Cum nihil dignum
pœna commiserint. S.] Pœnitentiam
egissent.
3. And now, what we have drawn from the
authority of Scripture ought to be sufficient to refute the arguments
of the heretics. It will not, however, appear improper if we
discuss the matter with them shortly, on the grounds of reason
itself. We ask them, then, if they know what is regarded among
men as the ground of virtue and wickedness, and if it appears to follow
that we can speak of virtues in God, or, as they think, in these two
Gods. Let them give an answer also to the question, whether they
consider goodness to be a virtue; and as they will undoubtedly admit it
to be so, what will they say of injustice? They will never
certainly, in my opinion, be so foolish as to deny that justice is a
virtue. Accordingly, if virtue is a blessing, and justice is a
virtue, then without doubt justice is goodness. But if they say
that justice is not a blessing, it must either be an evil or an
indifferent thing. Now I think it folly to return any answer to
those who say that justice is an evil, for I shall have the appearance
of replying either to senseless words, or to men out of their
minds. How can that appear an evil which is able to reward the
good with blessings, as they themselves also admit? But if they
say that it is a thing of indifference, it follows that since justice
is so, sobriety also, and prudence, and all the other virtues, are
things of indifference. And what answer shall we make to Paul,
when he says, “If there be any virtue, and, if there be any
praise, think on these things, which ye have learned, and received, and
heard, and seen in me?”
We shall add the following remarks, to which we are driven by their subtleties. If justice is a different thing from goodness, then, since evil is the opposite of good, and injustice of justice, injustice will doubtless be something else than an evil; and as, in your opinion, the just man is not good, so neither will the unjust man be wicked; and again, as the good man is not just, so the wicked man also will not be unjust. But who does not see the absurdity, that to a good God one should be opposed that is evil; while to a just God, whom they allege to be inferior to the good, no one should be opposed! For there is none who can be called unjust, as there is a Satan who is called wicked. What, then, are we to do? Let us give up the position which we defend, for they will not be able to maintain that a bad man is not also unjust, and an unjust man wicked. And if these qualities be indissolubly inherent in these opposites, viz., injustice in wickedness, or wickedness in injustice, then unquestionably the good man will be inseparable from the just man, and the just from the good; so that, as we speak of one and the same wickedness in malice and injustice, we may also hold the virtue of goodness and justice to be one and the same.
4. They again recall us, however, to the
words of Scripture, by bringing forward that celebrated question of
theirs, affirming that it is written, “A bad tree cannot produce
good fruits; for a tree is known by its fruit.”
Chapter VI.—On the Incarnation of Christ.
1. It is now time, after this cursory notice
of these points, to resume our investigation of the incarnation of our
Lord and Saviour, viz., how or why He became man. Having
therefore, to the best of our feeble ability, considered His divine
nature from the contemplation of His own works rather than from our own
feelings, and having nevertheless beheld (with the eye) His visible
creation while the invisible creation is seen by faith, because human
frailty can neither see all things with the bodily eye nor comprehend
them by reason, seeing we men are weaker and frailer than any other
rational beings (for those which are in heaven, or are supposed to
exist above the heaven, are superior), it remains that we seek a being
intermediate between all created things and God, i.e., a Mediator, whom
the Apostle Paul styles the “first-born of every
creature.” Virtutibus, probably
for δυνάμεσιν.
2. But of all the marvellous and mighty acts
related of Him, this altogether surpasses human admiration, and is
beyond the power of mortal frailness to understand or feel, how that
mighty power of divine majesty, that very Word of the Father, and that
very wisdom of God, in which were created all things, visible and
invisible, can
3. The Only-begotten of God, therefore, through
whom, as the previous course of the discussion has shown, all things
were made, visible and invisible, according to the view of Scripture,
both made all things, and loves what He made. For since He is
Himself the invisible image of the invisible God, He conveyed invisibly
a share in Himself to all His rational creatures, so that each one
obtained a part of Him exactly proportioned to the amount of affection
with which he regarded Him. But since, agreeably to the faculty
of free-will, variety and diversity characterized the individual souls,
so that one was attached with a warmer love to the Author of its being,
and another with a feebler and weaker regard, that soul (anima)
regarding which Jesus said, “No one shall take my life
(animam) from me,” Principaliter.
Meriti affectus. This quotation is made
up of two different parts of Isaiah:
5. Now, if our having shown above that Christ possessed a rational soul should cause a difficulty to any one, seeing we have frequently proved throughout all our discussions that the nature of souls is capable both of good and evil, the difficulty will be explained in the following way. That the nature, indeed, of His soul was the same as that of all others cannot be doubted, otherwise it could not be called a soul were it not truly one. But since the power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all, this soul which belonged to Christ elected to love righteousness, so that in proportion to the immensity of its love it clung to it unchangeably and inseparably, so that firmness of purpose, and immensity of affection, and an inextinguishable warmth of love, destroyed all susceptibility (sensum) for alteration and change; and that which formerly depended upon the will was changed by the power of long custom into nature; and so we must believe that there existed in Christ a human and rational soul, without supposing that it had any feeling or possibility of sin.
6. To explain the matter more fully, it will
not appear absurd to make use of an illustration, although on a subject
of so much difficulty it is not easy to obtain suitable
illustrations. However, if we may speak without offence, the
metal iron is capable of cold and heat. If, then, a mass of iron
be kept constantly in the fire, receiving the heat through all its
pores and veins, and the fire being continuous and the iron never
removed from it, it become wholly converted into the latter; could we
at all say of this, which is by nature a mass of iron, that when placed
in the fire, and incessantly burning, it was at any time capable of
admitting cold? On the contrary, because it is more consistent
with truth, do we not rather say, what we often see happening in
furnaces, that it has become wholly fire, seeing nothing but fire is
visible in it? And if any one were to attempt to touch or handle
it, he would experience the action not of iron, but of fire. In
this way, then, that soul which, like an iron in the fire, has been
perpetually placed in the Word, and perpetually in the Wisdom, and
perpetually in God, Semper in verbo,
semper in sapientia, semper in Deo. Illi enim in odore
unguentorum ejus circumire dicuntur; perhaps an allusion to
7. I think, indeed, that Jeremiah the
prophet, also, understanding what was the nature of the wisdom of God
in him, which was the same also which he had assumed for the salvation
of the world, said, “The breath of our countenance is Christ the
Lord, to whom we said, that under His shadow we shall live among the
nations.”
The above, meanwhile, are the thoughts which have occurred to us, when treating of subjects of such difficulty as the incarnation and deity of Christ. If there be any one, indeed, who can discover something better, and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy Scriptures, let his opinion be received in preference to mine.
Chapter VII.—On the Holy Spirit.
1. As, then, after those first discussions which, according to the requirements of the case, we held at the beginning regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it seemed right that we should retrace our steps, and show that the same God was the creator and founder of the world, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., that the God of the law and of the prophets and of the Gospel was one and the same; and that, in the next place, it ought to be shown, with respect to Christ, in what manner He who had formerly been demonstrated to be the Word and Wisdom of God became man; it remains that we now return with all possible brevity to the subject of the Holy Spirit.
It is time, then, that we say a few words to the
best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and
Saviour in the Gospel according to John has named the Paraclete.
For as it is the same God Himself, and the same Christ, so also is it
the same Holy Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, i.e., either
in those who believed in God before the advent of Christ, or in those
who by means of Christ have sought refuge in God. We have heard,
indeed, that certain heretics have dared to say that there are two Gods
and two Christs, but we have never known of the doctrine of two Holy
Spirits being preached by any one. According to
Pamphilus in his Apology, Origen, in a note on
2. Now we are of opinion that every rational
creature, without any distinction, receives a share of Him in the same
way as of the Wisdom and of the Word of God. I observe, however,
that the chief advent of the Holy Spirit is declared to men, after the
ascension of Christ to heaven, rather than before His coming into the
world. For, before that, it was upon the prophets alone, and upon
a few individuals—if there happened to be any among the people
deserving of it—that the gift of the Holy Spirit was conferred;
but after the advent of the Saviour, it is written that the prediction
of the prophet Joel was fulfilled, “In the last days it shall
come to pass, and I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and they
shall prophesy,” Qui licet non omnes
possint per ordinem atque ad liquidum spiritualis intelligentiæ
explanare consequentiam.
3. And as there are many ways of
apprehending Christ, who, although He is wisdom, does not act the part
or possess the power of wisdom in all men, but only in those who give
themselves to the study of wisdom in Him; and who, although called a
physician, does not act as one towards all, but only towards those who
understand their feeble and sickly condition, and flee to His
compassion that they may obtain health; so also I think is it with the
Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind of gifts. For on
some is bestowed by the Spirit the word of wisdom, on others the word
of knowledge, on others faith; and so to each individual of those who
are capable of receiving Him, is the Spirit Himself made to be that
quality, or understood to be that which is needed by the individual who
has deserved to participate. Ita per singulos, qui
eum capere possunt, hoc efficitur, vel hoc intelligitur ipse Spiritus,
quo indiget ille, qui eum participare meruerit. Schnitzer
renders, “And so, in every one who is susceptible of them, the
Spirit is exactly that which the receiver chiefly needs.”
4. We must therefore know that the Paraclete
is the Holy Spirit, who teaches truths which cannot be uttered in
words, and which are, so to speak, unutterable, and “which it is
not lawful for a man to utter,”
Chapter VIII.—On the Soul (Anima).
1. The order of our arrangement now requires
us, after the discussion of the preceding subjects, to institute a
general inquiry regarding the soul; Anima. Animæ. Animam animantium. Erasmus remarks, that
φανταστική
may be rendered imaginitiva, which is the understanding:
ὁρμητική,
impulsiva, which refers to the affections (Schnitzer). Animam. Vitalis. Animantia.
2. But the nature of the incarnation will
render unnecessary any inquiry into the soul of Christ. For as He
truly possessed flesh, so also He truly possessed a soul. It is
difficult indeed both to feel and to state how that which is called in
Scripture the soul of God is to be understood; for we acknowledge that
nature to be simple, and without any intermixture or addition. In
whatever way, however, it is to be understood, it seems, meanwhile, to
be named the soul of God; whereas regarding Christ there is no
doubt. And therefore there seems to me no absurdity in either
understanding or asserting some such thing regarding the holy angels
and the other heavenly powers, since that definition of soul appears
applicable also to them. For who can rationally deny that they
are “sensible and moveable?” But if that definition
appear to be correct, according to which a soul is said to be a
substance rationally “sensible and moveable,” the same
definition would seem also to apply to angels. For what else is
in them than rational feeling and motion? Now those beings who
are comprehended under the same definition have undoubtedly the same
substance. Paul indeed intimates that there is a kind of
animal-man Animalem. Mens. Anima.
3. But perhaps this question is asked, If it
be the understanding which prays and sings with the spirit, and if it
be the same which receives both perfection and salvation, how is it
that Peter says, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the
salvation of your souls?” These words are
found in Jerome’s Epistle to Avitus, and, literally
translated, are as follows: “Whence infinite caution is to
be employed, lest perchance, after souls have obtained salvation and
come to the blessed life, they should cease to be souls. For as
our Lord and Saviour came to seek and to save what was lost, that it
might cease to be lost; so the soul which was lost, and for whose
salvation the Lord came, shall, when it has been saved, cease for a
soul. This point in like manner must be examined, whether, as
that which has been lost was at one time not lost, and a time will come
when it will be no longer lost; so also at some time a soul may not
have been a soul, and a time may be when it will by no means continue
to be a soul.” A portion of the above is also found, in the
original Greek, in the Emperor Justinian’s Letter to Menas,
Patriarch of Constantinople. Cf. Cf. ψυχή from ψύχεσθαι. “By
falling away and growing cold from a spiritual life, the soul has
become what it now is, but is capable also of returning to what it was
at the beginning, which I think is intimated by the prophet in the
words, ‘Return, O my soul, unto thy rest,’ so as to be
wholly this.”—Epistle of Justinian to Patriarch of
Constantinople. “The
understanding (Νοῦς) somehow, then, has become
a soul, and the soul, being restored, becomes an understanding.
The understanding falling away, was made a soul, and the soul, again,
when furnished with virtues, will become an understanding. For if
we examine the case of Esau, we may find that he was condemned because
of his ancient sins in a worse course of life. And respecting the
heavenly bodies we must inquire, that not at the time when the world
was created did the soul of the sun, or whatever else it ought to be
called, begin to exist, but before that it entered that shining and
burning body. We may hold similar opinions regarding the moon and
stars, that, for the foregoing reasons, they were compelled,
unwillingly, to subject themselves to vanity on account of the rewards
of the future; and to do, not their own will, but the will of their
Creator, by whom they were arranged among their different
offices.”—Jerome’s Epistle to Avitus.
From these, as well as other passages, it may be seen how widely
Rufinus departed in his translation from the original.
4. Now, if this be the case, it seems to me that
this very decay and falling away of the understanding is not the same
in all, but that this conversion into a soul is carried to a greater or
less degree in different instances, and that certain understandings
retain something even of their former vigour, and others again either
nothing or a very small amount. Whence some are found from the
very commencement of their lives to be of more active intellect, others
again of a slower habit of mind, and some are born wholly obtuse, and
altogether incapable of instruction. Our statement, however, that
the Animam.
5. But perhaps some one may meet us with one
of those objections which we have ourselves warned you of in our
statements, and say, “How then is there said to be also a soul of
God?” To which we answer as follows: That as with
respect to everything corporeal which is spoken of God, such as
fingers, or hands, or arms, or eyes, or feet, or mouth, we say that
these are not to be understood as human members, but that certain of
His powers are indicated by these names of members of the body; so also
we are to suppose that it is something else which is pointed out by
this title—soul of God. And if it is allowable for us to
venture to say anything more on such a subject, the soul of God may
perhaps be understood to mean the only-begotten Son of God. For
as the soul, when implanted in the body, moves all things in it, and
exerts its force over everything on which it operates; so also the
only-begotten Son of God, who is His Word and Wisdom, stretches and
extends to every power of God, being implanted in it; and perhaps to
indicate this mystery is God either called or described in Scripture as
a body. We must, indeed, take into consideration whether it is
not perhaps on this account that the soul of God may be understood to
mean His only-begotten Son, because He Himself came into this world of
affliction, and descended into this valley of tears, and into this
place of our humiliation; as He says in the Psalm, “Because Thou
hast humiliated us in the place of affliction.”
We have brought forward as we best could these points regarding the rational soul, as topics of discussion for our readers, rather than as dogmatic and well-defined propositions. And with respect to the souls of animals and other dumb creatures, let that suffice which we have stated above in general terms.
Chapter IX.—On the World and the Movements of Rational Creatures, Whether Good or Bad; And on the Causes of Them.
1. But let us now return to the order of our
proposed discussion, and behold the commencement of creation, so far as
the understanding can behold the beginning of the creation of
God. In that commencement, The original of this
passage is found in Justinian’s Epistle to Menas, Patriarch of
Constantinople, apud finem. “In that beginning which
is cognisable by the understanding, God, by His own will, caused to
exist as great a number of intelligent beings as was sufficient; for we
must say that the power of God is finite, and not, under pretence of
praising Him, take away His limitation. For if the divine power
be infinite, it must of necessity be unable to understand even itself,
since that which is naturally illimitable is incapable of being
comprehended. He made things therefore so great as to be able to
apprehend and keep them under His power, and control them by His
providence; so also He prepared matter of such a size (τοσαύτην
ὕλην) as He had the power to
ornament.”
2. But since those rational natures, which we have said above were made in the beginning, were created when they did not previously exist, in consequence of this very fact of their nonexistence and commencement of being, are they necessarily changeable and mutable; since whatever power was in their substance was not in it by nature, but was the result of the goodness of their Maker. What they are, therefore, is neither their own nor endures for ever, but is bestowed by God. For it did not always exist; and everything which is a gift may also be taken away, and disappear. And a reason for removal will consist in the movements of souls not being conducted according to right and propriety. For the Creator gave, as an indulgence to the understandings created by Him, the power of free and voluntary action, by which the good that was in them might become their own, being preserved by the exertion of their own will; but slothfulness, and a dislike of labour in preserving what is good, and an aversion to and a neglect of better things, furnished the beginning of a departure from goodness. But to depart from good is nothing else than to be made bad. For it is certain that to want goodness is to be wicked. Whence it happens that, in proportion as one falls away from goodness, in the same proportion does he become involved in wickedness. In which condition, according to its actions, each understanding, neglecting goodness either to a greater or more limited extent, was dragged into the opposite of good, which undoubtedly is evil. From which it appears that the Creator of all things admitted certain seeds and causes of variety and diversity, that He might create variety and diversity in proportion to the diversity of understandings, i.e., of rational creatures, which diversity they must be supposed to have conceived from that cause which we have mentioned above. And what we mean by variety and diversity is what we now wish to explain.
3. Now we term world everything which is
above the heavens, or in the heavens, or upon the earth, or in those
places which are called the lower regions, or all places whatever that
anywhere exist, together with their inhabitants. This whole,
then, is called world. In which world certain beings are said to
be super-celestial, i.e., placed in happier abodes, and clothed with
heavenly and resplendent bodies; and among these many distinctions are
shown to exist, the apostle, e.g., saying, “That one is the glory
of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the
stars; for one star differeth from another star in
glory.” Vilioribus et
asperioribus. Inferna.
4. Seeing, then, that all things which have
been created are said to have been made through Christ, and in Christ,
as the Apostle Paul most clearly indicates, when he says, “For in
Him and by Him were all things created, whether things in heaven or
things on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
powers, or principalities, or dominions; all things were created by
Him, and in Him;”
5. Now, when we say that this world was established in the variety in which we have above explained that it was created by God, and when we say that this God is good, and righteous, and most just, there are numerous individuals, especially those who, coming from the school of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, have heard that there are souls of different natures, who object to us, that it cannot consist with the justice of God in creating the world to assign to some of His creatures an abode in the heavens, and not only to give such a better habitation, but also to grant them a higher and more honourable position; to favour others with the grant of principalities; to bestow powers upon some, dominions on others; to confer upon some the most honourable seats in the celestial tribunals; to enable some to shine with more resplendent glory, and to glitter with a starry splendour; to give to some the glory of the sun, to others the glory of the moon, to others the glory of the stars; to cause one star to differ from another star in glory. And, to speak once for all, and briefly, if the Creator God wants neither the will to undertake nor the power to complete a good and perfect work, what reason can there be that, in the creation of rational natures, i.e., of beings of whose existence He Himself is the cause, He should make some of higher rank, and others of second, or third, or of many lower and inferior degrees? In the next place, they object to us, with regard to terrestrial beings, that a happier lot by birth is the case with some rather than with others; as one man, e.g., is begotten of Abraham, and born of the promise; another, too, of Isaac and Rebekah, and who, while still in the womb, supplants his brother, and is said to be loved by God before he is born. Nay, this very circumstance,—especially that one man is born among the Hebrews, with whom he finds instruction in the divine law; another among the Greeks, themselves also wise, and men of no small learning; and then another amongst the Ethiopians, who are accustomed to feed on human flesh; or amongst the Scythians, with whom parricide is an act sanctioned by law; or amongst the people of Taurus, where strangers are offered in sacrifice,—is a ground of strong objection. Their argument accordingly is this: If there be this great diversity of circumstances, and this diverse and varying condition by birth, in which the faculty of free-will has no scope (for no one chooses for himself either where, or with whom, or in what condition he is born); if, then, this is not caused by the difference in the nature of souls, i.e., that a soul of an evil nature is destined for a wicked nation, and a good soul for a righteous nation, what other conclusion remains than that these things must be supposed to be regulated by accident and chance? And if that be admitted, then it will be no longer believed that the world was made by God, or administered by His providence; and as a consequence, a judgment of God upon the deeds of each individual will appear a thing not to be looked for. In which matter, indeed, what is clearly the truth of things is the privilege of Him alone to know who searches all things, even the deep things of God.
6. We, however, although but men, not to nourish
the insolence of the heretics by our silence, will return to their
objections such answers as occur to us, so far as our abilities enable
us. We have frequently shown, by those declarations which we were
able to produce from the holy Scriptures, that God, the Creator of all
7. But even holy Scripture does not appear
to me to be altogether silent on the nature of this secret, as when the
Apostle Paul, in discussing the case of Jacob and Esau, says:
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any
good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might
stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth, it was said, The elder
shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated.” The text runs,
“Respondet sibi ipse, et ait,” on which Ruæus remarks
that the sentence is incomplete, and that “absit” probably
should be supplied. This conjecture has been adopted in the
translation.
8. As, then, there is no doubt that at the
day of judgment the good will be separated from the bad, and the just
from the unjust, and all by the sentence of God will be distributed
according to their deserts throughout those places of which they are
worthy, so I am of opinion some such state of things was formerly the
case, as, God willing, we shall show in what follows. For God
must be believed to do and order all things and at all times according
to His judgment. For the words which the apostle uses when he
says, “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and
silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour and some to
dishonour;”
Chapter X.—On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and Punishments.
1. But since the discourse has reminded us
of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the
punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture
and the contents of the Church’s teaching—viz., that when
the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a
prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been
prepared for sinners—let us see what our opinions on these points
ought to be. [Elucidation I.]
2. Since the heretics, however, think
themselves persons of great learning and wisdom, we shall ask them if
every body has a form of some kind, i.e., is fashioned according to
some shape. And if they shall say that a body is that which is
fashioned according to no shape, they will show themselves to be the
most ignorant and foolish of mankind. For no one will deny this,
save him who is altogether without any learning. But if, as a
matter of course, they say that every body is certainly fashioned
according to some definite shape, we shall ask them if they can point
out and describe to us the shape of a spiritual body; a thing which
they can by no means do. We shall ask them, moreover, about the
differences of those who rise again. How will they show that
statement to be true, that there is “one flesh of birds, another
of fishes; bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial; that the glory of
the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another; that
one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the
glory of the stars; that one star differeth from another star in glory;
and that so is the resurrection of the dead?”
3. We now turn our attention to some of our own
(believers), who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper
instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of
the body. We ask these persons in what manner they understand
that an animal body is to be changed by the grace of the resurrection,
and to become a spiritual one; and how that which is sown in weakness
will arise in power; how that which is planted in dishonour will arise
in glory; and that which was sown in corruption, will be changed to a
state of incorruption. Because if they believe the apostle, that
a body which arises in glory, and power, and incorruptibility, has
already become spiritual, it appears absurd and contrary to his meaning
to say that it can again be entangled with the passions of flesh and
blood, seeing the apostle manifestly declares that “flesh and
blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, nor shall corruption
inherit incorruption.” But how do they understand the
declaration of the apostle, “We shall all be
changed?” This transformation certainly is to be looked
for, according to the order which we have taught above; and in it,
undoubtedly, it becomes us to hope for something worthy of divine
grace; and this we believe will take place in the order in which the
apostle describes the sowing in the ground of a “bare grain of
corn, or of any other fruit,” to which “God gives a body as
it pleases Him,” as soon as the grain of corn is dead. For
in the same way also our bodies are to be supposed to fall into the
earth like a grain; and (that germ being implanted in them which
contains the bodily substance) although the bodies die, and become
corrupted, and are scattered abroad, yet by the word of God, that very
germ which is always safe in the substance of the body, raises them
from the earth, and restores and repairs them, as the power which is in
the grain of wheat, after its corruption and death, repairs and
restores the grain into a body having stalk and ear. And so also
to those who shall deserve to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of
heaven, that germ of the body’s restoration, which we have before
mentioned, by God’s command restores out of the earthly and
animal body a spiritual one, capable of inhabiting the heavens; while
to each one of those who may be of inferior merit, or of more abject
condition, or even the lowest in the scale, and altogether thrust
aside, there is yet given, in proportion to the dignity of his life and
soul, a glory and dignity of body,—nevertheless in such a way,
that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to
everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the
resurrection so incorruptible,
4. We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the
fire with which each one is punished is described as his own; for he
says, “Walk in the light of your own fire, and in the flame which
ye have kindled.” Intemperies.
5. And that the understanding of this matter may not appear very difficult, we may draw some considerations from the evil effects of those passions which are wont to befall some souls, as when a soul is consumed by the fire of love, or wasted away by zeal or envy, or when the passion of anger is kindled, or one is consumed by the greatness of his madness or his sorrow; on which occasions some, finding the excess of these evils unbearable, have deemed it more tolerable to submit to death than to endure perpetually torture of such a kind. You will ask indeed whether, in the case of those who have been entangled in the evils arising from those vices above enumerated, and who, while existing in this life, have been unable to procure any amelioration for themselves, and have in this condition departed from the world, it be sufficient in the way of punishment that they be tortured by the remaining in them of these hurtful affections, i.e., of the anger, or of the fury, or of the madness, or of the sorrow, whose fatal poison was in this life lessened by no healing medicine; or whether, these affections being changed, they will be subjected to the pains of a general punishment. Now I am of opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist; because, as we feel that when the limbs of the body are loosened and torn away from their mutual supports, there is produced pain of a most excruciating kind, so, when the soul shall be found to be beyond the order, and connection, and harmony in which it was created by God for the purposes of good and useful action and observation, and not to harmonize with itself in the connection of its rational movements, it must be deemed to bear the chastisement and torture of its own dissension, and to feel the punishments of its own disordered condition. And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected.
6. There are also many other things which
escape our notice, and are known to Him alone who is the physician of
our souls. For if, on account of those bad effects which we bring
upon ourselves by eating and drinking, we deem it necessary for the
health of the body to make use of some unpleasant and painful drug,
sometimes even, if the nature of the disease demand, requiring the
severe process of the amputating knife; and if the virulence of the
disease shall transcend even these remedies, the evil has at last to be
burned out by fire; how much more is it to be understood that God our
Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls, which they had
contracted from their different sins and crimes, should employ penal
measures of this sort, and should apply even, in addition, the
punishment of fire to those who have lost their soundness of
mind! Pictures of this method of procedure are found also in the
holy Scriptures. In the book of Deuteronomy, the divine word
threatens sinners with the punishments of fevers, and colds, and
jaundice, Aurigine
[aurugine]. Cf. Cf. Cf.
7. But that fate also which is mentioned in the Gospels as overtaking unfaithful stewards who, it is said, are to be divided, and a portion of them placed along with unbelievers, as if that portion which is not their own were to be sent elsewhere, undoubtedly indicates some kind of punishment on those whose spirit, as it seems to me, is shown to be separated from the soul. For if this Spirit is of divine nature, i.e., is understood to be a Holy Spirit, we shall understand this to be said of the gift of the Holy Spirit: that when, whether by baptism, or by the grace of the Spirit, the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or of any other gift, has been bestowed upon a man, and not rightly administered, i.e., either buried in the earth or tied up in a napkin, the gift of the Spirit will certainly be withdrawn from his soul, and the other portion which remains, that is, the substance of the soul, will be assigned its place with unbelievers, being divided and separated from that Spirit with whom, by joining itself to the Lord, it ought to have been one spirit. Now, if this is not to be understood of the Spirit of God, but of the nature of the soul itself, that will be called its better part which was made in the image and likeness of God; whereas the other part, that which afterwards, through its fall by the exercise of free-will, was assumed contrary to the nature of its original condition of purity,—this part, as being the friend and beloved of matter, is punished with the fate of unbelievers. There is also a third sense in which that separation may be understood, this viz., that as each believer, although the humblest in the Church, is said to be attended by an angel, who is declared by the Saviour always to behold the face of God the Father, and as this angel was certainly one with the object of his guardianship; so, if the latter is rendered unworthy by his want of obedience, the angel of God is said to be taken from him, and then that part of him—the part, viz., which belongs to his human nature—being rent away from the divine part, is assigned a place along with unbelievers, because it has not faithfully observed the admonitions of the angel allotted it by God.
8. But the outer darkness, in my judgment, is to be understood not so much of some dark atmosphere without any light, as of those persons who, being plunged in the darkness of profound ignorance, have been placed beyond the reach of any light of the understanding. We must see, also, lest this perhaps should be the meaning of the expression, that as the saints will receive those bodies in which they have lived in holiness and purity in the habitations of this life, bright and glorious after the resurrection, so the wicked also, who in this life have loved the darkness of error and the night of ignorance, may be clothed with dark and black bodies after the resurrection, that the very mist of ignorance which had in this life taken possession of their minds within them, may appear in the future as the external covering of the body. Similar is the view to be entertained regarding the prison. Let these remarks, which have been made as brief as possible, that the order of our discourse in the meantime might be preserved, suffice for the present occasion.
Chapter
XI.—On Counter Promises. Repromissionibus.
1. Let us now briefly see what views we are to
form regarding promises. It is certain that there is no living
thing which can be altogether inactive and immoveable, but delights in
motion of every kind, and in perpetual activity and volition; and this
nature, I
2. Certain persons, then, refusing the
labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of
the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their
own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of
opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be
looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially
desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily
structures Carnes. Cf.
3. Those, however, who receive the
representations of Scripture according to the understanding of the
apostles, entertain the hope that the saints will eat indeed, but that
it will be the bread of life, which may nourish the soul with the food
of truth and wisdom, and enlighten the mind, and cause it to drink from
the cup of divine wisdom, according to the declaration of holy
Scripture: “Wisdom has prepared her table, she has killed
her beasts, she has mingled her wine in her cup, and she cries with a
loud voice, Come to me, eat the bread which I have prepared for you,
and drink the wine which I have mingled.” Cf. Opera probabilia.
4. But if these views should not appear to
fill the minds of those who hope for such results with a becoming
desire, let us go back a little, and, irrespective of the natural and
innate longing of the mind for the thing itself, let us make inquiry so
that we may be able at last to describe, as it were, the very forms of
the bread of life, and the quality of that wine, and the peculiar
nature of the principalities, all in conformity with the spiritual view
of things. The passage is
somewhat obscure, but the rendering in the text seems to convey the
meaning intended. Versatur in sensu.
5. Some such desire, I apprehend, was
indicated by him who said, “I am in a strait betwixt two, having
a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far
better;” Virtutes.
6. We are therefore to suppose that the
saints will remain there until they recognise the twofold mode of
government in those things which are performed in the air. And
when I say “twofold mode,” I mean this: When we were
upon earth, we saw either animals or trees, and beheld the differences
among them, and also the very great diversity among men; but although
we saw these things, we did not understand the reason of them; and this
only was suggested to us from the visible diversity, that we should
examine and inquire upon what principle these things were either
created or diversely arranged. And a zeal or desire for knowledge
of this kind being conceived by us on earth, the full understanding and
comprehension of it will be granted after death, if indeed the result
should follow according to our expectations. When, therefore, we
shall have fully comprehended its nature, we shall understand in a
twofold manner what we saw on earth. Some such view, then, must
we hold regarding this abode in the air. I think, therefore, that
all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place
situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some
place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls,
in which they are to be instructed regarding all the things which they
had seen on earth, and are to receive also some information respecting
things that are to follow in the future, as even when in this life they
had obtained in some degree indications of future events, although
“through a glass darkly,” all of which are revealed more
clearly and distinctly to the saints in their proper time and
place. If any one indeed be pure in heart, and holy in mind, and
more practised in perception, he will, by making more rapid progress,
quickly ascend to a place in the air, and reach the kingdom of heaven,
through those mansions, so to speak, in the various places which the
Greeks have termed spheres, i.e., globes, but which holy Scripture has
called heavens; in each of which he will first see clearly what is done
there, and in the second place, will discover the reason why things are
so done: and thus he will in order pass through all gradations,
following Him who hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,
who said, “I will that where I am, these may be
also.”
7. When, then, the saints shall have reached the
celestial abodes, they will clearly see the nature of the stars one by
one, and will under Virtutem suæ
conditionis. Seine Schöpferkraft (Schnitzer). In id: To that
state of the soul in which it gazes purely on the causes of things.
Preface of Rufinus.
Reader, remember me in
your prayers, that we too may deserve to be made emulators of the
spirit. The two former books on The Principles I
translated not only at your instance, but even under pressure from you
during the days of Lent; Diebus
quadragesimæ. Dæmones. Evangelicæ
lucernæ lumine diabolicas ignorantiæ tenebras. Salvâ fidei
Catholicæ regula. [This remonstrance of Rufinus deserves
candid notice. He reduces the liberties he took with his author
to two heads: (1) omitting what Origen himself contradicts, and
(2) what was interpolated by those who thus vented their own heresies
under a great name. “To our own belief,” may mean
what is contrary to the faith, as reduced to technical formula, at
Nicæa; i.e., Salva regula fidei. Note examples in the
parallel columns following.] Comœdiarum
ridiculas fabulas.
Chapter I.—On the Freedom of the
Will. The whole of
this chapter has been preserved in the original Greek, which is
literally translated in corresponding portions on each page, so
that the differences between Origen’s own words and
amplifications and alterations of the paraphrase of Rufinus may be at
once patent to the reader.
1. Some such opinions, we believe, ought to
be entertained regarding the divine promises, when we direct our
understanding to the contemplation of that eternal and infinite world,
and gaze on its ineffable joy and blessedness. But as the
preaching of the Church includes a belief in a future and just judgment
of God, which belief incites and persuades men to a good and virtuous
life, and to an avoidance of sin by all possible means; and as by this
it is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote
ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is
worthy of censure, I therefore deem it necessary to say a few words
regarding the freedom of the will, seeing that this topic has been
treated by very many writers in no mean style. And that we may
ascertain more easily what is the freedom of the will, let us inquire
into the nature of will and of desire. Natura ipsius arbitrii
voluntatisque.
2. Of all things which move, some have the
cause of their motion within themselves, others receive it from
without: and all those things only are moved from without which
are without life, as stones, and pieces of wood, and whatever things
are of such a nature as to be held together by the constitution of
their matter alone, or of their bodily substance. Quæcunque
hujusmodi sunt, quæ solo habitu materiæ suæ vel corporum
constant. Non tamen animantia
sunt. Phantasia. Voluntas vel
sensus. Mella, ut aiunt, aeria
congregandi. Rufinus seems to have read, in the original,
ἀεροπλαστεῖν
instead of κηροπλαστεῖν,—an
evidence that he followed in general the worst readings
(Redepenning).
3. But since a rational animal not only has
within itself these natural movements, but has moreover, to a greater
extent than other animals, the power of reason, by which it can judge
and determine regarding natural movements, and disapprove and reject
some, while approving and adopting others, so by the judgment of this
reason may the movements of men be governed and directed towards a
commendable life. And from this it follows that, since the nature
of this reason which is in man has within itself the power of
distinguishing between good and evil, and while distinguishing
possesses the faculty of selecting what it has approved, it may justly
be deemed worthy of praise in choosing what is good, and deserving of
censure in following that which is base or wicked. This indeed
must by no means escape our notice, that in some dumb animals there is
found a more regular movement Ordinatior quidem
motus. Incentivo quodam et
naturali motu.
4. If any one now were to say that those things
which happen to us from an external cause, and call forth our
movements, are of such a nature that it is impossible to resist them,
whether they incite us to good or evil, let the holder of this opinion
turn his attention for a little upon himself, and carefully inspect the
movements of his own Ita ut etiam
verisimilibus quibusdam causis intra cordis nostri tribunalia velut
judici residenti ex utrâque parte adhiberi videatur assertio, ut
causis prius expositis gerendi sententia de rationis judicio
proferatur. Causa ei perfecta et
absoluta vel necessitas prævaricandi.
5. Seeing, then, that these positions are
thus established by a sort of natural evidence, is it not superfluous
to throw back the causes of our actions on those things which happen to
us from without, and thus transfer the blame from ourselves, on whom it
wholly lies? For this is to say that we are like pieces of wood,
or stones, which have no motion in themselves, but receive the causes
of their motion from without. Now such an assertion is neither
true nor becoming, and is invented only that the freedom of the will
may be denied; unless, indeed, we are to suppose that the freedom of
the will consists in this, that nothing which happens to us from
without can incite us to good or evil. And if any one were to
refer the causes of our faults to the natural disorder Naturalem corporis
intemperiem; ψιλην
την
κατασκευήν. Contra rationem totius
eruditionis. In the Greek, “contra rationem” is
expressed by παρὰ
τὸ ἐναργές
ἐστι: and the words λόγου
παιδευτικοῦ
(rendered by Rufinus “totius eruditionis,” and connected
with “contra rationem”) belong to the following clause. Quibus nihil ad
turpitudinem deest.
6. And now, to confirm the deductions of
reason by the authority of Scripture—viz., that it is our own
doing whether we live rightly or not, and that we are not compelled,
either by those causes which come to us from without, or, as some
think, by the presence of fate—we adduce the testimony of the
prophet Micah, in these words: “If it has been announced to
thee, O man, what is good, or what the Lord requires of thee, except
that thou shouldst do justice, and love mercy, and be ready to walk
with the Lord thy God.” The words in the text
are: His qui secundum patientiam boni operis, gloria et
incorruptio, qui quærunt vitam eternam.
7. But, seeing there are found in the sacred
Scriptures Secundum pietatis
regulam. Justificationes. The word
“now” is added, as the term “flesh” is
frequently used in the New Testament in a bad sense (Redepenning).
Obstupefactus. Naturaliter. Commentitias fabulas
introducunt.
9. And now we must return an answer also to
those who would have the God of the law to be just only, and not also
good; and let us ask such in what manner they consider the heart of
Pharaoh to have been hardened by God—by what acts or by what
prospective arrangements. Quid faciente vel quid
prospiciente. Prospectus et intuitus
Dei. Such is the rendering of ἔννοια by Rufinus.
Ex personâ
imbrium. Dure. Bonitas et
æquitas imbrium. Propositum.
11. But, to establish the point more
clearly, it will not be superfluous to employ another illustration, as
if, e.g., one were to say that it is the sun which hardens and
liquefies, although liquefying and hardening are things of an opposite
nature. Now it is not incorrect to say that the sun, by one and
the same power of its heat, melts wax indeed, but dries up and hardens
mud: Limum. Cum utique secundum
naturam unum sit. Malitiæ suæ
intentione conceperat. Cf. Tropum vel figuram
sermonis.
12. But if the proofs which we have adduced
do not appear full enough, and the similitude of the apostle seem
wanting in applicability, Et apostolicæ
similitudinis parum munimenti habere adhus videtur assertio. Morali utique tropo
accipiendum. Ferratum calcem. Frenis ferratis. Rationabilibus
cœlestibusque virtutibus. Primatus. Immaculatus.
13. It is therefore by the sentence of God
that he is abandoned who deserves to be so, while over some sinners God
exercises forbearance; not, however, without a definite principle of
action. Non tamen sine
certâ ratione. Digeri. The
rendering “dispersed” seems to agree best with the meaning
intended to be conveyed. In the Greek the term
is πεντηκονταετίαν.
14. But let us take from the Gospels also
the similitudes of those things which we have mentioned, in which is
described a certain rock, having on it a little superficial earth, on
which, when a seed falls, it is said quickly to spring up; but when
sprung up, it withers as the sun ascends in the heavens, and dies away,
because it did not cast its root deeply into the ground. Cf. Hæc. Persecrutationis
improbitas. Substantialiter. Capitulum.
15. Let us now look at those passages of
Ezekiel where he says, “I will take away from them their stony
heart, and I will put in them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in
My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances.
17. We said formerly, when discussing the
case of Pharaoh, that sometimes it does not lead to good results for a
man to be cured too quickly, especially if the disease, being shut up
within the inner parts of the body, rage with greater fierceness.
Whence God, who is acquainted with secret things, and knows all things
before they happen, in His great goodness delays the cure of such, and
postpones their recovery to a remoter period, and, so to speak, cures
them by not curing them, lest a too favourable state of health Prospera sanitas. Aula. Mentes. Evidentissimâ
assertione pietatis regulam teneamus. Dispensatio
humana. Futuri status causam
præstat semper anterior meritorum status.
18. Let us now look to the expression,
“It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy.” Ad finem boni. Medium est velle
bona.
Having now repelled these objections by the answer
which we have given, let us hasten on to the discussion of the subject
itself, in which it is said, “It is not of him that willeth, nor
of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” Procinctum
juvenum. Supernæ
vocationis. Valde
consequenter. “Nostra
perfectio non quidem nobis cessantibus et otiosis
efficitur.” There is an ellipsis of some such words as,
“but by activity on our part.”
Cf. Hoc ipsum, quod
homines sumus. Sicut dicamus, quod
movemur, ex Deo est. Hoc ipsum, quod
movetur.
Ex ipsâ
conditoris creatione.
Secundum
præcedentes meritorum causas.
Now, to those who introduce souls of different
natures, Diversas animarum
naturas. Quodammodo.
[Elucidation II.]
Translation from the Greek.
Chapter I.—On the Freedom of the
Will, περι τοῦ
αὐτεξουσίου.
1. Since in the preaching of the Church
there is included the doctrine respecting a just judgment of God,
which, when believed to be true, incites those who hear it to live
virtuously, and to shun sin by all means, inasmuch as they manifestly
acknowledge that things worthy of praise and blame are within our own
power, come and let us discuss by themselves a few points regarding the
freedom of the will—a question of all others most
necessary. And that we may understand what the freedom of the
will is, it is necessary to unfold the conception of it, τὴν ἔννοιαν
αὐτοῦ
ἀναπτύξαι.
2. Of things that move, some have the cause
of their motion within themselves; others, again, are moved only from
without. Now only portable things are moved from without, such as
pieces of wood, and stones, and all matter that is held together by
their constitution alone. ὐπὸ
ἕξεως
μόνης. φαντασίας. φύσεως
φανταστικῆς. καὶ οὐδενὸς
ἄλλου μετὰ
τὴν
φανταστικὴν
αὐτοῦ φυσιν
πεπιστευμένου
τοῦ ζώου.
3. The rational animal, however, has, in
addition to its phantasial nature, also reason, which judges the
phantasies, and disapproves of some and accepts others, in order that
the animal may be led according to them. Therefore, since there
are in the nature of reason aids towards the contemplation of virtue
and vice, by following which, after beholding good and evil, we select
the one and avoid the other, we are deserving of praise when we give
ourselves to the practice of virtue, and censurable when we do the
reverse. We must not, however, be ignorant that the greater part
of the nature assigned to all things is a varying quantity ποσῶς. παρὰ τὰς
ἀφορμάς.
4. But if any one maintain that this very external
cause is of such a nature that it is impossible to resist it when it
comes in such a way, let him turn his attention to his own feelings and
movements, (and see) whether there διὰ τάσδε
τὰς
πιθανότητας. αὐτοτελής. ησκηκότι. ἐγγύς γε τοῦ
βεβαιωθῆναι
γεγενημένος.
5. Such being the case, to say that we are
moved from without, and to put away the blame from ourselves, by
declaring that we are like to pieces of wood and stones, which are
dragged about by those causes that act upon them from without, is
neither true nor in conformity with reason, but is the statement of him
who wishes to destroy παραχαράττειν. ψιλὴν τὴν
κατασκευήν. λόγου
παιδευτικοῦ. ἡμερότητος
. ἐξεταστήν.
6. Now, that it is our business to live
virtuously, and that God asks this of us, as not being dependent on Him
nor on any other, nor, as some think, upon fate, but as being our own
doing, the prophet Micah will prove when he says: “If it
has been announced to thee, O man, what is good, or what does the Lord
require of thee, except to do justice and to love
mercy?” Cf. εὐλόγως. Cf. διαλέγεται.
7. But, since certain declarations of Cf. Cf.
8. Let us begin, then, with what is said
about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God, that he might not send
away the people; along with which will be examined also the statement
of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have
mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” Cf. χρῄζει δὲ
αὐτοῦ ὁ
Θεὸς…ἐπι
πλεῖον
ἀπειθοῦντος.
9. But to those who think they understand
the term “hardened,” we must address the inquiry, What do
they mean by saying that God, by His working, hardens the heart, and
with what purpose does He do this? For let them observe the
conception ἔννοιαν. Cf. Cf. εὐγνωμονῇ. τρανῶς. ἀπογραψάμενός
τις γυμνῇ τῇ
κεφαλῇ
ἵστατο πρὸς
τὸ πονηρὸν
εἶναι τὸν
δημιουργόν.
ἐνεργείᾳ. διὰ τὸ τῆς
κακίας
ὑποκείμενον
τοῦ παρ᾽
ἑαυτοῖς
κακοῦ. δύσφημον.
παρὰ τὸ
ὑποκείμενον. καὶ τὸ κατὰ
τὸ βραχὺ δὲ
ἀναγεγράφθαι. Cf. οὐκ ἄτοπον
δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ
συνηθείας τὰ
τοιαῦτα
παραμυθήσασθαι. συκοφαντεῖν.
12. But since such narratives are slow to
secure assent, δυσπειθεῖς. βίαιοι. ἰδιότητος. φυσιωσιν. ἄμωμος. Cf. Cf.
13. It is not without reason, then, that he
who is abandoned, is abandoned to the divine judgment, and that God is
long-suffering with certain sinners; but because it will be for their
advantage, with respect to the immortality of the soul and the unending
world, τὸν ἄπειρον
αἰῶνα. συνεργηθῆναι
. ἀναστοιχειωθῆναι. πεντηκονταετίαν.
Rufinus has “sexaginta annos.” ἀπέραντον
αἰῶνα.
14. Come now, and let us use the following
image εἰκόνι. τάχιον. προπετέστερον,
καὶ οὐχὶ ὁδῷ
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ
ὁδευσάσῃ. Cf.
15. Let us look also at the declaration in
Ezekiel, which says, “I shall take away their stony hearts, and
will put in them hearts of flesh, that they ἀπὸ
τῶν ψιλῶν
ῥητῶν τὸ ἐφ᾽
ἡμῖν
ἀναιρῶν. χειραγωγήσειν.
16. There was after this the passage from
the Gospel, where the Saviour said, that for this reason did He speak
to those without in parables, that “seeing they may not see, and
hearing they may not understand; lest they should be converted, and
their sins be forgiven them.” ὠμότης. δημιουργοῦ. ἡ ἀμυντικὴ
καὶ
ἀνταποδοτικὴ
τῶν χειρόνων
προαίρεσις. εὐγνωμόνως. οὐδενὸς
ἔλαττον.
17. We asserted also, when investigating the
subject of Pharaoh, that sometimes a rapid cure is not for the
advantage of those who are healed, if, after being seized by
troublesome diseases, they should easily get rid of those by which they
had been entangled. For, despising the evil as one that is easy
of cure, and not being on their guard a second time against falling
into it, they will be involved in it (again). Wherefore, in the
case of such persons, the everlasting God, the Knower of secrets, who
knows all things before they exist, in conformity with His goodness,
delays sending them more rapid assistance, and, so to speak, in helping
them does not help, the latter course being to their advan ἑωραμένους
οὐ βεβαίους
ἔσεσθαι ἐν τῇ
ἐπιστροφῇ. τῶν
βαθυτέρων. ἐπὶ
πλεῖον
ἐμφορηθέντας. ὡς
εἰκὸς
μᾶλλον πόρρω
ὄντες τῆς
ἀξίας τῶν
ἔξω. εἰ μὴ μᾶλλον
ἡμεῖς πρὸς
τῷ
ἐξεταστικῷ
καὶ τὸ
εὐσεβὲς
πάντη
ἀγωνιζόμεθα
τηρεῖν περι
Θεοῦ, etc. διαθέσεις.
18. Let us look next at the passage:
“So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” κατασκευῆς. κατασκευάσαντος. προαιρέσεως. παρὰ τὴν
ἐνάργειαν. τὰ
κρείττονα. τῶν μέσων
ἐστί. ἀστεῖον. ᾠδὴ
τῶν
ἀναβαθμῶν. οὐκ ἄν
πταίοιμεν. ἡ ἡμετέρα
τελείωσις
οὐχὶ μηδὲν
ἡμῶν
πραξάντων
γίνεται. ἀπαρτίζεται. πνοήν. εὐκρασίαν. ἀριθμόν. εἰς
ὑπερβολὴν
πολλαπλάσιον. ἐκλαμβάνειν. ἐξειλήφασι
τὰ κατὰ τὸν
τόπον.
19. Besides these, there is the passage,
“Both to will and to do are of God.” Cf. τὰ
διαφέροντα. ἡμεῖς μὲν
ἐδόξαμεν, ὁ
δὲ Θεὸς ταῦτα
ἐδωρήσατο. τὸ καθόλου
θέλειν. εὐλόγως. τὸ εἰδικὸν
τόδε. τὸ μὲν
γενικὸν, τὸ
κινεῖσθαι. δημιουργοῦ.
20. Still the declaration of the apostle
will appear to drag us to the conclusion that we are not possessed of
freedom of will, in which, objecting against himself, he says,
“Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He
will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet
find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man,
who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not
the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel
unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” οὐ κατὰ τὸν
αὐτὸν δὴ
ἀπόστολόν
ἐστι. παρὰ την
αιτίαν του
δημιουργοῦ. ὑγιές. ἐπὶ
τοῦτο
πράξεως. ἀπερικάθαρτον
ἑαυτον
περιιδών. πρόγνωσιν. προκατακρίνει
ἢ
προδικαιοῖ. ἐκ
πρεσβυτέρων
αἰτιῶν.
21. And at the same time, it is clearly
shown that, as far as regards the underlying nature, ὁσον
ἐπὶ τῆ
ὑποκειμένῃ
φύσει. ἑνὸς
φυραμάτος
τῶν λογικῶν
ὑποστάσεων. Cf. κατὰ
φιλονεικίαν.
Now to those who introduce different natures, and who
make use σώζουσι. ἐκ
προτέρων
τινῶν
κατορθωμάτων.
τὸ ἐφ᾽
ἡμῖν. ἐπιστήμη:
probably in the sense of πρόγνωσις. τῆς
καταχρήσεως
τοῦ κατ᾽
ἀξίαν τοῦ
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν.
“Nec sine usu liberi nostri arbitrii, quod peculiare nobis et
meriti nostri est” (Redepenning). οὔτε τοῦ
ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ
μόνον. ὕλην
τινὰ
διαφορας.
Chapter II.—On the Opposing Powers.
1. We have now to notice, agreeably to the
statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself,
contends with the human race, inciting and instigating men to
sin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis, This apocryphal work,
entitled in Hebrew פטירת
מִשה, and in Greek ᾽Ανάληψις, or
᾽Ανάβασις
Μωυσέως, is mentioned by
several ancient writers; e.g., by Athanasius, in his Synopsis
Sacræ Scripturæ; Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus in his
Stichometria, appended to the Chronicon of Eusebius
(where he says the ᾽Ανάληψις contained 1400
verses), in the Acts of the Council of Nice, etc., etc.
(Ruæus). Cf. Atterere. Perversum.
Let us now look also to the New Testament, where
Satan approaches the Saviour, and tempts Him: wherein also it is
stated that evil spirits and unclean demons, which had taken possession
of very many, were expelled by the Saviour from the bodies of the
sufferers, who are said also to be made free by Him. Even Judas,
too, when the devil had already put it in his heart to betray Christ,
afterwards received Satan wholly into him; for it is written, that
after the sop “Satan entered into him.” Cf. Cf. Nemo hominum
omnino.
2. We, however, who see the reason (of the thing)
more clearly, do not hold this opinion, taking into account those
(sins) which mani Ex corporali
necessitate descendunt. Quod non simile
aliquid pateremur? Propositum. Quæ in usu
naturaliter habentur. Sensum eorum penitus
possederint.
3. That there are certain sins, however,
which do not proceed from the opposing powers, but take their
beginnings from the natural movements of the body, is manifestly
declared by the Apostle Paul in the passage: “The flesh
lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and
these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the
things that ye would.” Carnem talem. Pro virtutis suæ
quantitate, vel possibilitate. Nec tamen scriptum
est, quia faciet in tentatione etiam exitum sustinendi, sed exitum ut
sustinere possimus. Ut sustinere
possimus. Repugnandi
vincendique.
4. With respect to the thoughts which
proceed from our heart, or the recollection of things which we have
done, or the contemplation of any things or causes whatever, we find
that they sometimes proceed from ourselves, and sometimes are
originated by the opposing powers; not seldom also are they suggested
by God, or by the holy angels. Now such a statement will perhaps
appear incredible, Fabulosum. [See book of Tobit,
chaps. v. vi. S.] Shepherd of
Hermas, Command. vi. 2. See vol. ii. p. 24. Epistle of
Barnabas. See vol. i. pp. 148, 149.
5. We are not, however, to suppose that each
individual has to contend against all these (adversaries). For it
is impossible for any man, although he were a saint, to carry on a
contest against all of them at the same time. If that indeed were
by any means to be the case, as it is certainly impossible it should be
so, human nature could not possibly bear it without undergoing entire
destruction. Sine maxima
subversione sui. Sine aliquâ
pernicie sui. Excelsa et
profunda.
6. Nor are we, indeed, to suppose that
struggles of this kind are carried on by the exercise of bodily
strength, and of the arts of the wrestling school; Palæstricæ
artis exercitiis. Tribus ordinibus. Cf.
7. The result of all the foregoing remarks
is to show, that all the occurrences in the world which are considered
to be of an intermediate kind, whether they be mournful or otherwise
are brought about, not indeed by God, and yet not without Him; while He
not only does not prevent those wicked and opposing powers that are
desirous to bring about these things (from accomplishing their
purpose), but even permits them to do so, although only on certain
occasions and to certain individuals, as is said with respect to Job
himself, that for a certain time he was made to fall under the power of
others, and to have his house plundered by unjust persons. And
therefore holy Scripture teaches us to receive all that happens as sent
by God, knowing that without Him no event occurs. For how can we
doubt that such is the case, viz., that nothing comes to man without
(the will of) God, when our Lord and Saviour declares, “Are not
two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the
ground without your Father who is in heaven.” Cf.
Chapter III.—On Threefold Wisdom.
1. The holy apostle, wishing to teach us
some great and hidden truth respecting science and wisdom, says, in the
first Epistle to the Corinthians: “We speak wisdom among
them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the
princes of the world, that come to nought: but we speak the
wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained
before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of the
world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory.”
2. But now, since we are treating of the
manner in which the opposing powers stir up those contests, by means of
which false knowledge is introduced into the minds of men, and human
souls led astray, while they imagine that they have discovered wisdom,
I think it necessary to name and distinguish the wisdom of this world,
and of the princes of this world, that by so doing we may discover who
are the fathers of this wisdom, nay, even of these kinds of
wisdom. Sapientiarum
harum. Sapientias illas. De divinitate. De scientiâ
excelsi pollicentium. Cf. Cf.
3. We must, indeed, endeavour to ascertain
whether that wisdom Istæ
sapientiæ. Energiæ. Insania. Vates. Divinos. Magi vel malefici. Dæmonum. Id est, industria
vita, vel studio amico illis et accepto.
4. With respect to those, indeed, who teach
differently regarding Christ from what the rule of Scripture allows, it
is no idle task to ascertain whether it is from a treacherous purpose
that these opposing powers, in their struggles to prevent a belief in
Christ, have devised certain fabulous and impious doctrines; or
whether, on hearing the word of Christ, and not being able to cast it
forth from the secrecy of their conscience, nor yet to retain it pure
and holy, they have, by means of vessels that were convenient to their
use, Per vasa opportuna
sibi. Apostatæ et
refugæ virtutes. Propositi. Penitus ex
integro. Eos quos
obsederint. Energumenos.
But a man receives the energy, i.e., the working,
of a good spirit, when he is stirred and incited to good, and is
inspired to heavenly or divine things; as the holy angels and God
Himself wrought in the prophets, arousing and exhorting them by their
holy suggestions to a better course of life, yet so, indeed, that it
remained within the will and judgment of the individual, either to be
willing or unwilling to follow the call to divine and heavenly
things. And from this manifest distinction, it is seen how the
soul is moved by the presence of a better spirit, i.e., if it encounter
no perturbation or alienation of mind whatever from the impending
inspiration, nor lose the free control of its will; as, for instance,
is the case with all, whether prophets or apostles, who ministered to
the divine responses without any perturbation of mind. [See
Oehler’s Old Testament Theology, § 207,
“Psychological Definition of the Prophetic State in Ancient
Times,” pp. 468, 469. S.]
5. This too, I think, should next be
inquired into, viz., what are the reasons why a human soul is acted on
at one time by good (spirits), and at another by bad: the grounds
of which I suspect to be older than the bodily birth of the individual,
as John (the Baptist) showed by his leaping and exulting in his
mother’s womb, when the voice of the salutation of Mary reached
the ears of his mother Elisabeth; and as Jeremiah the prophet declares,
who was known to God before he was formed in his mother’s womb,
and before he was born was sanctified by Him, and while yet a boy
received the grace of prophecy. Divinasse.
Let such, then, be our views respecting those
events which appear to befall men, either immediately after birth, or
even before they enter upon the light. But as regards the
suggestions which are made to the soul, i.e., to the faculty of human
thought, by different spirits, and which arouse men to good actions or
the contrary, even in such a case we must suppose that there sometimes
existed certain causes anterior to bodily birth. For occasionally
the mind, when watchful, and casting away from it what is evil, calls
to itself the aid of the good; or if it be, on the contrary, negligent
and slothful, it makes room through insufficient caution for these
spirits, which, lying in wait secretly like robbers, contrive to rush
into the minds of men when they see a lodgment made for them by sloth;
as the Apostle Peter says, “that our adversary the devil goes
about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” Hospitium.
Chapter IV.—On Human Temptations.
1. And now the subject of human temptations must not, in my opinion, be passed over in silence, which take their rise sometimes from flesh and blood, or from the wisdom of flesh and blood, which is said to be hostile to God. And whether the statement be true which certain allege, viz., that each individual has as it were two souls, we shall determine after we have explained the nature of those temptations, which are said to be more powerful than any of human origin, i.e., which we sustain from principalities and powers, and from the rulers of the darkness of this world, and from spiritual wickedness in high places, or to which we are subjected from wicked spirits and unclean demons. Now, in the investigation of this subject, we must, I think, inquire according to a logical method whether there be in us human beings, who are composed of soul and body and vital spirit, some other element, possessing an incitement of its own, and evoking a movement towards evil. For a question of this kind is wont to be discussed by some in this way: whether, viz., as two souls are said to co-exist within us, the one is more divine and heavenly and the other inferior; or whether, from the very fact that we inhere in bodily structures which according to their own proper nature are dead, and altogether devoid of life (seeing it is from us, i.e., from our souls, that the material body derives its life, it being contrary and hostile to the spirit), we are drawn on and enticed to the practice of those evils which are agreeable to the body; or whether, thirdly (which was the opinion of some of the Greek philosophers), although our soul is one in substance, it nevertheless consists of several elements, and one portion of it is called rational and another irrational, and that which is termed the irrational part is again separated into two affections—those of covetousness and passion. These three opinions, then, regarding the soul, which we have stated above, we have found to be entertained by some, but that one of them, which we have mentioned as being adopted by certain Grecian philosophers, viz., that the soul is tripartite, I do not observe to be greatly confirmed by the authority of holy Scripture; while with respect to the remaining two there is found a considerable number of passages in the holy Scriptures which seem capable of application to them.
Sensum vel
sapientiam. Passiones
animæ. Veneficia.
Φαρμακεία.
“Witchcraft” (Auth. Version).
We have accordingly to ascertain what is this very will
(intermediate) between flesh and spirit, besides that will which is
said to belong to the flesh or the spirit. For it is held as
certain, that The text here is very
obscure, and has given some trouble to commentators. The words
are: “Quæ ergo ista est præter hæc voluntas
animæ quæ extrinsecus nominatur,” etc.
Redepenning understands “extrinsecus” as meaning
“seorsim,” “insuper,” and refers to a note of
Origen upon the Epistle to the Romans (tom. i. p. 466):
“Et idcirco extrinsecus eam (animam, corporis et
spiritus mentione factâ,
3. But since the subject of discussion on
which we have entered is one of great profundity, which it is necessary
to consider in all its bearings, In quâ necesse
est ex singulis quibusque partibus quæ possunt moveri
discutere. Priusquam—unum
efficiatur cum eo.
These points we have now discussed, in our desire to consider each individual opinion, at greater length than we intended, that those views might not be supposed to have escaped our notice which are generally brought forward by those who inquire whether there is within us any other soul than this heavenly and rational one, which is naturally opposed to the latter, and is called either the flesh, or the wisdom of the flesh, or the soul of the flesh.
4. Let us now see what answer is usually
returned to these statements by those who maintain that there is in us
one movement, and one life, proceeding from one and the same soul, both
the salvation and the destruction of which are ascribed to itself as a
result of its own actions. And, in the first place, let us notice
of what nature those commotions Passiones. Quibus nunc quidem
arguimur, nunc vero nosmet ipsos amplectimur. Evacuantur. Cf. Abusive = improperly
used. Recomponi vult.
5. With respect, however, to the following
being ranked among the works of the flesh, viz., heresies, and
envyings, and contentions, or other (vices), they so understand the
passage, that the mind, being rendered grosser in feeling, from its
yielding itself to the passions of the body, and being oppressed by the
mass of its vices, and having no refined or spiritual feelings, is said
to be made flesh, and derives its name from that in which it exhibits
more vigour and force of will. Plus studii vel
propositi. Naturaliter.
Chapter V.—That the World Took Its Beginning in Time.
1. And now, since there is one of the
articles of the Church De ecclesiasticis
definitionibus unum. Consummationem
sæculi.
Concerning, then, the creation of the world, what
portion of Scripture can give us more information regarding it, than
the account which Moses has transmitted respecting its origin?
And although it comprehends matters of profounder significance than the
mere historical narrative appears to indicate, and contains very many
things that are to be spiritually understood, and employs the letter,
as a kind of veil, in treating of profound and mystical subjects;
nevertheless the language of the narrator shows that all visible things
were created at a certain time. But with regard to the
consummation of the world, Jacob is the first who gives any
information, in addressing his children in the words:
“Gather yourselves together unto me, ye sons of Jacob, that I may
tell you what shall be in the last days,” or “after the
last days.”
2. Now, if there be any one who would here
oppose either the authority or credibility of our Scriptures, Auctoritate
Scripturæ nostræ, vel fidei.
3. But this is the objection which they
generally raise: they say, “If the world had its beginning
in time, what was God doing before the world began? For it is at
once impious and absurd to say that the nature of God is inactive and
immoveable, or to suppose that goodness at one time did not do good,
and omnipotence at one time did not exercise its power.”
Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our
statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and
that, agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years
of its past duration. To these propositions I consider that none
of the heretics can easily return an answer that will be in conformity
with the nature of their opinions. But we can give a logical
answer in accordance with the standard of religion, Regulam pietatis. Cf. Cf. Sæcula.
4. This point, indeed, is not to be idly passed
by, that the holy Scriptures have called the creation of the world by a
new and peculiar name, terming it καταβολή, which
has been very improperly translated into Latin by
“constitutio;” for in Greek καταβολή
signifies rather “dejicere,” i.e., to cast
downwards,—a word which has been, as we have already remarked,
improperly translated into Latin by the phrase “constitutio
mundi,” as in the Gospel according to John, where the
Saviour says, “And there will be tribulation in those days, such
as was not since the beginning of the world;” The following is
Jerome’s version of this passage (Epistle to
Avitus): “A divine habitation, and a true rest above
(apud superos), I think is to be understood, where
rational creatures dwell, and where before their descent to a lower
position, and removal from invisible to visible (worlds), and fall to
earth, and need of gross bodies, they enjoyed a former
blessedness. Whence God the Creator made for them bodies suitable
to their humble position and created this visible world, and sent into
the world ministers for the salvation and correction of those who had
fallen: of whom some were to obtain certain localities, and be
subject to the necessities of the world; others were to discharge with
care and attention the duties enjoined upon them at all times, and
which were known to God, the Arranger (of all things). And of
these, the sun, moon, and stars, which are called
‘creature’ by the apostle, received the more elevated
places of the world. Which ‘creature’ was made
subject to vanity, in that it was clothed with gross bodies, and was
open to view, and yet was subject to vanity not voluntarily, but
because of the will of Him who subjected the same in hope.”
And again: “While others, whom we believe to be angels, at
different places and times, which the Arranger alone knows, serve the
government of the world.” And a little further on:
“Which order of things is regulated by the providential
government of the whole world, some powers falling down from a loftier
position, others gradually sinking to earth: some falling
voluntarily, others being cast down against their will: some
undertaking, of their own accord, the service of stretching out the
hand to those who fall; others being compelled to persevere for so long
a time in the duty which they have undertaken.” And
again: “Whence it follows that, on account of the various
movements, various worlds also are created, and after this world which
we now inhabit, there will be another greatly dissimilar. But no
other being save God alone, the Creator of all things, can arrange the
deserts (of all), both to the time to come and to that which preceded,
suitably to the differing lapses and advances (of individuals), and to
the rewards of virtues or the punishment of vices, both in the present
and in the future, and in all (times), and to conduct them all again to
one end: for He knows the causes why He allows some to enjoy
their own will, and to fall from a higher rank to the lowest
condition: and why He begins to visit others, and bring them back
gradually, as if by giving them His hand, to their pristine state, and
placing them in a lofty position” (Ruæus). [According to
Hagenbach (History of Doctrines, vol. i. p. 167), “Origen
formally adopts the idea of original sin, by asserting that the human
soul does not come into the world in a state of innocence, because it
has already sinned in a former state.…And yet subsequent times,
especially after Jerome, have seen in Origen the precursor of
Pelagius. Jerome calls the opinion that man can be without
sin, Origenis ramusculus.” S.] Cf. Dispersi.
5. This arrangement of things, then, which God afterwards appointed (for He had, from the very origin of the world, clearly perceived the reasons and causes affecting those who, either owing to mental deficiencies, deserved to enter into bodies, or those who were carried away by their desire for visible things, and those also who, either willingly or unwillingly, were compelled, (by Him who subjected the same in hope), to perform certain services to such as had fallen into that condition), not being understood by some, who failed to perceive that it was owing to preceding causes, originating in free-will, that this variety of arrangement had been instituted by God, they have concluded that all things in this world are directed either by fortuitous movements or by a necessary fate, and that nothing is within the power of our own will. And, therefore, also they were unable to show that the providence of God was beyond the reach of censure.
6. But as we have said that all the souls
who lived in this world stood in need of many ministers, or rulers, or
assistants; so, in the last times, when the end of the world is already
imminent and near, and the whole human race is verging upon the last
destruction, and when not only those who were governed by others have
been reduced to weakness, but those also to whom had been committed the
cares of government, it was no longer such help nor such defenders that
were needed, but the help of the Author and Creator Himself was
required to restore to the one the discipline of obedience, which had
been corrupted and profaned, and to the other the discipline of
rule. And hence the only-begotten Son of God, who was the Word
and the Wisdom of the Father, when He was in the possession of that
glory with the Father, which He had before the world was, divested
Himself Exinanivit semet
ipsum. Regendi
regnandique.
7. I know not, indeed, how the heretics, not
understanding the meaning of the apostle in these words, consider the
term [Elucidation II.] Cum non solum regendi
ac regnandi summam, quam in universam emendaverit creaturam, verum
etiam obedientæ et subjectione correcta reparataque humani generis
Patri offerat instituta.
8. This subjection, however, will be
accomplished in certain ways, and after certain training, and at
certain times; for it is not to be imagined that the subjection is to
be brought about by the pressure of necessity (lest the whole world
should then appear to be subdued to God by force), but by word, reason,
and doctrine; by a call to a better course of things, by the best
systems of training, by the employment also of suitable and appropriate
threatenings, which will justly impend over those who despise any care
or attention to their salvation and usefulness. In a word, we men
also, in training either our slaves or children, restrain them by
threats and fear while they are, by reason of their tender age,
incapable of using their reason; but when they have begun to understand
what is good, and useful, and honourable, the fear of the lash being
over, they acquiesce through the suasion of words and reason in all
that is good. But how, consistently with the preservation of
freedom of will in all rational creatures, each one ought to be
regulated, i.e., who they are whom the word of God finds and trains, as
if they were already prepared and capable of it; who they are whom it
puts off to a later time; who these are from whom it is altogether
concealed, and who are so situated as to be far from hearing it; who
those, again, are who despise the word of God when made known and
preached to them, and who are driven by a kind of correction and
chastisement to salvation, and whose conversion is in a certain degree
demanded and extorted; who those are to whom certain opportunities of
salvation are afforded, so that sometimes, their faith being proved by
an answer alone, By a profession of
faith in baptism. Indubitatam ceperit
salutem. It was not until
the third Synod of Toledo, a.d. 589, that the
“Filioque” clause was added to the Creed of
Constantinople,—this difference forming, as is well known, one of
the dogmatic grounds for the disunion between the Western and Eastern
Churches down to the present day, the latter Church denying that the
Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son. [See
Elucidation III.]
Chapter VI.—On the End of the World.
1. Now, respecting the end of the world and
the consummation of all things, we have stated in the preceding pages,
to the best of our ability, so far as the authority of holy Scripture
enabled us, what we deem sufficient for purposes of instruction; and we
shall here only add a few admonitory remarks, since the order of
investigation has brought us back to the subject. The highest
good, then, after the attainment of which the whole of rational nature
is seeking, which is also called the end of all blessings, Finis omnium:
“bonorum” understood. Imago. Similitudo. Cf. Cf. Ex simili unum
fieri. Jerome, in his
Epistle to Avitus, No. 94, has the passage thus:
“Since, as we have already frequently observed, the beginning is
generated again from the end, it is a question whether then also there
will be bodies, or whether existence will be maintained at some time
without them when they shall have been annihilated, and thus the life
of incorporeal beings must be believed to be incorporeal, as we know is
the case with God. And there is no doubt that if all the bodies
which are termed visible by the apostle, belong to that sensible world,
the life of incorporeal beings will be incorporeal.” And a
little after: “That expression, also, used by the apostle,
‘The whole creation will be freed from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God’
( Ad unitatis
proprietatem.
2. Since, then, it is promised that in the end God will be all and in all, we are not, as is fitting, to suppose that animals, either sheep or other cattle, come to that end, lest it should be implied that God dwelt even in animals, whether sheep or other cattle; and so, too, with pieces of wood or stones, lest it should be said that God is in these also. So, again, nothing that is wicked must be supposed to attain to that end, lest, while God is said to be in all things, He may also be said to be in a vessel of wickedness. For if we now assert that God is everywhere and in all things, on the ground that nothing can be empty of God, we nevertheless do not say that He is now “all things” in those in whom He is. And hence we must look more carefully as to what that is which denotes the perfection of blessedness and the end of things, which is not only said to be God in all things, but also “all in all.” Let us then inquire what all those things are which God is to become in all.
3. I am of opinion that the expression, by
which God is said to be “all in all,” means that He is
“all” in each individual person. Now He will be
“all” in each individual in this way: when all which
any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of
vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can
either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it
will no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God
will be the measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God
will be “all,” for there will no longer be any distinction
of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists; for God is all things,
and to Him no evil is near: nor will there be any longer a desire
to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on the part of
him who is always in the possession of good, and to whom God is
all. So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning,
and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that
condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was
placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and
the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one
good God becomes to him “all,” and that not in the case of
a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is
“all in all.” And when death shall no longer anywhere
exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God
will be “all in all.” But some are of opinion that
that perfection and blessedness of rational creatures, or natures, can
only remain in that same condition of which we have spoken above, i.e.,
that all things should possess God, and God should be to them all
things, if they are in no degree prevented by their union with a bodily
nature. Otherwise they think that the glory of the highest
blessedness is impeded by the intermixture of any material
substance. “Here the
honesty of Rufinus in his translation seems very suspicious: for
Origen’s well-known opinion regarding the sins and lapses of
blessed spirits he here attributes to others. Nay, even the
opinion which he introduces Origen as ascribing to others, he exhibits
him as refuting a little further on, sec. 6, in these words:
‘And in this condition (of blessedness) we are to believe that,
by the will of the Creator, it will abide for ever without any
change,’ etc. I suspect, therefore, that all this is due to
Rufinus himself, and that he has inserted it, instead of what is found
in the beginning of the chapter, sec. 1, and which in Jerome’s
Epistle to Avitus stands as follows: ‘Nor is there
any doubt that, after certain intervals of time, matter will again
exist, and bodies be formed, and a diversity be established in the
world, on account of the varying wills of rational creatures who, after
(enjoying) perfect blessedness down to the end of all things, have
gradually fallen away to a lower condition and received into them so
much wickedness that they are converted) into an opposite condition, by
their unwillingness to retain their original state, and to preserve
their blessedness uncorrupted. Nor is this point to be
suppressed, that many rational creatures retain their first condition
(principium) even to the second and third and fourth
worlds, and allow no room for any change within them while others,
again, will lose so little of their pristine state, that they will
appear to have lost almost nothing, and some are to be precipitated
with great destruction into the lowest pit. And God, the disposer
of all things, when creating His worlds, knows how to treat each
individual agreeably to his merits, and He is acquainted with the
occasions and causes by which the government (gubernacula) of
the world is sustained and commenced: so that he who surpassed
all others in wickedness, and brought himself completely down to the
earth, is made in another world, which is afterwards to be formed, a
devil, the beginning of the creation of the Lord (
4. And now, as we find the apostle making
mention of a spiritual body, let us inquire, to the best of our
ability, what idea we are to form of such a thing. So far, then,
as our understanding can grasp it, we consider a spiritual body to be
of such a nature as ought to be inhabited not only by all holy and
perfect souls, but also by all those creatures which will be liberated
from the slavery of corruption. Respecting the body also, the
apostle has said, “We have a house not made with hands, eternal
in the heavens,”
5. The last enemy, moreover, who is called
death, is said on this account to be destroyed, that there may not be
anything left of a mournful kind when death does not exist, nor
anything that is adverse when there is no enemy. The destruction
of the last enemy, indeed, is to be understood, not as if its
substance, which was formed by God, is to perish, but because its mind
and hostile will, which came not from God, but from itself, are to be
destroyed. Its destruction, therefore, will not be its
non-existence, but its ceasing to be an enemy, and (to be) death.
For nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable
of restoration Insanabile. [“Origen
went so far, that, contrary to the general opinion, he allowed Satan
the glimmer of a hope of future grace.…He is here speaking of the
last enemy, death: but it is evident, from the context, that he
identifies death with the devil,” etc. (Hagenbach’s
History of Doctrines, vol. i. p. 145–147. See
also, supra, book i. vi. 3. p. 261.) S.] Ut essent et
permanerent.
6. Into this condition, then, we are to suppose
that all this bodily substance of ours will be Ad summa. [Elucidation IV.]
7. The whole of this reasoning, then,
amounts to this: that God created two general natures,—a
visible, i.e., a corporeal nature; and an invisible nature, which is
incorporeal. Now these two natures admit of two different
permutations. That invisible and rational nature changes in mind
and purpose, because it is endowed with freedom of will, [Elucidation V.] Cf.
8. And now the point for investigation is,
whether, when God shall be all in all, the whole of bodily nature will,
in the consummation of all things, consist of one species, and the sole
quality of body be that which shall shine in the indescribable glory
which is to be regarded as the future possession of the spiritual
body. For if we rightly understand the matter, this is the
statement of Moses in the beginning of his book, when he says,
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.”
9. In this way, accordingly, we are to
suppose that at the consummation and restoration of all things, those
who make a gradual advance, and who ascend (in the scale of
improvement), will arrive in due measure and order at that land, and at
that training which is contained in it, where they may be prepared for
those better institutions to which no addition can be made. For,
after His agents and servants, the Lord Christ, who is King of all,
will Himself assume the kingdom; i.e., after instruction in the holy
virtues, He will Himself instruct those who are capable of receiving
Him in respect of His being wisdom, reigning in them until He has
subjected them to the Father, who has subdued all things to Himself,
i.e., that when they shall have been made capable of receiving God, God
may be to them all in all. Then accordingly, as a necessary
consequence, bodily nature will obtain that highest condition Jerome
(Epistle to Avitus, No. 94) says that Origen, “after a
most lengthened discussion, in which he asserts that all bodily nature
is to be changed into attenuated and spiritual bodies, and that all
substance is to be converted into one body of perfect purity, and more
brilliant than any splendour (mundissimum et omni splendore
purius), and such as the human mind cannot now conceive,”
adds at the last, “And God will be ‘all in all,’ so
that the whole of bodily nature may be reduced into that substance
which is better than all others, into the divine, viz., than which none
is better.” From which, since it seems to follow that God
possesses a body, although of extreme tenuity (licet
tenuissimum), Rufinus has either suppressed this view, or altered
the meaning of Origen’s words (Ruæus).
Translated from the Latin of Rufinus.
Chapter I.—That the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired.
1. But as it is not sufficient, in the
discussion of matters of such importance, to entrust the decision to
the human senses and to the human understanding, and to pronounce
on things invisible as if they were seen by us, Visibiliter de
invisibilibus pronunciare. Principis
Christianorum religionis et dogmatis.
2. And we may see, moreover, how that
religion itself grew up in a short time, making progress by the
punishment and death of its worshippers, by the plundering of their
goods, and by the tortures of every kind which they endured; and this
result is the more surprising, that even the teachers of it
themselves neither were men of skill, Satis idonei. Religionem
Christianæ doctrinæ. Cf. Cf. Fortasse minus vera
esse viderentur. Salutaria
præcepta.
3. What, then, are we to say of this, which
the prophets had beforehand foretold of Him, that princes would not
cease from Judah, nor leaders from between his thighs, until He
should come for whom it has been reserved (viz., the kingdom), and
until the expectation of the Gentiles should come? For it is most
distinctly evident from the history itself, from what is clearly seen
at the present day, that from the times of Christ onwards there were no
kings amongst the Jews. Nay, even all those objects of Jewish
pride, Illæ omnes
ambitiones Judaicæ. Cf. On the Patriarch
of the Jews, cf. Milman’s History of the Jews, vol. ii. p.
399 sq., and vol. iii. p. 7 sq.
5. What are we to say, moreover, regarding
those prophecies of Christ contained in the Psalms, especially
the one with the superscription, “A song for the
Beloved;” [See note
infra, Contra Celsum, B. II. cap. xii.
S.] Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. The allusion is
perhaps to
6. These points now being briefly established, viz., regarding the deity of Christ, and the fulfilment of all that was prophesied respecting Him, I think that this position also has been made good, viz., that the Scriptures themselves, which contained these predictions, were divinely inspired,—those, namely, which had either foretold His advent, or the power of His doctrine, or the bringing over of all nations (to His obedience). To which this remark must be added, that the divinity and inspiration both of the predictions of the prophets and of the law of Moses have been clearly revealed and confirmed, especially since the advent of Christ into the world. For before the fulfilment of those events which were predicted by them, they could not, although true and inspired by God, be shown to be so, because they were as yet unfulfilled. But the coming of Christ was a declaration that their statements were true and divinely inspired, although it was certainly doubtful before that whether there would be an accomplishment of those things which had been foretold.
Divino, ut ita
dixerim, cothurno.
7. It is, however, a matter attended with
considerable labour, to point out, in every instance, how and
when the predictions of the prophets were fulfilled, so as to appear to
confirm those who are in doubt, seeing it is possible for everyone who
wishes to become more thoroughly acquainted with these things, to
gather abundant proofs from the records of the truth themselves.
But if the sense of the letter, which is beyond man, does not appear to
present itself at once, on the first glance, to those who are less
versed in divine discipline, it is not at all to be wondered at,
because divine things are brought down somewhat slowly to (the
comprehension of) men, and elude the view in proportion as one is
either sceptical or unworthy. For although it is certain that all
things which exist in this world, or take place in it, are ordered by
the providence of God, and certain events indeed do appear with
sufficient clearness to be under the disposal of His providential
government, yet others again unfold themselves so mysteriously and
incomprehensibly, that the plan of Divine Providence with regard to
them is completely concealed; so that it is occasionally believed by
some that particular occurrences do not belong to (the plan of)
Providence, because the principle eludes their grasp, according to
which the works of Divine Providence are administered with
indescribable skill; which principle of administration,
however, is not equally concealed from all. For even among
men themselves, one individual devotes less consideration to it,
another more; while by every man, He who is on earth, whoever is the
inhabitant of heaven, is more acknowledged. “Nam et
inter ipsos homines ab alio minus, ab alio amplius consideratur:
plus vero ab omni homine, qui in terris est, quis-quis ille est
cœli habitator, agnoscitur.” The translation of
Rufinus, as Redepenning remarks, seems very confused. Probably
also the text is corrupt. The Greek without doubt gives the
genuine thought of Origen. By omitting the ab we
approximate to the Greek, and get: “but he, whoever he be,
who is inhabitant of heaven, is better known than any man who is on the
earth;” or according to the punctuation in the old editions,
“but he who is inhabitant of heaven is better known than any man
on earth, whoever he be.” In vilioribus et
incomptis verborum vasculis. Cf. Ad fidem
credulitatemque. Temporibus
eternis.
Many, not understanding the Scriptures in a
spiritual sense, but incorrectly, Male.
8. These particulars, then, being briefly stated
regarding the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures by Cf. Cf. Ut priusquam
cognosceret proferre malum, eligeret bonum. Contra jus fasque. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
9. Now the reason of the erroneous
apprehension of all these points on the part of those whom we have
mentioned above, is no other than this, that holy Scripture is not
understood by them according to its spiritual, but according to its
literal meaning. And therefore we shall endeavour, so far as our
moderate capacity will permit, to point out to those who believe
the holy Scriptures to be no human compositions, but to be
written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be transmitted and
entrusted to us by the will of God the Father, through His
only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, what appears to us, who
observe things by a right way of understanding, The text, as it
stands, is probably corrupt: “Propter quod conabimur pro
mediocritate sensus nostri his, qui credunt Scripturas sanctas non
humana verba aliqua esse composita, sed Sancti Spiritus inspiratione
conscripta, et voluntate Dei patris per unigenitum filium suum Jesum
Christum nobis quoque esse tradita et commissa, quæ nobis
videntur, recta via intelligentiæ observantibus, demonstrare illam
regulam et disciplinam, quam ab Jesu Christo traditam sibi apostoli per
successionem posteris quoque suis, sanctam ecclesiam docentibus,
tradiderunt.” Dispensationes. Religiosius. Contra fas. Sacramenta
quædam. Fas.
10. But lest this difficulty perhaps should
be supposed to exist only in the language of the prophets, seeing
the prophetic style is allowed by all to abound in figures and enigmas,
what do we find when we come to the Gospels? Is there not hidden
there also an inner, namely a divine sense, which is revealed by
that grace alone which he had received who said, “But we have the
mind of Christ, that we might know the things freely given to us by
God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which
man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit
teacheth?” Cf. Tantam occultationem
ineffabilium sacramentorum. Per breve quoddam
receptaculum. Immensæ lucis
claritas.
11. But, as we had begun to observe, the way
which seems to us the correct one for the understanding of the
Scriptures, and for the investigation of their meaning, we consider to
be of the following kind: for we are instructed by Scripture
itself in regard to the ideas which we ought to form of it.
In the Proverbs of Solomon we find some such rule as the following laid
down, respecting the consideration of holy Scripture: “And
do thou,” he says, “describe these things to thyself
in a threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, and that thou mayest
answer the words of truth to those who have proposed them to
thee.” Cf. Largitione. [Hermas, vol.
ii. pp. 3, 8, 12, this series. Origen seems to overrule this
contempt of a minority; and, what is more strange, he appears to have
accepted the fiction of the Pauline Hermas as authentic
history. How naturally this became the impression in the East has
been explained; and the De Principiis, it must not be forgotten,
was not the product of the author’s mature mind.]
12. This point, indeed, is not to be passed
by without notice, viz., that there are certain passages of
Scripture where this “body,” as we termed it, i.e., this
inferential historical sense, Consquentia
historialis intelligentiæ. Metretes. Cf. Cf.
13. Now a “spiritual”
interpretation is of this nature: when one is able to point out
what are the heavenly things of which these serve as the patterns
and shadow, who are Jews “according to the flesh,” and of
what things future the law contains a shadow, and any other expressions
of this kind that may be found in holy Scripture; or when it is a
subject of inquiry, what is that wisdom hidden in a mystery which
“God ordained before the world for our glory, which none of the
princes of this world knew;” Cf. In
figurâ. Greek (text. recept.) τύποι. Lachmann reads
τυπικῶς. Cf.
14. This being the state of the case, we
shall sketch out, as if by way of illustration and pattern, what may
occur to us with regard to the manner in which holy Scripture is to be
understood on these several points, repeating in the first instance,
and pointing out this fact, that the Holy Spirit, by the providence and
will of God, through the power of His only-begotten Word, who was in
the beginning God with God, enlightened the ministers of truth, the
prophets and apostles, to understand the mysteries of those things or
causes which take place among men, or with respect to men. Quæ inter
homines, vel de hominibus geruntur. Figuraliter
describebant.
Intercapedines. Ut ita celsioris
cujusdam et eminentioris tramitis per angusti callis ingressum immensam
divinæ scientiæ latitudinem pandat.
16. Nor was it only with regard to those
Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the
Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and
proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists
and apostles. For even those narratives which He in Consequenter, alii
“convenienter.” Lignum. [See note, p.
262, supra. See also Dr. Lee, The Inspiration of Holy
Scripture, pp. 523–527. S.]
Inconsequens. Cf. Tragelaphus;
“wild goat,” Auth. Vers. Gryphus;
“ossifrage,” Auth. Vers. Opinatissimâ. Cf. Ulnas.
Secundo vero, quid
obesset, si obscœnitatis vitandæ causa ejus, quæ ex
circumcisione est, posset aliquis revocare præputium?
The object of all these statements on our part, is to
show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow
upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified
by the letter alone, or by everything in it,—a thing which we see
to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only
absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are
to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this
“visible” history, which, when considered and
un
19. Let no one, however, entertain the
suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real,
because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken
place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally,
because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or
possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being
observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were
written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner
palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be
literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we
are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and
ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can
deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave Duplici spelunca. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
In libro Jesu
Naue.
21. This, then, being the state of the case, the
holy apostle desiring to elevate in some degree, and
Ebion, Heb.
ןוֹיבְאֶ,
(from הבָאָ, to
desire), lit. “wishing,” “desiring;”
secondarily, “poor.” Cf.
23. For perhaps as those who, departing this
world in virtue of that death which is common to all, are arranged, in
conformity with their actions and deserts—according as they shall
be deemed worthy—some in the place which is called
“hell,” Infernus. Velut illic, si dici
potest, morientes. A superis. Cf.
Corporaliter.
If now anyone demand of us clear and distinct
declarations on these points out of holy Scripture, we must answer that
it was the design of the Holy Spirit, in those portions which appear to
relate the history of events, rather to cover and conceal the
meaning: in those passages, e.g., where they are said to go down
into Egypt, or to be carried captive to Babylonia, or when in
these very countries some are said to be brought to excessive
humiliation, and to be placed under bondage to their masters; while
others, again, in these very countries of their captivity, were held in
honour and esteem, so as to occupy positions of rank and power, and
were appointed to the government of provinces;—all which
things, as we have said, are kept hidden and covered in the narratives
of holy Scripture, because “the kingdom of heaven is like a
treasure hid in a field; which when a man findeth, he hideth it, and
for joy thereof goeth away and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth
that field.” Ad propinquitatem
pertinent Israel. Ex ipsis Septuaginta
animabus fiunt aliqui.
Translated from the Greek.
Chapter I.—On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, and How the Same is to be Read and Understood, and What is the Reason of the Uncertainty in it; and of the Impossibility or Irrationality of Certain Things in it, Taken According to the Letter.
(The translation from the Greek is designedly literal, that the difference between the original and the paraphrase of Rufinus may be more clearly seen.)
1. Since, in our investigation of matters of
such importance, not satisfied with the common opinions, and with the
clear evidence of visible things, τῇ ἐναργείᾳ
τῶν
βλεπομένων.
2. And if we observe how powerful the word
has become in a very few years, notwithstanding that against those who
acknowledged Christianity conspiracies were formed, and some of them on
its account put to death, and others of them lost their property, and
that, notwithstanding the small number of its teachers, οὐδὲ τῶν
διδασκάλων
πλεοναζόντων. τῇ διὰ
᾽Ιησοῦ
θεοσεβεία. μεῖζον ἤ
κατὰ
ἄνθρωπον το
πρᾶγμα
εἶναι. χρησμούς. Cf. σωτήρια
δόγματα.
3. And what need is there to mention also
that it was predicted of Christ προεφητεύθη
ὁ Χριστός. ἐκ τῶν
μηρῶν. ἐπιδημήσῃ. οὔκ ἔτι
βασιλεῖς
᾽Ιουδαίαν
ἐχρημάτισαν. Cf. Termed by Rufinus
“Patriarch.”
Cf.
5. And what are we to say regarding the
prophecies of Christ in the Psalms, there being a certain ode with the
superscription “For the Beloved,” Cf. ἐτεκε
καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ
ἔσχε, καὶ
ἔτεκεν
υἱόν. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. τὸ μέγα
κῆτος. Cf.
6. And while we thus briefly ὡς ἐν
ἐπιτομ*. διὰ τοῦτο
τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν
ἐθνῶν
ἐκλογῆς
κεκρατηκότα. ἴχνος
ἐνθουσιασμοῦ.
7. It would be tedious now to
enumerate the most ancient prophecies respecting each future
event, in order that the doubter, being impressed by their divinity,
may lay aside all hesitation and distraction, and devote himself with
his whole soul to the words of God. But if in every part of the
Scriptures the superhuman element of thought τὸ ὑπὲρ
ἄνθρωπον τῶν
νοημάτων. ὁ τεχνικὸς
λόγος. Σφόδρα τοῦ
πρὸς τί καὶ
ἕνεκα τίνος
εὑρισκομένου
τοῖς τούτων
ἐπιμελομένοις,
περὶ τὰς
ὁρμὰς, καὶ
τὰς
φαντασίας,
καὶ φύσεις
τῶν ζώων, καὶ
τὰς
κατασκευὰς
τῶν
σωμάτων. χρεοκοπεῖται. ἐν
εὐτελεῖ καὶ
εὐκαταφρονήτῳ
λέξει. καθημαξευμέναι. τῆς
στοιχειώσεως. ἐντυπωθήσεται. χρόνοις
αἰωνίοις.
8. Having spoken thus briefly ὡς ἐν
ἐπιδρομῇ. τὰ ἅγια
ἀναγνώσματα. πῶς δεῖ
ἐφοδεύειν. οἱ ἰδιῶται
τῶν ἐκ τῆς
περιτομῆς. αἰσθητῶς. Cf. Cf. Cf. παρὰ τὸ
δέον. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
9. Now the cause, in all the points
previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious
statements or ignorant assertions ἰδιωτικῶν. ἐπιπνοίας. κανόνος. τύπους
εἶναι τὰ
γεγραμμένα.
10. And what need is there to speak of the
prophecies, which we all know to be filled with enigmas and dark
sayings? And if we come to the Gospels, the exact understanding
of these also, as being the mind of Christ, requires the grace that was
given to him who said, “But we have the mind of Christ, that we
might know the things freely given to us by God. Which things
also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but
which the Spirit teacheth.” Μυρίων ὅσων
κἀκεῖ, ὡς δἰ
ὀπῆς,
μεγίστων καὶ
πλείστων
νοημάτων οὐ
βραχεῖαν
ἀφορμὴν
παρεχόντων. ἀπόῤῥητα. παντελῆ
μυστήρια.
11. The way, then, as it appears to us, in
which we ought to deal with the Scriptures, and extract from them
their meaning, is the following, which has been ascertained
from the Scriptures themselves. By Solomon in the Proverbs we
find some such rule as this enjoined respecting the divine doctrines of
Scripture: The Septuagint:
Καὶ σὺ δὲ
ἀπόγραψαι
αὐτὰ σεαυτῷ
τρισσῶς, εἰς
βσυλὴν καὶ
γνῶσιν ἐπὶ
τὸ πλάτος τῆς
καρδίας σου ·
διδάκω οὖν σε
ἀληθῆ λόγον,
καὶ γνῶσιν
ἀληθῆ
ὑπακούειν,
τοῦ
ἀποκρίνεσθαί
σε λόγους
ἀληθείας
τοῖς
προβαλλομένοις
σοι. The Vulgate reads: Ecce,
descripsi eam tibi tripliciter, in cogitationibus et scientia, ut
ostenderem tibi firmitatem et eloquia veritatis, respondere ex his
illis, qui miserunt te. Cf. note 4,
ut supra. παρανόμῳ
νυμφίῳ. τῶν κάτω
νοημάτων. πεπολιωμένοις.
12. But as there are certain passages of
Scripture which do not at all contain the “corporeal”
sense, as we shall show in the following (paragraphs), there are also
places where we must seek only for the “soul,” as it were,
and “spirit” of Scripture. And perhaps on this
account the water-vessels containing two or three firkins a-piece are
said to lie for the purification of the Jews, as we read in the Gospel
according to John: the expression darkly intimating, with
respect to those who (are called) by the apostle “Jews”
secretly, that they are purified by the word of Scripture, receiving
sometimes two firkins, i.e., so to speak, the “psychical”
and “spiritual” sense; and sometimes three firkins, since
some have, in addition to those already mentioned, also the
“corporeal” sense, which is capable of
(producing) edification. And six water-vessels are
reasonably (appropriate) to those who are purified in the world, which
was made in six days—the perfect number. That the first
“sense,” then, is profitable in this respect, that it is
capable of imparting edification, is testified by the multitudes
of genuine and simple believers; while of that interpretation which is
referred back to the “soul,” there is an illustration in
Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians. The
expression is, “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox
that treadeth out the corn;” Cf. Cf.
13. But the interpretation is
“spiritual,” when one is able to show of what heavenly
things the Jews “according to the flesh” served as an
example and a shadow, and of what future blessings the law contains a
shadow. And, generally, we must investigate, according to
the apostolic promise, “the wisdom in a mystery, the hidden
wisdom which God ordained before the world for the glory”
of the just, which “none of the princes of this world
knew.” Cf. Cf. ἀλληγορούμενα. ὡς
θεῖον
ἄνδρα. τινὰς ἀπὸ
τοῦ θεῖου
γένους, i.e., Israelites.
14. This being the state of the case, we have to
sketch what seem to us to be the marks of the (true) understanding of
Scriptures. And, in the first place, this must be pointed out,
that the object of the Spirit, which by the providence of God, through
the Word who was in the beginning with God, illuminated the
ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles, was especially (the
communication) of ineffable mysteries regarding the affairs of
men (now by men I mean those souls that make use of bodies), in order
that he who is capable of instruction may by investigation, and
by devoting himself to the study of the profundities of meaning
contained in the words, become a participator of all the doctrines of
his counsel. And among those matters which relate to souls (who
cannot otherwise obtain perfection apart from the rich and wise truth
of God), the (doctrines) belonging to God and His only-begotten Son are
necessarily laid down as primary, viz., of what nature He is, and in
what manner He is the Son of God, and what are the causes of His
περὶ τῶν
αἰσθητῶν
δημιουργημάτων.
γλαφυρόν. αὐτόθεν. ὑπὸ τῆς
λέξεως
ἑλκόμενοι τὸ
ἀγωγὸν
ἄκρατον
ἐχούσης. ἐν τῇ
διηγήσει τῆς
περὶ τῶν
νοητῶν
ἀκολουθίας. κατὰ τὸ
σῶμα.
16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures
composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but
as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the
same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles Οὐδὲ τούτων
πάντη
ἄκρατον τὴν
ἱστορίαν τῶν
προσυφασμένων
κατὰ τὸ
σωματικὸν
ἐχόντων, μὴ
γεγενημένων
· οὐδὲ τὴν
νομοθεσίαν
καὶ τὰς
ἐντολὰς
πάντως τὸ
εὔλογον
ἐμφαίνοντα
. One ms. reads γεγενημένην,
referring to ἱστορίαν, on which one
editor remarks, “Hic et in sequentibus imploro fidem
codicum!” διὰ
δοκούσης
ιστορίας καὶ
οὐ σωματικῶς
γεγενημένης. κατὰ την
λέξιν.
17. And if we come to the legislation of
Moses, many of the laws manifest the irrationality, and others the
impossibility, of their literal ὅσον
ἐπὶ τῷ καθ᾽
ἑαυτοὺς
τηρεῖσθαι. ψυχρὰς
παραδόσεις. τόπον
ἑκάστῳ εἶναι
δισχιλίους
πήχεις. Εἰς
ἀπεραντολογίαν
ἐληλύθασι.
18. And if we go to the Gospel and institute
a similar examination, what would be more irrational than (to take
literally the injunction), “Salute no man by the
way,” εἰ μὴ ἄρα
πεπονθώς τι
παρὰ φύσιν
τυγχάνοι. εἰκῆ.
All these statements have been made by us, in
order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the
sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by
the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal
acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things
have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation
that are useful in their literal sense. καὶ τῇ κατὰ
τὸ ῥητὸν
χρησίμων
νομοθεσίᾳ.
γέγονεν. κατὰ τὸ
αἰσθητόν. Cf. Cf. χωρις πάσης
ἀναγωγῆς. Cf. [ Εἰ και παρὰ
τοῖς
φιλοτιμοτέροις
δύναται
σώζειν
ἕκαστον
αὐτῶν, μετὰ
τοῦ μὴ
ἀθετεῖσθαι
τὴν κατὰ τὸ
ῥητὸν
ἑντολην, βάθη
Θεοῦ
σοφίας. περιελκυσθήσεται.
20. Since, therefore, as will be clear to
those who read, the connection taken literally is impossible, while the
sense preferred ὁπροηγούμενος. ῞Ολον τὸν νοῦν
φιλοτιμητέον
καταλαμβάνειν,
συνείροντα
τὸν περὶ τῶν
κατὰ τὴν
λέξιν
ἀδυνάτων
λόγον νοητῶς
τοῖς οὐ μόνον
οὐκ
ἀδυνάτοις,
ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἀληθέσι κατὰ
τὴν ἱστορίαν,
συναλληγορουμένοις
τοῖς ὅσον
ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει,
μὴ
γεγενημένοις. ἐν
᾽Ιησοῦ τῷ
τοῦ Ναυῆ.
21. Such, then, being the state of the case, the
apostle, elevating our power of Πᾶσα γὰρ
ἀρχὴ πατριῶν
τῶν ὡς πρὸς
τὸν τῶν ὅλων
Θεὸν,
κατωτέρω ἀπὸ
τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἤρξατο τοῦ
μετὰ τὸν τῶν
ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ
πατέρα.
22. Now, if the statements made to us
regarding Israel, and its tribes and its families, are calculated
to impress us, when the Saviour says, “I was not sent but to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel,” ἐν
ψυχῶν
γένει.
23. And perhaps as those here, dying
according to the death common to all, are, in consequence of the deeds
done here, so arranged as to obtain different places according to the
proportion of their sins, if they should be deemed worthy of the place
called Hades; τοῦ
καλουμένου
χωρίου
ᾅδου. καὶ παρὰ
τοισδε, ἤ
τοῖσδε τοῖς
πατράσι. Cf.
24. This descent of the holy fathers into
Egypt will appear as granted to this world by the providence of God for
the illumination of others, and for the instruction of the human race,
that so by this means the souls of others might be assisted in the work
of enlightenment. For to them was first granted the privilege of
converse with God, because theirs is the only race which is said to see
God; this being the meaning, by interpretation, of the word
“Israel.” Cf. Extrinsecus. Hostes
inimicosque. Ne illud quidem
sacramento aliquo vacuum puto. Quem primum omnium
Israelitici belli dextra defenderat. Rigare et inundare
animas sitientes, et sensus adjacentes sibi. Formam.
25. We have to see, however, whether this
deeper meaning may not perhaps be indicated, viz., that as in
Deuteronomy the legislation is made known with greater clearness and
distinctness than in those books which were first written, so also by
that advent of the Saviour which He accomplished in His state of
humiliation, when He assumed the form of a servant, that more
celebrated and renowned second advent in the glory of His Father may
not be pointed out, and in it the types of Deuteronomy may be
fulfilled, when in the kingdom of heaven all the saints shall live
according to the laws of the everlasting Gospel; and as in His coming
now He fulfilled that law which has a shadow of good things to come, so
also by that (future) glorious advent will be fulfilled and brought to
perfection the shadows of the present advent. For thus spake the
prophet regarding it: “The breath of our countenance,
Christ the Lord, to whom we said, that under Thy shadow we shall live
among the nations;” Cf.
26. But let it be sufficient for us in all
these matters to adapt our understanding to the rule of religion, and
so to think of the words of the Holy Spirit as not to deem the language
the ornate composition of feeble human eloquence, but to hold,
according to the scriptural statement, that “all the glory of the
King is within,” Omnis gloria regis
intrinsecus est. Heb., Sept., and Vulgate all read,
“daughter of the king.” Probably the omission of
“filiæ” in the text may be due to an error of the
copyists. [Cf. [ Cf. Cf.
27. Let every one, then, who cares for truth, be little concerned about words and language, seeing that in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech; but let him rather direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words, than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning, especially in matters of such importance and difficulty: as, e.g., when it is an object of investigation whether there is any “substance” in which neither colour, nor form, nor touch, nor magnitude is to be understood as existing visible to the mind alone, which any one names as he pleases; for the Greeks call such ἀσώματον, i.e., “incorporeal,” while holy Scripture declares it to be “invisible,” for Paul calls Christ the “image of the invisible God,” and says again, that by Christ were created all things “visible and invisible.” And by this it is declared that there are, among created things, certain “substances” that are, according to their peculiar nature, invisible. But although these are not themselves “corporeal,” they nevertheless make use of bodies, while they are themselves better than any bodily substances. But that “substance” of the Trinity which is the beginning and cause of all things, “from which are all things, and through which are all things, and in which are all things,” cannot be believed to be either a body or in a body, but is altogether incorporeal. And now let it suffice to have spoken briefly on these points (although in a digression, caused by the nature of the subject), in order to show that there are certain things, the meaning of which cannot be unfolded at all by any words of human language, but which are made known more through simple apprehension than by any properties of words. And under this rule must be brought also the understanding of the sacred Scripture, in order that its statements may be judged not according to the worthlessness of the letter, but according to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration they were caused to be written.
Summary (of Doctrine) Regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Other Topics Discussed in the Preceding Pages.
28. It is now time, after the rapid consideration which to the best of our ability we have given to the topics discussed, to recapitulate, by way of summing up what we have said in different places, the individual points, and first of all to restate our conclusions regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable
from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by
“prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a
“prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation”
being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men
usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and
He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do
not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of
God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the
Father out of things non-existent, Ex nullis
substantibus. Cf. Cf. Quæ quidem
quamvis intellectu multa esse dicantur. Quæ sunt extra
Trinitatem.
29. Now, if any one were to say that,
through those who are partakers of the “Word” of God, or of
His “Wisdom,” or His “Truth,” or His
“Life,” the Word and Wisdom itself appeared to be contained
in a place, we should have to say to him in answer, that there is no
doubt that Christ, in respect of being the “Word” or
“Wisdom,” or all other things, was in Paul, and that he
therefore said, “Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in
me?” Cf. Quam in aliis sanctis
viris. “Aliis” is found in the mss., but is wanting in many editions. Cf. Unde constat in
singulis quibusque tantum effici Christum, quantum ratio indulserit
meritorum.
30. Having, then, briefly restated these
points regarding the nature of the Trinity, it follows that we notice
shortly this statement also, that “by the Son” are said to
be created “all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and
for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is
the Head.” Cf.
After these points we shall appropriately remind (the
reader) of the bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son
of God, with respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty
of His divinity is confined within the limits of His slender body, so
that all the “word” of God, and His “wisdom,”
and “essential truth,” and “life,” was either
rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within the
narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered to have
operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a
religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to
be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that
any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is
everywhere. For some such meaning seems to be indicated
Cf.
31. Let no one, however, suppose that by
this we affirm that some portion of the divinity of the Son of God was
in Christ, and that the remaining portion was elsewhere or everywhere,
which may be the opinion of those who are ignorant of the nature of an
incorporeal and invisible essence. For it is impossible to speak
of the parts of an incorporeal being, or to make any division of them;
but He is in all things, and through all things, and above all things,
in the manner in which we have spoken above, i.e., in the manner in
which He is understood to be either “wisdom,” or the
“word,” or the “life,” or the
“truth,” by which method of understanding all confinement
of a local kind is undoubtedly excluded. The Son of God, then,
desiring for the salvation of the human race to appear unto men, and to
sojourn among them, assumed not only a human body, as some suppose, but
also a soul resembling our souls indeed in nature, but in will and
power Proposito vero et
virtute similem sibi. Animam. Cf. Cf. Substantialiter. Cf.
This “word,” then, and this
“wisdom,” by the imitation of which we are said to be
either wise or rational (beings), becomes “all things to all men,
that it may gain all;” and because it is made weak, it is
therefore said of it, “Though He was crucified through weakness,
yet He liveth by the power of God.”
32. Some, indeed, would have the following
language of the apostle applied to the soul itself, as soon as it had
assumed flesh from Mary, De Maria corpus
assumsit. Semet ipsum
exinanivit.
As now by participation in the Son of God one is
adopted as a son, In filium
adoptatur.
Respecting also the plan of this visible
world—seeing one of the most important questions usually raised
is as to the manner of its existence—we have spoken to the best
of our ability in the preceding pages, for the sake of those who are
accustomed to seek the grounds of their belief in our religion, and
also for those who stir against us heretical questions, and who are
accustomed to bandy about Ventilare.
33. And, in the first place, it is to be
noted that we have nowhere found in the canonical Scriptures, In Scripturis
canonicis. [Elucidation VI]. Initia corporum.
34. Nevertheless we must not forget that a
substance never exists without a quality, and that it is by an act of
the understanding alone that this (substance) which underlies bodies,
and which is capable of quality, is discovered to be matter. Some
indeed, in their desire to investigate these subjects more profoundly,
have ventured to assert that bodily nature Naturam corpoream. Nec tamen sensus
noster manifeste de eo aliquid horum definit, sed ita eum per hæc
intelligimus, vel consideramus, ut non omnino rationem status ejus
comprehendamus, vel in eo, quod vigilat, vel in eo, quod dormit, aut in
quo loquitur, vel tacet, et si qua alia sunt, quæ accidere necesse
est hominibus. Tunc simulatâ
quodammodo cogitatione.
35. But some one will perhaps inquire
whether we can obtain out of Scripture any grounds for such an
understanding of the subject. Now I think some such view is
indicated in the Psalms, when the prophet says, “Mine eyes have
seen thine imperfection;” Ambulavi usque ad
imperfectum; cf. Universas materias
perspexi; cf.
36. It will not, I consider, be opposed to the
nature of our undertaking, if we restate with all possible brevity our
opinions on the immortality Alioquin. Substantialem
interitum.
37. If any one, indeed, venture to ascribe
essential corruption to Him who was made after the image and likeness
of God, then, in my opinion, this impious charge extends even to the
Son of God Himself, for He is called in Scripture the image of
God. Cf. Nihil eum rerum
intellectualium ex se lateat. Cf.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Teaching of the Church, p. 240.)
It is noteworthy how frequently our author employs this expression in this immediate connection. Concerning the punishment of the wicked he asserts a “clearly defined teaching.” He shows what the Church’s teaching “has laid down” touching demons and angels. Touching the origin of the world, he again asserts the Church’s teaching, and then concedes, that, over and above what he maintains, there is “no clear statement regarding it,”—i.e., the creation and its antecedents. Elsewhere he speaks of “the faith of the Church,” and all this as something accepted by all Christians recognised as orthodox or Catholics.
Not to recur to the subject of the creeds On which consult
Dupin, and, for another view, Bunsen’s Hippolytus.
See also p. 383, infra.
1. Was Origen here speaking of the catechetical school of Alexandria, and assuming its teaching to be that of the whole Church?
2. If so, was not this recognition of the Alexandrian leadership the precursor of that terrible shock which was given to Christendom by the rise of Arianism out of such a stronghold of orthodoxy?
3. Does not the power of Athanasius to stand “against the world” assure us that he was strong in the position that “the teaching of the Church,” in Alexandria and elsewhere, was against Arias, whom he was able to defeat by prescription as well as by Scripture?
4. Is it not clear that all this was asserted, held, and defined without help from the West, and that the West merely responded Amen to what Alexandria had taught from the beginning?
5. Is not the evidence overwhelming, that nothing but passive testimony was thus far heard of in connection with the see of Rome?
6. If the “teaching of the Church,” then, was so far independent of that see that Christendom neither waited for its voice, nor recognised it as of any exceptional importance in the definition of the faith and the elimination of heresy, is it not evident that the entire fabric of the Middle-Age polity in the West has its origin in times and manners widely differing from the Apostolic Age and that of the Ante-Nicene Fathers?
II.
(Subjection, p. 343.)
The subordination of the Son, as held by
all Nicene Christians, is defended by Bull Vol. v. p. 134, and
passim to 745; also vi. 368. Vol. ii. p. 438.
(Proceedeth from the Father, p. 344.)
The double procession is no part of the Creed of Christendom; nor did it become fixed in the West, till, by the influence of Charlemagne, the important but not immaculate Council of Frankfort (a.d. 794) completed the work of Toledo, and committed the whole West to its support. The Anglican Church recites the Filioque liturgically, but explains its adhesion to this formula in a manner satisfactory to the Easterns. It has no rightful place in the Creed, however; and its retention in the Nicene Symbol is a just offence, not only to the Greeks, but against the great canon, Quod semper, etc.
Compare Pearson on the Creed, pp. 521–526. Tractatus de
Processione Spiritus Sancti, Gothæ, a.d. 1772. Christendom’s
Divisions, London, 1865.
IV.
(The faith of the Church, p. 347.)
Before the Nicene Council local creeds were in
use, all agreeing substantially; all scriptural, but some more full
than others. Of these the ancient Symbol of Jerusalem was chief,
and this forms the base of the Nicene Creed. It is here
noteworthy that Origen speaks of “the faith” as something
settled and known: clearly, he did not intentionally transgress
it. Bull says, Vol. vi. p. 132,
133. Theodoret, book v.
cap. ix.
V.
(Endowed with freedom of will, p. 347.)
Elsewhere in this treatise our author defines the
will as “able to resist external causes.” The
profound work of Edwards needs no words of mine. Ed. Converse, New
York, 1829. A Review of
Edward’s Inquiry, by Henry Philip Tappan, New York, 1839.
On allied subjects, let me refer to Wiggers’s
Augustinismus, etc., translated by Professor Emerson of
Andover; New York, 1840. New York, 1854.
See vol. ii. p. 522, this series.
(Not esteemed authoritative by all, p. 379.)
Not by Jerome, nor Rufinus, nor Chrysostom. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, is also shown by Lardner (Credib., v. 127) to have quoted “the wisdom of Solomon” only as the sayings of a wise man; not at all as Scripture. The Easterns are equally represented by John Damascene (a.d. 730), who says of this book that it is one of those “excellent and useful” books which are not reckoned with the hagiographa. But Methodius is an exception; for he quotes this book twice (says Lardner) as if it were Scripture, and certainly cites it not infrequently. Yet his testimony does not amount, perhaps, to more than an acceptance of the same as only deutero-canonical; i.e., as one of the books read in the Church for instruction, but not appealed to as establishing any doctrine otherwise unknown to the Church. We may examine this subject when we come to Methodius, in vol. vi. of this series.
————————————
Note.
This is a convenient place for the following tables, compiled from Eusebius as far as his history goes; i.e. a.d. 305. See also Dr. Robinson’s Researches.
I. The See of Jerusalem.
1. James, the Lord’s brother.
2. Simeon.
3. Justus.
4. Zacchæus.
5. Tobias.
6. Benjamin.
7. John.
8. Matthew.
9. Philip.
10. Seneca.
11. Justus.
12. Levi.
13. Ephres.
14. Joseph.
15. Judah.
16. Marcus.
17. Cassian.
18. Publius.
19. Maximus.
20. Julian.
21. Caius.
22. Symmachus.
23. Caius II.
24. Julian II.
25. Capito.
26. Maximus II.
27. Antoninus.
28. Valens.
29. Dolichianus.
30. Narcissus.
31. Dius.
32. Germanio.
33. Gordius.
34. Narcissus II.
35. Alexander.
36. Mazabanes.
37. Hymenæus.
38. Zabdas.
39. Hermon, a.d. 300.
II. The See of Alexandria.
1. Annianus.
2. Avilius.
3. Cerdon.
4. Primus.
5. Justus.
6. Eumenes.
7. Marcus.
8. Celadion.
9. Aggripinus.
10. Julianus.
11. Demetrius.
12. Heraclas.
13. Dionysius.
14. Maximus.
15. Theonas.
16. Peter.
17. Achillas.
18. Alexander, Alexander, dying just
after the Nicene Council, was succeeded by the great Athanasius.
About the History of Susanna.
————————————
Greeting, my lord and son,
most worthy Origen, from Africanus. [See Routh’s
Reliquiæ, vol. ii. p. 115; also Euseb., i. 7, and Socrates,
ii. 35. He ranks with the great pupils of the Alexandrian school,
with which, however, he seems to have had only a slight personal
relation. Concerning this Epistle to Origen, and the answer of
the latter, consult Routh’s very full annotations (ut
supra, pp. 312–328). Concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus,
the greatest of Origen’s pupils, we shall know more when we come
to vol. vi. of this series. He died circa 270.]
2. Moreover, how is it that they who were
captives among the Chaldæans, lost and won at play, Nolte would change
ἠστραγαλωμένοι
(or ἀστραγαλώμενοι,
as Wetsten. has it), which is a ἅπαξ
εἰρημένον, into
στραγγαλώμενοι
or ἐστραγγαλωμένοι,
“strangled.” He compares
————————————
Origen to Africanus, a
beloved brother in God the Father, through Jesus Christ, His holy
Child, greeting. Your letter, from which I learn what you think
of the Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which is used in the Churches,
although apparently somewhat short, presents in its few words many
problems, each of which demands no common treatment, but such as
oversteps the character of a letter, and reaches the limits of a
discourse. [See Dr.
Pusey’s Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, lect. vi. p. 326,
327; also The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, by Rev. R.
W. Churton, B.D. (1884), pp. 389–404. S.]
2. You begin by saying, that when, in my
discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains
the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I
did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was
spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly
written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a
forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something
which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns
between prinos and prisein, schinos and
schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in
this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell
you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of
Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy
which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other
passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of
Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of
Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many
places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies
with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word
“bound” followed in our versions by very many verses which
are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies
which circulate in the Churches) thus: “Ananias, and
Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God,” down to “O,
all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise
Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it
came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they
were alive.” Or, as in another copy, from “And they
walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the
Lord,” down to “O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye
the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to
all generations.” “
3. And in many other of the sacred books I found
sometimes more in our copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less.
I shall adduce a few examples, since it is impossible to give them
all. Of the Book of Esther neither the prayer of Mardochaios nor
that of Esther, both fitted to This should
probably be corrected, with Pat. Jun., into, “Nor are the
letters, neither,” etc.
4. Again, through the whole of Job there are
many passages in the Hebrew which are wanting in our copies, generally
four or five verses, but sometimes, however, even fourteen, and
nineteen, and sixteen. But why should I enumerate all the
instances I collected with so much labour, to prove that the difference
between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me? In
Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed in that book I found much
transposition and variation in the readings of the prophecies.
Again, in Genesis, the words, “God saw that it was good,”
when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is
no small dispute among them about this; and other instances are to be
found in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with the
sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand I marked with an
asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the
Hebrew. What needs there to speak of Exodus, where there is such
diversity in what is said about the tabernacle and its court, and the
ark, and the garments of the high priest and the priests, that
sometimes the meaning even does not seem to be akin? And,
forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as
spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood
to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews,
and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and
free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which
in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the
Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for
whom Christ died;
5. In all these cases consider whether it
would not be well to remember the words, “Thou shalt not remove
the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.” Origen’s most
important contribution to biblical literature was his elaborate attempt
to rectify the text of the Septuagint by collating it with the Hebrew
original and other Greek versions. On this he spent twenty-eight
years, during which he travelled through the East collecting
materials. The form in which he first issued the result of his
labours was that of the Tetrapla, which presented in four
columns the texts of the LXX., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
He next issued the Hexapla, in which the Hebrew text was given,
first in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. Of some books he gave
two additional Greek versions, whence the title Octapla; and
there was even a seventh Greek version added for some books.
Unhappily this great work, which extended to nearly fifty volumes, was
never transcribed, and so perished (Kitto, Cycl.).
6. Let us now look at the things you find fault
with in the story itself. And here let us begin with what would
probably make any one averse to receiving the history: I mean the
play of
7. Moreover, I remember hearing from a
learned Hebrew, said among themselves to be the son of a wise man, and
to have been specially trained to succeed his father, with whom I had
intercourse on many subjects, the names of these elders, just as if he
did not reject the History of Susanna, as they occur in Jeremias as
follows: “The Lord make thee like
Zedekias and Achiab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire, for
the iniquity they did in Israel.”
8. And I knew another Hebrew, who told about
these elders such traditions as the following: that they
pretended to the Jews in captivity, who were hoping by the coming of
Christ to be freed from the yoke of their enemies, that they could
explain clearly the things concerning Christ,…and that they so
deceived the wives of their countrymen. Et utrumque sigillatim
in quamcunque mulierem incidebat, et cui vitium afferre cupiebat, ei
secreto affirmasse sibi a Deo datum e suo semine progignere
Christum. Hinc spe gignendi Christum decepta mulier, sui copiam
decipienti faciebat, et sic civium uxores stuprabant seniores Achiab et
Sedekias.
9. But probably to this you will say, Why
then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say,
their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer
is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the
passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and
judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical
writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about
Esaias; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in
none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says,
“They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with
the sword.”
However, some one hard pressed by this argument
may have recourse to the opinion of those who reject this Epistle as
not being Paul’s; against whom I must at some other time use
other arguments to prove that it is Paul’s. [See note
supra, p. 239. S.]
Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced
to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them,
none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be
found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish
the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers
committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had
been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with
them in the blood of the prophets.”
In the Acts of the Apostles also, Stephen, in his
other testimony, says, “Which of the prophets have not your
fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before
of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers
and murderers.”
10. Your next objection is, that in this
writing Daniel is said to have been seized by the Spirit, and to have
cried out that the sentence was unjust; while in that writing of his
which is universally received he is represented as prophesying in quite
another manner, by visions and dreams, and an angel appearing to him,
but never by prophetic inspiration. You seem to me to pay too
little heed to the words, “At sundry times, and in divers
manners, God spake in time past unto the fathers by the
prophets.”
And as to an appearance (which is better than a
dream), he speaks as follows about himself: “And Jacob was
left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the
day. And he saw that he prevailed not against him, and he touched
the breadth of his thigh; and the breadth of Jacob’s thigh grew
stiff while he was wrestling with him. And he said to him, Let me
go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go,
except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy
name? And he said, Jacob. And he said to him, Thy name
shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: for
thou hast prevailed with God, and art powerful with men. And
Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me thy name. And he said,
Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed
him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Vision of
God: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved. And the sun rose, when the vision of God passed
by.”
11. Your other objections are stated, as it appears to me, somewhat irreverently, and without the becoming spirit of piety. I cannot do better than quote your very words: “Then, after crying out in this extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less incredible, which not even Philistion the play-writer would have resorted to. For, not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit, he placed them apart, and asked them severally where they saw her committing adultery; and when the one said, ‘Under a holm-tree’ (prinos) he answered that the angel would saw him asunder (prisein); and in a similar fashion threatened the other, who said, ‘Under a mastich-tree’ (schinos), with being rent asunder.”
You might as reasonably compare to Philistion the play-writer, a story somewhat like this one, which is found in the third book of Kings, which you yourself will admit to be well written. Here is what we read in Kings:—
“Then there appeared two women that were
harlots before the king, and stood before him. And the one woman
said, To me, my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and we were
delivered in the house. And it came to pass, the third day after
that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we
were together; there is no one in our house except us two. And
this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid
it. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from my
arms. And thine handmaid slept. And she laid it in her
bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. And I arose in the
morning to give my child suck, and he was dead; but when I had
considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son which I did
bear. And the other woman said, Nay; the dead is thy son, but the
living is my son. And the other said, No; the living is my son,
but the dead is thy son. Thus they spake before the king.
Then said the king, Thou sayest, This is my son that liveth, and thy
son is the dead: and thou sayest, Nay; but thy son is the dead,
and my son is the living. And the king said, Bring me a
sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the
king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one,
and half to the other. Then spake the woman whose the living
child was unto the king (for her bowels yearned after her son), and she
said, To me, my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay
it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but
divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give the child to her
which said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it:
for she is the mother of it. And all Israel heard of the judgment
which the king had judged; and they feared the face of the king:
for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do
judgment.”
For if we were at liberty to speak in this scoffing way
of the Scriptures in use in the Churches, we should rather compare this
story of the two harlots to the play of Philistion than that of the
chaste Susanna. And just as the people would
12. I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I
have to make about the prino-prisein
and schino-schisein difficulty; that
is, that in our Scriptures there are many etymological fancies, so to
call them, which in the Hebrew are perfectly suitable, but not in the
Greek. It need not surprise us, then, if the translators of the
History of Susanna contrived it so that they found out some Greek
words, derived from the same root, which either corresponded exactly to
the Hebrew form (though this I hardly think possible), or presented
some analogy to it. Here is an instance of this in our
Scripture. When the woman was made by God from the rib of the
man, Adam says, “She shall be called woman, because she was taken
out of her husband.” Now the Jews say that the woman was
called “Essa,” and that “taken” is a
translation of this word as is evident from “chos isouoth
essa,” which means, “I have taken the cup of
salvation;”
13. You raise another objection, which I give in your own words: “Moreover, how is it that they, who were captives among the Chaldeans, lost and won at play, thrown out unburied on the streets, as was prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied; how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner of his throne? Then, if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden?”
Where you get your “lost and won at play,
and thrown out unburied on the streets,” I know not, unless it is
from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews
do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I
learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use
Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives
were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, “Because I
remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and
beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went
into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at
Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver.”
And another captive, Dachiacharus, the son of
Ananiel, the brother of Tobias, was set over all the exchequer of the
kingdom of king Acherdon; and we read, “Now Achiacharus was
cup-bearer and keeper of the signet, and steward and overseer of the
accounts.”
Mardochaios, too, frequented the court of the king, and had such boldness before him, that he was inscribed among the benefactors of Artaxerxes.
Again we read in Esdras, that Neemias, a cup-bearer and
eunuch of the king, of Hebrew race, made a request about the rebuilding
of the temple, and obtained it; so that it was granted to
14. But you say, “How could they who were in captivity pass sentence of death?” asserting, I know not on what grounds, that Susanna was the wife of a king, because of the name Joakim. The answer is, that it is no uncommon thing, when great nations become subject, that the king should allow the captives to use their own laws and courts of justice. Now, for instance, that the Romans rule, and the Jews pay the half-shekel to them, how great power by the concession of Cæsar the ethnarch has; so that we, who have had experience of it, know that he differs in little from a true king! Private trials are held according to the law, and some are condemned to death. And though there is not full licence for this, still it is not done without the knowledge of the ruler, as we learned and were convinced of when we spent much time in the country of that people. And yet the Romans only take account of two tribes, while at that time besides Judah there were the ten tribes of Israel. Probably the Assyrians contented themselves with holding them in subjection, and conceded to them their own judicial processes.
15. I find in your letter yet another
objection in these words: “And add, that among all the many
prophets who had been before, there is no one who has quoted from
another word for word. For they had no need to go a-begging for
words, since their own were true. But this one, in rebuking one
of these men, quotes the words of the Lord, ‘The innocent and
righteous shalt thou not slay.’” I cannot understand
how, with all your exercise in investigating and meditating on the
Scriptures, you have not noticed that the prophets continually quote
each other almost word for word. For who of all believers does
not know the words in Esaias? “And in the last days the
mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, and the
house of the Lord on the top of the mountains,
and it shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall come
unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go
up to the mountain of the Lord, unto the house
of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us His way, and we will walk in
it: for out of Zion shall go forth a law, and a word of the
Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge
among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat
their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation;
neither shall they learn war any more.”
But in Micah we find a parallel passage, which is
almost word for word: “And in the last days the mountain of
the Lord shall be manifest, established on the
top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and
people shall hasten unto it. And many nations shall come, and
say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and they will teach
us His way, and we will walk in His paths: for a law shall go
forth from Zion, and a word of the Lord from
Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke
strong nations; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and
their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
Again, in First Chronicles, the psalm which is put
in the hands of Asaph and his brethren to praise the Lord, beginning,
“Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His
name,” In Levit.
passim;
Your last objection is, that the style is different. This I cannot see.
This, then, is my defence. I might, especially after all these accusations, speak in praise of this history of Susanna, dwelling on it word by word, and expounding the exquisite nature of the thoughts. Such an encomium, perhaps, some of the learned and able students of divine things may at some other time compose. This, however, is my answer to your strokes, as you call them. Would that I could instruct you! But I do not now arrogate that to myself. My lord and dear brother Ambrosius, who has written this at my dictation, and has, in looking over it, corrected as he pleased, salutes you. His faithful spouse, Marcella, and her children, also salute you. Also Anicetus. Do you salute our dear father Apollinarius, and all our friends.
This Gregory, styled
the Wonder-worker, (Thaumaturgus) was afterwards bishop of
Neo-Cæsarea.
————————————
1. Greeting in God, my most excellent sir, and venerable son Gregory, from Origen. A natural readiness of comprehension, as you well know, may, if practice be added, contribute somewhat to the contingent end, if I may so call it, of that which any one wishes to practise. Thus, your natural good parts might make of you a finished Roman lawyer or a Greek philosopher, so to speak, of one of the schools in high reputation. But I am anxious that you should devote all the strength of your natural good parts to Christianity for your end; and in order to this, I wish to ask you to extract from the philosophy of the Greeks what may serve as a course of study or a preparation for Christianity, and from geometry and astronomy what will serve to explain the sacred Scriptures, in order that all that the sons of the philosophers are wont to say about geometry and music, grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy, as fellow-helpers to philosophy, we may say about philosophy itself, in relation to Christianity.
2. Perhaps something of this kind is
shadowed forth in what is written in Exodus from the mouth of God, that
the children of Israel were commanded to ask from their neighbours, and
those who dwelt with them, vessels of silver and gold, and raiment, in
order that, by spoiling the Egyptians, they might have material for the
preparation of the things which pertained to the service of God.
For from the things which the children of Israel took from the
Egyptians the vessels in the holy of holies were made,—the ark
with its lid, and the Cherubim, and the mercy-seat, and the golden
coffer, where was the manna, the angels’ bread. These
things were probably made from the best of the Egyptian gold. An
inferior kind would be used for the solid golden candlestick near the
inner veil, and its branches, and the golden table on which were the
pieces of shewbread, and the golden censer between them. And if
there was a third and fourth quality of gold, from it would be made the
holy vessels; and the other things would be made of Egyptian
silver. For when the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt, they
gained this from their dwelling there, that they had no lack of such
precious material for the utensils of the service of God. And of
the Egyptian raiment were probably made all those things which, as the
Scripture mentions, needed sewed and embroidered work, sewed with the
wisdom of God, the one to the other, that the veils might be made, and
the inner and the outer courts. And why should I go on, in this
untimely digression, to set forth how useful to the children of Israel
were the things brought from Egypt, which the Egyptians had not put to
a proper use, but which the Hebrews, guided by the wisdom of God, used
for God’s service? Now the sacred Scripture is wont to
represent as an evil the going down from the land of the children of
Israel into Egypt, indicating that certain persons get harm from
sojourning among the Egyptians, that is to say, from meddling with the
knowledge of this world, after they have subscribed to the law of God,
and the Israelitish service of Him. Ader Origen evidently
confounds Hadad the Edomite, of [
3. Do you then, my son, diligently apply
yourself to the reading of the sacred Scriptures. Apply yourself,
I say. For we who read the things of God need much application,
lest we should say or think anything too rashly about them. And
applying yourself thus to the study of the things of God, with faithful
prejudgments such as are well pleasing to God, knock at its locked
door, and it will be opened to you by the porter, of whom Jesus says,
“To him the porter opens.”
Elucidation.
————————————
This golden letter, doubtless genuine, was attended with very great consequences, of which we shall gather more hereafter. It is worthy of the solemn consideration of young students to whom this page may come. Gregory was unbaptized when Origen (circa a.d. 230) thus addressed his conscience.
On the letters here inserted, let me refer the student to Routh, Reliqu., ii. pp. 312–327; also same vol., pp. 222–228; also iii. 254–256.
For the facts concerning this letter to Gregory, see Cave, i. p. 400.
————————————
Book I.
Preface.
1. When false
witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He
remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought against Him,
He returned no answer, believing that His whole life and conduct among
the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the false
testimony, or than any formal defence against the accusations.
And I know not, my pious Ambrosius, This individual
is mentioned by Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., vi. c. 18) as having
been converted from the heresy of Valentinus to the faith of the Church
by the efforts of Origen. [Lardner (Credib., vii.
210–212) is inclined to “place” Celsus in the year
176. Here and elsewhere this learned authority is diffuse on the
subject, and merits careful attention.] Cf. Cf.
2. It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men
even of ordinary intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by
false testimony, but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that
He was guilty of none of the charges (alleged), and who might have
enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles
wrought by divine power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of
delivering a more honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have
done this, but should have disdained such a procedure, and in the
nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers. Μεγαλοφυῶς
ὑπερεωρακέναι
τοὺς
κατηγόρους. Cf. Cf.
3. I venture, then, to say that this
“apology” which you require me to compose will somewhat
weaken that defence (of Christianity) which rests on facts, and that
power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid
of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may
4. Now, truly, it is proper that we
should feel elated because afflictions, or those other causes
enumerated by Paul, do not separate us (from Christ); but not that Paul
and the other apostles, and any other resembling them, (should
entertain that feeling), because they were far exalted above such
things when they said, “In all these things we are more
than conquerors through Him that loved us,” ἤ τινος
πιθανότητος
λόγου.
5. Paul, indeed, observing that there are in
Greek philosophy certain things not to be lightly esteemed, which are
plausible in the eyes of the many, but which represent falsehood as
truth, says with regard to such: “Beware lest any man spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Cf. Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ
τὸ τυχὸν τῶν
ψευδομένων
ἐν
γεωμετρικοῖς
θεωρήμασι
ψευδογραφούμενόν
τις ἂν λέγοι,
ἢ καὶ
ἀναγράφοι
γυμνασίου
ἕνεκεν τοῦ
ἀπὸ
τοιούτων. Cf. note of Ruæus in loc.
σωματοποιῆσαι.
Chapter I.
The first point which Celsus brings forward, in
his desire to throw discredit upon Christianity, is, that the
Christians entered into secret associations with each other contrary to
law, saying, that “of associations some are public, and that
these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and
maintained in violation of the laws.” And his wish is to
bring into disrepute what are termed the
“love-feasts” τὴν
καλουμένην
ἀγάπην. ἀθέσμους. παρανομίαν.
Chapter II.
Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of
doctrine, viz., Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous
in its origin. And with an appearance of fairness, he does not
reproach Christianity τῷ λόγῳ.
Chapter III.
After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do this to some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers. But our answer to this is, that in the case of Socrates the Athenians immediately afterwards repented; and no feeling of bitterness remained in their minds regarding him, as also happened in the history of Pythagoras. The followers of the latter, indeed, for a considerable time established their schools in that part of Italy called Magna Græcia; but in the case of the Christians, the Roman Senate, and the princes of the time, and the soldiery, and the people, and the relatives of those who had become converts to the faith, made war upon their doctrine, and would have prevented (its progress), overcoming it by a confederacy of so powerful a nature, had it not, by the help of God, escaped the danger, and risen above it, so as (finally) to defeat the whole world in its conspiracy against it.
Chapter IV.
Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit
upon our system of morals, τὸν ἠθικὸν
τόπον. τὸ βούλημα
τοῦ νόμου. ὁ λόγος.
Chapter V.
Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this effect: “That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with houses.” Respecting this, then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: “And there will be no need to build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men.” It is evident, then, with respect to this opinion (as well as others), that there has been engraven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a sense of the duty that is required.
Chapter VI.
After this, through the influence of some motive which
is unknown to me, Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain
demons, and by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to
be possessed of (miraculous) power; hinting, I suppose, at the
practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantations. And
here he manifestly appears to malign the Gospel. For it is not by
incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but
by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives
which relate to Him; for the repetition of these has frequently been
the means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who
repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit.
Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits,
that there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was
pronounced even by bad men, which Jesus Himself taught Cf.
Chapter VII.
Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian
doctrine a secret system (of belief), we must confute him on this point
also, since almost the entire world is better acquainted with what
Christians preach than with the favourite opinions of
philosophers. For who is ignorant of the statement that Jesus was
born of a virgin, and that He was crucified, and that His resurrection
is an article of faith among many, and that a general judgment is
announced to come, in which the wicked are to be punished according to
their deserts, and the righteous to be duly rewarded? And yet the
mystery of the resurrection, not being understood, The words, as they
stand in the text of Lommatzsch, are, ἀλλὰ
καὶ μὴν
νοηθὲν τὸ
περὶ τῆς
ἀναστάσεως
μυστήριον.
Ruæus would read μή
instead of μήν. This emendation has been
adopted in the translation.
Chapter VIII.
It is with a certain eloquence, δεινότητος.
Chapter IX.
He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting
opinions we should follow reason and a rational guide, λόγῳ καὶ
λογικῷ
ὁδηγῷ. συμβολικῶς
γεγενημένων,
ἢ
νενομοθετημένων. σφόδρα
ὀλίγων ἐπὶ
τὸν λόγον
ᾀττόντων.
Chapter X.
In the next place, since our opponents keep
repeating those statements about faith, we must say that, considering
it as a useful thing for the multitude, we admit that we teach those
men to believe without reasons, who are unable to abandon all other
employments, and give themselves to an examination of arguments; and
our opponents, although they do not acknowledge it, yet practically do
the same. For who is there that, on betaking himself to the study
of philosophy, and throwing himself into the ranks of some sect, either
by chance, ἀποκληρωτικῶς. μᾶλλον
εὐγνωμόνως. ἀπὸ
πρώτης
προσβολῆς.
Chapter XI.
Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in
some one of those who have been the introducers of sects among the
Greeks or Barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is
over all things, and in Him who teaches
Chapter XII.
In the next place, when Celsus says in express words,
“If they would answer me, not as if I were asking for
information, for I am acquainted with all their opinions, but because I
take an equal interest in them all, it would be well. And if they
will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally do, ‘Do
not investigate,’ etc., they must,” he continues,
“explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which
they speak, and whence they are derived,” etc. Now, with
regard to his statement that he “is acquainted with all our
doctrines,” we have to say that this is a boastful and daring
assertion; for if he had read the prophets in particular, which are
full of acknowledged difficulties, and of declarations that are obscure
to the multitude, and if he had perused the parables of the Gospels,
and the other writings of the law and of the Jewish history, and the
utterances of the apostles, and had read them candidly, with a desire
to enter into their meaning, he would not have expressed himself with
such boldness, nor said that he “was acquainted with all their
doctrines.” Even we ourselves, who have devoted much study
to these writings, would not say that “we were acquainted with
everything,” for we have a regard for truth. Not one of us
will assert, “I know all the doctrines of Epicurus,” or
will be confident that he knows all those of Plato, in the knowledge of
the fact that so many differences of opinion exist among the expositors
of these systems. For who is so daring as to say that he knows
all the opinions of the Stoics or of the Peripatetics? Unless,
indeed, it should be the case that he has heard this boast, “I
know them all,” from some ignorant and senseless individuals, who
do not perceive their own ignorance, and should thus imagine, from
having had such persons as his teachers, that he was acquainted with
them all. Such an one appears to me to act very much as a person
would do who had visited Egypt (where the Egyptian savans,
learned in their country’s literature, are greatly given to
philosophizing about those things which are regarded among them as
divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain myths, the reasons of
which they do not understand, are greatly elated because of their
fancied knowledge), and who should imagine that he is acquainted with
the whole circle of Egyptian knowledge, after having been a disciple of
the ignorant alone, and without having associated with any of the
priests, or having learned the mysteries of the Egyptians from any
other source. And what I have said regarding the learned and
ignorant among the Egyptians, I might have said also of the Persians;
among whom there are mysteries, conducted on rational principles by the
learned among them, but understood in a symbolical sense by the more
superficial of the multitude. Παρ᾽ οἶς
εἰσι τελεταὶ,
πρεσβευόμεναι
μὲν λογικῶς
ὑπὸ τῶν παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς
λογίων,
συμβολικῶς
δὲ γινόμεναι
ὑπὸ τῶν παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς
πολλῶν καὶ
ἐπιπολαιοτέρων. For γινόμεναι
Ruæus prefers γινωσκόμεναι,
which is adopted in the translation.
Chapter XIII.
But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of
many Christians, that “the wisdom of this life is a bad thing,
but that foolishness is good,” we have to answer that he slanders
the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings
of Paul, where they run as follow: “If any one among you
seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may
become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with
God.” μετενσωματώσεως. ῎Ετι
δε ὅτι καὶ
κατὰ τὸ τῷ
λόγῳ
ἀρέσκον,
πολλῷ
διαφέρει
μετὰ λόγου
καὶ σοφίας
συγκατατίθεσθαι
τοῖς
δόγμασιν,
ἤπερ μετὰ
ψιλῆς τῆς
πίστεως· καὶ
ὅτι κατὰ
περίστασιν
καὶ τοῦτ᾽
ἐβουλήθη ὁ
Λόγος, ἵνα μὴ
πάντη
ἀνωφελεῖς
ἐάσῃ τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους,
δηλοῖ ὁ τοῦ
᾽Ιησοῦ
γνήσιος
μαθητής, etc.
Chapter XIV.
Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many nations a general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations which gave rise to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown to me, he casts a slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the others, as having either laboured along with them, and arrived at the same conclusions, or as having entertained similar opinions on many subjects. It is proper, therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to the histories of Barbarians and Greeks respecting the antiquity of those nations of whom he speaks, but stamps the histories of this nation alone as false. For if the respective writers related the events which are found in these works in the spirit of truth, why should we distrust the prophets of the Jews alone? And if Moses and the prophets have recorded many things in their history from a desire to favour their own system, why should we not say the same of the historians of other countries? Or, when the Egyptians or their histories speak evil of the Jews, are they to be believed on that point; but the Jews, when saying the same things of the Egyptians, and declaring that they had suffered great injustice at their hands, and that on this account they had been punished by God, are to be charged with falsehood? And this applies not to the Egyptians alone, but to others; for we shall find that there was a connection between the Assyrians and the Jews, and that this is recorded in the ancient histories of the Assyrians. And so also the Jewish historians (I avoid using the word “prophets,” that I may not appear to prejudge the case) have related that the Assyrians were enemies of the Jews. Observe at once, then, the arbitrary procedure of this individual, who believes the histories of these nations on the ground of their being learned, and condemns others as being wholly ignorant. For listen to the statement of Celsus: “There is,” he says, “an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men.” And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians.
Chapter XV.
How much more impartial than Celsus is Numenius
the Pythagorean, who has given many proofs of being a very eloquent
man, and who has carefully tested many opinions, and collected together
from many sources what had the appearance of truth; for, in the first
book of his treatise On the Good, speaking of those nations who
have adopted the opinion that God is incorporeal, he enumerates the
Jews also among those who hold this view; not showing any reluctance to
use even the language of their prophets in his treatise, and to give it
a metaphorical signification. It is said, moreover, that
Hermippus has recorded in his first book, On Lawgivers, that it
was from the Jewish people that Pythagoras derived the philosophy which
he introduced among the Greeks. And there is extant a work by the
historian Hecatæus, treat
Chapter XVI.
I must express my surprise that Celsus should
class the Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and
Hyperboreans among the most ancient and learned nations, and should not
deem the Jews worthy of a place among such, either for their learning
or their antiquity, although there are many treatises in circulation
among the Egyptians, and Phœnicians, and Greeks, which testify to
their existence as an ancient people, but which I have considered it
unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses may read what
Flavius Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the
Antiquity [ἀρχαιότητος. See Josephus’s Works, for the treatise in two
books, usually designated, as written, Against Apion.
S.] [See vol. ii. pp. 80,
81. S.]
Chapter XVII.
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic
history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical
signification. And here one might say to this great man, who
inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse,
“Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded that
the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your
learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues,
and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off
their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such
enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor
even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less
atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to
commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his
father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with
his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who
were placed under his laws, and to have led them into
error?” And here Celsus seems to me to act somewhat as
Thrasymachus the Platonic philosopher did, when he would not allow
Socrates to answer regarding justice, as he wished, but said,
“Take care not to say that utility is justice, or duty, or
anything of that kind.” For in like manner Celsus assails
(as he thinks) the Mosaic histories, and finds fault with those who
understand them allegorically, at the same time bestowing also some
praise upon those who do so, to the effect that they are more impartial
(than those who do not); and thus, as it were, he prevents by his
cavils those who are able to show the true state of the case from
offering such a defence as they would wish to offer. Οἱονεὶ
κωλύεται,
κατηγορήσας
ὡς βούλεται,
ἀπολογεῖσθαι
τοὺς
δυναμένους
ὡς πέφυκεν
ἔχειν τὰ
πράγματα. We have taken κωλύεται as
middle. Some propose κωλύει. And we have
read βούλονταί
, a lection which is given by a second hand in one ms.
Chapter XVIII.
And challenging a comparison of book with book, I would
say, “Come now, good sir, take down the poems of Linus, and of
Musæus, and of Orpheus, and the writings of Pherecydes, and
carefully compare these with the laws of Moses—histories with
histories, and ethical discourses with laws and commandments—and
see ᾽Επιτρίψαι.
Other readings are ἐπιστρέψαι
and ἀποστρέψαι,
which convey the opposite meaning. αὐτόθεν. [See Dr.
Waterland’s charge to the clergy, on “The Wisdom of the
Ancients borrowed from Divine Revelation,” Works, vol. v.
pp. 10, 24. S.]
Chapter XIX.
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phæthon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.
Chapter XX.
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!—a view which goes far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!
Chapter XXI.
The following is the view of Celsus and the
Epicureans: “Moses having,” he says, “learned
the doctrine which is to be found existing among
Chapter XXII.
After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God; but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression “God of Abraham,” pointing out by the very name the friendship (that existed) between that just man and God. And yet, while making use of the phrase “God of Abraham,” they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began with Abraham, and was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the latter also is untrue.
Chapter XXIII.
After this, Celsus next asserts that “Those
herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their
minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one
God.” Let him show, then, how, after this irrational
departure, as he regards it, of the herdsmen and shepherds from the
worship of many gods, he himself is able to establish the multiplicity
of deities that are found amongst the Greeks, or among those other
nations that are called Barbarian. Let him establish, therefore,
the existence of Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses by Zeus; or of
Themis, the parent of the Hours; or let him prove that the ever naked
Graces can have a real, substantial existence. But he will not be
able to show, from any actions of theirs, that these fictitious
representations ἀναπλάσματα. τὴν
ἀπλανῆ.
Chapter XXIV.
After this he continues: “These
herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named
either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called
by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and
they knew nothing beyond that.” And in a subsequent part of
his work he says, that “It makes no difference whether the God
who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current
among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians
or Egyptians.” Now, in answer to this, we have to remark
that this involves a deep and mysterious subject—that, viz.,
respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as
Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics
hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably
to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they
introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus
teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by
nature,—the first men having uttered certain words varying with
the circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we
shall be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement,
the nature of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned
amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the
Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanæans, and
others in different countries; and shall be able to make out that the
so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle
suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it
prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly
few; then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names
treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to
any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which
refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly,
when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is
appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other
names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against
certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the
Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on
in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it
will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom
different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name
appropriate to the several dialects of place and country. He,
therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will
be careful not to apply differing names to different things; lest he
should resemble those who mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless
matter, or who drag down the title of “the Good” from the
First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to blind
Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and
blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth. ᾽Επὶ
τὸν τυφλὸν
πλοῦτον, καὶ
ἐπὶ τὴν
σαρκῶν καὶ
αἱμάτων καὶ
ὀστέων
συμμετρίαν
ἐν ὑγιείᾳ
καὶ εὐεξίᾳ, ἢ
την
νομιζομένην
εὐγένειαν.
Chapter XXV.
And perhaps there is a danger as great as that
which degrades the name of “God,” or of “the
Good,” to improper objects, in changing the name of God according
to a secret system, and applying those which belong to inferior beings
to greater, and vice versa. And I do not dwell on this,
that when the name of Zeus is uttered, there is heard at the same time
that of the son of Kronos and Rhea, and the husband of Hera, and
brother of Poseidon, and father of Athene, and Artemis, who was guilty
of incest with his own daughter Persephone; or that Apollo immediately
suggests the son of Leto and Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and
half-brother of Hermes; and so with all the other names invented by
these wise men of Celsus, who are the parents of these opinions, and
the ancient theologians of the Greeks. For what are the grounds
for deciding that he should on the one hand be properly called Zeus,
and yet on the other should not have Kronos for his father and Rhea for
his mother? And the same argument applies to all the others that
are called gods. But this charge does not at all apply to those
who, for some mysterious reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or
any of the other names to the (true) God. And when one is able to
philosophize about the mystery of names, he will find much to say
respecting the titles of the angels of God, of whom one is called
Michael, and another Gabriel, and another Raphael, appropriately to the
duties which they discharge in the world, according to the will of the
God of all things. And a similar philosophy of names applies also
to our Jesus, whose name has already been seen, in an unmistakeable
manner, to have expelled myriads of evil spirits from the souls and
bodies (of men), so great was the power which it exerted upon those
from whom the spirits were driven out. And while still upon the
subject of names, we have to mention that those who are skilled
in
Chapter XXVI.
But let us see the manner in which this Celsus,
who professes to know everything, brings a false accusation against the
Jews, when he alleges that “they worship angels, and are addicted
to sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor.” Now, in
what part of the writings of Moses he found the lawgiver laying down
the worship of angels, let him tell, who professes to know all about
Christianity and Judaism; and let him show also how sorcery can exist
among those who have accepted the Mosaic law, and read the injunction,
“Neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by
them.” ῾Ως
γενομένου
ἡγεμόνος τῇ
καθὸ
Χριστιανοί
ἐσμεν
γενέσει
ἡμῶν. οὐ
κολακεύων.
Chapter XXVII.
Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus
attempted and successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human
power. For although, from the very beginning, all things opposed
the spread of His doctrine in the world, ἰδιωτικήν.
Chapter XXVIII.
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having “invented his birth from a virgin,” and upbraids Him with being “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.” Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.
Chapter XXIX.
For birth is an aid towards an individual’s
becoming famous, and distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a
man’s parents happen to be in a position of rank and influence,
and are possessed of wealth, and are able to spend it upon the
education of their son, and when the country of one’s birth is
great and illustrious; but when a man having all these things against
him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances, to make himself known,
and to produce an impression on those who hear of him, and to become
distinguished and visible to the whole world, which speaks of him as it
did not do before, how can we help admiring such a nature as being both
noble in itself, and devoting itself to great deeds, and possessing a
courage which is not by any means to be despised? And if one were
to examine more fully the history of such an individual, why should he
not seek to know in what manner, after being reared up in frugality and
poverty, and without receiving any complete education, and without
having studied systems and opinions by means of which he might have
acquired confidence to associate with multitudes, and play the
demagogue, and attract to himself many hearers, he nevertheless devoted
himself to the teaching of new opinions, introducing among men a
doctrine which not only subverted the customs of the Jews, while
preserving due respect for their prophets, but which especially
overturned the established observances of the Greeks regarding the
Divinity? And how could such a person—one who had been so
brought up, and who, as his calumniators admit, had learned nothing
great from men—have been able to teach, in a manner not at all to
be despised, such doctrines as he did regarding the divine judgment,
and the punishments that are to overtake wickedness, and the rewards
that are to be conferred upon virtue; so that not only rustic and
ignorant individuals were won by his words, but also not a few of those
who were distinguished by their wisdom, and who were able to discern
the hidden meaning in those more common doctrines, as they were
considered, which were in circulation, and which secret meaning
enwrapped, so to speak, some more recondite signification still?
The Seriphian, in Plato, who reproaches Themistocles after he had
become celebrated for his military skill, saying that his reputation
was due not to his own merits, but to his good fortune in having been
born in the most illustrious country in Greece, received σεῖσαι. [This striking chapter
is cited, as a specimen of Christian eloquence, in the important work
of Guillon, Cours d’ Eloquence Sacrèe, Bruxelles,
1828].
Chapter XXX.
Now, would not any one who investigated with
ordinary care the nature of these facts, be struck with amazement at
this man’s victory?—with his complete success in
surmounting by his reputation all causes that tended to bring him into
disrepute, and with his superiority over all other illustrious
individuals in the world? And yet it is a rare thing for
distinguished men to succeed in acquiring a reputation for several
things at once. For one man is admired on account of his wisdom,
another for his military skill, and some of the Barbarians for their
marvellous powers of incantation, and some for one quality, and others
for another; but not many have been admired and acquired a reputation
for many things at the same time; whereas this man, in addition to his
other merits, is an object of admiration both for his wisdom, and for
his miracles, and for his powers of government. For he persuaded
some to withdraw themselves from their laws, and to secede to him, not
as a tyrant would do, nor as a robber, who arms Gelenius reads
ὁπλίζων (instead of
ἀλείφων), which has been
adopted in the translation.
Chapter XXXI.
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened
that the disciples—if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did
not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not
persuaded of His divinity—were not afraid to endure the same
sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and
to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of
Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think that no
one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted
themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus,
without profound belief which He had wrought in their minds of its
truth, not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others
also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life
impended over him who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all
places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no
human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages. For
did not the disciples of Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not
only to the Jews from their prophetic Scriptures that this is He who
was spoken of by the prophets, but also to the other heathen nations,
that He who was crucified yesterday or the day before underwent this
death voluntarily on behalf of the human race,—that this was
analogous to the case of those who have died for their country in order
to remove pestilence, or barrenness, or tempests? For it is
probable that there is in the nature of things, for certain mysterious
reasons which are difficult to be understood by the multitude, such a
virtue that one just man, dying a voluntary death for the common good,
might be the means of removing wicked spirits, which are the cause of
plagues, or barrenness, or tempests, or similar calamities. Let
those, therefore, who would disbelieve the statement that Jesus died on
the cross on behalf of men, say whether they also refuse to accept the
many accounts current both among Greeks and Barbarians, of persons who
have laid down their Cf.
Homer’s Iliad, v. 2, 3.
Chapter XXXII.
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say “all”), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.
Chapter XXXIII.
Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not deserving of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor yet in that of one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous body, so that reason cannot discharge its functions in one so fashioned, which has the head disproportioned to the other parts, and altogether too short; and another receives such a body that the soul is a little more rational than the other; and another still more so, the nature of the body counteracting to a greater or less degree the reception of the reasoning principle; why should there not be also some soul which receives an altogether miraculous body, possessing some qualities common to those of other men, so that it may be able to pass through life with them, but possessing also some quality of superiority, so that the soul may be able to remain untainted by sin? And if there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists, whether Zopyrus, or Loxus, or Polemon, or any other who wrote on such a subject, and who profess to know in some wonderful way that all bodies are adapted to the habits of the souls, must there have been for that soul which was to dwell with miraculous power among men, and work mighty deeds, a body produced, as Celsus thinks, by an act of adultery between Panthera and the Virgin?! Why, from such unhallowed intercourse there must rather have been brought forth some fool to do injury to mankind,—a teacher of licentiousness and wickedness, and other evils; and not of temperance, and righteousness, and the other virtues!
Chapter XXXIV.
But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a
virgin that there was to be born, according to the promised sign, one
who was to give His name to the fact, showing that at His birth
Cf. νεᾶνις. νεᾶνιν. Cf. τῇ
νεάνιδι.
Chapter XXXV.
But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew
word, to endeavour to persuade those who are unable to determine
whether they ought to believe it or not, that the prophet spoke of this
man being born of a virgin, because at his birth these words,
“God with us,” were uttered, let us make good our point
from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to
Ahaz thus: “Ask a sign for thyself from the Lord thy God, either in the depth or height
above;” Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXXVI.
And now, since we have touched upon the subject of the
prophets, what we are about to advance will be useful not only to the
Jews, who believe that they spake by divine inspiration, but also to
the more candid among the Greeks. To these we say that we must
necessarily admit that the Jews had prophets, if they were to be kept
together under that system of law which had been given them, and were
to believe in the Creator of the world, as they had learned, and to be
without pretexts, so far as the law was concerned, for apostatizing to
the polytheism of the heathen. And we establish this necessity in
Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXXVII.
I think, then, that it has been pretty well
established not only that our Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but
also that there were prophets among the Jews who uttered not merely
general predictions about the future,—as, e.g., regarding Christ
and the kingdoms of the world, and the events that were to happen to
Israel, and those nations which were to believe on the Saviour, and
many other things concerning Him,—but also prophecies respecting
particular events; as, for instance, how the asses of Kish, which were
lost, were to be discovered, and regarding the sickness which had
fallen upon the son of the king of Israel, and any other recorded
circumstance of a similar kind. But as a further answer to the
Greeks, who do not believe in the birth of Jesus from a virgin, we have
to say that the Creator has shown, by the generation of several kinds
of animals, that what He has done in the instance of one animal, He
could do, if it pleased Him, in that of others, and also of man
himself. For it is ascertained that there is a certain female
animal which has no intercourse with the male (as writers on animals
say is the case with vultures), and that this animal, without sexual
intercourse, preserves the succession of race. What
incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God wished to
send a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be born in
some manner different from the common! Πεποίηκεν
ἀντὶ
σπερματικοῦ
λόγου, τοῦ ἐκ
μίξεως τῶν
ἀῤῥένων
ταῖς γυναιξὶ,
ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ
γενέσθαι τὸν
λόγον τοῦ
τεχθησομένου.
Chapter XXXVIII.
But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the
Gospel according to Matthew, of our Lord’s descent into Egypt, he
refuses to believe the miraculous circumstances attending it, viz.,
either that the angel gave the divine intimation, This difficult passage
is rendered in the Latin translation: “but that, after they
had believed (in Christ), they with no adequate supply of arguments,
such as is furnished by the Greek dialectics, gave themselves
up,” etc.
Chapter XXXIX.
I do not think it necessary to grapple with an argument advanced not in a serious but in a scoffing spirit, such as the following: “If the mother of Jesus was beautiful, then the god whose nature is not to love a corruptible body, had intercourse with her because she was beautiful;” or, “It was improbable that the god would entertain a passion for her, because she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of her neighbours, knew her.” And it is in the same scoffing spirit that he adds: “When hated by her husband, and turned out of doors, she was not saved by divine power, nor was her story believed. Such things,” he says, “have no connection with the kingdom of heaven.” In what respect does such language differ from that of those who pour abuse on others on the public streets, and whose words are unworthy of any serious attention?
Chapter XL.
After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord’s birth from a virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the accounts that follow it; since passion and hatred observe no order, but angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing it, would. have objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and so on to the others. But now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who professes to be acquainted with all our history, attacks the account of the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then, after that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was to come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what immediately follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus—the account of the star, and of the wise men who came from the east to worship the child. And you yourself may find, if you take the trouble, many confused statements made by Celsus throughout his whole book; so that even in this account he may, by those who know how to observe and require an orderly method of arrangement, be convicted of great rashness and boasting, in having inscribed upon his work the title of A True Discourse,—a thing which is never done by a learned philosopher. For Plato says, that it is not an indication of an intelligent man to make strong assertions respecting those matters which are somewhat uncertain; and the celebrated Chrysippus even, who frequently states the reasons by which he is decided, refers us to those whom we shall find to be abler speakers than himself. This man, however, who is wiser than those already named, and than all the other Greeks, agreeably to his assertion of being acquainted with everything, inscribed upon his book the words, A True Discourse!
Chapter XLI.
But, that we may not have the appearance of
intentionally passing by his charges through inability to refute them,
we have resolved to answer
Chapter XLII.
Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to show, with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility. For suppose that some one were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or Æneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans? And suppose, also, that some one disbelieved the story of Œdipus and Jocasta, and of their two sons Eteocles and Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of half-virgin, was introduced into the narrative, how should we demonstrate the reality of such a thing? And in like manner also with the history of the Epigoni, although there is no such marvellous event interwoven with it, or with the return of the Heracleidæ, or countless other historical events. But he who deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep himself also from being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as to what statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such inventions, and from what statements he will withhold his belief, as having been written for the gratification of certain individuals. And we have said this by way of anticipation respecting the whole history related in the Gospels concerning Jesus, not as inviting men of acuteness to a simple and unreasoning faith, but wishing to show that there is need of candour in those who are to read, and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of the writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be discovered.
Chapter XLIII.
We shall therefore say, in the first place, that
if he who disbelieves the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of
a dove had been described as an Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus,
or a Peripatetic, the statement would have been in keeping with the
character of such an objector. But now even this Celsus, wisest
of all men, did not perceive that it is to a Jew, who believes more
incredible things contained in the writings of the prophets than the
narrative of the appearance of the dove, that he attributes such an
objection! For one might say to the Jew, when expressing his
disbelief of the appearance, and thinking to assail it as a fiction,
“How are you able to prove, sir, that the Lord spake to Adam, or
to Eve, or to Cain, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to
Jacob, those words which He is recorded to have spoken to these
men?” And, to compare history with history, I would say to
the Jew, “Even your own Ezekiel writes, saying, ‘The
heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God.’ Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLIV.
And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not
disbelieving, I who am a Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very
desirous to show, on the footing of our common belief, that this man is
far more worthy of credit than they are when He says that He beheld
such a sight, and, as is probable, related to His disciples the vision
which He saw, and told them of the voice which He heard. But
another party might object, that not all those who have narrated the
appearance of the dove and the voice from heaven heard the accounts of
these things from Jesus, but that that Spirit which taught Moses the
history of events before his own time, beginning with the creation, and
descending down to Abraham his father, taught also the writers of the
Gospel the miraculous occurrence which took place at the time of
Jesus’ baptism. And he who is adorned with the spiritual
gift, χαρίσματι.
Chapter XLV.
And I remember on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews who were reputed learned men, having employed the following argument in the presence of many judges: “Tell me, sirs,” I said, “since there are two individuals who have visited the human race, regarding whom are related marvellous works surpassing human power—Moses, viz., your own legislator, who wrote about himself, and Jesus our teacher, who has left no writings regarding Himself, but to whom testimony is borne by the disciples in the Gospels—what are the grounds for deciding that Moses is to be believed as speaking the truth, although the Egyptians slander him as a sorcerer, and as appearing to have wrought his mighty works by jugglery, while Jesus is not to be believed because you are His accusers? And yet there are nations which bear testimony in favour of both: the Jews to Moses; and the Christians, who do not deny the prophetic mission of Moses, but proving from that very source the truth of the statement regarding Jesus, accept as true the miraculous circumstances related of Him by His disciples. Now, if ye ask us for the reasons of our faith in Jesus, give yours first for believing in Moses, who lived before Him, and then we shall give you ours for accepting the latter. But if you draw back, and shirk a demonstration, then we, following your own example, decline for the present to offer any demonstration likewise. Nevertheless, admit that ye have no proof to offer for Moses, and then listen to our defence of Jesus derived from the law and the prophets. And now observe what is almost incredible! It is shown from the declarations concerning Jesus, contained in the law and the prophets, that both Moses and the prophets were truly prophets of God.”
Chapter XLVI.
For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar
to those recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and
the voice from heaven. And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus
are a proof of the Holy Spirit’s having then appeared in the form
of a dove, although Celsus, from a desire to cast discredit upon them,
alleges that He performed only what He had learned among the
Egyptians. And I shall refer not only to His miracles, but, as is
proper, to those also of the apostles of Jesus. For they could
not without the help of miracles and wonders have prevailed on those
who heard their new doctrines and new teachings to abandon their
national usages, and to accept their instructions at the danger to
themselves even of death. And there are still preserved among
Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a
dove. They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and
foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos. And
although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, may treat with
mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it nevertheless,—that
many have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some
sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of
the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared
to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night. Many
such instances have we known, which, if we were to commit to
writ Cf.
Chapter XLVII.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the
Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that
the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins,
is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and
Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities [ἀρχαιολογίας. S.] Cf. Joseph., Antiq., book xviii. c. v. sec.
2. [Ibid., b. xx.
c. ix. § 1. S.] Cf.
Chapter XLVIII.
Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for
himself in the instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the
opening of the heavens to Jesus, and the voice that was heard by Him,
to the similar cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or
any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall
support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief
that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds
of many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of
this life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic
manner,—a fact which is manifest to all who accept the doctrine
of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which could
receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a
waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions
are made, or of those who are to hear the account of them from
him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the organs
of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our
eyes—although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are
affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations—so
there is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the
prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a
rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord
or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the
visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided,
in order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence.
Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every
intelligent hearer of the Gospels?—although such an occurrence
may be a stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would
set the whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and
mighty body of the whole heavens. But he who examines such
matters more profoundly will say, that there being, as the Scripture
calls it, a kind of general divine perception which the blessed man
alone knows how to discover, according to the saying of Solomon,
“Thou shalt find the knowledge of God;” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. ᾽Ωσφράνθη τῆς
ὀσμῆς τῶν
τοῦ υἱοῦ
θειοτέρων
ἱματίων. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLIX.
After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the
strongest evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz., that
His coming was predicted by the Jewish prophets—Moses, and those
who succeeded as well as preceded that legislator—from inability,
as I think, to meet the argument that neither the Jews nor any other
heretical sect refuse to believe that Christ was the subject of
prophecy. But perhaps he was unacquainted with the prophecies
relating to Christ. For no one who was acquainted with the
statements of the Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of
the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which
Chapter L.
In the next place, as if the only event predicted
were this, that He was to be “the Judge of the righteous and the
Punisher of the wicked,” and as if neither the place of His
birth, nor the sufferings which He was to endure at the hands of the
Jews, nor His resurrection, nor the wonderful works which He was to
perform, had been made the subject of prophecy, he continues:
“Why should it be you alone, rather than innumerable others, who
existed after the prophecies were published, to whom these predictions
are applicable?” And desiring, I know not how, to suggest
to others the possibility of the notion that they themselves were the
persons referred to by the prophets, he says that “some, carried
away by enthusiasm, and others having gathered a multitude of
followers, give out that the Son of God is come down from
heaven.” Now we have not ascertained that such occurrences
are admitted to have taken place among the Jews. We have to
remark then, in the first place, that many of the prophets have uttered
predictions in all kinds of ways παντοδαπῶς
προεῖπον.
Chapter LI.
Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of
the Saviour’s birth—that the Ruler was to come forth from
Bethlehem—in the following manner: “And thou
Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thousands of
Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to be
Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from
everlasting.” Cf. [See Dr.
Spencer’s The East: Sketches of Travel in Egypt and the
Holy Land, pp. 362–365, London, Murray, 1850, an interesting
work by my esteemed collaborator.] [Concerning
this, besides Dr. Robinson (ii. 159), consult Dean Stanley, Sinai
and Palestine, p. 433. But compare Van Lennep, Bible
Lands, p. 804; Roberts’ Holy Land, capp. 85, 87, vol.
ii., London.] Cf. Cf.
Chapter LII.
Strife and prejudice are powerful instruments in leading men to disregard even those things which are abundantly clear; so that they who have somehow become familiar with certain opinions, which have deeply imbued their minds, and stamped them with a certain character, will not give them up. For a man will abandon his habits in respect to other things, although it may be difficult for him to tear himself from them, more easily than he will surrender his opinions. Nay, even the former are not easily put aside by those who have become accustomed to them; and so neither houses, nor cities, nor villages, nor intimate acquaintances, are willingly forsaken when we are prejudiced in their favour. This, therefore, was a reason why many of the Jews at that time disregarded the clear testimony of the prophecies, and miracles which Jesus wrought, and of the sufferings which He is related to have endured. And that human nature is thus affected, will be manifest to those who observe that those who have once been prejudiced in favour of the most contemptible and paltry traditions of their ancestors and fellow-citizens, with difficulty lay them aside. For example, no one could easily persuade an Egyptian to despise what he had learned from his fathers, so as no longer to consider this or that irrational animal as a god, or not to guard against eating, even under the penalty of death, of the flesh of such an animal. Now, if in carrying our examination of this subject to a considerable length, we have enumerated the points respecting Bethlehem, and the prophecy regarding it, we consider that we were obliged to do this, by way of defence against those who would assert that if the prophecies current among the Jews regarding Jesus were so clear as we represent them, why did they not at His coming give in their adhesion to His doctrine, and betake themselves to the better life pointed out by Him? Let no one, however, bring such a reproach against believers, since he may see that reasons of no light weight are assigned by those who have learned to state them, for their faith in Jesus.
Chapter LIII.
And if we should ask for a second prophecy, which
may appear to us to have a clear reference to Jesus, we would quote
that which was written by Moses very many years before the advent of
Christ, when he makes Jacob, on his departure from this life, to have
uttered predictions regarding each of his sons, and to have said of
Judah along with the others: “The ruler will not fail from
Judah, and the governor from his loins, until that which is reserved
for him come.” Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LIV.
And since Celsus, although professing to know all
about the Gospel, reproaches the Saviour because of His sufferings,
saying that He received no assistance from the Father, or was unable to
aid Himself; we have to state that His sufferings were the subject of
prophecy, along with the cause of them; because it was for the benefit
of mankind that He should die on their account, ὑπὲρ
αὐτῶν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LV.
Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a
disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I
quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that
these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as
one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and
suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of
the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in
this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no
reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message
was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A
man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that
occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions
regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the
whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would
be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our
behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and
bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly
belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is
manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by
the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation
or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings
of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence
of the Holy Spirit, applied these words to a person. But we
seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the
iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if
the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is
the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the
people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of
God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes
they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the
principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of
them openly on His cross?” [
Chapter LVI.
Now it escaped the notice of Celsus, and of the Jew whom
he has introduced, and of all who are not believers in Jesus, that the
prophecies speak of two advents of Christ: the former
characterized by human suffering and humility, in order that Christ,
being with men, might make known the way that leads to God, and might
leave no man in this life a ground of excuse, in saying that he knew
not of the judgment to come; and the latter, distinguished only by
glory and divinity, having no element of human infirmity intermingled
with its divine greatness. To quote the prophecies at length
would be tedious; and I deem it sufficient for the present to quote a
part of the πρὸς τὸν
Χριστόν.
Chapter LVII.
The Jew, moreover, in the treatise, addresses the
Saviour thus: “If you say that every man, born according to
the decree of Divine Providence, is a son of God, in what respect
should you differ from another?” In reply to whom we say,
that every man who, as Paul expresses it, is no longer under fear, as a
schoolmaster, but who chooses good for its own sake, is “a son of
God;” but this man is distinguished far and wide above every man
who is called, on account of his virtues, a son of God, seeing He is,
as it were, a kind of source and beginning of all such. The words
of Paul are as follow: “For ye have not received the spirit
of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” Cf.
Chapter LVIII.
After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned in the Gospel, says that “Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne.” See now in this instance the blunder of one who cannot distinguish between Magi and Chaldeans, nor perceive that what they profess is different, and so has falsified the Gospel narrative. I know not, moreover, why he has passed by in silence the cause which led the Magi to come, and why he has not stated, according to the scriptural account, that it was a star seen by them in the east. Let us see now what answer we have to make to these statements. The star that was seen in the east we consider to have been a new star, unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies, either those in the firmament above or those among the lower orbs, but partaking of the nature of those celestial bodies which appear at times, such as comets, or those meteors which resemble beams of wood, or beards, or wine jars, or any of those other names by which the Greeks are accustomed to describe their varying appearances. And we establish our position in the following manner.
Chapter LIX.
It has been observed that, on the occurrence of
great events, and of mighty changes in terrestrial things, such stars
are wont to appear, indicating either the removal of dynasties or the
breaking out of wars, or the happening of such circumstances as may
cause commotions upon the earth. But we have read in the
Treatise on Comets by Chæremon the Stoic, that on some
occasions also, when good was to happen, comets made their
appearance; and he gives an account of such instances. If, then,
at the commencement of new dynasties, or on the occasion of other
important events, there arises a comet so called, or any similar
celestial body, why should it be matter of wonder that at the birth of
Him who was to introduce a new doctrine to the human race, and to make
known His teaching not only to Jews, but also to Greeks, and to many of
the barbarous nations besides, a star should have arisen? Now I
would say, that with respect to comets there is no prophecy in
circulation to the effect that such and such a comet was to arise in
connection with a particular kingdom or a particular time; but with
respect to the appearance of a star at the birth of Jesus there is a
prophecy of Balaam recorded by Moses to this effect: “There
shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of
Israel.” Cf.
Chapter LX.
To the Greeks, then, I have to say that the Magi, being
on familiar terms with evil spirits, and invoking them for such
purposes as their knowledge and wishes extend to, bring about such
results only as do not appear to exceed the superhuman power and
strength of the evil spirits, and of the spells which invoke them, to
accomplish; but should some greater manifestation of divinity be made,
then the powers of the evil spirits are overthrown, being unable to
resist the light of divinity. It is probable, therefore, that
since at the birth of Jesus “a multitude of the heavenly
host,” as Luke records, and as I believe, “praised God,
saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will
towards men,” the evil spirits on that account became feeble, and
lost their strength, the falsity of their sorcery being manifested, and
their power being broken; this overthrow being brought about not only
by the angels having visited the terrestrial regions on account of the
birth of Jesus, but also by the power of Jesus Himself, and His innate
divinity. The Magi, accordingly, wishing to produce the customary
results, which formerly they used to perform by means of certain spells
and sorceries, sought to know the reason of their failure, conjecturing
the cause to be a great one; and beholding a divine sign in the heaven,
they desired to learn its signification. I am therefore of
opinion that, possessing as they did the prophecies of Balaam, which
Moses also records, inasmuch as Balaam was celebrated for Cf.
Chapter LXI.
That Herod conspired against the Child (although
the Jew of Celsus does not believe that this really happened), is not
to be wondered at. For wickedness is in a certain sense blind,
and would desire to defeat fate, as if it were stronger than it.
And this being Herod’s condition, he both believed that a king of
the Jews had been born, and yet cherished a purpose contradictory of
such a belief; not seeing that the Child is assuredly either a king and
will come to the throne, or that he is not to be a king, and that his
death, therefore, will be to no purpose. He desired accordingly
to kill Him, his mind being agitated by contending passions on account
of his wickedness, and being instigated by the blind and wicked devil
who from the very beginning plotted against the Saviour, imagining that
He was and would become some mighty one. An angel, however,
perceiving the course of events, intimated to Joseph, although Celsus
may not believe it, that he was to withdraw with the Child and His
mother into Egypt, while Herod slew all the infants that were in
Bethlehem and the surrounding borders, in the hope that he would thus
destroy Him also who had been born King of the Jews. For he saw
not the sleepless guardian power that is around those who deserve to be
protected and preserved for the salvation of men, of whom Jesus is the
first, superior to all others in honour and excellence, who was to be a
King indeed, but not in the sense that Herod supposed, but in that in
which it became God to bestow a kingdom,—for the benefit, viz.,
of those who were to be under His sway, who was to confer no ordinary
and unimportant blessings, so to speak, upon His subjects, but who was
to train them and to subject them to laws that were truly from
God. And Jesus, knowing this well, and denying that He was a king
in the sense that the multitude expected, but declaring the superiority
of His kingdom, says: “If My kingdom were of this world,
then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews: but now is My kingdom not of this world.” Cf.
Chapter LXII.
And after such statements, showing his ignorance
even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus:
“Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of
notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors,
fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living
in a shameful and importunate manner.” Let us to the best
of our power see what truth there is in such a statement. It is
manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives, which Celsus does
not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected twelve apostles, and
that of these Matthew alone was a tax-gatherer; that when he calls them
indiscriminately sailors, he probably means James and John, because
they left their ship and their father Zebedee, and followed Jesus; for
Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a net to gain their
necessary subsistence, must be classed not as sailors, but as the
Scripture describes them, as fishermen. The Lebes Λέβης. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXIII.
And since Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus
men of infamous notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and
sailors of the vilest character, we have to remark, with respect to
this charge, that he seems, in order to bring an accusation against
Christianity, to believe the Gospel accounts only where he pleases, and
to express his disbelief of them, in order that he may not be forced to
admit the manifestations of Divinity related in these same books;
whereas one who sees the spirit of truth by which the writers are
influenced, ought, from their narration of things of inferior
importance, to believe also the account of divine things. Now in
the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the
statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded
that “Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more
guilty of sin than all other evildoers.” Epistle of
Barnabas, chap. v. vol. i. p. 139. Cf.
Chapter LXIV.
But if we were to reproach those who have been
converted with their former lives, then we would have occasion to
accuse Phædo also, even after he became a philosopher; since, as
the history relates, he was drawn away by Socrates from a house of bad
fame ἀπὸ
οἰκήματος.
Such is the reading in the text of Lommatzsch. Hoeschel and
Spencer read ἀπὸ
οἰκήματος
ἐτείου, and Ruaus proposes
ἑταιρίου. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXV.
And since Jesus, in teaching His disciples not to
be guilty of rashness, gave them the precept, “If they persecute
you in this city, flee ye into another; and if they persecute you in
the other, flee again into a third,” Cf.
Chapter LXVI.
And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses Jesus: “What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egypt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?” From these words Celsus seems to think that there was no element of divinity in the human body and soul of Jesus, but that His body was not even such as is described in the fables of Homer; and with a taunt also at the blood of Jesus which was shed upon the cross, he adds that it was not
“Ichor, such as flows in the veins of the
blessed gods.” Cf. Iliad, v. 340.
We now, believing Jesus Himself, when He says respecting His
divinity, “I am the way, and the truth, and the
life,” Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXVII.
After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a
Greek who loved learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature,
continues: “The old mythological fables, which attributed a
divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Æacus, and Minos, were
not believed by us. Nevertheless, [Note the words,
“The whole habitable world,” and comp. cap. iii.,
supra, “the defeat of the whole world.”
In cap. vii. is another important testimony. “Countless
numbers” is the phrase in cap. xxvii. See cap. xxix. also,
ad finem. Such evidence cannot be explained
away.]
Chapter LXVIII.
But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that
the great works performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of
a great number, would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that
those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His
resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from
which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus
thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he
adds: “Well, let us believe that these were actually
wrought by you.” But then he immediately compares them to
the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do more wonderful things, and to
the feats performed by those who have been taught by Egyptians, who in
the middle of the market-place, in return for a few obols, will impart
the knowledge of their most venerated arts, and will expel demons from
men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the souls of heroes, and exhibit
expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes, and dainties having no real
existence, and who will put in motion, as if alive, what are not really
living animals, but which have only the appearance of life. And
he asks, “Since, then, these persons can perform such feats,
shall we of necessity conclude that they are ‘sons of God,’
or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the
influence of an evil spirit?” You see that by these
expressions he allows, as it were, the existence of magic. I do
not know, however, if he is the same who wrote several books against
it. But, as it helped his purpose, he compares the (miracles)
related of Jesus to the results produced by magic. There would
indeed be a resemblance between them, if Jesus, like the dealers in
magical arts, had performed His works only for show; but now there is
not a single juggler who, by means of his proceedings, invites his
spectators to reform their manners, or trains those to the fear of God
who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries to persuade them so to
live as men who are to be justified ὡς
δικαιωθησομένους.
Chapter LXIX.
After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian
doctrine and the opinions of some heretical sect, and bringing them
forward as charges that were applicable to all who believe in the
divine word, says: “Such a body as yours could not
μέγαν
ἀγωνιστήν. [
Chapter LXX.
He asserts, moreover, that “the body of a god is not nourished with such food (as was that of Jesus),” since he is able to prove from the Gospel narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular kind. Well, be it so. Let him assert that He ate the passover with His disciples, when He not only used the words, “With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you,” but also actually partook of the same. And let him say also, that He experienced the sensation of thirst beside the well of Jacob, and drank of the water of the well. In what respect do these facts militate against what we have said respecting the nature of His body? Moreover, it appears indubitable that after His resurrection He ate a piece of fish; for, according to our view, He assumed a (true) body, as one born of a woman. “But,” objects Celsus, “the body of a god does not make use of such a voice as that of Jesus, nor employ such a method of persuasion as he.” These are, indeed, trifling and altogether contemptible objections. For our reply to him will be, that he who is believed among the Greeks to be a god, viz., the Pythian and Didymean Apollo, makes use of such a voice for his Pythian priestess at Delphi, and for his prophetess at Miletus; and yet neither the Pythian nor Didymean is charged by the Greeks with not being a god, nor any other Grecian deity whose worship is established in one place. And it was far better, surely, that a god should employ a voice which, on account of its being uttered with power, should produce an indescribable sort of persuasion in the minds of the hearers.
Chapter LXXI.
Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on
account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by
God, he asserts that “these tenets of his were those of a wicked
and God-hated sorcerer.” And yet, if the name and the thing
be properly examined, it will be found an impossibility that man should
be hated by God, seeing God loves all existing things, and
“hateth nothing of what He has made,” for He created
nothing in a spirit of hatred. And if certain expressions in the
prophets convey such an impression, they are to be interpreted in
accordance with the general principle by which Scripture employs such
language with regard to God as if He were subject to human
affections. But what reply need be made to him who, while
professing to bring foreward credible statements, thinks himself bound
to make use of calumnies and slanders against Jesus, as if He were a
wicked sorcerer? Such is not the procedure of one who seeks to
make good his case, but of one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic
state of mind, inasmuch as the proper course is to state the case, and
candidly to investigate it; and, according to the best of his ability,
to bring forward what occurs to him with regard to it. But as the
Jew of Celsus has, with the above remarks, brought to a close his
charges against Jesus, so we also shall here bring to a termination the
contents of our first book in reply to him. And if God bestow the
gift of that truth which destroys all falsehood, agreeably to the words
of the prayer, “Cut them off in thy truth,”
Chapter I.
The first book of our
answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True Discourse,
which concluded with the representation of the Jew addressing Jesus,
having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present part
as a reply to the charges brought by him against those who have been
converted from Judaism to Christianity. [Comp. Justin,
Dial. with Trypho (passim), vol. i., this
series.] πιθανώτατος. ןוֹיבְאֶ. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter II.
Now, since we are upon the subject of Peter, and
of the teachers of Christianity to the circumcision, I do not deem it
out of place to quote a certain declaration of Jesus taken from the
Gospel according to John, and to give the explanation of the
same. For it is there related that Jesus said: “I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide
you into all the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.”
Chapter III.
Our present object, however, is to expose the
ignorance of Celsus, who makes this Jew of his address his
fellow-citizen and the Israelitish converts in the following
manner: “What induced you to abandon the law of your
fathers?” etc. Now, how should they have abandoned the law
of their fathers, who are in the habit of rebuking those who do not
listen to its commands, saying, “Tell me, ye who read the law, do
ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two
sons;” and so on, down to the place, “which things are an
allegory,”
Chapter IV.
The Jew, then, continues his address to converts
from his own nation thus: “Yesterday and the day before,
when we visited with punishment the man who deluded you, ye became
apostates from the law of your fathers;” showing by such
statements (as we have just demonstrated) anything but an exact
knowledge of the truth. But what he advances afterwards seems to
have some force, when he says: “How is it that you take the
beginning of your system from our worship, and when you have made some
progress you treat it with disrespect, although you have no other
foundation to show for your doctrines than our law?” Now,
certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic
worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is
in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes
place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations
into “the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret
since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of
the prophets,” τῶν
ἐπιπολαιότερον
καὶ
μυθικώτερον
αὐτοῖς
ἐντυγχανόντων.
Chapter V.
After these matters, although Celsus becomes
tautological in his statements about Jesus, repeating for the second
time that “he was punished by the Jews for his crimes,” we
shall not again take up the defence, being satisfied with what we have
already said. But, in the next place, as this Jew of his
disparages the doctrine regarding the resurrection of the dead, and the
divine judgment, and of the rewards to be bestowed upon the just, and
of the fire which is to devour the wicked, as being stale ἕωλα. μύθους καὶ
λήρους. τοῖς κάτω
᾽Ιουδαίοις.
Chapter VI.
But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the
Jewish usages, including even their sacrificial observances, what does
that avail to prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God?
Jesus, then, is the Son of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and
we, who belong to the Church, do not transgress the law, but have
escaped the mythologizings μυθολογίας.
Chapter VII.
Moreover, let them show where there is to be found
even the appearance of language dictated by arrogance ἀλαζονεία.
Chapter VIII.
He says, further, that “many other persons would
appear such as Jesus was, to those who were willing to be
deceived.” Let this Jew of Celsus then show us, not many
persons, nor even a few, but a single individual, such as Jesus was,
introducing among the human race, with the power that was manifested in
Him, a system of doctrine and opinions beneficial to human life, and
which converts men from the practice of wickedness. He says,
moreover, that this charge is brought against the Jews by the Christian
converts, that they have not believed in Jesus as in God. Now on
this point we have, in the preceding pages, offered a preliminary
defence, showing at the same time in what respects we understand Him to
be God, and in what we take Him to be man. “How should
we,” he continues, “who have made known to all men that
there is to come from God one who is to punish the wicked, treat him
with disregard when he came?” And to this, as an
exceedingly silly argument, it does not seem to me reasonable to offer
any answer. It is as if some one were to say, “How could
we, who teach temperance, commit any act of licentiousness? or we, who
are ambassadors for righteousness, be guilty of any
wickedness?” For as these inconsistencies are found among
men, so, to say that they believed the prophets when speaking of the
future advent of Christ, and yet refused their belief to Him when He
came, agreeably to prophetic statement, was quite in keeping with human
nature. And since we must add another reason, we shall remark
that this very result was foretold by the prophets. Isaiah
distinctly declares: “Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand; and seeing ye [“The
Fathers, while they refer to extraordinary divine agency going on in
their own day, also with one consent represent miracles as having
ceased since the apostolic era.”—Mozley’s Bampton Lectures, On Miracles, p.
165. See also, Newman’s Essay on the Miracles of the
Early Ages, quoted by Mozley. S.]
Chapter IX.
The Jew continues his discourse thus:
“How should we deem him to be a God, who not only in other
respects, as was currently reported, performed none of his promises,
but who also, after we had convicted him, and condemned him as
deserving of punishment, was found attempting to conceal himself, and
endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful manner, and who was
betrayed by those whom he called disciples? And yet,” he
continues, “he who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a
prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and delivered up by
those who had been his associates, and had shared all things in common,
and had had him for their teacher, who was deemed to be a Saviour, and
a son of the greatest God, and an angel.” To which we
reply, that even we do not suppose the body of Jesus, which was then an
object of sight and perception, to have been God. And why do I
say His body? Nay, not even His soul, of which it is related,
“My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.”
“I know both the number of the sand, and the measures of the sea,
And I understand a dumb man, and hear him who does
not speak,” Herodot., i. cap.
47.
is considered to be a god when speaking, and making himself
heard through the Pythian priestess; so, according to our view, it was
the Logos God, and Son of the God of all things, who spake in Jesus
these words, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;”
and these, “I am the door;” and these, “I am the
living bread that came down from heaven;” and other expressions
similar to these. We therefore charge the Jews with not
acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many
passages by the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power, and
a God next to καὶ Θεὸν
κατὰ τὸν τῶν
ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ
πατέρα. “Ex mente
Origenis, inquit Boherellus, vertendum ‘Secundo post universi
Deum atque parentem loco;” non cum interprete Gelenio,
‘Ipsius rerum universarum Dei atque Parentis
testimonio.’ Nam si hic esset sensus, frustra post
ὑπὸ τῶν
προφητῶν, adderetur
κατὰ
τὸν Θεόν.
Præterea, hæc epitheta, τὸν τῶν ὅλων
Θεὸν καὶ
πατέρα, manifestam continent
antithesin ad ista, μεγάλην
ὄντα δύναμιν
καὶ Θεόν, ut Pater supra
Filium evehatur, quemadmodum evehitur, ab Origene infra libro octavo,
num. 15. Τοῦ,
κατά, inferiorem ordinem denotantis exempla
afferre supersedeo, cum obvia sint.”—Ruæus. [See also Liddon’s Bampton Lectures
on The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, p. 414,
where he says, “Origen maintains Christ’s true divinity
against the contemptuous criticisms of Celsus” (book ii. 9, 16,
seq.; vii. 53, etc.). S.] περιγεγραμμένον
τινά. εἰ γὰρ κατὰ
τὴν Παύλου
διδασκαλίαν,
λέγοντος·
“ὁ κολλώμενος
τῷ κυρίῳ, ἓν
πνεῦμά
ἐστι·”
πᾶς ὁ
νοησας τί τὸ
κολλᾶσθαι τῷ
κυρίῳ, καὶ
κολληθεὶς
αὐτῷ, ἕν ἐστι
πνεῦμα πρὸς
τὸν κύριον·
πῶς οὐ πολλῷ
μᾶλλον
θειοτέρως
καὶ μειζόνως
ἕν ἐστι τό
ποτε
σύνθετον
πρὸς τὸν
λόγον τοῦ
Θεοῦ;
Chapter X.
But what promise did Jesus make which He did not
perform? Let Celsus produce any instance of such, and make good
his charge. But he will be unable to do so, especially since it
is from mistakes, arising either from misapprehension of the Gospel
narratives, or from Jewish stories, that he thinks to derive the
charges which he brings against Jesus or against ourselves.
Moreover, again, when the Jew says, “We both found him guilty,
and condemned him as deserving of death,” let them show how they
who sought to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be
guilty. Was not the great charge against Jesus, which His
accusers brought forward, this, that He said, “I am able to
destroy the temple of God, and after three days to raise it up
again?”
Chapter XI.
In the next place, that He was betrayed by those
whom He called His disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus
learned from the Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, “many
disciples,” that he might seem to add force to the
accusation. Nor did he trouble himself to take note of all that
is related concerning Judas; how this Judas, having come to entertain
opposite and conflicting opinions regarding his Master neither opposed
Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his whole soul preserved the
respect due by a pupil to his teacher. For he that betrayed Him
gave to the multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a sign, saying,
“Whomsoever I shall kiss, it is he; seize ye
him,”—retaining still some element of respect for his
Master: for unless he had done so, he would have betrayed Him,
even publicly, without any pretence of affection. This
circumstance, therefore, will satisfy all with regard to the purpose of
Judas, that along with his covetous disposition, and his wicked design
to betray his Master, he had still a feeling of a mixed character in
his mind, produced in him by the words of Jesus, which had the
appearance (so to speak) of some remnant of good. For it is
related that, “when Judas, who betrayed Him, knew that He was
condemned, he repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to
the high priest and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have
betrayed the innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us?
see thou to that;” διάπυρος
καὶ σφόδρα. ἀπίθανον.
And the following appear to me to be childish
assertions, viz., that “no good general and leader of great
multitudes was ever betrayed; nor even a wicked captain of robbers and
commander of very wicked men, who seemed to be of any use to his
associates; but Jesus, having been betrayed by his subordinates,
neither governed like a good general, nor, after deceiving his
disciples, produced in the minds of the victims of his deceit that
feeling of good-will which, so to speak, would be manifested towards a
brigand chief.” Now one might find many accounts of
generals who were betrayed by their own soldiers, and of robber chiefs
who were captured through the instrumentality of those who did not keep
their bargains with them. But grant that no general or robber
chief was ever betrayed, what does that contribute to the establishment
of the fact as a charge against Jesus, that one of His disciples became
His betrayer? And since Celsus makes an ostentatious exhibition
of philosophy, I would ask of him, If, then, it was a charge against
Plato, that Aristotle, after being his pupil for twenty years, went
away and assailed his doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and
styled the ideas of Plato the merest trifling? τερετίσματα. [See De
Princip., iv. i. 5, where Origen gives the length of our
Lord’s ministry as “only a year and a few
months.” S.] Cf. Clem. Alex.,
Strom., v. c. ix. [See vol. ii. pp. 457, 458.
S.]
Chapter XIII.
This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in
the following fashion: “Although he could state many things
regarding the events of the life of Jesus which are true, and not like
those which are recorded by the disciples, he willingly omits
them.” What, then, are those true statements, unlike the
accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus passes by without
mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a figure of
speech, δοκούσῃ
δεινότητι
ῥητορικῇ. Modestinus, lib. vi.
Regularum, ad legem Corneliam de Sicariis:
“Circumcidere filios suos Judæis tantum rescripto divi Pii
permittitur: in non ejusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit,
castrantis pœna irrogatur.” [“Celsus
quotes the writings of the disciples of Jesus concerning His life, as
possessing unquestioned authority; and that these were the four
canonical Gospels is proved both by the absence of all evidence to the
contrary, and by the special facts which he brings forward. And
not only this, but both Celsus and Porphyry appear to have been
acquainted with the Pauline Epistles” (Westcott’s
History of the Canon of the New Testament, pp. 464, 465, 137,
138, 401, 402). See also infra, cap. lxxiv.
S.] [
Chapter XIV.
Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
Chapter XV.
Celsus continues: “The disciples of Jesus,
having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he
foreknew everything before it happened;” not observing, or not
wishing to observe, the love of truth which actuated the writers, who
acknowledged that Jesus had told His disciples beforehand, “All
ye shall be offended because of Me this night,”—a statement
which was fulfilled by their all being offended; and that He predicted
to Peter, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me
thrice,” which was followed by Peter’s threefold
denial. Now if they had not been lovers of truth, but, as Celsus
supposes, inventors of fictions, they would not have represented Peter
as denying, nor His disciples as being offended. For although
these events actually happened, who could have proved that they turned
out in that manner? And yet, according to all probability,
Chapter XVI.
Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that “the
disciples of Jesus wrote such accounts regarding him, by way of
extenuating the charges that told against him: as if,” he
says, “any one were to say that a certain person was a just man,
and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or that he was
pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was immortal, and yet
was dead; subjoining to all these statements the remark that he had
foretold all these things.” Now his illustrations are at
once seen to be inappropriate; for there is no absurdity in Him who had
resolved that He would become a living pattern to men, as to the manner
in which they were to regulate their lives, showing also how they ought
to die for the sake of their religion, apart altogether from the fact
that His death on behalf of men was a benefit to the whole world, as we
proved in the preceding book. He imagines, moreover, that the
whole of the confession of the Saviour’s sufferings confirms his
objection instead of weakening it. For he is not acquainted
either with the philosophical remarks of Paul, ὅσα
περὶ τούτου
καὶ παρὰ τῷ
Παύλῳ
πεφιλοσόφηται. Cf. Plato, de
Rep., x. p. 614. Cf. Plin.,
Nat. Hist., vii. c. 52. Οὐ μόνον οὖν
οὐχ ὁ νεκρὸς
ἀθάνατος,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὁ
πρὸ τοῦ
νεκροῦ
᾽Ιησοῦς ὁ
σύνθετος
ἀθάνατος ἦν,
ὅς γε ἔμελλε
τεθνήξεσθαι.
Chapter XVII.
Extremely foolish also is his remark, “What god,
or spirit, or prudent man would not, on foreseeing that such events
were to befall him, avoid them if he could; whereas he threw himself
headlong into those things which he knew beforehand were to
happen?” And yet Socrates knew that he would die after
drinking the hemlock, and it was in his power, if he had allowed
himself to be persuaded by Crito, by escaping
Chapter XVIII.
After this the Jew makes another silly remark,
saying, “How is it that, if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the
traitor and the perjurer, they did not fear him as a God, and cease,
the one from his intended treason, and the other from his
perjury?” Here the learned Celsus did not see the
contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a
God, then it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and
therefore it was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to
betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as
going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that crime. For if
it had been possible for the one to abstain from the act of betrayal,
and the other from that of denial, as having been warned of the
consequences of these actions beforehand, then His words were no longer
true, who predicted that the one would betray Him and the other deny
Him. For if He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the
wickedness in which the treason originated, and this wickedness was by
no means taken away by the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had
ascertained that one would deny Him, He made that prediction from
seeing the weakness out of which that act of denial would arise, and
yet this weakness was not to be taken away thus at once οὕτως
ἀθρόως.
Chapter XIX.
Superficial also is his objection, that “it is always the case when a man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it, makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design, that the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their guard.” For many have continued to plot even against those who were acquainted with their plans. And then, as if bringing his argument to a conclusion, he says: “Not because these things were predicted did they come to pass, for that is impossible; but since they have come to pass, their being predicted is shown to be a falsehood: for it is altogether impossible that those who heard beforehand of the discovery of their designs, should carry out their plans of betrayal and denial!” But if his premises are overthrown, then his conclusion also falls to the ground, viz., “that we are not to believe, because these things were predicted, that they have come to pass.” Now we maintain that they not only came to pass as being possible, but also that, because they came to pass, the fact of their being predicted is shown to be true; for the truth regarding future events is judged of by results. It is false, therefore, as asserted by him, that the prediction of these events is proved to be untrue; and it is to no purpose that he says, “It is altogether impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs were discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial.”
Chapter XX.
Let us see how he continues after this:
“These events,” he says, “he predicted as being a
God, and the prediction must by all means come to pass. God,
therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and especially
to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and prophets,
with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such a degree
of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of a
truth, he who shared a man’s table would not be guilty of
conspiring against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a
conspirator. And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted
against the members of his own table, by converting them into traitors
and villains!” Now, since you wish me εὐτελέσι. ἀργὸς
λόγος.
And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the
following oracular response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet,
either in the exact words of the oracle or in equivalent terms.
Future events are thus made known to him by the oracle: “Do
not try to beget children against the will of the gods. For if
you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and all your household
shall wade in blood.” Euripid.,
Phœnissæ, 18–20. ἀντὶ
τοῦ ἕσται.
Chapter XXI.
Observe also the superficiality and manifest
falsity of such a statement of Celsus, when he asserts “that he
who was partaker of a man’s table would not conspire against him;
and if he would not conspire against a man, much less would he plot
against a God after banqueting with him.” For who does not
know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on the
table, ἁλῶν
καὶ
τραπέζης. Archilochus.
“But thou hast broken a mighty oath—that, viz., by the salt of the table.”
And they who are interested in historical learning, and who
give themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of
knowledge more necessary for the conduct of life, Guietus would expunge
these words as “inept.”
Chapter XXII.
He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: “And, which is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men.” But how Jesus could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.
Chapter XXIII.
He continues in this strain: “If he had determined upon these things, and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that, being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor distressing.” But he did not observe that here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because He had determined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it was impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing, how did He grant that “He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was not in His power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.
Chapter XXIV.
After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences
which befell Him were painful and distressing, and that it was
impossible for Him, had He wished, to render them otherwise, he
proceeds: “Why does he mourn, and lament, and pray to
escape the fear of death, expressing himself in terms like these:
‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
Me?’” καὶ ταῦτα δὲ
πολλὴν
ἔχοντα
διήγησιν ἀπὸ
σοφίας Θεοῦ
οἷς ὁ Παῦλος
ὠνόμασε
τελείοις
εὐλόγως
παραδοθησέμένην.
Chapter XXV.
We have mentioned in the preceding pages that
there are some of the declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being
in Him which was the “first-born of every creature,” such
as, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and such
like; and others, again, which belong to that in Him which is
understood to be man, such as, “But now ye seek to kill Me, a man
that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the
Father.”
Chapter XXVI.
This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus
of having invented these statements, saying to them: “Even
although guilty of falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of
credibility to your inventions.” In answer to which we have
to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these
occurrences,—that, viz., of not recording them at all. For
if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these
Chapter XXVII.
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
Chapter XXVIII.
And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of
reproach that Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted
the events of Christ’s life, we have to say, in addition to what
we have already advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare
individuals, as he says, and to expound the prophecies themselves, and
after admitting the probability of the Christian interpretation of
them, to show how the use which they make of them may be
overturned. The original here is
probably corrupt: ῞Οτι
ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν
(ὣς φησι)
φειδόμενον
ἀνθρώπων
αὐτὰς
ἐκθέσθαι τὰς
προφητείας,
καὶ
συναγορεύσαντα
ταῖς
πιθανότησιν
αὐτῶν, τὴν
φαινομένην
αὐτῶν
ἀνατροπὴν
τῆς χρήσεως
τῶν
προφητικῶν
ἐκθέσθαι. For
φειδόμενον
Boherellus would read κηδόμενον,
and τὴν
φαινομένην
αὐτῷ
ἀνατροπήν.
Chapter XXIX.
In the preceding pages we have already spoken of
this point, viz., the prediction that there were to be two advents of
Christ to the human race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply
to the objection, supposed to be urged by a Jew, that “the
prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all
nations and armies.” But it is in the spirit of a Jew, I
think, and in keeping with their bitter animosity, and baseless and
even improbable calumnies against Jesus, that he adds: “Nor
did the prophets predict such a pestilence.” ὄλεθρον.
Chapter XXX.
This objection also is cast in our teeth by
Celsus: “From such signs and misinterpretations, and from
proofs so mean, no one could prove him to be God, and the Son of
God.” Now it was his duty to enumerate the alleged
misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by
reasoning the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if
any of his objections should seem to be plausible, might be able to
answer and confute his arguments. What he said, however,
regarding Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a mighty
potentate, although Celsus refuses to see that it so happened,
notwithstanding that the clearest evidence proves it true of
Jesus. “For as the sun,” he says, “which
enlightens all other objects, first makes himself visible, so ought the
Son of God to have done.” We would say in reply, that so He
did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and there is abundance
of peace, which took its commencement at His [In fulfillment of the
great plan foreshadowed in Daniel, and promised by
Chapter XXXI.
He next charges the Christians with being “guilty
of sophistical reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the
Logos Himself.” And he thinks that
he strengthens the accusation, because “when we declare the
Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to
view a pure and holy Logos, but a most
degraded man, who was punished by scourging and
crucifixion.” Now, on this head we have briefly replied to
the charges of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to
be the first-born of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul;
and that God gave commandment respecting the creation of such mighty
things in the world, and they were created; and that He who received
the command was God the Logos. And seeing it is a Jew who makes
these statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to
quote the declaration, “He sent His word, and healed them, and
delivered them from their destruction,”
Chapter XXXII.
We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the carpenters wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons of no reputation.
Chapter XXXIII.
“But,” continues Celsus, “what great
deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to
shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against
him?” Now to this question, although we are able to show
the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him,
yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the
Gospel narratives, which state that “there was an earthquake, and
that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil
of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness
prevailed in the day-time, the Cf. ὦ οὗτος. [Testimony not to be
scorned.] On Phlegon, cf. note
in Migne, pp. 823, 854. [See also vol. iii. Elucidation V. p.
58.]
Chapter XXXIV.
This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as being acquainted with the Bacchæ of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:—
“The divinity himself will liberate me
whenever I wish.” Eurip.,
Bacchæ, 498 (ed. Dindorf).
Now the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek
literature; but suppose that there was a Jew so well versed in it (as
to make such a quotation on his part appropriate), how (does it follow)
that Jesus could not liberate Himself, because He did not do
so? For let him believe from our own Scriptures that Peter
obtained his freedom after having been bound in prison, an angel having
loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound in the stocks along
with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by divine power,
when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable that
Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read them;
for he would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers
who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so
that he would liken the events related in our histories to the doings
of sorcerers. “But,” he continues, “no calamity
happened even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz.,
madness or discerption.” Cf. Euseb.,
Hist. Eccles., bk. ii. c. vii.
Chapter XXXV.
But in answer to this objection, “If not before, yet why now, at least, does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?” We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if we were to say to those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of providence, and who believe in portents, Why does God not punish those who insult the Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as the Greeks would answer such objections, so would we, in the same, or a more effective manner. There was not only a portent from heaven—the eclipse of the sun—but also the other miracles, which show that the crucified One possessed something that was divine, and greater than was possessed by the majority of men.
Chapter XXXVI.
Celsus next says: “What is the nature
of the ichor in the body of the crucified Jesus? Is it
‘such as flows in the bodies of the immortal
gods?’” Cf.
Iliad, v. 340. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXXVII.
After this, he who extracts from the Gospel
narrative those statements on which he thinks he can found an
accusation, makes the vinegar and the gall a subject of reproach to
Jesus, saying that “he rushed with open mouth χανδόν.
Chapter XXXVIII.
The few next remarks: “You, O sincere
believers, ὦ πιστότατοι. τὸν
Χριστόν. τὰ
ἀνθρώπων. μαρτύρασθαι
περὶ τῶν
πρακτέων. παραδόξως.
Chapter XXXIX.
And how can the following assertion of this Jew of
Celsus appear anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz., that
Jesus, “having gained over no one during his life, not even his
own disciples, underwent these punishments and sufferings?”
For from what other source sprang the envy which was aroused against
Him by the Jewish high priests, and elders, and scribes, save from the
fact that multitudes obeyed and followed Him, and were led into the
deserts not τῆς τῶν
λόγων αὐτοῦ
ἀκολουθίας. ἐπιφανείας.
Chapter XL.
It is, moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit
that Celsus imagines our Lord’s pre-eminence among men to
consist, not in the preaching of salvation and in a pure morality, but
in acting contrary to the character of that personality which He had
taken upon Him, and in not dying, although He had assumed mortality;
or, if dying, yet at least not such a death as might serve as a pattern
to those who were to learn by that very act how to die for the sake of
religion, and to comport themselves boldly through its help, before
those who hold erroneous views on the subject of religion and
irreligion, and who regard religious men as altogether irreligious, but
imagine those to be most religious who err regarding God, and who apply
to everything rather than to God the ineradicable τὴν περὶ
αὐτοῦ
ἀδιάστροφον
ἔννοιαν.
Chapter XLI.
In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus, alleging that “he did not show himself to be pure from all evil.” Let Celsus state from what “evil” our Lord did not, show Himself to be pure. If he means that, He was not pure from what is properly termed “evil,” let him clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he deems poverty and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of wicked men, then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened also to Socrates, who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And how great also the other band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have given themselves to philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily accepted a life of poverty, is known to many among the Greeks from what is recorded of Democritus, who allowed his property to become pasture for sheep; and of Crates, who obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the Thebans the price received for the sale of his possessions. Nay, even Diogenes himself, from excessive poverty, came to live in a tub; and yet, in the opinion of no one possessed of moderate understanding, was Diogenes on that account considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition.
Chapter XLII.
But further, since Celsus will have it that
“Jesus was not irreproachable,” let him instance any one of
those who adhere to His doctrine, who has recorded anything that could
truly furnish ground of reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from
these that he derives his matter of accusation against Him, let him say
from what quarter he has learned that which has induced him to say that
He is not free from reproach. Jesus, however, performed all that
He promised to do, and by which He conferred benefits upon his
adherents. And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was
predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His
should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His disciples
should go among all nations and announce His doctrine; and, moreover,
that they should be brought before governors and kings on no other
account than because of His teaching; we are lost in wonder at Him, and
have our faith in Him daily confirmed. And I know not by what
greater or more convincing proofs Celsus would have Him confirm His
predictions; unless, indeed, as seems to be the case, not understanding
that the Logos had become the man Jesus, he would have Him to be
subject to no human weakness, nor to become an illustrious pattern to
men of the manner in which they ought to bear the calamities of life,
although these appear to Celsus to be most lamentable and disgraceful
occurrences, seeing that he regards labour πόνον. ἀγῶνα τὸν
πρῶτον καὶ
μέγιστον τῆς
ψυχῆς.
Chapter XLIII.
Celsus next addresses to us the following
remark: “You will not, I suppose, say of him, that, after
failing to gain over those who were in this world, he went to Hades to
gain over those who were there.” But whether he like it or
not, we assert that not only while Jesus was in the body did He win
over not a few persons merely, but so great a number, that a conspiracy
was formed against Him on account of the multitude of His followers;
but also, that when He became a soul, without the covering of the body,
He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering,
converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He
saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a
course. [See Dean
Plumptre’s The Spirits in Prison: Studies on the Life
after Death, p. 85. S.]
Chapter XLIV.
Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable
silliness: “If, after inventing defences which are absurd,
and by which ye were ridiculously deluded, ye imagine that you really
make a good defence, what prevents you from regarding those other
individuals who have been condemned, and have died a miserable death,
as greater and more divine messengers of heaven (than
Jesus)?” Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no
similarity between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who
have died a wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever
else be the charge against them, is patent to every one. For no
one can point to any acts of a sorcerer which turned away souls from
the practice of the many sins which prevail among men, and from the
flood of wickedness (in the world). τῆς κατὰ τὴν
κακίαν
χύσεως. καὶ ταῦτα.
Chapter XLV.
But observe the superficial nature of his argument
respecting the former disciples of Jesus, in which he says:
“In the next place, those who were his associates while alive,
and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their
teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment and death, neither died
with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to regard punishment with
contempt, but denied even that they were his disciples, whereas now ye
die along with him.” And here he believes the sin which was
committed by the disciples while they were yet beginners and imperfect,
and which is recorded in the Gospels, to have been actually committed,
in order that he may have matter of accusation against the Gospel; but
their upright conduct after their transgression, when they behaved with
courage before the Jews, and suffered countless cruelties at their
hands, and at last suffered death for the doctrine of Jesus, he passes
by in silence. For he would neither hear the words of Jesus, when
He predicted to Peter, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt
stretch forth thy hands,”
Chapter XLVI.
But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he says that Jesus, “when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole of these?” Now it is certain that the Jews themselves would admit that He drew over not ten persons merely, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but on one occasion five thousand at once, and on another four thousand; and that He attracted them to such a degree that they followed Him even into the deserts, which alone could contain the assembled multitude of those who believed in God through Jesus, and where He not only addressed to them discourses, but also manifested to them His works. And now, through his tautology, he compels us also to be tautological, since we are careful to guard against being supposed to pass over any of the charges advanced by him; and therefore, in reference to the matter before us following the order of his treatise as we have it, he says: “Is it not the height of absurdity to maintain, that if, while he himself was alive, he won over not a single person to his views, after his death any who wish are able to gain over such a multitude of individuals?” Whereas he ought to have said, in consistency with truth, that if, after His death, not simply those who will, but they who have the will and the power, can gain over so many proselytes, how much more consonant to reason is it, that while He was alive He should, through the greater power of His words and deeds, have won over to Himself manifold greater numbers of adherents?
Chapter XLVII.
He represents, moreover, a statement of his own as
if it were an answer to one of his questions, in which he asks:
“By what train of argument were you led to regard him as the Son
of God?” For he makes us answer that “we were won
over to him, because The reading in the
text is εἰ καὶ
ἴσμεν; for which both Bohereau and De
la Rue propose ἐπεὶ
ἴσμεν, which has been adopted in the
translation: cf. ἐπεὶ
ἐκολάσθη,
infra.
Chapter XLVIII.
Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles
which Jesus is recorded to have performed, has already on several
occasions spoken of them slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also
on several occasions have, to the best of our ability, replied to his
statements. And now he represents us as saying that “we
deemed Jesus to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the
blind.” And he adds: “Moreover, as you assert,
he raised the dead.” That He healed the lame and the blind,
and that therefore we hold Him to be the Christ and the Son of God, is
manifest to us from what is contained in the prophecies:
“Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the
deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an
hart.” Cf. ὧν
᾽Ιησοῦς
αἰσθητῶν.
Chapter XLIX.
Jesus, accordingly, in turning away the minds of
His disciples, not merely from giving heed to sorcerers in general, and
those who profess in any other manner to work miracles—for His
disciples did not need to be so warned—but from such as gave
themselves out as the Christ of God, and who tried by certain
apparent φαντασιῶν. Cf. θειότης, lit.
divinity.
Paul, moreover, in the second Epistle to the
Thessalonians, shows in what manner there will Cf.
Chapter LI.
Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of
Scripture when he made Jesus say, that it is “a certain Satan who
contrives such devices;” although he begs the question συναρπάζει
τὸν λόγον. φάσσα. περιστερά.
Chapter LII.
But since it is a Jew who makes these assertions
in the treatise of Celsus, we would say to him: Pray, friend, why
do you believe the works which are recorded in your writings as having
been performed by God through the instrumentality of Moses to be really
divine, and endeavour to refute those who slanderously assert that they
were wrought by sorcery, like those of the Egyptian magicians; while,
in imitation of your Egyptian opponents, you charge those which were
done by Jesus, and which, you admit, were actually performed, with not
being divine? For if the final result, and the founding of an
entire nation by the miracles of Moses, manifestly demonstrate that it
was God who brought these things to pass in the time of Moses the
Hebrew lawgiver, why should not such rather be shown to be the case
with Jesus, who accomplished far greater works than those of
Moses? For the former took those of his own nation, the
descendants of Abraham, who had observed the rite of circumcision
transmitted by tradition, and who were careful observers of the
Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt, enacting for them those
laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the latter ventured upon a
greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the pre-existing
constitution, and upon ancestral customs and modes of life agreeable to
the existing laws, a constitution in conformity with the Gospel.
And as it was necessary, in order that Moses should find credit not
only among the elders, but the common people, that there should be
performed those miracles which he is recorded to have performed, why
should not Jesus also, in order that He may be believed on by those of
the people who had learned to ask for signs and wonders, need [δεήσεται.
S.]
Chapter LIII.
All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of
Celsus advances against those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of
reasoning, be urged as ground of accusation against Moses: so
that there is no difference in asserting that the sorcery practised by
Jesus and that by Moses were similar to each other, ὥστε
μηδὲν
διαφέρειν
παραπλήσιον
εἶναι λέγειν
γοητειαν της
᾽Ιησοῦ τῇ
Μωϋσέως.
Chapter LIV.
After this, forsooth, the Jew of Celsus, to keep
up the character assigned to the Jew from the beginning, in his address
to those of his countrymen who had become believers, says:
“By what, then, were you induced (to become his followers)?
Was it because he foretold that after his death he would rise
again?” Now this question, like the others, can be retorted
upon Moses. For we might say to the Jew: “By what,
then, were you induced (to become the follower of Moses)?
Was it because he put on record the following statement about his own
death: ‘And Moses, the servant of the Lord died there, in the land of Moab, according to the word
of the Lord; and they buried him in Moab, near
the house of Phogor: and no one knoweth his sepulchre until this
day?’” Cf.
Chapter LV.
The Jew continues his address to those of his
countrymen who are converts, as follows: “Come now, let us
grant to you that the prediction was actually uttered. Yet how
many others are there who practise such juggling tricks, in order to
deceive their simple hearers, and who make gain by their
deception?—as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis Cf. Herodot., iv.
95. Cf. Herodot., ii.
122. Cf. Herodot., ii.
122. Cf. Diodor.,
iv., Bibl. Hist. αὐτῷ
σώματι. [See
Mozley’s Bampton Lectures On Miracles, 3d ed., p.
297: “That a man should rise from the dead, was treated by
them (the heathen) as an absolutely incredible fact.”
S.] γυνη
πάροιστρος. κατά τινα
διάθεσιν
ὀνειρώξας. ἢ κατά τὴν
αὐτοῦ
βούλησιν
δόξῃ
πεπλανημένῃ
φαντασιωθείς.
Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we
shall conduct the defence of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew,
still continuing the comparison derived from the accounts regarding
Moses, and saying to him: “How many others are there who
practise similar juggling tricks to those of Moses, in order to deceive
their silly hearers, and who make gain by their deception?”
Now this objection would be more appropriate in the mouth of one who
did not believe in Moses (as we might quote the instances of Zamolxis
and Pythagoras, who were Cf.
Chapter LVI.
But since the Jew says that these histories of the
alleged descent of heroes to Hades, and of their return thence, are
juggling impositions, τερατείας. πῶς οἴονται
τὸ
παραπλήσιον
πλάσασθαι
λέγειν αὐτὸν
τοῖς
ἱστορουμένοις,
etc. καταβεβηκέναι
βιᾷ. Bohereau proposes the omission of
βιᾷ. ἐτερατεύσατο.
Chapter LVII.
But observe whether this Jew of Celsus does not
talk very blindly, in saying that it is impossible for any one to rise
from the dead with a veritable body, his language being:
“But this is the question, whether any one who was really dead
ever rose again with a veritable body?” Now a Jew would not
have uttered these words, who believed what is recorded in the third
and fourth books of Kings regarding little children, of whom the one
was raised up by Elijah, Cf. Cf.
Chapter LVIII.
Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced
respecting those who were guilty τερατευομένοις.
Chapter LIX.
He imagines also that both the earthquake and the
darkness were an invention; τερατείαν. [See cap.
xxxiii., note, p. 455, supra.] εἰ δὲ τὸ “ἐπήρκεσεν
” ἀπὸ
τῶν μέσων καὶ
σωματικῶν
λαμβάνει.
Chapter LX.
In the next place, as if this were possible, viz.,
that the image of a man who was dead could appear to another as if he
were still living, he adopts this opinion as an Epicurean, and says,
“That some one having so dreamed owing to a peculiar state of
mind, or having, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed
such an appearance as he himself desired, reported that such had been
seen; and this,” he continues, “has been the case with
numberless individuals.” But even if this statement of his
seems to have a considerable degree of force, it is nevertheless only
fitted to confirm a necessary doctrine, that the soul of the dead
exists in a separate state (from the body); and he who adopts such an
opinion does not believe without good reason in the immortality, or at
least continued existence, of the soul, as even Plato says in his
treatise on the Soul that shadowy phantoms of persons already dead have
appeared to some around their sepulchres. Now the phantoms which
exist about the soul of the dead are produced by some substance, and
this substance is in the soul, which exists apart in a body said to be
of splendid appearance. τὰ μὲν οὖν
γινόμενα
περὶ ψυχῆς
τεθνηκότων
φαντάσματα
ἀπό τινος
ὑποκειμένου
γίνεται, τοῦ
κατὰ τὴν
ὑφεστηκυῖαν
ἐν τῷ
καλουμένῳ
αὐγοειδεῖ
σώματι
ψυχήν. Cf. note in Benedictine
ed. ὕπαρ.
Jesus accordingly, as Celsus imagines, exhibited
after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the cross,
and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been;
whereas, according to the teaching of the Gospel—some portions of
which Celsus arbitrarily accepts, in order to find ground of
accusation, and other parts of which he rejects—Jesus called to
Him one of His disciples who was sceptical, and who deemed the miracle
an impossibility. That individual had, indeed, expressed his
belief in the statement of the woman who said that she had seen Him,
because he did not think it impossible that the soul of a dead man
could be seen; but he did not yet consider the report to be true that
He had been raised in a body, which was the antitype of the
former. ἐν
σώματι
ἀντιτύπῳ
ἐγηγέρθαι. ψυχῆς
σῶμα.
“Both in size, and in beauty of eyes,
And in voice;”
and frequently, too,
“Having, also, such garments around the
person Cf. Homer,
Iliad, xxiii. 66, 67.
Jesus accordingly, having called Thomas, said, “Reach
hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but
believing.” Cf.
Chapter LXII.
Now it followed from all the predictions which
were uttered regarding Him—amongst which was this prediction of
the resurrection—and, from all that was done by Him, and from all
the events which befell Him, that this event should be marvellous above
all others. For it had been said beforehand by the prophet in the
person of Jesus: “My flesh shall rest in hope, and Thou
wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and wilt not suffer Thine Holy One to
see corruption.”
Chapter LXIII.
After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring
against the Gospel narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed
over, saying that “if Jesus desired to show that his power was
really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated
him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men
universally.” For it appears to us also to be true,
according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His
resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show
Himself—publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the
Acts, that “being seen during forty days,” He expounded to
His disciples “the things pertaining to the kingdom of
God.” Cf.
Chapter LXIV.
Although Jesus was only a single individual, He
was nevertheless more things than one, according to the different
standpoint from which He might be regarded; πλείονα τῇ
ἐπινοίᾳ ἦν. οὕτω καὶ
ταῖς ὄψεσι
πάντως μὲν
τῆς ψυχῆς,
ἐγὼ δ᾽
ἡγοῦμαι, ὅτι
καὶ τοῦ
σώματος. τὸν μὴ
ἀπεκδυσάμενον,
etc. Cf. Alford, in loco (
Chapter LXV.
And why do I say “to all?” For
even with His own apostles and disciples He was not perpetually
present, nor did He constantly show Himself to them, because they were
not able without intermission διηνεκῶς. τὴν
οικονομίαν
τελεσαντος. χρήσιμον δ᾽
οἶμαι πρὸς
ἀπολογίαν
τῶν
προκειμένων. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXVI.
And be not surprised if all the multitudes who
have believed on Jesus do not behold His resurrection, when Paul,
writing to the Corinthians, can say to them, as being incapable of
receiving greater matters, “For I determined not to know anything
among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified;” Cf. οὕτω μοι
νόει καὶ τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ ὦφθαι τῇ
παραπλησίᾳ
εἰς τὸ περὶ
ἐκείνων, εἰς
τὸ ὦφθαι
αὐτοῖς τὸν
Θεόν,
κρίσει.
Chapter LXVII.
To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a
treatise of this nature, we have answered the objection, that “if
Jesus had really wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have
shown himself to those who ill-treated him, and to the judge who
condemned him, and to all without reservation.” There was,
however, no obligation on Him to appear either to the judge who
condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For Jesus spared
both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten with
blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the
beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. And here is the account
of the matter: “But the men put forth their hand, and
pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they
smote the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both
small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the
door.” Cf.
Chapter LXVIII.
But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that,
“if this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he
ought accordingly Cf.
Chapter LXIX.
But we wish to show that His instantaneous bodily
disappearance from the cross was not better fitted to serve the
purposes of the whole economy of salvation (than His remaining upon it
was). For the mere letter and narrative of the events which
happened to Jesus do not present the whole view of the truth. For
each one of them can be shown, to those who have an intelligent
apprehension of Scripture, to be a symbol of something else.
Accordingly, as His crucifixion contains a truth, represented in the
words, “I am crucified with Christ,” and intimated also in
these, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the
world;” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXX.
But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say
that Jesus concealed Himself? For his words regarding Him are
these: “And who that is sent as a messenger ever conceals
himself when he ought to make known his message?” Now, He
did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought to apprehend Him,
“I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye laid no hold
upon Me.” But having once already answered this charge of
Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we
have formerly said. We have answered, also, in the preceding
pages, this objection, that “while he was in the body, and no one
believed upon him, he preached to all without intermission; but when he
might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the
dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon
companions.” τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ
θιασώταις. λέγω δὲ οὐ
περὶ τῶν
σχέσιν πρὸς
ἕτερα
ἐχόντων,
ἀλλὰ περὶ
τῶν κατὰ
διαφοράν. ἐναντίον τὸν
μὲν
κολαζόμενον
πᾶσιν
ἑωρᾶσθαι,
ἀναστάντα δὲ
ἑνί. The Benedictine editor reads
τὸν μὲν
κολαζόμενον,
and Bohereau proposes ἐναντίον τῷ
κολαζόμενον
μὲν, etc.
Chapter LXXI.
Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the
words, “None knoweth the Father but the Son;” Cf. ὧν
ἴχνη ἐν τοῖς
γεγραμμένοις
εὑρίσκοντες
ἀφορμὰς
ἔχομεν
θεολογεῖν. The text is,
τοὺς δὲ
ἁμαρτάνοντας
ἢ
μεταγνόντας
ἐλεήσων. Bohereau
would read μὴ
μεταγνόντας,
or would render the passage as if the reading were ἢ ἁμαρτανόντας,
ἢ
μεταγνόντας.
This suggestion has been adopted in the translation.
After the above statements, he continues:
“If he wished to remain hid, why was there heard a voice from
heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God? And if he did not
seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or why did he
die?” Now, by such questions he thinks to convict the
histories of discrepancy, not observing that Jesus neither desired all
things regarding Himself to be known to all whom He happened to meet,
nor yet all things to be unknown. Accordingly, the voice from
heaven which proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, in the words,
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased,” οὐδέπω δὲ
λέγω, ὅτι οὐ
πάντως ἐστὶν
ἀὴρ
πεπληγμένος·
ἢ πληγὴ
ἀέρος, ἢ ὅ τι
ποτὲ λέγεται
ἐν τοῖς περὶ
φωνῆς.
Chapter LXXIII.
The Jew proceeds, after this, to state as a
consequence what does not follow from the premises; for it does
not follow from “His having wished, by the punishments which He
underwent, to teach us also to despise death,” that after His
resurrection He should openly summon all men to the light, and instruct
them in the object of His coming. For He had formerly summoned
all men to the light in the words, “Come unto Me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Cf.
Chapter LXXIV.
In addition to all this, the Jew further
says: “All these statements are taken from your own books,
in addition to which we need no other witness; for ye fall upon your
own swords.” αὐτοὶ γὰρ
ἑαυτοῖς
περιπίπτετε.
[See note supra, cap. xiii. p. 437. S.]
Now we have proved that many foolish assertions,
opposed to the narratives of our Gospels, occur in the statements of
the Jew, either with respect to Jesus or ourselves. And I do not
think that he has shown that “we fall upon our own swords;”
but he only so imagines. And when the Jew adds, in a general way,
this to his former remarks: “O most high and heavenly one!
what God, on appearing to men, is received with incredulity?” we
must say to him, that according to the accounts in the law of Moses,
God is related to have visited the Hebrews in a most public manner, not
only in the signs and wonders performed in Egypt, and also in the
passage of the Red Sea, and in the pillar of fire and cloud of light,
but also when the Decalogue was announced to the whole people, and yet
was received with incredulity by those who saw these things: for
had they believed what they saw and heard, they would not have
fashioned the calf, nor changed their own glory into the likeness of a
grass-eating calf; nor would they have said to one another with
reference to the calf, “These be thy gods, O Israel, who brought
thee up out of the land of Egypt.” Cf.
Chapter LXXV.
I think what has been stated is enough to convince any
one that the unbelief of the Jews with regard to Jesus was in keeping
with what is related of this people from the beginning. For I
would say in reply to this Jew of Celsus, when he asks, “What God
that appeared among men is received with incredulity, and that, too,
when The text reads
ἡμῶν, for which Bohereau and the
Benedictine editor propose either ὑμᾶς or ἡμᾶς, the former of which is preferred by
Lommatzsch. κατ᾽
ἀμφοτέρας
τὰς ἀρχὰς
τῶν
πραγμάτων
ἀπιστοῦντι
; Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXXVI.
Celsus, in adopting the character of a Jew, could
not discover any objections to be urged against the Gospel which might
not be retorted on him as liable to be brought also against the law and
the prophets. For he censures Jesus in such words as the
following: “He makes use of threats, and reviles men on
light grounds, when he says, ‘Woe unto you,’ and ‘I
tell you beforehand.’ For by such expressions he manifestly
acknowledges his inability to persuade; and this would not be the case
with a God, or even a prudent man.” Observe, now, whether
these charges do not manifestly recoil upon the Jew. For in the
writings of the law and the prophets God makes use of threats and
revilings, when He employs language of not less severity than that
found in the Gospel, such as the following expressions of Isaiah:
“Woe unto them that join house to house, and lay field to
field;” Cf.
“Why, now, wretched man, do you come
wandering alone over the mountain-tops?” Cf.
Odyss., x. 281.
that you are satisfied with the answer, which
explains that the Homeric Hermes addresses such language to Odysseus to
remind him of his duty, ὑπὲρ
ἐπιστροφῆς.
“Is a huge heap of bones,” Cf.
Odyss., xii. 45.
and who say,
“Come hither, much lauded Odysseus, great
glory of the Greeks;” Ibid., xii.
184.
whereas, if our prophets and Jesus Himself, in order to turn
their hearers from evil, make use of such expressions as “Woe
unto you,” and what you regard as revilings, there is no
condescension in such language to the circumstances of the hearers, nor
any application of such words to them as healing παιώνιον
φάρμακον.
Chapter LXXVII.
After this the Jew remarks, manifestly in
accordance with the Jewish belief: “We certainly hope that
there will be a bodily resurrection, and that we shall enjoy an eternal
life; and the example and archetype of this will be He who is sent to
us, and who will show that nothing is impossible with God.”
We do not know, indeed, whether the Jew would say of the expected
Christ, that He exhibits in Himself an example of the resurrection; but
let it be supposed that he both thinks and says so. We shall give
this answer, then, to him who has told us that he drew his information
from our own writings: “Did you read those writings,
friend, in which you think you discover matter of accusation against
us, and not find there the resurrection of Jesus, and the declaration
that He was the first-born from the dead? Or because you will not
allow such things to have been recorded, were they not actually
recorded?” But as the Jew still admits the resurrection of
the body, I do not consider the present a suitable time to discuss the
subject with one who both believes and says that there is a bodily
resurrection, whether he has an articulate εἶτε
διαρθροῦντα
τὸ τοιοῦτον
παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ. καὶ
δυνάμενον
πρεσβεῦσαι
περὶ τοῦ
λόγου
καλῶς. ἀλλὰ
μυθικώτερον
συγκατατιθέμενον
τῷ λόγῳ.
Chapter LXXVIII.
The Jew continues: “Did Jesus come
into the world for this purpose, that we should not believe
him?” To which we immediately answer, that He did not come
with the object of producing incredulity among the Jews; but knowing
beforehand that such would be the result, He foretold it, and made use
of their unbelief for the calling of the Gentiles. For through
their sin salvation came to the Gentiles, respecting whom the Christ
who speaks in the prophecies says, “A people whom I did not know
became subject to Me: they were obedient to the hearing of My
ear;” Cf. Cf. οὐχὶ ἔθνος,
ἀλλὰ λογάδας
πανταχόθεν. Cf.
Chapter LXXIX.
The conclusion of all these arguments regarding
Jesus is thus stated by the Jew: “He was therefore a man,
and of such a nature, as the truth itself proves, and reason
demonstrates him to be.” I do not know, however, whether a
man who had the courage to spread throughout the entire world his
doctrine of religious worship and teaching, τὴν κατ᾽
αὐτὸν
θεοσέβειαν
καὶ
διδασκαλίαν.
Chapter I.
In the first book of our answer to the work of
Celsus, who had boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed
against us A True Discourse, we have gone through, as you
enjoined, my faithful Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his
preface, and the parts immediately following it, testing each one of
his assertions as we went along, until we finished with the
tirade δημηγορίας:
cf. book i. c. 71. δημηγορίας:
cf. book i. c. 71.
He gives it as his opinion, that “the
controversy between Jews and Christians is a most foolish one,”
and asserts that “the discussions which we have with each other
regarding Christ differ in no respect from what is called in the
proverb, ‘a fight about the shadow of an
ass;’” κατὰ τὴν
παροιμίαν
καλουμένης
ὄνου σκιᾶς
μάχης. On this proverb, see
Zenobius, Centuria Sexta, adag. 28, and the note of
Schottius. Cf. also Suidas, s.v. ὄνου
σκιά.—De la Rue. σεμνόν. διά τινος
γοητείας. κατὰ τὰ
᾽Ιουδαίων
πάτρια.
Chapter II.
But let Celsus, and those who assent to his
charges, tell us whether it is at all like “an ass’s
shadow,” that the Jewish prophets should have predicted the
birth-place of Him who was to be the ruler of those who had lived
righteous lives, and who are called the “heritage” of
God; τῶν
χρηματιζόντων
μερίδος
Θεοῦ. ἆρα
γὰρ ὡς
ἔτυχε. σὺν οὑδεμιᾷ
πιθανότητι. σὺν οὑδεμιᾷ
πιθανότητι. The reading in the
text is αὐτομολεῖν,
on which Bohereau, with whom the Benedictine editor agrees, remarks
that we must either read αὐτομολήσοντας,
or understand some such word as ἑτοίμους before
αὐτομολεῖν. τὸ μεῖζον
αὐτόθεν.
Chapter III.
In the next place, miracles were performed in all
countries, or at least in many of them, as Celsus himself admits,
instancing the case of Æsculapius, who conferred benefits on many,
and who foretold future events to entire cities, which were dedicated
to him, such as Tricca, and Epidaurus, and Cos, and Pergamus; and along
with Æsculapius he mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain
Clazomenian, and Cleomedes of Astypalæa. But among the Jews
alone, who say they are dedicated to the God of all things, there was
wrought no miracle or sign which might help to confirm their faith in
the Creator of all things, and strengthen their hope of another and
better life! But how can they imagine such a state of
things? For they would immediately have gone over to the worship
of those demons which gave oracles and performed cures, and deserted
the God who was believed, as far as words went, μέχρι
λόγου. πῶς οὐχὶ ἐξ
εἰκότων
κατασκευάζεται.
Chapter IV.
And if the above be the state of the case, how do
Jews and Christians search after “the shadow of an ass,” in
seeking to ascertain from those prophecies which they believe in
common, whether He who was foretold has come, or has not yet arrived,
and is still an object of expectation? But even suppose καθ᾽
ὑπόθεσιν. θεόθεν.
Chapter V.
Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining
that the Jews are Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after
revolting against the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that
people in matters of worship, says that “they suffered from the
adherents of Jesus, who believed in Him as the Christ, the same
treatment which they had inflicted upon the Egyptians; and that the
cause which led to the new state of things Τῆς
καινοτομίας.
Chapter VI.
Celsus, therefore, not investigating in a spirit
of impartiality the facts, which are related by the Egyptians in one
way, and by the Hebrews in another, but being bewitched, as it
were, Προκαταληφθεὶς
ὡς ὑπο
φίλτρων τῶν
Αἰγυπτίων. Τὴν
σύντροφον
φωνήν.
Chapter VII.
In like manner, as the statement is false
“that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the
commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their
rebellion,” so also is this, “that in the days of Jesus
others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His
followers;” for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are
able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of
rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the
Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way
from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of
the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian
Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to
death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own
disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He
did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived
from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual
whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to
a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as
not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any
occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a
little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt,
that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the
language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one
of their own prophets said, “As they went forth from Egypt, they
heard a language which they did not understand.” Cf.
Chapter VIII.
In the following way, also, we may conclude that
they who came out of Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they
had been Egyptians, their names also would be Egyptian, because
in every language the designations (of persons and things) are kindred
to the language. Συγγενεῖς
εἰσιν αἱ
προσηγορίαι. Σαφῶς
ἐναργές. [Gibbon, in the
sixteenth chapter of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
quotes the first part of this sentence as proving that “the
learned Origen declares, in the most express terms, that the number of
martyrs was very inconsiderable.” But see Guizot’s
note on the passage. S.]
Chapter IX.
But since he is manifestly guilty of falsehood in
the statements which follow, let us examine his assertion when he says,
“If all men wished to become Christians, the latter would not
desire such a result.” Now that the above statement is
false is clear from this, that Christians do not neglect, as far as in
them lies, to take measures to disseminate their doctrine throughout
the whole world. Some of them, accordingly, have made it their
business to itinerate not only through cities, but even villages and
country houses, ᾽Επαύλεις. Δοξάριον.
Chapter X.
But observe what he alleges as a proof of his
statement: “Christians at first were few in number, and
held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude,
they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own
individual party: στάσεις
ἰδίας. καί τοι οὐ
πάντη ἦσαν
ὀλίγοι. ἴϋγξ. The reading in
Spencer’s and the Benedictine edition is ὑποτεμνομένας,
for which Lommatzsch reads ὑπομεμνημένας. καὶ τὸ
δοκοῦν. ἀπαθέστατα.
Chapter XI.
He says, in addition, that “all the
Christians were of one mind,” not observing, even in this
particular, that from the beginning there were differences of opinion
among believers regarding the meaning ᾽Εκδοχήν. Cf. Cf. Cf. Τινὲς
παρεκδοχαί.
[He admits the fact, but does not justify such oppositions.]
Chapter XII.
In the next place, since he reproaches us with the
existence of heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation
against it, saying that “when Christians had greatly increased in
numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual
desiring to have his own party;” and further, that “being
thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still
having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still
retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed
to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the
various sects.” In reply to which, we say that heresies of
different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the
principle involved was not important and beneficial to human
life. For since the science of medicine is useful and necessary
to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it respecting
the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous
heresies confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine among the
Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess
to employ medicine. And, again, since philosophy makes a
profession of the truth, and promises a knowledge of existing things
with a view to the regulation of life, and endeavours to teach what is
advantageous to our race, and since the investigation of these matters
is attended with great differences of opinion, πολλὴν ἔχει
διολκήν. φιλολόγον. τό πρέπον.
Chapter XIII.
Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we
not defend, in the same way, the existence of heresies in
Christianity? And respecting these, Paul appears to me to speak
in a very striking manner when he says, “For there must be
heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest
among you.”
Chapter XIV.
After this he continues: “Their union
is the more wonderful, the more it can be shown to be based on no
substantial reason. And yet rebellion is a substantial reason, as
well as the advantages which accrue from it, and the fear of external
enemies. Such are the causes which give stability to their
faith.” To this we answer, that our union does thus rest
upon a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine
working, θείας
ἐνεργείας. ἐπιφανείας.
Chapter XV.
But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God’s will, has already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is probable that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from the Gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become cowards, and apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is in Jesus Christ. And we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon the minds of our first converts a contempt for idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides this, raise their thoughts from the worship of created things instead of God, and elevate them to the universal Creator; clearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy, both from the predictions regarding Him—of which there are many—and from those traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.
Chapter XVI.
“But what the legends are of every kind
which we gather together, or the terrors which we invent,” as
Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes may show. I know not,
indeed, what he means by “inventing terrors,” unless it be
our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for their
deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly
from probable reason. And yet—for truth is
precious—Celsus says, at the close, “Forbid that either I,
or these, or any other individual should ever reject the doctrine
respecting the future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the
good!” What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of
punishment, do we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he
should reply that “we weave together erroneous opinions drawn
from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before
men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals in the ears of those
who are being initiated in their mysteries;” τὰ τοῦ
παλαιοῦ
λόγου
παρακούσματα
συμπλάττοντες,
τούτοις
προκαταυλοῦμεν
καὶ
προκατηχοῦμεν
τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους, ὥς
οἱ τους
κορυβαντιζομένους
περιβομβοῦντες
. οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι
παραστῆσαι,
ὅτι ἡμεῖς
μὲν ἐν
παρακούσμασι
γενόμενοι
τῆς ἀληθείας,
ὅσοι γε
πειρώμεθα
μετὰ λόγου
πιστεύειν,
πρὸς τὰ
τοιαῦτα
ζῶμεν
δόγματα.
Chapter XVII.
He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith
to those of the Egyptians; “among whom, as you approach their
sacred edifices, are to be seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and
προπυλαίων
μεγέθη τε καὶ
κάλλη. τὸ
ἀνάλογον. [Clearly coincident
with Clement and other early Fathers on this head.]
Chapter XVIII.
In the next place, referring to the statements of
the Egyptians, who talk loftily about irrational animals, and who
assert that they are a sort of symbols of God, or anything else which
their prophets, so termed, are accustomed to call them, Celsus says
that “an impression is produced in the minds of those who have
learned these things; that they have not been initiated in
vain;” φαντασίαν
ἐξαποστέλλειν
τοῖς ταῦτα
μεμαθηκόσιν,
ὅτι μὴ μάτην
μεμύηνται. πεφαντάσθαι.
Chapter XIX.
He says, indeed, that “we ridicule the
Egyptians, although they present many by no means contemptible
mysteries αἰνίγματα. ὦ γενναῖε. διεξοδεύωμεν.
Chapter XX.
And we say to those who hold similar opinions to those of Celsus: “Paul then, we are to suppose, had before his mind the idea of no pre-eminent wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among them that are perfect?” Now, as he spoke with his customary boldness when in making such a profession he said that he was possessed of no wisdom, we shall say in reply: first of all examine the Epistles of him who utters these words, and look carefully at the meaning of each expression in them—say, in those to the Ephesians, and Colossians, and Thessalonians, and Philippians, and Romans,—and show two things, both that you understand Paul’s words, and that you can demonstrate any of them to be silly or foolish. For if any one give himself to their attentive perusal, I am well assured either that he will be amazed at the understanding of the man who can clothe great ideas in common language; or if he be not amazed, he will only exhibit himself in a ridiculous light, whether he simply state the meaning of the writer as if he had comprehended it, or try to controvert and confute what he only imagined that he understood!
And I have not yet spoken of the
observance τηρήσεως. σαφήνειαν. μεταβάσεις. ἀφιλόσοφον
χλεύην.
Chapter XXII.
But this low jester βωμολόχος. The reading in the
text is καὶ
πρῶτοι, for which Bohereau
proposes τὸ
πρῶτον, which we have adopted in
the translation. We have followed in
the translation the emendation of Guietus, who proposes εἰ δὲ τὴν
φαινομένην
αὐτῷ
ἀλήθειαν
ἐπρέσβευσεν,
οὐκ ἄν,
κ.τ.λ.,,
instead of the textual reading, εἴ τε τῆς
φαινομένης
αὐτῷ
ἀληθείας
ἐπρέσβενσεν,
οὐκ ἄν,
κ.τ.λ. τὸν
προηγούμενον
ἡμῖν περὶ
ψυχῆς
κατασκευαστέον
λόγον. Bohereau conjectures,
with great probability, that instead of ἀποδεκτέον,
we ought to read ἀποδεικτέον.
“At one time live on alternate days, and at another
Die, and obtain honour equally with the
gods.” Cf. Hom.,
Odyss., xi. 303 and 304.
How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be regarded as a god or a hero?
Chapter XXIII.
But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus
from the prophetic Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history
with them, demonstrate that no dissoluteness on His part is
recorded. For even they who conspired against Him, and who sought
false witnesses to aid them, did not find even any plausible grounds
for advancing a false charge against Him, so as to accuse Him of
licentiousness; but His death was indeed the result of a conspiracy,
and bore no resemblance to the death of Æsculapius by
lightning. And what is there that is venerable in the madman
Dionysus, and his female garments, that he should be worshipped
as a god? And if they who would defend such beings betake
themselves to allegorical interpretations, we εἰ τὸ ὑγιὲς
ἔχουσιν. θιασώταις. ἀποκληρωτικῶς. εἰς δὲ τὰ
περὶ τούτου
ἀνεξετάστως
ὁρμῶν
ἀπιστήσαι
τοῖς περὶ
αὐτοῦ;
Chapter XXIV.
And again, when it is said of Æsculapius that
a great multitude both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they
have frequently seen, and still see, no mere phantom, but
Æsculapius himself, healing and doing good, and foretelling the
future; Celsus requires us to believe this, and finds no fault with the
believers in Jesus, when we express our belief in such stories, but
when we give our assent to the disciples, and eye-witnesses of the
miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the honesty of their
convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is
possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by
him a set of “silly” individuals, although he cannot
demonstrate that an incalculable ἀμύθητον. ἐκστάσεων.
Chapter XXV.
Now, in order to grant that there did exist a
healing spirit named Æsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of
men, I would say to those who are astonished at such an occurrence, or
at the prophetic knowledge of Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is
a thing indifferent, μέσον. ἀστείους. Cf.
Smith’s Dict. of Biograph., s.v. εὐσεβῆ. κόσμιος. οἱ μῂ
σεμνοί. ὅτε
διὰ τοῦ
Πυθίου
στομίου
περικαθεζομένῃ
τῇ καλουμένῃ
προφήτιδι
πνεῦμα διὰ
τῶν
γυναικείων
ὑπεισέρχεται
τὸ μαντικὸν,
ὁ ᾽Απόλλων,
τὸ καθαρὸν
ἀπὸ γηίνου
σώματος. Boherellus
conjectures τὸ
μαντικὸν τοῦ
᾽Απόλλωνος
τὸ καθαρον.
Chapter XXVI.
Let us see what Celsus says next, when he adduces
from history marvellous occurrences, which in themselves seem to be
incredible, but which are not discredited by him, so far at least as
appears from his words. And, in the first place, regarding
Aristeas of Proconnesus, of whom he speaks as follows:
“Then, with respect to Aristeas of Proconnesus, who disappeared
from among men in a manner so indicative of divine
intervention, οὕτω
δαιμονίως. Herod., book iv.
chaps. 14 and 15 (Cary’s transl.).
Chapter XXVII.
Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we
have to say, that if Celsus had adduced it as history, without
signifying his own assent to its truth, it is in a different way that
we should have met his argument. But since he asserts that he
“disappeared through the intervention of the divinity,” and
“showed himself again in an unmistakeable manner,” and
“visited many parts of the world,” and “made
marvellous announcements;” and, moreover, that there was
“an oracle of Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat
Aristeas as a god,” he gives the accounts relating to him as upon
his own authority, and with his full assent. And (this being the
case), we ask, How is it possible that, while supposing the marvels
related by the disciples of Jesus regarding their Master to be wholly
fictitious, and finding fault with those who believe them, you, O
Celsus, do not regard these stories of yours to be either products of
jugglery τερατείαν. Guietus conjectures,
καὶ πῶς,
ὧ λῷστε.
Chapter XXVIII.
For with what purpose in view did Providence
accomplish the marvels related of Aristeas? And to confer what
benefit upon the human race did such remarkable events, as you regard
them, take place? You cannot answer. But we, when we relate
the events of the history of Jesus, have no ordinary defence to offer
for their occurrence;—this, viz., that God desired to commend the
doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine which was to save mankind, and which
was based, indeed, upon the apostles as foundations of the
rising τῆς
καταβαλλομένης
οἰκοδομῆς. τοῦ καθ᾽
ἡμᾶς
δαίμονος,
λαχόντος
γέρας λοιβῆς
τε κνίσσης
τε. ὡς οὐ
κοινωνήσαντος
τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ
φύσει, οὐδ᾽
ἀναλαβόντος
τὴν ἐν
ἀνθρώποις
σάρκα
ἐπιθυμοῦσαν
κατὰ τοῦ
πνεύματος. ᾽Αλλὰ γὰρ καὶ
τὴν
καταβᾶσαν
εἰς
ἀνθρωπίνην
φύσιν καὶ εἰς
ἀνθρωπίνας
περιστάσεις
δύναμιν, καὶ
ἀναλαβοῦσαν
ψυχὴν καὶ
σῶμα
ἀνθρώπινον,
ὲώρων ἐκ τοῦ
πιστευεσθαι
μετὰ τῶν
θειοτέρων
συμβαλλομένην
εἰς σωτηρίαν
τοῖς
πιοτεύουσιν. μετὰ τοῦ
πιστεύειν.
Others read, μετὰ
το
πιστεύειν.
Chapter XXIX.
According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the
Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines
considered the evidence in favour of Aristeas being a man—and
probably not a virtuous one—to be stronger than the declaration
of the oracle to the effect that he was a god or worthy of divine
honours, they for that reason would not obey Apollo, and consequently
no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with respect to Jesus we
would say that, as it was of advantage to the human race to accept him
as the Son of God—God come in a human soul and body—and as
this did not seem to be advantageous to the gluttonous
appetites λιχνείᾳ. τοιαῦτα γὰρ
τὰ πανταχοῦ
πολιτευόμενα
ἐν ταῖς
ἐκκλησίαις
τῶν πόλεων
πλήθη. φωστῆρες.
[
Chapter XXX.
For the Church ἐκκλησία. ἐκκλησία. παροικούσας. βουλήν. βουλευταί. εὕροις ἂν
τίνες μὲν τῆς
ἐκκλησίας
βουλευταὶ
ἄξιοί εἰσιν,
εἴ τίς ἐστιν
ἐν τῷ πάντι
πόγις τοῦ
Θεοῦ, ἐν
ἐκεινῇ
πολιτεύεσθαι.
Boherellus conjectures εὕροις ἂν
ὅτι τινὲς
μὲν, κ.τ.λ. τῆς ἐκ
κατατάξεως
ὑπεροχῆς. ὅτι
και ἐπὶ τῶν
σφόδρα
ἀποτυγχανομένων
βουλευτῶν
καὶ ἀρχόντων
ἐκκλησίας
Θεοῦ, καὶ
ῥαθυμότερον
παρὰ τοὺς
εὐτονωτέρως
βιοῦντας,
οὐδὲν ἧττόν
ἐστιν εὑρεῖν
ὡς ἐπίπαν
ὑπεροχὴν, τὴν
ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς
ἀρετὰς
προκοπῆ, παρὰ
τὰ ἔθη τῶν ἐν
ταῖς πόλεσι
βουλευτῶν
καὶ
ἀρχόντων.
Boherellus conjectures ῥαθυμοτερων.
Chapter XXXI.
Now if these things be so, why should it not be
consistent with reason to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to
effect results so great, that there dwelt in Him no ordinary
divinity? while this was not the case either with the Proconnesian
Aristeas (although Apollo would have him regarded as a god), or with
the other individuals enumerated by Celsus when he says, “No one
regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a god, who was possessed of such
power as to be borne along like an arrow from a bow.” ὥστε
ὀϊστῷ βέλει
συμφέρεσθαι.
Spencer and Bohereau would delete βέλει as a gloss. Guietus would insert
ἤ before ἵνα
τὶ
ὠφεληθῇ. This
emendation is adopted in the translation. Cf. την
οἰκονομίαν.
Chapter XXXII.
But as Celsus next mentions the case of the
Clazomenian, subjoining to the story about him this remark, “Do
they not report that his soul frequently quitted his body, and flitted
about in an incorporeal form? and yet men did not regard him as a
god,” we have to answer that probably certain wicked demons
contrived that such statements should be committed to writing (for I do
not believe that they contrived that such a thing should actually
take place), in order that the predictions regarding Jesus, and
the discourses ut Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXXIII.
Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good
many Grecian histories, when he quotes further what is told of
Cleomedes of Astypalæa, “who,” he relates,
“entered into an ark, and although shut up within it, was not
found therein, but through some arrangement of the divinity, flew out,
when certain persons had cut open the ark in order to apprehend
him.” Now this story, if an invention, as it appears to be,
cannot be compared with what is related of Jesus, since in the lives of
such men there is found no indication of their possessing the divinity
which is ascribed to them; whereas the divinity of Jesus is established
both by the existence of the Churches of the saved, τῶν
ὠφελουμένων. Cf. πίστεως. ἢτοι
διαβαλοῦμεν
τοῖς αὐτὴν
μὴ
παραδεξαμένοις,
καὶ
ἐγκαλέσομεν
τῇ ἱστορία
ὡς οὐκ
ἀληθεὶ, ἤ
δαιμόνιόν τι
φησομεν
παραπλήσιον
τοῖς
ἐπιδεικνυπένοις
γόησιν ἀπατῆ
ὀφθαλμῶν
πεποιηκέναι
καὶ περὶ τὸν
᾽Αστυπαλαιέα.
Spencer in his edition includes μὴ in brackets, and renders, “Aut eos
incusabimus, qui istam virtutem admiserint.”
Chapter XXXIV.
I am, however, of opinion that these individuals
are the only instances with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet,
that he might appear voluntarily to pass by other similar cases, he
says, “And one might name many others of the same
kind.” Let it be granted, then, that many such persons have
existed who conferred no benefit upon the human race: what would
each one of their acts be found to amount to in comparison with the
work of Jesus, and the miracles related of Him, of which we have
already spoken at considerable length? He next imagines that,
“in worshipping him who,” as he says, “was
taken prisoner and put to death, we are acting like the Getæ who
worship Zamolxis, and the Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the
Acarnanians who pay divine honours to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans
who do the same to Amphiaraus, and the Lebadians to
Trophonius.” Now in these instances we shall prove that he
has compared us to the foregoing without good grounds. For these
different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals above
enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the Divinity
honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons,
which are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any
other, or which take up their dwell ἃς
προσάγομεν
αὐτῷ, ὡς διὰ
μεταξὺ ὄντος
τῆς τοῦ
ἀγενήτου και
τῆς τῶν
γενητῶν
πἄντων
φύσεως. “Hoeschel
(itemque Spencerus ad marg.) suspicabatur legendum: ὡς δὴ
μεταξὺ
ὄντος. Male. Nihil mutari
necesse est. Agitur quippe de precibus, quas offerimus Deo
‘per eum qui veluti medius est inter increatam naturam et
creatam.’”—Ruæus.
Chapter XXXV.
But I should like, in answer to him who for some
unknown reason advances such statements as the above, to make in a
conversational way ἀδολεσχῆσαι. τὰς τουτων
ἀποδοχάς.
Chapter XXXVI.
But as he next introduces the case of the
favourite of Adrian (I refer to the accounts regarding the youth
Antinous, and the honours paid him by the inhabitants of the city of
Antinous in Egypt), and imagines that the honour paid to him falls
little short of that which we render to Jesus, let us show in what a
spirit of hostility this statement is made. For what is there in
common between a life lived among the favourites of Adrian, by one who
did not abstain even from unnatural lusts, and that of the venerable
Jesus, against whom even they who brought countless other charges, and
who told so many falsehoods, were not able to allege that He
manifested, even in the slightest degree, any tendency to what was
licentious? ὡς
κἄν τὸ τυχὸν
ἀκολασίας
κἂν ἐπ᾽
ὀλίγον
γευσαμένου. οὗ ἀρετὰς
οἱ μέν τινες
κυβευτικώτερον
ζῶντες
καταψεύδονται. ἀκολούθως τῇ
ἐν τῷ λέγειν
τεραστὶως
πιστικῇ
δυνάμει. ὡς
κατὰ
νόμους αὐτῶν
ἄρχοντος.
Chapter XXXVII.
The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship
Antinous, will, if you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a
comparison, Antinous being magnified in their estimation through being
classed with these deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of
falsehood when he says, “that they will not endure his being
compared with Apollo or Zeus.” Whereas Christians (who have
learned that their eternal life consists in knowing the only true God,
who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent; and who have
learned also that all the gods of the heathen are greedy demons, which
flit around sacrifices and blood, and other sacrificial
accompaniments, ἀποφοράς. προαιρέσεως. ἐσωτερικῶν
καὶ
ἐποπτικῶν. ἢ ἥρωας ἐκ
μεταβολῆς
συστάντας
ἀγαθῆς
ἀνθρωπίνης
ψυχῆς.
Chapter XXXVIII.
The belief, then, in Antinous, [See vol. ii. p. 185,
and the stinging reference of Justin, vol. i. p. 172, this series.] περι δὲ τοῦ
᾽Ιησοῦ ἤτοι
δόξασα ἂν
εἶναι
εὐτυχὴς, ἢ
καὶ
βεβασανισμένως
ἐξητασμένη,
δοκοῦσα μὲν
εὐτυχὴς παρὰ
τοῖς πολλοῖς,
βεβασανισμένως
δὲ
ἐξητασμένη
παρὰ πάνυ
ὀλιγωτάτοιβ. τοσοῦτον
ποιεῖ πίστις,
ὁποία δὴ
προκατασχοῦσα.
Chapter XXXIX.
We must notice the remarks which Celsus next
makes, when he says to us, that “faith, having taken possession
of our minds, makes us yield the assent which we give to the doctrine
of Jesus;” for of a truth it is faith which does produce such an
assent. Observe, however, whether that faith does not of itself
exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we entrust ourselves to the
God who is over all, acknowledging our gratitude to Him who has led us
to such a faith, and declaring that He could not have attempted or
accomplished such a result without the divine assistance. And we
have confidence also in the intentions of the writers of the Gospels,
observing their piety and conscientiousness, manifested in their
writings, which contain nothing that is spurious, or
deceptive, κυβευτικόν.
Chapter XL.
But observe whether the principles of our faith,
harmonizing with the general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do
not produce a change upon those who listen candidly to its statements;
for although a perverted view of things, with the aid of much
instruction to the same effect, has been able to implant in the minds
of the multitude the belief that images are gods, and that things made
of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet
common sense ἡ κοινὴ
ἔννοια. φίλτρον
φυσικόν.
Chapter XLI.
But since he has charged us, I know not how often
already, “with regarding this Jesus, who was but a mortal body,
as a God, and with supposing that we act piously in so doing,” it
is superfluous to say any more in answer to this, as a great deal has
been said in the preceding pages. And yet let those who make this
charge understand that He whom we regard and believe to have been from
the beginning God, and the Son of God, is the very Logos, and the very
Wisdom, and the very Truth; and with respect to His mortal body, and
the human soul which it contained, we assert that not by their
communion merely with Him, but by their unity and
intermixture, ἀλλὰ
καὶ ἑνώσει
καὶ
ἀνακράσει. [“By means
of Origen the idea of a proper reasonable soul in Christ received a new
dogmatical importance. This point, which up to this time had been
altogether untouched with controversy with the Patripassians, was now
for the first time expressly brought forward in a synod held against
Beryllus of Bostra, a.d. 244, and the doctrine
of a reasonable human soul in Christ settled as a doctrine of the
Church.”—Neander’s History
(ut supra), vol. ii. p. 309, with the
references there. See also Waterland’s Works, vol.
i. pp. 330, 331. S.]
Celsus, then, does not speak as a good
reasoner, διαλεκτικός.
Chapter XLIII.
He next says of us, that “we ridicule those
who worship Jupiter, because his tomb is pointed out in the island of
Crete; and yet we worship him who rose from the tomb, τόν ἀπὸ τοῦ
τάφου. οὐκ εἰδότες
πῶς καὶ
καθό. Cf. Callimach.,
Hymn, i. Cf. also
“The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,
The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,
For thou ever livest.”
Now he who said, “Thou didst not die, for thou ever
livest,” in denying that Jupiter’s tomb was in Crete,
records nevertheless that in Jupiter there was the beginning of
death. τὴν ἀρχὴν
τοῦ θανάτου
γεγονέναι
περὶ τὸν
Δία.
“And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians; ”—
whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter took place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous with his birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the following is the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: “O Jupiter, some say that thou wert born on the mountains of Ida, others in Arcadia. Which of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always liars,” etc. Now it is Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the unfair manner in which he deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what is related about His death and burial, but regarding as an invention His resurrection from the dead, although this was not only foretold by innumerable prophets, but many proofs also were given of His having appeared after death.
Chapter XLIV.
After these points Celsus quotes some objections against
the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are
considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but
of the more ignorant class, and asserts that “the following are
the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been
instructed, [The sarcastic
raillery of Celsus in regard to the ignorance and low social scale of
the early converts to Christianity is in keeping with his whole tone
and manner. On the special value of the evidence of early
Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr , Clement, Origen, etc., to
the truth and power, among men of all classes, of the Gospel of our
Lord, see Rawlinson’s Bampton Lectures, The Historical
Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, Lect. viii. pp.
207, 420, et seqq. (Amer. ed. 1860). S.]
Chapter XLV.
But that the object of Christianity ὁ λόγος. τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ
τὰ κρύφια τῆς
σοφίας σου
ἐδήλωσάς
μοι. τὰ κατ᾽
αὐτόν. καὶ ἐξ
αὑτῆς
ἐγένετο. Cf. Cf.
And to such a degree does the Gospel desire that
there should be wise men among believers, that for the sake of
exercising the understanding of its hearers, it has spoken certain
truths in enigmas, others in what are called “dark”
sayings, others in parables, and others in problems. καὶ ἄλλα διὰ
προβλημάτων. Cf.
Chapter XLVI.
And if you come to the books written after the time of
Jesus, you will find that those multitudes of believers who hear the
parables are, as it were, “without,” and worthy only of
exoteric doctrines, while the disciples learn in private the
explanation of the parables. For, privately, to Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLVII.
But it is probable that what is written by Paul in
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Cf. τὰ μὲν
συναγορεύοντα
ὑγῇ καὶ
σώμασι. τὰ
προηγουμένως
ὑφεστηκότα. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLVIII.
And perhaps also from the words, “For ye see
your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not
many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the
foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the base things,
and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which
are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh may glory in
His presence;” Cf. Cf. Μονόγαμον.
Cf. Can. Apost., c. xvii.: “ὁ δυσὶ γάμοις
συμπλακεὶς
μετὰ τὸ
βάπτισμα, ἢ
παλλακὴν
κτησάμενος,
οὐ δύναται
εἶναι
ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ
πρεσβύτερος,
ἢ διάκονος, ἢ
ὅλως τοῦ
καταλόγου
τοῦ
ἱερατικοῦ.”
Cf. note in Benedictine ed. [Origen agrees with
Tertullian, passim, on this subject. Hippolytus makes
Callistus, Bishop of Rome, the first to depart from this
principle,—accepting “digamists and trigamists.”]
Chapter XLIX.
This statement also is untrue, that it is
“only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of
perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers
of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does
the Gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also
others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour
of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be
intelligent or simple; and “He is the propitiation with the
Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of
the whole world.” Cf.
Chapter L.
But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in these words: “Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off.” Observe, now, how he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is there in our conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn them away from contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect together such hearers of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,—a practice which certain of the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly with those whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then, that these who do not gather together persons who are considered to have been educated, but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street, resemble those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they regard as a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the ignorant populace.
Chapter LI.
And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let
us see whether Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of
virtue in a greater and better degree than they. For the
philosophers who converse in public do not pick and choose their
hearers, but he who likes stands and listens. The Christians,
however, having previously, so far as possible, tested the souls of
those who wish to become their hearers, and having previously
instructed προεπᾴσαντες.
Chapter LII.
Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, “We see also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable tricks, and collect crowds around them,” whether a manifest falsehood has not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He says that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who “perform the most disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they thrust themselves in and make a display.” Now, in speaking thus he does nothing else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the public streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do everything in our power to secure that our meetings should be composed of wise men, and those things among us which are especially excellent and divine we then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions when we have an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and pass by in silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience is composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is figuratively termed “milk.”
Chapter LIII.
For the word is used by our Paul in writing to the
Corinthians, who were Greeks, and not yet purified in their
morals: “I have fed you with milk, not with meat; for
hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able, for
ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying and
strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” [ [See note
supra, p. 239. S.] νηπίων.
Chapter LIV.
We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not
have it so, that we do desire to instruct all men in the word of
God, so as to give to young men the exhortations which are appropriate
to them, and to show to slaves how they may recover freedom of
thought, ἐλεύθερον
ἀναλαβόντες
φρόνημα. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. διὰ τὰ
ἐγκείμενα. λοιδορίας
μᾶλλον ἢ
κατηγορίας.
Chapter LV.
But as Celsus delights to heap up calumnies
against us, and, in addition to those which he has already uttered, has
added others, let us examine these also, and see whether it be the
Christians or Celsus who have reason to be ashamed of what is
said. He asserts, “We see, indeed, in private houses
workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of the most
uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a word in the
presence of their elders and wiser masters; The allusion is to the
practice of wealthy Greeks and Romans having among their slaves
artificers of various kinds, for whose service there was constant
demand in the houses and villas of the rich, and who therefore had
their residence in or near the dwelling of their master. Many of
these artificers seem, from the language of Celsus, to have been
converts to Christianity.
Chapter LVI.
Observe now how by such statements he depreciates those amongst us who are teachers of the word, and who strive in every way to raise the soul to the Creator of all things, and who show that we ought to despise things “sensible,” and “temporal,” and “visible,” and to do our utmost to reach communion with God, and the contemplation of things that are “intelligent,” and “invisible,” and a blessed life with God, and the friends of God; comparing them to “workers in wool in private houses, and to leather-cutters, and to fullers, and to the most rustic of mankind, who carefully incite young boys to wickedness, and women to forsake their fathers and teachers, and follow them.” Now let Celsus point out from what wise parent, or from what teachers, we keep away children and women, and let him ascertain by comparison among those children and women who are adherents of our doctrine, whether any of the opinions which they formerly heard are better than ours, and in what manner we draw away children and women from noble and venerable studies, and incite them to worse things. But he will not be able to make good any such charge against us, seeing that, on the contrary, we turn away women from a dissolute life, and from being at variance with those with whom they live, from all mad desires after theatres and dancing, and from superstition; while we train to habits of self-restraint boys just reaching the age of puberty, and feeling a desire for sexual pleasures, pointing out to them not only the disgrace which attends those sins, but also the state to which the soul of the wicked is reduced through practices of that kind, and the judgments which it will suffer, and the punishments which will be inflicted.
Chapter LVII.
But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and
fools, whose defence is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach
better things? (I know not,) unless he deem those to be good
instructors of women, and no triflers, who invite them to superstition
and to unchaste spectacles, and those, moreover, to be teachers not
devoid Παράστησον
τοὺς
διδασκάλους
ἄλλους παρὰ
τοὺς
φιλοσοφίας
διδασκάλους,
ἢ τοὺς κατά
τι τῶν
χρησίμων
πεποιημένους.
He will be unable, however, to show any such; while we promise, openly and not in secret, that they will be happy who live according to the word of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who do everything, whatever it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the instructions of workers in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated rustics? But such an assertion he cannot make good.
Chapter LVIII.
But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool in private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or teachers be unwilling to speak, or unable to explain to the boys anything that is good. In answer to which, we would say, What kind of father, my good sir, and what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you mean one who approves of virtue, and turns away from vice, and welcomes what is better, then know, that with the greatest boldness will we declare our opinions to the children, because we will be in good repute with such a judge. But if, in the presence of a father who has a hatred of virtue and goodness, we keep silence, and also before those who teach what is contrary to sound doctrine, do not blame us for so doing, since you will blame us without good reason. You, at all events, in a case where fathers deemed the mysteries of philosophy an idle and unprofitable occupation for their sons, and for young men in general, would not, in teaching philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless parents; but, desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had been turned towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper seasons, in order that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of the young men. And we say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn (our hearers) away from those instructors who teach obscene comedies and licentious iambics, and many other things which neither improve the speaker nor benefit the hearers (because the latter do not know how to listen to poetry in a philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to say to each of the young men what tends to his profit), we are not, in following such a course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will show me teachers who train young men for philosophy, and who exercise them in it, I will not from such turn away young men, but will try to raise them, as those who have been previously exercised in the whole circle of learning and in philosophical subjects, to the venerable and lofty height of eloquence which lies hid from the multitude of Christians, where are discussed topics of the greatest importance, and where it is demonstrated and shown that they have been treated philosophically both by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.
Chapter LIX.
Immediately after this, Celsus, perceiving that he
has slandered us with too great bitterness, as if by way of defence
expresses himself as follows: “That I bring no heavier
charge than what the truth compels me, any one may see from the
following remarks. Those who invite to participation in other
mysteries, make proclamation as follows: ‘Every one who has
clean hands, and a prudent tongue;’ φωνὴν
συνετός. [Much is to be
gathered from this and the following chapters, of the evangelical
character of primitive preaching and discipline.] ἁπλῶς. εὐδαιμονίαν. μακαριότητα. Cf.
Chapter LX.
And as we teach, moreover, that “wisdom will
not enter into the soul of a base man, nor dwell in a body that is
involved in sin,” Cf.
Chapter LXI.
Not to participation in mysteries, then,
and to fellowship in the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God
ordained before the world to the glory of His saints, Cf. Cf. τὸ
ἡγεμονικόν. ἀψευδῆ.
Chapter LXII.
In the next place, throwing a slur συκοφαντῶν. [The reproaches
of the scoffer are very instructive as to the real nature of the
primitive dealing with sinners and with sin.] ὑπεξαιρομένου
τοῦ κατὰ τὸν
᾽Ιησοῦν
νοουμένου
ἀνθρώπου.
Chapter LXIII.
After this, not understanding how it has been said
that “every one who exalted himself shall be
abased;” Cf. προς
κολακείαν. In the text it is put
interrogatively: τίς
ἄνθρωπος
τελέως
δίκαιος; ἢ τίς
ἀναμάρτητος;
The allusion seems to be to
Chapter LXIV.
But since he says, in addition to this,
“What is this preference of sinners over others?” and makes
other remarks of a similar nature, we have to reply that absolutely a
sinner is not preferred before one who is not a sinner; but that
sometimes a sinner, who has become conscious of his own sin, and for
that reason comes to repentance, being humbled on account of his sins,
is preferred before one who is accounted a lesser sinner, but who does
not consider himself one, but exalts himself on the ground of certain
good qualities which he thinks he possesses, and is greatly elated on
their account. And this is manifest to those who are willing to
peruse the Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the parable of the
publican, who said, “Be merciful to me a sinner,”
Chapter LXV.
He imagines, however, that we utter these
exhortations for the conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain
over no one who is really good and righteous, and therefore open our
gates to the most unholy and abandoned of men. But if any one
will fairly observe our assemblies we can present a greater number of
those who have been converted from not a very wicked life, than of
those who have committed the most abominable sins. For naturally
those who are conscious to themselves of better things, desire that
those promises may be true which are declared by God regarding the
reward of the righteous, and thus assent more readily to the statements
(of Scripture) than those do who have led very wicked lives, and who
are prevented by their very consciousness (of evil) from admitting that
they will be punished by the Judge of all with such punishment as
befits those who have sinned so greatly, and as would not be inflicted
by the Judge of all contrary to right reason. και οὐ παρὰ
τὸν ὀρθὸν
λόγον
προσάγοιτο
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπὶ
πᾶσι
δικαστοῦ. [See infra, book iv. cap. lxxix, and
Elucidations there named.] [ἐπιμόνως
βεβαμμένοι.
S.] [ὡσπεγεὶ
δευσοποιηθέντες
απὸ τῆς
κακίας. S.]
Chapter LXVI.
Now here Celsus appears to me to have committed a
great error, in refusing to those who are sinners by nature, and also
by habit, the possibility of a complete transformation, alleging that
they cannot be cured even by punishment. For it clearly appears
that all men are inclined to sin by nature, [Let us note this in
passing, as balancing some other expressions which could not have been
used after the Pelagian controversy.] He is said to
have been either a Babylonian or Tyrrhenian, and to have lived in the
reign of Nero. Cf. Philostratus, iv. 12.—Ruæus. καὶ τὸ
ἐξακουόμενον
ἀπὸ τῆς
λέξεως ὡς
δυνατὸν ἡμῖν,
ἀνετρέψαμεν.
Chapter LXVII.
It is probable, however, that he meant to convey
some such meaning as this, that those who were both by nature and habit
given to the commission of those sins which are committed by the most
abandoned of men, could not be completely transformed even by
punishment. And yet this is shown to be false from the history of
certain philosophers. For who is there that would not rank among
the most abandoned of men the individual who somehow submitted to yield
himself to his master, when he placed him in a brothel, ἐπὶ
τέγους. [“Ut quidam
scripserunt,” says Hoffmann.] μιαρώτατον
ἀνθρώπων.
Chapter LXVIII.
That philosophical discourses, however,
distinguished by orderly arrangement and elegant expression, ᾽Αλλὰ τὴν μὲν
τάξιν καὶ
σύνθεσιν καὶ
φράσιν τῶν
ἀπὸ
φιλοσοφίας
λόγων. The reading in the
text is ἄλλως, for which ἄλλους has been conjectured by
Ruæus and Boherellus, and which has been adopted in the
translation. ιδιωτικούς. εὐσταθέστατον. πιστικὴ ἀπὸ
πνεύματος.
Chapter LXIX.
Celsus continues in his usual manner, asserting
that “to change a nature entirely is exceedingly
difficult.” We, however, who know of only one nature in
every rational soul, and who maintain that none has been created evil
by the Author of all things, but that many have become wicked
through education, and perverse example, and surrounding
influences, παρὰ τὰς
ἀνατροφὰς,
καὶ τὰς
διαστροφὰς,
καὶ τὰς
περιηχήσεις. φυσιωθῆναι. [παρ᾽ ὧ οὐκ
ἔστιν. S.]
“Both good and bad are in the same honour,
Or that the idle man and he who laboured much
Perish alike.” Cf.
Iliad, ix. 319, 320.
But even if it be exceedingly difficult to effect a change in
some persons, the cause must be held to lie in their own will, which is
reluctant to accept the belief that the God over all things is a just
Judge of all the deeds done during life. For deliberate choice
and practice προαίρεσις
καὶ
ασκησις. τοῦ λογικοῦ
ζώου.
Chapter LXX.
In the next place, he objects to the statement, as
if it were maintained by us, that “God will be able to do all
things,” not seeing even here how these words are meant, and what
“the all things” are which are included in it, and
how it is said that God “will be able.” But on these
matters it is not necessary now to speak; for although he might with a
show of reason have opposed this proposition, he has not done so.
Perhaps he did not understand the arguments which might be plausibly
used against it, or if he did, he saw the answers that might be
returned. Now in our judgment God can do everything which it is
possible for Him to do without ceasing to be God, and good, and
wise. But Celsus asserts—not comprehending the meaning of
the expression “God can do all things”—“that He
will not desire to do anything wicked,” admitting that He has the
power, but not the will, to commit evil. We, on the
contrary, maintain that as that which by nature possesses the property
of sweetening other things through its own inherent sweetness cannot
produce bitterness contrary to its own peculiar nature, ὥσπερ οὐ
δύναται τὸ
πεφυκὸς
γλυκαίνειν
τῷ γλυκυ
τυγχάνειν
πικράζειν,
παρὰ την
αὐτοῦ μόνην
αἰτίαν.
Chapter LXXI.
He next assumes what is not granted by the more
rational class of believers, but what perhaps is considered to be true
by some who are devoid of intelligence,—viz., that “God,
like those who are overcome with pity, being Himself overcome,
alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity for their
wailings, and casts off the good, who do nothing of that kind, which is
the height of injustice.” Now, in our judgment, God
lightens the suffering of no wicked man who has not betaken himself to
a virtuous life, and casts off no one who is already good, nor yet
alleviates the suffering of any one who mourns, simply because he
utters lamentation, or takes pity upon him, to use the word pity in its
more common acceptation. ἵνα
κοινότερον
τῷ ἐλέει
χρήσωμαι.
Chapter LXXII.
In the next place, speaking as in the person of a
teacher of our doctrine, he expresses himself as follows:
“Wise men reject what we say, being led into error, and ensnared
by their wisdom.” In reply to which we say that, since
wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human things and of their causes,
or, as it is defined by the word of God, “the breath of the power
of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;
and the brightness of the everlasting light, and the unspotted mirror
of the power of God, and the image of His goodness,” Cf.
Chapter LXXIII.
After this he again slanders the ambassador of
Christianity, and gives out regarding him that he relates
“ridiculous things,” although he does not show or clearly
point out what are the things Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXXIV.
He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover of
“seeking after the unintelligent.” In answer we ask,
Whom do you mean by the “unintelligent?” For, to
speak accurately, every wicked man is
“unintelligent.” If then by
“unintelligent” you mean the wicked, do you, in drawing men
to philosophy, seek to gain the wicked or the virtuous? ἀστείους. τοὺς μὴ
ἐντρεχεῖς. The reading in the
text is τερατωδεστέρους,
of which Ruæus remarks, “Hic nullum habet
locum.” Καταδεεστέρους
has been conjectured instead, and has been adopted in the
translation.
Chapter LXXV.
But as he afterwards says that “the teacher
of Christianity acts like a person who promises to restore patients to
bodily health, but who prevents them from consulting skilled
physicians, by whom his ignorance would be exposed,” we shall
inquire in reply, “What are the physicians to whom you refer,
from whom we turn away ignorant individuals? For you do not
suppose that we exhort those to embrace the Gospel who are devoted to
philosophy, so that you would regard the latter as the physicians from
whom we keep away such as we invite to come to the word of
God.” He indeed will make no answer, because he cannot name
the physicians; or else he will be obliged to betake himself to those
of them who are ignorant, and who of their own accord servilely yield
themselves to the worship of many gods, and to whatever other opinions
are entertained by ignorant individuals. In either case, then, he
will be shown to have employed to no purpose in his argument the
illustration of “one who keeps others away from skilled
physicians.” But if, in order to preserve from the
philosophy of Epicurus, and from such as are considered physicians
after his system, those who are deceived by them, why should we not be
acting most reasonably in keeping such away from a dangerous disease
caused by the physicians of Celsus,—that, viz., which leads to
the annihilation of providence, and the introduction of pleasure as a
good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away those whom we
encourage to become our disciples from other
philosopher-physicians,—from the Peripatetics, for example, who
deny the existence of providence and the relation of Deity to
man,—why shall we not piously train For εὐσεβεῖς
in the text, Boherellus conjectures εὐσεβῶς. θεὸν
φθαρτὸν
εἰσαγόντων,
καὶ τὴν
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ
λεγόντων
σῶμα τρεπτὸν
διόλου καὶ
ἀλλοιωτὸν
καὶ
μεταβλητόν. The words in the text
are, φιλανθρωτότατα
ἐπιστρεπτικόν,
καὶ ψυχῶν
μαθήματα
οἰκονομήσαντα,
for which we have adopted in the translation the emendation of
Boherellus, φιλανθρωπότατα
καὶ ψυχῶν
ἐπιστρεπτικὰ
μαθήματα. ἀλλὰ
κἂν τοὺς
πεπονθότας
τὴν περὶ τῆς
μετενσωματώσεως
ἄνοιαν ἀπὸ
ἰατρῶν, τῶν
καταβιβαζόντων
τὴν λογικὴν
φύσιν ὁτε μὲν
ἐπὶ τὴν
ἀλογον πᾶσαν,
ὁτὲ δὲ καὶ
ἐπὶ τὴν
ἀφάνταστον. Instead of οἱ
φρονίμωςΧριστιανοὶ
ζῶντες, as in the text,
Ruæus and Boherellus conjecture οι φρονίμως
Χριστιανιζοντες,
etc. τους κομιδῇ
νηπίους. ἀλαζών.
Chapter LXXVI.
And he produces a second illustration to our
disadvantage, saying that “our teacher acts like a drunken man,
who, entering a company of drunkards, should accuse those who are sober
of being drunk.” But let him show, say from the writings of
Paul, that the apostle of Jesus gave way to drunkenness, and that his
words were not those of soberness; or from the writings of John, that
his thoughts do not breathe a spirit of temperance and of freedom from
the intoxication of evil. No one, then, who is of sound mind, and
teaches the doctrines of Christianity, gets drunk with wine; but Celsus
utters these calumnies against us in a spirit very unlike that of a
philosopher. Moreover, let Celsus say who those
“sober” persons are whom the ambassadors of Christianity
accuse. For in our judgment all are intoxicated who address
themselves to inanimate objects as to God. And why do I say
“intoxicated?” “Insane” would be the more
appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or
animals as divinities. And they too are not less insane who think
that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked
character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. [See vol. iii.
Elucidation I. p. 76, this series; and as against the insanity
of the Deutero-Nicene Council (a.d. 787) note
this prophetic protest. Condemned at Frankfort (a.d. 794) by Anglicans and Gallicans. See Sir W.
Palmer, Treatise on the Church, part iv. 10, sect. 4. The
Council of Frankfort is the pivot of history as to the division between
East and West, the rise of Gallicanism, and of the Anglican
Reformation.]
Chapter LXXVII.
He next likens our teacher to one suffering from
ophthalmia, and his disciples to those suffering from the same disease,
and says that “such an one amongst a company of those who are
afflicted with ophthalmia, accuses those who are sharp-sighted of being
blind.” Who, then, would we ask, O Greeks, are they who in
our judgment do not see, save those who are unable to look up from the
exceeding greatness of the world and its contents, and from the beauty
of created things, and to see that they ought to worship, and admire,
and reverence Him alone who made these things, and that it is not
befitting to treat with reverence anything contrived by man, and
applied to the honour of God, whether it be without a reference to the
Creator, or with one? ειτε χωρὶς
τοῦ
δημιουργοῦ
θεοῦ εἴτε καὶ
μετ᾽
ἐκείνου. ἱερομηνίας.
Chapter LXXVIII.
After having brought against us charges of so
serious a kind, he wishes to make it appear that, although he has
others to adduce, he passes them by in silence. His words are as
follows: “These charges I have to bring against them, and
others of a similar nature, not to enumerate them one by one, and I
affirm that they are in error, and that they act insolently towards
God, in order to lead on wicked men by empty hopes, and to persuade
them to despise better things, saying that if they refrain from them it
will be better for them.” In answer to which, it might be
said that from the power which shows itself in those who are converted
to Christianity, it is not at all the “wicked” who are won
over to the Gospel, as the more simple class of persons, and, as many
would term them, the “unpolished.” The reading in the
text is κομψοί, which is so opposed
to the sense of the passage, that the conjecture of Guietus,
ακομψοι, has been
adopted in the translation.
Chapter LXXIX.
But if in these matters any one were to imagine
that it is superstition rather than wickedness which appears in the
multitude of those who believe the word, and should charge our doctrine
with making men superstitious, we shall answer him by saying that, as a
certain legislator [i.e., Solon.
S.] [See
Gieseler’s Church History, vol. i. p. 212 (also 213), with
references there. But see Elucidation IV. p. 77, vol. iii., this
series, and Elucidation at close of this book. See also
Robertson’s History of the Church, vol. i. p. 156.
S.]
Chapter LXXX.
Seeing, however, that Celsus alleges that
“Christians are won over by us through vain hopes,” we thus
reply to him when he finds fault with our doctrine of the blessed life,
and of communion with God: “As for you, good sir, they also
are won over by vain hopes who have accepted the doctrine of Pythagoras
and Plato regarding the soul, that it is its nature to ascend to the
vault ἁψῖδα. Τάχα δὲ καὶ
οἱ
πεισθέντες
περὶ τοῦ
θύραθεν νοῦ,
ὡς θανάτου
καινοῦ
διεξαγωγὴν
ἕξοντος, etc. Locus
certe obscurus, cui lucem afferre conatur Boherellus, legendo divisim
ὡς θανάτου καὶ
νοῦ
διεξαγωγὴν
ἕξοντος, ut sensus sit
“morti etiam mentem subductum iri.” Nam si
θύραθεν
ἥκει νοῦς, consequens
est ut θανάτου καὶ
νοῦς
διεξαγωγὴν
ἔχῃ. Cf. Aristot, lib. ii. c. 3, de
generatione animalium.—Spencer. ἢ τῆς
τοῦ νοῦ
ἀθανασίας. Εἰ μὴ ἄρα
Κέλσος καὶ οἱ
᾽Ετικούρειοι
οὐ φήσουσι
κούφην εἶναι
ἐλπίδα τὴν
περὶ τοῦ
τέλους αὐτῶν
τῆς ἡδονῆς,
ἥτις κατ᾽
αὐτούς ἐστι
τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τὸ
τῆς σαρκὸς
εὐσταθὲς
κατάστημα,
καὶ τὸ περὶ
ταύτης
πιστὸν
᾽Επικούρῳ
ἔλπισμα.
Chapter LXXXI.
And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with
the Christian religion for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the
opinions of those philosophers who have treated of the immortality or
after-duration of the soul; for, holding certain views in common with
them, we shall more conveniently establish our position, that the
future life of blessedness shall be for those only who have accepted
the religion which is according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the
Creator of all things which is pure and sincere, and unmingled with any
created thing whatever. And let him who likes show what
“better things” we persuade men to despise, and let him
compare the blessed end with God in Christ,—that is, the word,
and the wisdom, and all virtue;—which, according to our view,
shall be bestowed, by the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure
and blameless life, and who have felt a single and undivided love for
the God of all things, with that end which is to follow according to
the teaching of each philosophic sect, whether it be Greek or
Barbarian, or according to the professions of religious
mysteries; τῷ καθ᾽
ἑκάστην
φιλοσόφων
αἵρεσιν ἐν
῞Ελλησιν ἢ
βαρβάροις, ἢ
μυστηριώδη
ἐπαγγελίαν,
τέλει. [Note the testimony to
divine inspiration.]
Chapter I.
Having, in the three
preceding books, fully stated what occurred to us by way of answer to
the treatise of Celsus, we now, reverend Ambrosius, with prayer to God
through Christ, offer this fourth book as a reply to what
follows. And we pray that words may be given us, as it is written
in the book of Jeremiah that the Lord said to the prophet:
“Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth as fire. See, I
have set thee this day over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root
out and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build
and to plant.” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. τοὺς
ἀνάλογον
αὐτῷ
προφητικοὺς
λόγους.
Chapter II.
“But that certain Christians and (all) Jews
should maintain, the former that there has already descended,
the latter that there will descend, upon the earth a certain
God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth
righteous, δικαιωτής. ἀκολουθίας. πιθανότητος. Δικαιωτής
not Δικαστής.
Chapter III.
And he continues: “What is the meaning
of such a descent upon the part of God?” not observing that,
according to our teaching, the meaning of the descent is pre-eminently
to convert what are called in the Gospel the lost “sheep of the
house of Israel;” and secondly, to take away from them, on
account of their disobedience, what is called the “kingdom of
God,” and to give to other husbandmen than the ancient Jews, viz.
to the Christians, who will render to God the fruits of His kingdom in
due season (each action being a “fruit of the
kingdom”). τοὺς
καρποὺς τῆς
τοῦ Θεοῦ
βασιλείας
ἀποδώσουσι
τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν
τοῖς ἑκάστης
πράξεως
οὔσης καρποῦ
τῆς
βασιλείας
καιροῖς. εὐήθως. The word φύσει which is found
in the text seems out of place, and has been omitted in the
translation, agreeably to the emendation of Boherellus. ῏Αρα
γὰρ ἤθελε
φαντασιουμένοις
τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις
ὑπὸ Θεοῦ,
ἀπειληφότος
μὲν ἀθρόως
τὴν κακίαν,
ἐμφύοντος δὲ
τὴν ἀρετὴν,
τὴν
ἐπανόρθωσιν
γενέσθαι; ποῦ οὖν τὸ
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν;
Chapter IV.
The argument which Celsus employs against us and the
Jews will be turned against himself οἱ γὰρ ἐπὶ
τὰ βέλτιστα
προκαλούμενοι
λόγοι, Θεοῦ
αὐτοὺς
δεδωκότος,
εἰσὶν ἐν
ἀνθρώποις.
Chapter V.
The illustrious γενναιότατος. Cf. Cf.
Chapter VI.
But if you will have us to meet the most
ridiculous among the charges of Celsus, listen to him when he
says: “Now God, being unknown amongst men, and deeming
himself on that account to have less than his due, καὶ παρὰ
τοῦτ᾽
ἔλαττον
ἔχειν
δοκῶν. καθάπερ οἱ
νεόπλουτοι
τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἐπιδεικτιῶντες,
πολλήν τινα
καὶ πάνυ
θνητὴν
φιλοτμίαν
τοῦ Θεοῦ
καταμαρτυροῦσι. οἱκείωσιν.
Chapter VII.
I do not know how it is, that after the foolish
remarks which he has made upon the subject which we have just been
discussing, he should add the following, that “God does not
desire to make himself known for his own sake, but because he wishes to
bestow upon us the knowledge of himself for the sake of our salvation,
in order that those who accept it may become virtuous and be saved,
while those who do not accept may be shown to be wicked and be
punished.” And yet, after making such a statement, he
raises a new objection, saying: “After so long a period of
time, μετὰ
τοσοῦτον
αἰῶνα. δικαιῶσαι. τὸ λογικὸν
ζῶον.
Chapter VIII.
And it is not matter of surprise that in certain
generations there have existed prophets who, in the reception of divine
influence, ἐν τῇ
παραδοχῇ τῆς
θειότητος. ἐξαίρετόν τι
χρῆμα. Cf. Εἰσὶ γάρ
τινες εἱρμοὶ
καὶ
ἀκολουθίαι
ἄφατοι καὶ
ἀνεκδιήγητοι
περὶ τῆς κατὰ
τὰς
ἀνθρωπίνας
ψυχὰς
διαφόρου
οἰκονομίας.
Chapter IX.
There came, then, although Celsus may not wish to admit
it, after the numerous prophets who were the reformers of that
well-known Israel, the Christ, the Reformer of the whole world, who did
not need to employ against men whips, and chains, and tortures, as was
the case under the former economy. For when the sower went forth
to sow, the doctrine sufficed to sow the word everywhere. But if
there is a time coming which will necessarily circumscribe the duration
of the world, by reason of its having had a beginning, and if there is
to be an end to the world, and after the end a just judgment of all
things, it will be incumbent on him who treats the declarations of the
Gospels philosophically, to establish these doctrines by arguments of
all kinds, αὐτὸς
ἔφα.
Chapter X.
In the next place, Celsus, as is his custom,
having neither proved nor established anything, proceeds to say, as if
we talked of God in a manner that was neither holy nor pious, that
“it is perfectly manifest that they babble about God in a way
that is neither holy nor reverential;” and he imagines that we do
these things to excite the astonishment of the ignorant, and that we do
not speak the truth regarding the necessity of punishments for those
who have sinned. And accordingly he likens us to those who
“in the Bacchic mysteries introduce phantoms and objects of
terror.” With respect to the mysteries of Bacchus, whether
there is any trustworthy [The word
“reliable” is used here. I cannot let it stand, and
have supplied an English word instead]. συνθιασῶται. τῷ παντί. οὐκ
ἀχρήστους.
On Origen’s views respecting rewards and punishments, cf.
Huet’s Origeniana, book ii. question xi.
Chapter XI.
After this, being desirous to show that it is
nothing either wonderful or new which we state regarding floods or
conflagrations, but that, from misunderstanding the accounts of these
things which are current among Greeks or barbarous nations, we have
accorded our belief to our own Scriptures when treating of them, he
writes as follows: “The belief has spread among them, from
a misunderstanding of the accounts of these occurrences, that after
lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and conjunctions of planets,
conflagrations and floods are wont to happen, and because after the
last flood, which took place in the time of Deucalion, the lapse of
time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all things, requires a
conflagration and this made them give utterance to the erroneous
opinion that God will descend, bringing fire like a
torturer.” Now in answer to this we say, that I do not
understand how Celsus, who has read a great deal, and who shows that he
has perused many histories, had not his attention arrested οὐκ
ἐπέστη. δίκην
βασανιστοῦ
πῦρ φέρων.
Chapter XII.
Whether, then, there are cycles of time, and
floods, or conflagrations which occur periodically or not, and whether
the Scripture is aware of this, not only in many passages, but
especially where Solomon [Note this testimony
to the authorship of Koheleth, and that it is Scripture.] Cf. εἰ χρν
ἐπιστήσαντα
τοῖς χρόνοις
εἰπεῖν. ἀνέτλασαν
κατὰ
περιόδους
ταυτότητας,
καὶ
ἀπαραλλάκτους
τοῖς ἰδίοις
ποιοῖς καὶ
τοῖς
συμβεβηκόσιν
αὐτοῖς. κακίαν ἐτὶ
πλεῖον
χεομένην. Cf. συγκαταβαίνειν. [On this figure
(anthropopathy) see vol. ii. p. 363, this series.]
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 γεῦσαι. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. σωματικῶς. Cf. τὴν τοῦ
χρυσοῦ (ἵν᾽
οὕτως
ὀνομάσω),
φύσιν τῆς
ψυχῆς, ἢ τὴν
ἀργύρου,
δολωσάντων. [See note
supra, cap. x. S.]
Chapter XIV.
But let us look at what Celsus next with great
ostentation announces in the following fashion: “And
again,” he says, “let 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. ῾Ο
Θεὸς ἀγαθός
ἐστι, καὶ
καλὸς, καὶ
εὐδαίμων, καὶ
ἐν τῷ
καλλίστῳ καὶ
ἀρίστῳ. κατάβασιν. τῆ προνοίᾳ
καὶ τῇ
οἰκονομίᾳ. ἡγεμονικόν. The reading in the
text is, ἐπὶ μέρους
γίνεται
αὐτῆς, which is thus corrected by
Guietus: ἐπιμερὴς
γίνεται
αὐτὸς.
Chapter XV.
And with respect to His having descended among
men, He was “previously in the form of God;” Cf. Cf. Cf. [Gieseler cites this
chapter (and cap. xix. infra) to show that Origen taught
that the Logos did not assume a human body. Could words be
stronger to the contrary? “He becomes, as it were,
flesh,” is used below to guard against
transmutation.] προηγουμένην.
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 follow 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, ἄτιμον. ἐκλεῖπον. [The
transfiguration did not conflict with his mortal nature, nor the
incarnation with his immortality.]
Chapter XVII.
But will not those narratives, especially when
they are understood 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 returned 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 altogether ignorant of the
purpose of our writings, and it is therefore 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 τί
ἀκολουθεῖ.
Chapter XVIII.
But Celsus, lingering over matters which he does
not understand, leads us to be guilty of tautology, as we do not wish
even in appearance to leave any one of his objections unexamined.
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 but evils, and would only be employed
as a 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, 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. [Such are the
accommodations reflected upon by Gieseler. See Book III.
cap. lxxix., supra.] τί ἄτοπον.
Chapter XIX.
Others, then, may concede to Celsus that God does
not undergo a change, but leads the spectators to imagine that He does;
whereas we who are persuaded that the advent of Jesus among men was no
mere appearance, but a real manifestation, 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? ὅμως
δ᾽
ἀπολογησόμεθα,
ὅτι οὐ φῂς, ὦ
Κέλσε, ὧς ἐν
φαρμάκου
μοίρα ποτὲ
δίδοται
χρῆσθαι τῷ
πλανᾷν καὶ τῷ
ψεύδεσθαι
; προηγουμένως,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ
περιστάσεως.
Chapter XX.
In the next place, as he represents the Jews
accounting in 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 overwhelm the earth, purifying
it with water, some of them on the mountains,” Cf. Plato in the
Timæus, and book iii., de Legibus.
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, σαφής. ᾽Επὰν τὸ
προκείμενον
ᾖ παραστῆσαι
καὶ τὰ τῆς
κατὰ τὸν
τόπον
ἱσνορίας
τίνα ἔχοι
λόγον, καὶ τὰ
τῆς περὶ
αὐτοῦ
ἀναγωγῆς. Otus and
Ephialtes. Cf. Smith’s Dict. of Myth. and Biog.,
s.v. Cf. Hom.,
Odyss., xi. 305. [Demonstrated by
Justin, vol. i. pp. 277, 278, this series.]
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, if 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-worship ἁγιστείας. ἐπεσκοπήθησαν. Θεῖόν τι καὶ
ἱερὸν χρῆμα
γεγονέναι
τὸν
᾽Ιησοῦν. οὐδ᾽
ἀποκατασταθήσονται.
[A very bold and confident assertion this must have seemed sixteen
hundred years ago.] καὶ
ἁρμόζοντας
τῇ πανταχοῦ
καθεστώσῃ
πολιτείᾳ. ὑπὸ
οἰκείων καὶ
ὁμοήθων.
Chapter XXIII.
In the next place, ridiculing after his usual
style the race of Jews and Christians, he compares them all “to a
flight of bats or to a swarm of ants issuing out of their nest, or to
frogs holding council in a marsh, or to worms crawling together in the
corner of a dunghill, and quarrelling with one another as to which of
them were the greater sinners, and asserting that God shows and
announces to us all things beforehand; and that, abandoning the whole
world, and the regions of heaven, τὴν
οὐράνιον
φοράν. ἐμπολιτεύεται.
Chapter XXIV.
In reply to these, we ask of those who accept such
aspersions as are scattered against us, Do you regard all men as a
collection of bats, or as frogs, or as worms, in consequence of the
pre-eminence of God or do you not include the rest of mankind in this
proposed comparison, but on account of their possession of reason, and
of the established laws, treat them as men, while you hold
cheap ἐξευτελίζοντες. εὐτελέσι. οὐκ ἐν
σώματι
κρίνεται. γύπες: γρύπες? καὶ κατὰ
πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν
πεποίωται.
Chapter XXV.
But if you depreciate the littleness of man, not
on account of his body, but of his soul, regarding it as inferior to
that of other rational beings, and especially of those who are
virtuous; and inferior, because evil dwells in it,—why should
those among Christians who are wicked, and those among the Jews who
lead sinful lives, be termed a collection of bats, or ants, or worms,
or frogs, rather than those individuals among other nations who are
guilty of wickedness?—seeing, in this respect, any individual
whatever, especially if carried away by the tide of evil, is, in
comparison with the rest of mankind, a bat, and worm, and frog, and
ant. And although a man may be an orator like Demosthenes, yet,
if stained with wickedness like his, The allusion may
possibly be to his flight from the field of Chæronea, or to his
avarice, or to the alleged impurity of his life, which is referred to
by Plutarch in his Lives of the Ten Orators.—Spencer. ἀφορμὰς ἔχον
πρὸς
ἀρετήν. ὑποτυπώσεις.
Chapter XXVI.
But if it is on account of those opinions of the
Christians and Jews which displease Celsus (and which he does not at
all appear to understand) that they are to be regarded as worms and
ants, and the rest of mankind as different, let us examine the
acknowledged opinions of Christians and Jews, τὰ αὐτόθεν
πᾶσι
προφαινόμενα
δόγματα
Χριστιανῶν
καὶ
᾽Ιουδαίων. φαντασίᾳ δ᾽
εὐσεβείας. ἢ καὶ
τὰ
δημιουργἠματα. λίθων καὶ
ξύλων. διαρκεῖν. ὑπὸ
λογικῶν
πιθανοτήτων.
Chapter XXVII.
And I have not yet spoken of the other evils which
prevail amongst men, from which even those who have the appearance of
philosophers are not speedily freed, for in philosophy there are many
pretenders. Nor do I say anything on the point that many such
evils are found to exist among those who are neither Jews nor
Christians. Of a truth, such evil practices do not at all prevail
among Christians, if you properly examine what constitutes a
Christian. Or, if any persons of that kind should be discovered,
they are at least not to be found among those who frequent the
assemblies, and come to the public prayers, without their being
excluded from them, unless it should happen, and that rarely, that some
one individual of such a character escapes notice in the crowd.
We, then, are not worms who assemble together; who take our stand
against the Jews on those Scriptures which they believe to be divine,
and who show that He who was spoken of in prophecy has come, and
that they have been abandoned on account of the greatness of
their sins, and that we who have accepted the Word have the
highest hopes in God, both because of our faith in Him, and of His
ability to receive us into His communion pure from all evil and
wickedness of life. If a man, then, should call himself a Jew or
a Christian, he would not say without qualification that God had made
the whole world, and the vault of heaven την
οὐράνιον
φοράν.
Chapter XXVIII.
But since he has represented those whom he regards
as worms, viz., the Christians, as saying that “God, having
abandoned the heavenly regions, and despising this great earth, takes
up His abode amongst us alone, and to us alone makes His announcements,
and ceases not His messages and inquiries as to how we may become His
associates for ever,” we have to answer that he attributes to us
words which we never uttered, seeing we both read and know that
God loves all existing things, and
loathes βδελύσσεται. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXIX.
But Celsus perhaps has misunderstood certain of
those whom he has termed “worms,” when they affirm that
“God exists, and that we are next to Him.” And he
acts like those who would find fault with an entire sect of
philosophers, on account of certain words uttered by some rash youth
who, after a three days’ attendance upon the lectures of a
philosopher, should exalt himself above other people as inferior to
himself, and devoid of philosophy. For we know that there are
many creatures more honourable τιμιώτερα. Cf. δαιμόνια.
Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. καὶ τοῦτό
γ᾽ ἂν
ἑρμηνεύοιμι,
τὸ “ἡμεῖς”
λέγων
ἀντὶ τοῦ οἱ
λογικοὶ, καὶ
ἔτι μᾶλλον,
οἱ σπουδαῖοι
λογικοί. ὥστε
καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ
ἀνθρώπου καὶ
Θεοῦ. Cf. Cicero, de Leg.,
i.: “Jam vero virtus eadem in homine ac deo est, neque ullo
alio in genio præterea. Est autem virtus nihil aliud, quam
in se perfecta, et ad summum perducta natura. Est igitur homini
cum Deo similitudo.” Cf. also Clemens Alex., Strom.,
vii. c. 14: Οὐ
γὰρ, καθάπερ
οἱ Στωϊκοὶ,
ἁθέως, πάνυ
τὴν αὐτὴν
ἀρετὴν
ἀνθρώπου
λέγομεν καὶ
Θεοῦ. [See vol. ii. p. 549.
S.] Cf. Theodoret, Serm., xi.—Spencer. Cf.
Chapter XXX.
It appears to me that Celsus has also
misunderstood this statement, “Let Us make man in Our image and
likeness;” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Eurip.,
Phœniss., 546, 547. βωμολόχος. καὶ
ἀμείβουσι
σώματα. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXXI.
After this, wishing to prove that there is no
difference between Jews and Christians, and those animals previously
enumerated by him, he asserts that the Jews were “fugitives from
Egypt, who never performed anything worthy of note, and never were held
in any reputation or account.” οὔτ᾽ ἐν
λόγῳ οὔτ᾽ ἐν
ἀριθμῷ
αὐτούς ποτε
γεγενημένους. ἐπολιτεύετο. [See note on Book III.
cap. lxxvi. supra, and to vol. iii. p. 76, this series.] Cf. Cf. πολιτεία. οὐδὲ
φαίνεσθαι
θηλυδρίαν
οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν. οἵ τινες διὰ
τὸ καθαρὸν
ἦθος, καὶ τὸ
ὑπὲρ
ἄνθρωπον.
Chapter XXXII.
But since nothing belonging to human nature is
permanent, this polity also must gradually be corrupted and
changed. And Providence, having remodelled their venerable system
where it needed to be changed, so as to adapt it to men of all
countries, gave to believers of all nations, in place of the Jews, the
venerable religion of Jesus, who, being adorned not only with
understanding, but also with a share of divinity, θείᾳ
μοίρᾳ. καίτοιγε
πάντα κάλων
κινήσαντες.
Chapter XXXIII.
Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the
contents of the first book of Moses, which is entitled
“Genesis,” asserts that “the Jews accordingly
endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and
deceivers, ἀπὸ
πρώτης
σπορᾶς
γοήτων καὶ
πλάνων
ἀνθρώπων. παρεξηούμενοι. [This
formula he regards as an adumbration of the Triad (see our vol.
ii. p. 101): thus, “the God of Abraham” = Fatherhood;
“of Isaac” = Sonship; “of Jacob” = Wisdom, and
the Founder of the New Israel.]
Chapter XXXIV.
For we inquire of all those who employ such
invocations of God, saying: Tell us, friends, who was Abraham,
and what sort of person was Isaac, and what power did Jacob possess,
that the appellation “God,” when joined with their name,
could effect such wonders? And from whom have you learned, or can
you learn, the facts relating to these individuals? And who has
occupied himself with writing a history about them, either directly
magnifying these men by ascribing to them mysterious powers, or hinting
obscurely at their possession of certain great and marvellous
qualities, patent to those who are qualified to see them? εἴτε καὶ
αὐτόθεν
σεμνύνουσαν
ἐν
ἀποῤῥήτοις
τοὺς ἄνδρας,
εἴτε καὶ δι᾽
ὑπονοιῶν
αἰνισσμένην
τινὰ μεγάλα
καὶ θαυμάσια
τοῖς
θεωρῆσαι
αὐτὰ
δυναμένοις
; μυστικῆς
ἀναγραφῆς. ἐροῦμέν τε·
ὅτι μήποτε τὸ
καὶ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν
παραλαμβάνεσθαι
τὰ ὀνόματα
τῶν τριῶν
τούτων
γεναρχῶν τοῦ
ἔθνους, τῇ
ἐναργείᾳ
καταλαμβανόντων,
οὐκ
εὐκαταφρόνητα
ἀνύεσθαι ἐκ
τῆς
κατεπικλήσεως
αὐτῶν,
παρίστησι τὸ
θεῖον τῶν
ἀνδρῶν. Guietus would
expunge the words τῇ
ἐναργείᾳ
καταλαμβανόντων. [See p. 511,
supra, on the formula of benediction and exorcism,
and compare
Chapter XXXV.
And let any one who peruses the treatise of Celsus
observe whether it does not convey some such insinuation as the above,
when he says: “And they attempted to derive their origin
from the first race of jugglers and deceivers, appealing to the
testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in
obscurity.” For these names are indeed obscure, and not
within the comprehension and knowledge of many, though not in our
opinion of doubtful meaning, even although assumed by those who are
aliens to our religion; but as, according to Celsus, they do
not κατὰ δὲ
Κέλσον, οὐ
παριστάντα.
Libri editi ad oram ὡς
παριστάντα. γενναίως. παρεξηγούμενοι. παρέῤῥιψε.
Chapter XXXVI.
Celsus in the next place, producing from history
other than that of the divine record, those passages which bear upon
the claims to great antiquity put forth by many nations, as the
Athenians, and Egyptians, and Arcadians, and Phrygians, who assert that
certain individuals have existed among them who sprang from the earth,
and who each adduce proofs of these assertions, says: “The
Jews, then, leading a grovelling life συγκύψαντες. ἀμουσότατα. Cf. Plato, de
Repub., book ii. etc.
Chapter XXXVII.
He charges us, moreover, with introducing “a
man formed by the hands of God,” although the book of Genesis has
made no mention of the “hands” of God, either when relating
the creation or the “fashioning” ἐπὶ
τῆς
πλάσεως. Cf. σχῆμα. κακοήθειαν. πλάσεως. ἐμφυσώμενον.
Chapter XXXVIII.
In the next place, as it is his object to slander
our Scriptures, he ridicules the following statement: “And
God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.
And the rib, which He had taken from the man, made He a
woman,” Cf. ἀντὶ
τοῦ πυρός. χωρὶς
παντὸς λόγου
καί τινος
ἐπικρύψεως. μοχθίζειν.
“‘Son of Iapetus!’ with wrathful heart
Spake the cloud-gatherer: ‘Oh, unmatched in art!
Exultest thou in this the flame retrieved,
And dost thou triumph in the god deceived?
But thou, with the posterity of man,
Shalt rue the fraud whence mightier ills began;
I will send evil for thy stealthy fire,
While all embrace it, and their bane desire.’
The sire, who rules the earth, and sways the pole,
Had said, and laughter fill’d his secret soul.
He bade the artist-god his hest obey,
And mould with tempering waters ductile clay:
Infuse, as breathing life and form began,
The supple vigour, and the voice of man:
Her aspect fair as goddesses above,
A virgin’s likeness, with the brows of love.
He bade Minerva teach the skill that dyes
The web with colours, as the shuttle flies;
He called the magic of Love’s Queen to shed
A nameless grace around her courteous head;
Instil the wish that longs with restless aim,
And cares of dress that feed upon the frame:
Bade Hermes last implant the craft refined
Of artful manners, and a shameless mind.
He said; their king th’ inferior powers obeyed:
The fictile likeness of a bashful maid
Rose from the temper’d earth, by Jove’s behest,
Under the forming god; the zone and vest
Were clasp’d and folded by Minerva’s hand:
The heaven-born graces, and persuasion bland
Deck’d her round limbs with chains of gold: the hours
Of loose locks twined her temples with spring flowers.
The whole attire Minerva’s curious care
Form’d to her shape, and fitted to her air.
But in her breast the herald from above,
Full of the counsels of deep thundering Jove,
Wrought artful manners, wrought perfidious lies,
And speech that thrills the blood, and lulls the wise.
Her did th’ interpreter of gods proclaim,
And named the woman with Pandora’s name;
Since all the gods conferr’d their gifts, to charm,
For man’s inventive race, this beauteous
harm.” Hesiod, Works
and Days, i. 73–114 (Elton’s translation [in
substance. S.]).
Moreover, what is said also about the casket is fitted of itself to excite laughter; for example:—
“Whilome on earth the sons of men abode
From ills apart, and labour’s irksome load,
And sore diseases, bringing age to man;
Now the sad life of mortals is a span.
The woman’s hands a mighty casket bear;
She lifts the lid; she scatters griefs in air:
Alone, beneath the vessel’s rims detained,
Hope still within th’ unbroken cell remained,
Nor fled abroad; so will’d cloud-gatherer Jove:
The woman’s hand had dropp’d the lid
above.” Hesiod, Works
and Days, i.125–134 (Elton’s translation [in
substance. S.]).
Now, to him who would give to these lines a grave allegorical meaning (whether any such meaning be contained in them or not), we would say: Are the Greeks alone at liberty to convey a philosophic meaning in a secret covering? or perhaps also the Egyptians, and those of the Barbarians who pride themselves upon their mysteries and the truth (which is concealed within them); while the Jews alone, with their lawgiver and historians, appear to you the most unintelligent of men? And is this the only nation which has not received a share of divine power, and which yet was so grandly instructed how to rise upwards to the uncreated nature of God, and to gaze on Him alone, and to expect from Him alone (the fulfilment of) their hopes?
But as Celsus makes a jest also of the serpent, as
counteracting the injunctions given by God to the man, taking the
narrative to be an old wife’s fable, “μῦθόν
τινα” παραπλήσιον
τοῖς
παραδιδομένοις
ταῖς
γραυσίν. παράδεισος. Penia, poverty; Porus,
abundance. διὰ τὴν
αὑτῆς
ἀπορίαν. ἐν
τοῖς ἐκείνης
γενεθλίοις. ἐν
τοιαῦτῃ τύχῃ
καθέστηκε. σκληρὸς καὶ
αὐχμηρός. ἐνδείᾳ. σύντονος. δεινός. καὶ
φρονήσεως
ἐπιθυμητὴς
καὶ
πόριμος. δεινὸς
γόης. [Plato,
Symposion, xxiii. p. 203. S.] Boherellus, quem
Ruæus sequitur, in notis; “Ante voces: τίνα
τρόπον, videtur deesse:
θαυμάσονται,
aut quid simile.”—Lommatzsch.
But as he asserts that “the Mosaic narrative
most impiously represents God as in a state of weakness from the very
commencement (of things), and as unable to gain over (to obedience)
even one single man whom He Himself had formed,” we say in answer
that the objection τὸ
λεγόμενον. εὐκαταφρονήτων. φυσιολογεῖ
Μωϋσῆς τὰ
περὶ τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου
φύσεως. Cf. οὐκ ἔστι
καθ᾽ ἧς οὐ
λέγεται. πτεροῤῥυούσης.
This is a correction for πτεροφυούσης,
the textual reading in the Benedictine and Spencer’s edd.
Chapter XLI.
After this he continues as follows:
“They speak, in the next place, of a deluge, and of a
monstrous ἀλλόκοτον. κορώνη. παραχαράττοντες
καὶ
ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες. τῷ δυνάμει
λέγεσθαι τὰ
μέτρα. [This question, which
is little short of astounding, illustrates the marvellous reach and
play of Origen’s fancy at times. See note supra, p.
262. S.]
Chapter XLII.
In order to show that he had read the book of
Genesis, Celsus rejects the story of the dove, although unable to
adduce any reason which might prove it to be a fiction. In the
next place, as his habit is, in order to put the narrative in a more
ridiculous light, he converts the “raven” into a
“crow,” and imagines that Moses so wrote, having recklessly
altered the accounts related of the Grecian Deucalion; unless perhaps
he regards the narrative as not having proceeded from Moses, but from
several individuals, as appears from his employing the
plural number in the expressions, “falsifying and
recklessly altering the story of Deucalion,” παραχαράττοντες
καὶ
ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες. Cf.
Chapter XLIII.
“Altogether absurd, and out of
season,” ἔξωρον. Cf. Cf. ἄγχιστα δὲ
τούτοις πᾶσι
συμπολιτεύομενον. θειότητα. ἐῤῥωμένως. Cf. Cf. Cf. παρ᾽ οἷς τὰ
ποικίλα ἤθη
ἐπίσημα
γενόμενα, τῷ
λογῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ
πολιτεύεται,
δοθέντα
κτῆσις τῷ
τροπικῶς
καλουμένῳ
᾽Ιακώβ: ἐπίσημα is the term employed
to denote the “spotted” cattle of Laban, and is here used
by Origen in its figurative sense of “distinguished,” thus
playing on the double meaning of the word.
Chapter XLIV.
And erring widely from the meaning of Scripture,
he says that “God gave wells φρέατα. λάκκους. τὴν
ἐνυπάρχουσαν
γῆν καὶ
ἀρχὴν τῶν
ποτίμων
ἀγαθῶν. Boherellus
proposes: τὴν
ἐνυπάρχουσαν
πηγὴν καὶ
ἀρχὴν τῶν
ποτίμων
ὑδάτων. Cf. Cf. νυμφας. Cf.
Chapter XLV.
And whereas Celsus ought to have recognised the
love of truth displayed by the writers of sacred Scripture, who have
not concealed even what is to their discredit, τὰ
ἀπεμφαίνοντα. οἱ
ἐπιτυγχάνοντές
γε αὐτῶν. οὐκ
εὐκαταφρόνητος
αὐτοῖς. ζώπυρον. βουλήματι. ἔχει
δέ τινα καὶ
καθ᾽ αὑτὸ
άπολογίαν.
[Our Edinburgh translator gives a misleading rendering here.
Origen throughout this part of his argument is reasoning ad
hominem, and has shown that Greek philosophy sustains this
idea.]
Chapter XLVI.
Celsus, moreover, sneers at the “hatred” of
Esau (to which, I suppose, he refers) against Jacob, although he was a
man who, according to the Scriptures, is acknowledged to have been
wicked; and not clearly stating the story of Simeon and Levi, who
sallied out (on the Shechemites) on account of the insult offered to
their sister, who had been violated by the son of the Shechemite king,
he inveighs against their conduct. And passing on, he speaks of
“brothers selling (one another),” alluding to the sons of
Jacob; and of “a brother sold,” Joseph to wit; and of
“a father deceived,” viz., Jacob, because he entertained no
suspicion of his sons when they showed him Joseph’s coat of many
colours, but believed their statement, and mourned for his son, who was
a slave in Egypt, as if he were dead. And observe in what a
spirit of hatred and falsehood Celsus collects together the statements
of the sacred history; so that wherever it appeared to him to contain a
ground of accusation he produces the passage, but wherever there is any
exhibition of virtue worthy of mention— Cf. Homer,
Iliad, vi. 160.
Chapter XLVII.
Celsus next, for form’s sake, ὁσίας
ἕνεκεν.
Chapter XLVIII.
In the next place, as if he had devoted himself
solely to the manifestation of his hatred and dislike of the Jewish and
Christian doctrine, he says: “The more modest of Jewish and
Christian writers give all these things an allegorical meaning;”
and, “Because they are ashamed of these things, they take refuge
in allegory.” Now one might say to him, that if we must
admit fables and fictions, whether written with a concealed meaning or
with any other object, to be shameful narratives when taken in their
literal acceptation, κατὰ τὴν
πρώτην
ἐκδοχήν. τοὺς
σπερματικοὺς
λόγους.
Chapter XLIX.
If Celsus had read the Scriptures in an impartial
spirit, he would not have said that “our writings are incapable
of admitting an allegorical meaning.” For from the
prophetic Scriptures, in which historical events are recorded (not from
the historical), it is possible to be convinced that the historical
portions also were written with an allegorical purpose, and were most
skilfully adapted not only to the multitude of the simpler believers,
but also to the few who are able or willing to investigate matters in
an intelligent spirit. If, indeed, those writers at the present
day who are deemed by Celsus the “more modest of the Jews and
Christians” were the (first) allegorical interpreters of our
Scriptures, he would have the appearance, perhaps, of making a
plausible allegation. But since the very fathers and authors of
the doctrines themselves give them an allegorical signification, what
other inference can be drawn than that they were composed so as to be
allegorically understood in their chief signification? κατὰ τὸν
προηούμενον
νοῦν. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. προβλήματα
καὶ
παραβολαί. Cf.
Chapter L.
Moreover, if the law of Moses had contained
nothing which was to be understood as having a secret meaning, the
prophet would not have said in his prayer to God, “Open Thou mine
eyes, and I will behold wondrous things out of Thy law;” Cf. ἐπὰν
ἐπακούσῃ τοῦ
παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
πάντα
ποιήσαντος. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LI.
Celsus appears to me to have heard that there are
treatises in existence which contain allegorical explanations of the
law of Moses. These however, he could not have read; for if he
had he would not have said: “The allegorical explanations,
however, which have been devised are much more shameful and absurd than
the fables themselves, inasmuch as they endeavour to unite with
marvellous and altogether insensate folly things which cannot at all be
made to harmonize.” He seems to refer in these words to the
works of Philo, or to those of still older writers, such as
Aristobulus. But I conjecture that Celsus has not read their
books, since it appears to me that in many passages they have so
successfully hit the meaning (of the sacred writers), that even Grecian
philosophers would have been captivated by their explanations; for in
their writings we find not only a polished style, but exquisite
thoughts and doctrines, and a rational use of what Celsus imagines to
be fables in the sacred writings. I know, moreover, that Numenius
the Pythagorean—a surpassingly excellent expounder of Plato, and
who held a foremost place as a teacher of the doctrines of
Pythagoras—in many of his works quotes from the writings of Moses
and the prophets, and applies to the passages in question a not
improbable allegorical meaning, as in his work called Epops, and
in those which treat of “Numbers” and of
“Place.” And in the third book of his dissertation on
The Good, he quotes also a narrative regarding
Jesus—without, however, mentioning His name—and gives it an
allegorical signification, whether successfully or the reverse I may
state on another occasion. He relates also the account respecting
Moses, and Jannes, and Jambres. Cf.
Chapter LII.
After this, selecting from all the treatises which
contain allegorical explanations and interpretations, expressed in a
language and style not to be despised, the least important, τὸ
εὐτελέστερον. ψυχή. ὕλη.
Chapter LIII.
I do not know, indeed, how he could conjoin things
that do not admit of union, and which cannot exist together at the same
time in human nature, in saying, as he did, that “the above
treatise deserved to be treated both with pity and hatred.”
For every one will admit that he who is the object of pity is not at
the same moment an object of hatred, and that he who is the object of
hatred is not at the same time a subject of pity. Celsus,
moreover, says that it was not his purpose to refute such statements,
because he thinks that their absurdity is evident to all, and that,
even before offering any logical refutation, they will appear to be
bad, and to merit both pity and hatred. But we invite him who
peruses this reply of ours to the charges of Celsus to have patience,
and to listen to our sacred writings themselves, and, as far as
possible, to form an opinion from their contents of the purpose
of the writers, and of their con The reading in the
text of Spencer and of the Benedictine ed. is καταλειφθεῖσαν,
for which Lommatzsch has adopted the conjecture of Boherellus,
καταληφθεῖσαν. ὠφελείας.
Chapter LIV.
But as in the words which I quoted from Celsus,
which are a paraphrase from the Timæus, certain expressions occur,
such as, “God made nothing mortal, but immortal things alone,
while mortal things are the works of others, and the soul is a work of
God, but the nature of the body is different, and there is no
difference between the body of a man and that of a bat, or of a worm,
or of a frog; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part
alike,”—let us discuss these points for a little; and let
us show that Celsus either does not disclose his Epicurean opinions,
or, as might be said by one person, has exchanged them for better, or,
as another might say, has nothing in common save the name, with Celsus,
the Epicurean. For he ought, in giving expression to such
opinions, and in proposing to contradict not only us, but the by no
means obscure sect of philosophers who are the adherents of Zeno of
Citium, to have proved that the bodies of animals are not the work of
God, and that the great skill displayed in their construction did not
proceed from the highest intelligence. And he ought also, with
regard to the countless diversities of plants, which are regulated by
an inherent, incomprehensible nature, ὑπ᾽
ἐνυπαρχούσης
ἀφαντάστου
φύσεως
διοικουμένων. πρὸς χρείαν
οὐκ
εὐκαταφρόνητον. ὅπως
ποτὲ ἄλλως
ὄντων.
Chapter LV.
But I maintain that, if he had the patience (to use his
own expression) to listen to the writings of Moses and the prophets, he
would have had his attention arrested by the circumstance that the
expression “God made” is applied to heaven and earth, and
to what is called the firmament, and also to the lights and stars; and
after these, to the great fishes, and to every living thing among
creeping animals which the waters brought forth after their kinds, and
to every fowl of heaven after its kind; and after these, to the wild
beasts of the earth after their kind, and the beasts after their kind,
and to τίνι ἢ
τίσιν.
Chapter LVI.
Moreover, since Celsus asserts that “the
soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is different; and
that in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat,
or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man, for the matter is the
same, and their corruptible part alike,”—we have to say in
answer to this argument of his, that if, since the same matter
underlies the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, or of a man,
these bodies will differ in no respect from one another, it is evident
then that these bodies also will differ in no respect from the sun, or
the moon, or the stars, or the sky, or any other thing which is called
by the Greeks a god, cognisable by the senses. αἰσθητοῦ
θεοῦ. Cf. Plato in
Timæo. ἄϋλον. πέμπτης
παρὰ τὰ
τέσσαρα
στοιχεῖα
εἷναι
φύσεως. Cf. αἰθερίου.
Chapter LVII.
See, then, whether we ought to yield to one who,
holding such opinions, calumniates the Christians, and thus abandon a
doctrine which explains the difference existing among bodies as due to
the different qualities, internal and external, which are implanted in
them. For we, too, know that there are “bodies celestial,
and bodies terrestrial;” and that “the glory of the
celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another;” and
that even the glory of the celestial bodies is not alike: for
“one is the glory of the sun, and another the glory of the
stars;” and among the stars themselves, “one star differeth
from another star in glory.” Cf. Cf. ὁδοί. καινῆς
διαδεξαμένης
ὁδοῦ καὶ
ἀλλοίας, etc. For
διαδεξαμένης,
Boherellus would read διαδεξομένης.
Cf. Origen, de Princip., iii. c. 5; ii. c. 3. [See
also Neander’s Church History, vol. 1. p. 328, and his
remarks on “the general ἀποκατάστασις”
of Origen. S.] συντέλεια. Cf. Pliny, x. c.
66: “Anguem ex medullâ hominis spinæ gigni
accepimus a multis.” Cf. also Ovid, Metamorphos.,
xv. fab. iv.
Chapter LVIII.
But we have something more to say to Celsus, when he declares that “the soul is the work of God, and that the nature of body is different,” and puts forward such an opinion not only without proof, but even without clearly defining his meaning; for he did not make it evident whether he meant that every soul is the work of God, or only the rational soul. This, then, is what we have to say: If every soul is the work of God, it is manifest that those of the meanest irrational animals are God’s work, so that the nature of all bodies is different from that of the soul. He appears, however, in what follows, where he says that “irrational animals are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of divinity,” to maintain that not only is the soul of man, but in a much greater degree that of irrational animals, the work of God; for this follows from their being said to be more beloved by God than we. Now if the rational soul alone be the work of God, then, in the first place, he did not clearly indicate that such was his opinion; and in the second place, this deduction follows from his indefinite language regarding the soul—viz., whether not every one, but only the rational, is the work of God—that neither is the nature of all bodies different (from the soul). But if the nature of all bodies be not different, although the body of each animal correspond to its soul, it is evident that the body of that animal whose soul was the work of God, would differ from the body of that animal in which dwells a soul which was not the work of God. And so the assertion will be false, that there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man.
Chapter LIX.
For it would, indeed, be absurd that certain
stones and buildings should be regarded as more sacred or more profane
than others, according as they were constructed for the honour of God,
or for the reception of dishonourable and accursed persons; σωμάτων. τῶν
διαφερότων.
Chapter LX.
He next proceeds to say, that “a common
nature pervades all the previously mentioned bodies, and one which goes
and returns the same amid recurring changes.” καὶ μία εἰς
ἀμοιβὴν
παλίντροπον
ἰοῦσα καὶ
ἐπανιοῦσα. σῶμα. οὕτω δὲ καὶ
τὸ
ἀπολλύμενον
εἰς
μεταβολὴν
διαμένει.
Chapter LXI.
He maintains, moreover, that “no product of
matter is immortal.” Now, in answer to this it may be said,
that if no product of matter is immortal, then either the whole world
is immortal, and thus not a product of matter, or it is not
immortal. If, accordingly, the world is immortal (which is
agreeable to the view of those who say that the soul alone is the work
of God, and was produced from a certain bowl), let Celsus show that the
world was not produced from a matter devoid of qualities, remembering
his own assertion that “no product of matter is
immortal.” If, however, the world is not immortal (seeing
it is a product of matter), but mortal, does it also perish, or does it
not? For if it perish, it will perish as being a work of God; and
then, in the event of the world perishing, what will become of
the soul, which is also a work of God? Let Celsus answer
this! But if, perverting the notion of immortality, he will
assert that, although perishable, it is immortal, because it
does not really perish; that it is capable of dying, but
does not actually die,—it is evident that, according to
him, there will exist something which is at the same time mortal and
immortal, by being capable of both conditions; and that which does not
die will be mortal, and that which is not immortal by nature will be
termed in a peculiar sense immortal, because it does not die!
According to what distinction, then, in the meaning of words, will he
maintain that no product of matter is immortal? And thus you see
that the ideas contained in his writings, when closely examined and
tested, are proved not to be sound and
incontrovertible. διελέγχεται
οὐκ
ἐπιδεχόμενα
τὸ γενναῖον
καὶ
ἀναντίῤῥητον.
Chapter LXII.
After these matters, then, he thinks that he can
make us acquainted in a few words with the questions regarding the
nature of evil, which have been variously discussed in many important
treatises, and which have received very opposite explanations.
His words are: “There neither were formerly, nor are there
now, nor will there be again, more or fewer evils in the world (than
have always been). For the nature of all things is one and the
same, and the generation of evils is always the same.” He
seems to have paraphrased these words from the discussions in the
Theætetus, where Plato makes Socrates say: “It
is neither possible for evils to disappear from among men, nor for them
to become established among the gods,” and so on. But he
appears to me not to have understood Plato correctly, although
professing to include all truth ὁ τὴν
ἀλήθειαν
ἐκπεριλαμβάνων. [Cf. Plato,
Theætetus, xxv. p. 176. S.]
Chapter LXIII.
I do not understand how Celsus, while admitting
the existence of Providence, at least so far as appears from the
language of this book, can say that there never existed (at any time)
either more or fewer evils, but, as it were, a fixed number; thus
annihilating the beautiful doctrine regarding the indefinite ἀόριστον. καὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ
λόγῳ. τοσοῖσδε
τυγχάνουσιν. ᾽Αμφίβολοι. ᾽Αγορανόμοι. ἁῤῥητοποιους
οὐκ ἴσασι.
Chapter LXIV.
And now, after these arguments, and others of a
similar kind, how can Celsus escape appearing in a ridiculous light,
when he imagines that there never has been in the past, nor will be in
the future, a greater or less number of evils? For although the
nature of all things is one and the same, it does not at all follow
that the production of evils is a constant quantity. οὗ πάντως
καὶ ἡ τῶν
κακῶν
γένεσις ἀεὶ
ἡ αὐτή. οὐκ ἀεὶ τὰ
αὐτά ἐστι
περὶ τὸ
ἡγεμονικὸν
αὐτοῦ, καὶ
τὸν λόγον
αὐτοῦ, καὶ
τὰς
πράξεις. θεωρίαις. τῶν ὅλων. τὰ ἐν ὁλῳ τῷ
κόσμῳ.
Chapter LXV.
After this Celsus continues: “It is
not easy, indeed, for one who is not a philosopher to ascertain the
origin of evils, though it is sufficient for the multitude to say that
they do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter, and have their
abode among mortal things; while the course περίοδος. κατὰ τὰς
τεταγμένας
ἀνακυκλήσεις. μὴ ἐγνωκὼς
κακὸν εἶναι
τὸ νομίζειν
εὐσέβειαν
σώζεσθαι ἐν
τοῖς
καθεστηκόσι
κατὰ τὰς
κοινότερον
νοουμένας
πολιτείας
νόμοις. τὸ
ἡγεμονικόν.
Chapter LXVI.
Celsus in the next place, as if he were able to
tell certain secrets regarding the origin of evils, but chose rather to
keep silence, and say only what was suitable to the multitude,
continues as follows: “It is sufficient to say to the
multitude regarding the origin of evils, that they do not proceed from
God, but cleave to matter, and dwell among mortal things.”
It is true, certainly, that evils do not proceed from God; for
according to Jeremiah, one of our prophets, it is certain that
“out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and
good.” Cf. ἥτις
ἐστὶ τὸ
κακόν.
Chapter LXVII.
I do not understand how Celsus should deem it of
advantage, in writing a treatise against us, to adopt an opinion which
requires at least much plausible reasoning to make it appear, as far as
he can do so, that “the course of mortal things is the same from
beginning to end, and that the same things must always, according to
the appointed cycles, recur in the past, present, and
future.” Now, if this be true, our free-will is
annihilated. τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
ἀνῄρηται.
Chapter LXVIII.
Celsus, however, says that it is only “the
course of mortal things which, according to the appointed
cycles, must always be the same in the past, present, and
future;” whereas the majority of the Stoics maintain that this is
the case not only with the course of mortal, but also with that of
immortal things, and of those whom they regard as gods. For after
the conflagration of the world, τοῦ
παντός. ἀπαραλλάκτους.
Chapter LXIX.
He continues to say that “neither have
visible things τὰ
ὁρώμενα. οὔτε τῷ Θεῷ
καινοτέρας
δεῖ
διορθώσεως. ὅτι
καὶ πάντη
τεταγμένως
αὐτὴν
ἀφανίζων
συμφερόντως
τῷ παντί. [See note
supra, p. 524. S.] τὰ σφάλματα
ἀναλαμβάνειν.
Chapter LXX.
Celsus has made a statement regarding evils of the
following nature, viz., that “although a thing may seem to you to
be evil, it is by no means certain that it is so; for you do not know
what is of advantage to yourself, or to another, or to the whole
world.” Now this assertion is made with a certain degree of
caution; ἔχει
τὶ εὐλαβές. καὶ ὡς
ψεκτὸς
κατατέτακται
εἰς χρείαν
ἀπευκταίαν
μὲν ἑκάστῳ,
χρήσιμον δὲ
τῷ παντί. ἐν
ἀπευκταίῳ
πράματι. Cf.
But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding
that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an
anthropopathic point of view, [See note, p. 502,
supra.] οὐ τοῦ
ἑαυτῶν ἐν τῷ
λέγειν
στοχαζόμεθα
δυνατοῦ. Cf.
Chapter LXXII.
We speak, indeed, of the “wrath” of
God. We do not, however, assert that it indicates any
“passion” on His part, but that it is something which is
assumed in order to discipline by stern means those sinners who have
committed many and grievous sins. For that which is called
God’s “wrath,” and “anger,” is a means of
discipline; and that such a view is agreeable to Scripture, is evident
from what is said in the Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXXIII.
And as a sequel to his non-understanding of the statements regarding the “wrath” of God, he continues: “Is it not ridiculous to suppose that, whereas a man, who became angry with the Jews, slew them all from the youth upwards, and burned their city (so powerless were they to resist him), the mighty God, as they say, being angry, and indignant, and uttering threats, should, (instead of punishing them) send His own Son, who endured the sufferings which He did?” If the Jews, then, after the treatment which they dared to inflict upon Jesus, perished with all their youth, and had their city consumed by fire, they suffered this punishment in consequence of no other wrath than that which they treasured up for themselves; for the judgment of God against them, which was determined by the divine appointment, is termed “wrath” agreeably to a traditional usage of the Hebrews. And what the Son of the mighty God suffered, He suffered voluntarily for the salvation of men, as has been stated to the best of my ability in the preceding pages. He then continues: “But that I may speak not of the Jews alone (for that is not my object), but of the whole of nature, as I promised, I will bring out more clearly what has been already stated.” Now what modest man, on reading these words, and knowing the weakness of humanity, would not be indignant at the offensive nature of the promise to give an account of the “whole of nature,” and at an arrogance like that which prompted him to inscribe upon his book the title which he ventured to give it (of a True Discourse)? But let us see what he has to say regarding the “whole of nature,” and what he is to place “in a clearer light.”
Chapter LXXIV.
He next, in many words, blames us for asserting
that God made all things for the sake of man. Because from the
history of animals, and from the sagacity manifested by them, he would
show that all things came into existence not more for the sake of man
than of the irrational animals. And here he seems to me to speak
in a similar manner to those who, through dislike of their enemies,
accuse them of the same things for which their own friends are
commended. For as, in the instance referred to, hatred blinds
these persons from seeing that they are accusing their very dearest
friends by the means through which they think they are slandering their
enemies; so in the same way, Celsus also, becoming confused in his
argument, does not see that he is bringing a charge against the
philosophers of the Porch, who, not amiss, place man in the foremost
rank, and rational nature in general before irrational animals, and who
maintain that Providence created all things mainly on account of
rational nature. Rational beings, then, as being the principal
ones, occupy the place, as it were, of children in the womb, while
irrational and soulless beings hold that of the envelope which is
created along with the child. καὶ λόγον
μὲν ἔχει τὰ
λογικὰ, ἅπερ
ἐστὶ
προηγούμενα,
παίδων
γεννωμένων·
τὰ δ᾽ ἄλογα
καὶ τὰ ἄψυχα
χωρίου
συγκτιζομένου
τᾷ παιδίῳ. ἀγορανόμοι.
Chapter LXXV.
For, in the first place, he is of opinion that
“thunders, and lightnings, and rains are not the works of
God,”—thus showing more clearly at last his Epicurean
leanings; and in the second place, that “even if one were to
grant that these were the works of God, they are brought into existence
not more for the support of us who are human beings, than for that of
plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns,”—maintaining,
like a true Epicurean, that these things are the product of chance, and
not the work of Providence. For if these things are of no more
use to us than to plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns, it is
evident either that they do not proceed from Providence at all, or from
a providence which does not provide for us in a greater degree than for
trees, and herbs, and thorns. Now, either of these suppositions
is impious in itself, and it would be foolish to refute such statements
by answering any one who brought against us the charge of impiety; for
it is manifest to every one, from what has been said, who is the person
guilty of impiety. In the next place, he adds:
“Although you may say that these things, viz., plants, and trees,
and συντυχία
τις ἀτόμων. οὐδεὶς
λόγος
τεχνικὸς
ὑπέστησεν
αὐτά. ἑστίαν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXXVI.
After this, Celsus, desirous of maintaining that
Providence created the products of the earth, not more on our account
than on that of the most savage animals, thus proceeds: “We
indeed by labour and suffering earn a scanty and toilsome
subsistence, μόλις καὶ
ἐπιπόνως. ἐπιδεῆ. διὰ
ναυτικῆς καὶ
κυβερνητικῆς. ἀφορμήν.
Chapter LXXVII.
In the next place, forgetting that his object is to accuse both Jews and Christians, he quotes against himself an iambic verse of Euripides, which is opposed to his view, and, joining issue with the words, charges them with being an erroneous statement. His words are as follow: “But if you will quote the saying of Euripides, that
‘The Sun and Night are to mortals
slaves,’ Cf. Eurip.,
Phœniss., 546.
why should they be so in a greater degree to us than to ants
and flies? For the night is created for them in order that they
may rest, and the day that they may see and resume their
work.” Now it is undoubted, that not only have certain of
the Jews and Christians declared that the sun and the heavenly
bodies τὰ ἐν
οὐρανῷ. ὁ κατά τινας
Σκηνικὸς
φιλόσοφος.
Euripides himself is the person alluded to. He is called by
Athenæus and Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom., v. vol. ii. p.
461), ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς
σκηνῆς
φιλόσοφος.—
De La Rue. συνεκδοχικῶς.
“The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves.”
Perhaps the tragic poet meant the day when he said the sun, inasmuch as it is the cause of the day,—teaching that those things which most need the day and night are the things which are under the moon, and other things in a less degree than those which are upon the earth. Day and night, then, are subject to mortals, being created for the sake of rational beings. And if ants and flies, which labour by day and rest by night, have, besides, the benefit of those things which were created for the sake of men, we must not say that day and night were brought into being for the sake of ants and flies, nor must we suppose that they were created for the sake of nothing, but, agreeably to the design of Providence, were formed for the sake of man.
Chapter LXXVIII.
He next proceeds further to object against
himself ἑαυτῷ
ἀνθυποφέρει.
Chapter LXXIX.
In the next place, in answer to the human race,
who perceive their own superiority, which far exceeds that of the
irrational animals, he says: “With respect to your
assertion, that God gave you the power to capture wild beasts, and to
make your own use of them, we would say that, in all probability,
before cities were built, and arts invented, and societies such as now
exist were formed, and weapons and nets employed, men were generally
caught and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom
captured by men.” Now, in reference to this, observe that
although men catch wild beasts, and wild beasts make prey of men, there
is a great difference between the case of such as by means of their
understanding obtain the mastery over those whose superiority consists
in their savage and cruel nature, and that of those who do not make use
of their understanding to secure their safety from injury by wild
beasts. But when Celsus says, “before cities were built,
and arts invented, and societies such as now exist were formed,”
he appears to have forgotten what he had before said, that “the
world was uncreated and incorruptible, and that it was only the things
on earth which underwent deluges and conflagrations, and that all these
things did not happen at the same time.” Now let it be
granted that these admissions on his part are entirely in harmony with
our views, though not at all with him and his statements made above;
yet what does it all avail to prove that in the beginning men were
mostly captured and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were
never caught by men? For, since the world was created in
conformity with the will of Providence, and God presided over the
universe of things, it was necessary that the elements ζώπυρα.
“For common then were banquets, and common were seats,
Alike to immortal gods and mortal
men.” Cf. Hesiod,
Fragmenta Incerta, ed. Goettling, p. 231.
Chapter LXXX.
Those holy Scriptures, moreover, which bear the
name of Moses, introduce the first men as hearing divine voices and
oracles, and beholding sometimes the angels of God coming to visit
them. [Cf. Wordsworth,
Excursion: “He sat and talked,” etc., book
iv., circa med.] οὐ γὰρ
ἀθεεί.
Chapter LXXXI.
Our noble opponent, however, not observing how
many philosophers there are who admit the existence of Providence, and
who hold that Providence created all things for the sake of rational
beings, overturns as far as he can those doctrines which are of use in
showing the harmony that prevails in these matters between Christianity
and philosophy; nor does he see how great is the injury done to
religion from accepting the statement that before God there is no
difference between a man and an ant or a bee, but proceeds to add, that
“if men appear to be superior to irrational animals on this
account, that they have built cities, and make use of a political
constitution, and forms of government, and sovereignties, ἡγεμονίαις. τῶν
ἡττημένων
αἱρέσεις.
“Nota αἱρέσεις hoc
loco sumi pro internecionibus, cædibus. Haud scio an alibi
reperiatur pari significatu. Forte etiam scribendum καθαιρέσεις
.”—Ruæus.
Chapter LXXXII.
Perhaps also the so-called wars among the bees convey
instruction as to the manner in which wars, if ever there arise a
necessity for them, should be waged in a just and orderly way among
men. But the bees have no cities or suburbs; while their hives
and hexagonal cells, and succession of labours, are for the sake of
men, who require honey for many purposes,
Chapter LXXXIII.
After Celsus has finished speaking of the bees, in
order to depreciate (as far as he can) the cities, and constitutions,
and governments, and sovereignties not only of us Christians, but of
all mankind, as well as the wars which men undertake on behalf of their
native countries, he proceeds, by way of digression, to pass a eulogy
upon the ants, in order that, while praising them, he may compare the
measures which men take to secure their subsistence with those adopted
by these insects, παραβάλῃ τῷ
λόγῳ πρὸς
τοὺς
μύρμηκας. “Verba: τᾷ
λόγῳ πρὸς
τοὺς
μύρμηκας addititia
videntur et recidenda.”—Ruæus. ἐπαΐων. τὸ
κοινωνικόν.
Chapter LXXXIV.
And since he asserts that, “when ants die,
the survivors set apart a special place (for their interment), and that
their ancestral sepulchres such a place is,” we have to answer,
that the greater the laudations which he heaps upon irrational animals,
so much the more does he magnify (although against his will) the work
of that reason which arranged all things in order, and points out the
skill ἐντρέχειαν. οὐκοῦν καὶ
λόγου
συμπλήρωσίς
ἐστι παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς, καὶ
κοιναὶ
ἔννοιαι
καθολικῶν
τινων, καὶ
φωνὴ, καὶ
τυγχάνοντα
σημαινόμενα.
Chapter LXXXV.
He is not ashamed, moreover, to say, in addition
to these statements (that the unseemly character ἀσχημοσύνην. οὐ κατανοεῖ
δὲ τὸ λογικὸν
ἡγεμονικὸν
καὶ λογισμῷ
κινούμενον; μετά τινος
φυσικῆς
ὑποκατασκευῆς; ἀρχήν. τὴν
ἀλογίαν. λόγος.
Chapter LXXXVI.
Immediately after this, as if doing his utmost to
reduce the human race to a still lower position, and to bring them to
the level of the irrational animals, and desiring to omit not a single
circumstance related of the latter which manifests their greatness, he
declares that “in certain individuals among the irrational
creation there exists the power of sorcery;” so that even in this
particular men cannot specially pride themselves, nor wish to arrogate
a superiority over irrational creatures. And the following are
his words: “If, however, men entertain lofty notions
because of their possessing the power of sorcery, yet even in that
respect are serpents and eagles their superiors in wisdom; for they are
acquainted with many prophylactics against persons and diseases, and
also with the virtues of certain stones which help to preserve their
young. If men, however, fall in with these, they think that they
have gained a wonderful possession.” Now, in the first
place, I know not why he should designate as sorcery the knowledge of
natural prophylactics displayed by animals,—whether that
knowledge be the result of experience, or of some natural power of
apprehension; φυσικήν
τινα
κατάληψιν. τῷ
μαράθρῳ. ἀλλ᾽
ἐκ
κατασκευῆς. [The ἀετίτης. See Pliny,
N. H., x. 4.]
Chapter LXXXVII.
Let it be granted, however, that there are other
prophylactics against poisons known to animals: what does that
avail to prove that it is not nature, but reason, which leads to the
discovery of such things among them? For if reason were the
discoverer, this one thing (or, if you will, one or two more things)
would not be (exclusive αποτεταγμένως. ὑπὸ
τοῦ Λόγου
γεγενημένη. χοιρογρύλλιοι.
Heb. סינִּפַשְׁ. ἀσκαλαβώτης. Cf. αὐτόθεν. ιδιωτικά.
Chapter LXXXVIII.
And wishing to show at greater length that even
the thoughts of God entertained by the human race are not superior to
those of all other mortal creatures, but that certain of the irrational
animals are capable of thinking about Him regarding whom opinions so
discordant have existed among the most acute of mankind—Greeks
and Barbarians—he continues: “If, because man has
been able to grasp the idea of God, he is deemed superior to the other
animals, let those who hold this opinion know that this capacity will
be claimed by many of the other animals; and with good reason:
for what would any one maintain to be more divine than the power of
foreknowing and predicting future events? Men accordingly acquire
the art from the other animals, and especially from birds. And
those who listen to the indications furnished by them, become possessed
of the gift of prophecy. If, then, birds, and the other prophetic
animals, which are enabled by the gift of God to foreknow events,
instruct us by means of signs, so much the nearer do they seem to be to
the society of God, and to be endowed with greater wisdom, and to be
more beloved by Him. The more intelligent of men, moreover, say
that the animals hold meetings which are more sacred than our
assemblies, and that they know what is said at these meetings, and show
that in reality they possess this knowledge, when, having previously
stated that the birds have declared their intention of departing to
some particular place, and of doing this thing or the other, the truth
of their assertions is established by the departure of the birds to the
place in question, and by their doing what was foretold. And no
race of animals appears to be more observant of oaths than the
elephants are, or to show greater devotion to divine things; and this,
I presume, solely because they have some knowledge of God.”
See here now how he at once lays hold of, and brings forward as
acknowledged facts, questions which are the subject of dispute among
those philosophers, not only among the Greeks, but also among the
Barbarians, who have either discovered or learned from certain demons
some things about birds of augury and other animals, by which certain
prophetic intimations are said to be made to men. For, in the
first place, it has been disputed whether there is an art of augury,
and, in general, a method of divination by animals, or not. And,
in the second place, they who admit that there is an art of divination
by birds, are not agreed about the manner of the divination; since some
maintain that it is from certain demons or gods of divination θεῶν
μαντικῶν.
Chapter LXXXIX.
Celsus, however, seeing he wished to prove by the foregoing statements that the irrational animals are more divine and intelligent than human beings, ought to have established at greater length the actual existence of such an art of divination, and in the next place have energetically undertaken its defence, and effectually refuted the arguments of those who would annihilate such arts of divination, and have overturned in a convincing manner also the arguments of those who say that it is from demons or from gods that animals receive the movements which lead them to divination, and to have proved in the next place that the soul of irrational animals is more divine than that of man. For, had he done so, and manifested a philosophical spirit in dealing with such things, we should to the best of our power have met his confident assertions, refuting in the first place the allegation that irrational animals are wiser than men, and showing the falsity of the statement that they have ideas of God more sacred than ours, and that they hold among themselves certain sacred assemblies. But now, on the contrary, he who accuses us because we believe in the Supreme God, requires us to believe that the souls of birds entertain ideas of God more divine and distinct than those of men. Yet if this is true, the birds have clearer ideas of God than Celsus himself; and it is not matter of surprise that it should be so with him, who so greatly depreciates human beings. Nay, so far as Celsus can make it appear, the birds possess grander and more divine ideas than, I do not say we Christians do, or than the Jews, who use the same Scriptures with ourselves, but even than are possessed by the theologians among the Greeks, for they were only human beings. According to Celsus, indeed, the tribe of birds that practise divination, forsooth, understand the nature of the Divine Being better than Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates and Plato! We ought then to go to the birds as our teachers, in order that as, according to the view of Celsus, they instruct us by their power of divination in the knowledge of future events, so also they may free men from doubts regarding the Divine Being, by imparting to them the clear ideas which they have obtained respecting Him! It follows, accordingly, that Celsus, who regards birds as superior to men, ought to employ them as his instructors, and not one of the Greek philosophers.
Chapter XC.
But we have a few remarks to make, out of a larger
number, in answer to these statements of Celsus, that we may show the
ingratitude towards his Maker which is involved in his holding these
false opinions. τὴν
ἀχάριστον
ψευδοδοξίαν.
But besides, if birds of augury converse with one
another, εἴπερ
οἰωνοὶ
οἰωνοῖς
μάχονται. For
μάχονται
Ruæus conjectures διαλέγονται,
which is adopted by Lommatzsch.
“A mighty dragon shot, of dire portent;
From Jove himself the dreadful sign was sent.
Straight to the tree his sanguine spires he rolled,
And curled around in many a winding fold.
The topmost branch a mother-bird possessed;
Eight callow infants filled the mossy nest;
Herself the ninth: the serpent, as he hung,
Stretched his black jaws, and crashed the dying young;
While hovering near, with miserable moan,
The drooping mother wailed her children gone.
The mother last, as round the nest she flew,
Seized by the beating wing, the monster slew:
Nor long survived: to marble turned, he stands
A lasting prodigy on Aulis’ sands.
Such was the will of Jove; and hence we dare
Trust in his omen, and support the
war.” Homer,
Iliad, ii. 308 sq. (Pope’s translation).
And regarding the second—the bird—the poet says:—
“Jove’s bird on sounding pinions beat the skies;
A bleeding serpent of enormous size,
His talons twined; alive, and curling round,
He stung the bird, whose throat received the wound.
Mad with the smart, he drops the fatal prey,
In airy circles wings his painful way,
Floats on the winds, and rends the heaven with cries;
Amidst the host, the fallen serpent lies.
They, pale with terror, mark its spires unrolled,
And Jove’s portent with beating hearts
behold.” Homer,
Iliad, xii. 200 sq. (Pope’s translation).
Did the eagle, then, possess the power of divination, and the
serpent (since this animal also is made use of by the augurs)
not? But as this distinction can be easily refuted, cannot the
assertion that both were capable of divination be refuted also?
For if the serpent had possessed this knowledge, would not he have been
on his guard against suffering what he did from the eagle? And
innumerable other instances of a similar character may be found, to
show that animals do not possess a prophetic soul, but that, according
to the poet and the majority of mankind, it is the “Olympian
himself who sent him to the light.” And it is with a
symbolical meaning κατὰ δέ τι
σημεῖον. ἱέραξ. κίρκος, “the
hen-harrier,” “Falco,” or “Circus
pygargus.” Cf. Liddell and Scott, s.v. Cf. Homer,
Odyss., xv. 526.
Chapter XCII.
In my opinion, however, it is certain wicked
demons, and, so to speak, of the race of Titans or Giants, who have
been guilty of impiety towards the true God, and towards the angels in
heaven, and who have fallen from it, and who haunt the denser parts of
bodies, and frequent unclean places upon earth, and who, possessing
some power of distinguishing future events, because they are without
bodies of earthly material, engage in an employment of this kind, and
desiring to lead the human race away from the true God, secretly enter
the bodies of the more rapacious and savage and wicked of animals, and
stir them up to do whatever they choose, and at whatever time they
choose: either turning the fancies of these animals to make
flights and movements of various kinds, in order that men may be caught
by the divining power that is in the irrational animals, and neglect to
seek after the God who contains all things; or to search after the pure
worship of God, but allow their reasoning powers to grovel on the
earth, and amongst birds and serpents, and even foxes and wolves.
For it has been observed by those who are skilled in such matters, that
the clearest prognostications are obtained from animals of this kind;
because the demons cannot act so effectively in the milder sort of
animals as they can in these, in consequence of the similarity between
them in point of wickedness; and yet it is not wickedness, but
something like wickedness, καὶ οὐ
κακίαν μὲν,
οἱονεὶ δὲ
κακίαν
οὖσαν.
Chapter XCIII.
For which reason, whatever else there may be in the
writings of Moses which excites my wonder, I would say that the
following is worthy of admiration, viz., that Moses, having observed
the varying natures of animals, and having either learned from God what
was peculiar to them, and to the demons which are kindred to each of
the animals, or having himself ascertained these things by his own
wisdom, has, in arranging the different kinds of animals, pronounced
all those which are supposed by the Egyptians and the rest of mankind
to possess the power of divination to be unclean, and, as a general
rule, all that are not of that class to be clean. And amongst the
unclean animals mentioned by Moses are the wolf, and fox, and serpent,
and eagle, and hawk, and such like. And, generally speaking, you
will find that not only in the law, but also in the ἐν
μέσοις.
Chapter XCIV.
But if the soul of birds is to be esteemed divine
because future events are predicted by them, why should we not rather
maintain, that when omens κληδόνες.
“For the very last time, now, will they sup
here.” Cf. Homer,
Odyss., iv. 685; cf. also xx. 116, 119.
This slave, then, was divine, while the great Ulysses, the friend of Homer’s Pallas Athene, was not divine, but understanding the words spoken by this “divine” grinder of corn as an omen, rejoiced, as the poet says:—
“The divine Ulysses rejoiced at the
omen.” Cf. Homer,
Odyss., xx. 120.
Observe, now, as the birds are possessed of a divine soul, and are capable of perceiving God, or, as Celsus says, the gods, it is clear that when we men also sneeze, we do so in consequence of a kind of divinity that is within us, and which imparts a prophetic power to our soul. For this belief is testified by many witnesses, and therefore the poet also says:—
“And while he prayed, he
sneezed.” Cf. Homer,
Odyss., xvii. 541.
And Penelope, too, said:—
“Perceiv’st thou not that at every
word my son did sneeze?” Cf. Homer,
Odyss., xvii. 545.
Chapter XCV.
The true God, however, neither employs irrational
animals, nor any individuals whom chance may offer, οὔτε τοῖς
τυχοῦσι τῶν
ἀνθρώπων. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XCVI.
We ought to take note, however, that the power of
foreknowing the future is by no means a proof of divinity; for in
itself it is a thing indifferent, and is found occurring amongst both
good and bad. Physicians, at any rate, by means of their
professional skill foreknow certain things, although their character
may happen to be bad. And in the same way also pilots, although
perhaps wicked men, are able to foretell the signs ἐπισημασίας. τροπάς. Cf.
Chapter XCVII.
How impious, indeed, is the assertion of this man,
who charges us with impiety, that “not only are the irrational
animals wiser than the human race, but that they are more beloved by
God (than they)!” And who would not be repelled (by horror)
from paying any attention to a man who declared that a serpent, and a
fox, and a wolf, and an eagle, and a hawk, were more beloved by God
than the human race? For it follows from his maintaining such a
position, that if these animals be more beloved by God than human
beings, it is manifest that they are dearer to God than Socrates, and
Plato, and Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and those theologians whose
praises he had sung a little before. And one might address him
with the prayer: “If these animals be dearer to God than
men, may you be beloved of God along with them, and be made like to
those whom you consider as dearer to Him than human
beings!” And let no one suppose that such a prayer is meant
as an imprecation; for who would not pray to resemble in all respects
those whom he believes to be dearer to God than others, in order that
he, like them, may enjoy the divine love? And as Celsus is
desirous to show that the assemblies of the irrational animals are more
sacred than ours, he ascribes the statement to that effect not to any
ordinary individuals, but to persons of intelligence. Yet it is
the virtuous alone who are truly wise, for no wicked man is so.
He speaks, accordingly, in the following style:
“Intelligent men say that these animals hold assemblies which are
more sacred than ours, and that they know what is spoken at them, and
actually prove that they are not without such knowledge, when they
mention beforehand that the birds have announced their intention of
departing to a particular place, or of doing this thing or that, and
then show that they have departed to the place in question, and
have done the particular thing which was foretold.” Now,
truly, no person of intelligence ever related such things; nor did any
wise man ever say that the assemblies of the irrational animals were
more sacred than those of men. But if, for the purpose of
examining (the soundness of) his statements, we look to their
consequences, it is evident that, in his opinion, the assemblies of the
irrational animals are more sacred than those of the venerable
Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato, and of
philosophers in general; which assertion is not only
incongruous ἀπεμφαῖνον.
Chapter XCVIII.
I do not know, moreover, how Celsus could hear of
the elephants’ (fidelity to) oaths, and of their great
devotedness to our God, and of the knowledge which they possess of
Him. For I know many wonderful things which are related of the
nature of this animal, and of its gentle disposition. But I am
not aware that any one has spoken of its observance of oaths; unless
indeed to its gentle disposition, and its observance of compacts, so to
speak, when once concluded between it and man, he give the name of
keeping its oath, which statement also in itself is false. For
although rarely, yet sometimes it has been recorded that, after their
apparent tameness, they have broken out against men in the most savage
manner, and have committed murder, and have been on that account
condemned to death, because no longer of any use. And seeing that
after this, in order to establish (as he thinks he does) that the stork
is more pious than any human being, he adduces the accounts which are
narrated regarding that creature’s display of filial
affection ἀντιπελαργοῦντος. [See vol. i. pp.
viii., 12, this series. Observe, Origen, in Egypt, doubts
the story.]
Chapter XCIX.
In addition to all that he has already said,
Celsus subjoins the following: “All things, accordingly,
were not made for man, any more than they were made for lions, or
eagles, or dolphins, but that this world, as being God’s work,
might be perfect and entire in all respects. For this reason all
things have been adjusted, not with reference to each other, but with
regard to their bearing upon the whole. ἀλλ᾽
εἰ μὴ πᾶν
ἔργον. “Gelenius does not
recognise these words, and Guietus regards them as
superfluous.” They are omitted in the translation.
————————————
(Stated in obscure terms, with advantage, p. 495.)
Turn back to the Second
Apology of Justin (cap. ix.), “Eternal punishment not a mere
threat;” Our vol. i. p.
191. Our vol. ii. p.
437. Ed. Philadelphia,
1836.
“Celsus and Origen are both witnesses that
Christians believed in the eternity of punishment. Celsus, to
weaken the force of the argument from the sufferings which the martyrs
underwent sooner than abjure Christianity, tells Origen that heathen
priests taught the same doctrine of eternal punishment as the
Christians, and that the only question was, which was
right. See this treatise,
Book VIII. cap. xlviii., infra.
“Origen answers, ‘I should say that the truth lies with those who are able to induce their hearers to live as men convinced of the truth of what they have heard. Jews and Christians have been thus affected by the doctrines which they hold about the world to come, the rewards of the righteous, and the punishments of the wicked. Who have been moved in this way, in regard to eternal punishments, by the teaching of heathen priests and mystagogues?’
“Origen’s answer acknowledges that the
doctrine of eternal punishment had been taught to Christians, that One
[Christ] had taught it, and that it had produced the effects He had [in
view] in teaching it; viz., to set Christians to strive with all their
might to conquer the sin which produced it.” What is of Faith as
to Everlasting Punishment? in reply to Dr. Farrar’s
Challenge, 1879. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., Oxford,
1881.
On this most painful subject my natural feelings are much with Canon Farrar; but, after lifelong application to the subject, I must think Dr. Pusey holds with his Master, Christ. I feel willing to leave it all with Him who died for sinners, and the cross shuts my mouth. “Herein is love;” and I cannot dictate to such love, from my limited mind, and capacity, and knowledge of His universe. Here let “every thought be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” Let us sacrifice “imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself,” and leave our Master alike supreme in our affections and over our intellectual powers. He merits such subjection. Let us preach His words, and leave Him to explain them when He shall “condemn every tongue that shall rise against Him in judgment.”
Let me also refer to Bledsoe’s most solemn
and searching reply to John Foster; also to his answer to Lord
Kames’s effort to help the Lord out of a supposed
difficulty. Theodicy, pp.
295–311 (answer to Foster), p. 81 (to Lord Kames), p. 310 (to
Tillotson). I must confess that Bledsoe is paulo iniquior
when he gives no reference to Tillotson’s language. If the
retort is based on the sermon (xxxv. vol. iii. p. 350, ed. folio, 1720)
on the “Eternity of Torment,” however, I do not think it
just. The latitudinarian primate restricts himself therein to a
very guarded statement of that reserved right by which any governor
commutes or remits punishment, though he cannot modify a promise of
reward. I wish modern apologists for the divine sovereignty had
not gone farther.
Chapter I.
It is not, my reverend
Ambrosius, because we seek after many words—a thing which is
forbidden, and in the indulgence of which it is impossible to avoid
sin Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter II.
We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which
runs as follows: “O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a
God either came or will come down (to earth). But if you mean
that certain angels did so, then what do you call them? Are they
gods, or some other race of beings? Some other race of beings
(doubtless), and in all probability demons.” Now as Celsus
here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the preceding pages such
assertions have been frequently advanced by him), it is unnecessary to
discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what we have already said
upon this point may suffice. We shall mention, however, a few
considerations out of a greater number, such as we deem in harmony with
our former arguments, but which have not altogether the same bearing as
they, and by which we shall show that in asserting generally that no
God, or son of God, ever descended (among men), he overturns not only
the opinions entertained by the majority of mankind regarding the
manifestation of Deity, but also what was formerly admitted by
himself. For if the general statement, that “no God or son
τοῖς ἐκεῖ
θεοῖς. ἁψῖδα.
Chapter III.
But observe how, in his desire to subvert our
opinions, he who never acknowledged himself throughout his whole
treatise to be an Epicurean, is convicted of being a deserter to that
sect. And now is the time for you, (reader), who peruse the works
of Celsus, and give your assent to what has been advanced, either to
overturn the belief in a God who visits the human race, and exercises a
providence over each individual man, or to grant this, and prove the
falsity of the assertions of Celsus. If you, then, wholly
annihilate providence, you will falsify those assertions of his in
which he grants the existence of “God and a providence,” in
order that you may maintain the truth of your own position; but if, on
the other hand, you still admit the existence of providence, because
you do not assent to the dictum of Celsus, that “neither has a
God nor the son of a God come down nor is to come down κατέρχεσθαι.
Chapter IV.
But since he says, in the next place, as if the
Jews or Christians had answered regarding those who come down to visit
the human race, that they were angels: “But if ye say that
they are angels, what do you call them?” he continues, “Are
they gods, or some other race of beings?” and then again
introduces us as if answering, “Some other race of beings, and
probably demons,”—let us proceed to notice these
remarks. For we indeed acknowledge that angels are
“ministering spirits,” and we say that “they are sent
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of
salvation;” Cf. ἐν
τοῖς
καθαρωτάτοις
τοῦ κόσμου
χωρίοις
ἐπουρανίοις,
ἢ καὶ τοῖς
τούτων
καθαρωτέροις
ὐπερουρανίοις. Cf. ἐὰν
δυνώμεθα
κατακούειν
τῆς περὶ
προσευχῆς
κυριολεξίας
καὶ
καταχρήσεως.
Chapter V.
For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge
of their nature greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to
reason. But, conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of
them, which is something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained.
Then this knowledge, making known to us their nature, and the offices
to which they are severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with
confidence to any other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for
all things, and that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the
Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and everything else which the writings of
God’s prophets and the apostles of Jesus entitle Him. And
it is enough to secure that the holy angels of God be pro [Comp.
Chapter VI.
He next proceeds to make the following statement
about the Jews:—“The first point relating to the Jews which
is fitted to excite wonder, is that they should worship the heaven and
the angels who dwell therein, and yet pass by and neglect its most
venerable and powerful parts, as the sun, the moon, and the other
heavenly bodies, both fixed stars and planets, as if it were possible
that ‘the whole’ could be God, and yet its parts not
divine; or (as if it were reasonable) to treat with the greatest
respect those who are said to appear to such as are in darkness
somewhere, blinded by some crooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through
the influence of shadowy spectres, ἢ τοὺς μὲν ἐν
σκότῳ που ἐκ
γοητείας οὐκ
ὀρθῆς
τυφλώττουσιν,
ἢ δι᾽
ἀμυδρῶν
φασμάτων
ὀνειρώττουσιν
ἐγχρίμπτειν
λεγομένους,
εὖ μάλα
θρησκεύειν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter VII.
Having, moreover, assumed that the Jews consider
the heaven to be God, he adds that this is absurd; finding fault with
those who bow down to the heaven, but not also to the sun, and moon,
and stars, saying that the Jews do this, as if it were possible that
“the whole” should be God, and its several parts not
divine. And he seems to call the heaven “a whole,”
and sun, moon, and stars its several parts. Now, certainly
neither Jews nor Christians call the “heaven” God.
Let it be granted, however, that, as he alleges, the heaven is called
God by the Jews, and suppose that sun, moon, and stars are parts
of “heaven,”—which is by no means true, for neither
are the animals and plants upon the earth any portion of it,—how
is it true, even according to the opinions of the Greeks, that if God
be a whole, His parts also are divine? Certainly they say that
the Cosmos taken as the whole τὸ ὅλον ὁ
κόσμος.
Chapter VIII.
As we allege, however, that he has fallen into
confusion in consequence of false notions which he has imbibed, come
and let us point them out to the best of our ability, and show that
although Celsus considers it to be a Jewish custom to bow down to the
heaven and the angels in it, such a practice is not at all Jewish, but
is in violation of Judaism, as it also is to do obeisance to sun, moon,
and stars, as well as images. You will find at least in the book
of Jeremiah the words of God censuring by the mouth of the prophet the
Jewish people for doing obeisance to such objects, and for sacrificing
to the queen of heaven, and to all the host of heaven. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter IX.
And still continuing a little confused, and not
taking care to see what was relevant to the matter, he expressed his
opinion that the Jews were induced by the incantations employed in
jugglery and sorcery (in consequence of which certain phantoms appear,
in obedience to the spells employed by the magicians) to bow down to
the angels in heaven, not observing that this was contrary to their
law, which said to them who practised such observances:
“Regard not them which have familiar spirits, ἐγγαστριμύθοις. ἐπαοιδοῖς. Cf. The emendations of
Ruæus have been adopted in the translation, the text being
probably corrupt. Cf. Ruæus, in loc.
Chapter X.
And if it be necessary for us to offer a defence of our
refusal to recognise as gods, equally with angels, and sun, and moon,
and stars, those who are called by the Greeks “manifest and
visible” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. χώματι. ἀπὸ
τῶν δικαίων
τῶν πολλῶν. Cf. Cf. μεγαλοφυῶς. Cf. Cf. Origen, de
Principiis, i. c. vii. ἐκ
τοῦ ἐν
αὐτοῖς
αὐτεξουσίου
ἐληλυθός.
Chapter XI.
But even this rational light itself ought not to
be worshipped by him who beholds and understands the true light, by
sharing in which these also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds
God, the Father of the true light,—of whom it has been said,
“God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at
all.” Cf. μύδρον
διάπυρον. τὴν
εὐκτικὴν
δύναμιν. [See note in
Migne’s edition of Origen’s Works, vol. i. p. 1195;
also note supra, p. 262. S.] Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XII.
God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to
mankind, not in any local sense, but through His providence; προνοητικῶς. Cf. Cf. Cf. ζητεῖν
εὔχεσθαι τῷ
μὴ φθάνοντι
ἐπὶ τὰ
σύμπαντα.
Chapter XIII.
Celsus, moreover, assumes that sun, and moon, and
stars are regarded by us as of no account. Now, with regard to
these, we acknowledge that they too are “waiting for the
manifestation of the sons of God,” being for the present
subjected to the “vanity” of their material bodies,
“by reason of Him who has subjected the same in
hope.” Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XIV.
The following, then, are his words:
“It is folly on their part to suppose that when God, as if He
were a cook, ὥσπερ
μάγειρος. οὐ γὰρ τῆς
πλημμελοῦς
ὀρέξεως,
οὐδὲ τῆς
πεπλανημένης
ἀκοσμίας,
ἀλλὰ τῆς
ὀρθῆς καὶ
δικαίας
φύσεως Θεός
ἐστιν
ἀρχηγέτης.
Chapter XV.
Observe, now, here at the very beginning, how, in
ridiculing the doctrine of a conflagration of the world, held by
certain of the Greeks who have treated the subject in a philosophic
spirit not to be depreciated, he would make us, “representing
God, as it were, as a cook, hold the belief in a general
conflagration;” not perceiving that, as certain Greeks were of
opinion (perhaps having received their information from the ancient
nation of the Hebrews), it is a purificatory fire which is brought upon
the world, and probably also on each one of those who stand in need of
chastisement by the fire and healing at the same time, seeing it
burns indeed, but does not consume, those who are without
a material body, ὕλην. Cf. Cf. Cf. πόνου καὶ
πυρός. Cf. τὰ
σκυθρωπά. Cf. [See
Robertson’s History of the Church, vol. i. p. 156,
157. S.]
Chapter XVI.
From what has been said, it will be manifest to
intelligent hearers how we have to answer the following:
“All the rest of the race will be completely burnt up, and they
alone will remain.” It is not to be wondered at, indeed, if
such thoughts have been entertained by those amongst us who are called
in Scripture the “foolish things” of the world, and
“base things,” and “things which are despised,”
and “things which are not,” because “by the
foolishness of preaching it pleased God to save them that believe on
Him, after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not
God,” Cf. τὰ κατὰ τοὺς
τόπους. Cf. καὶ τῶν
πολλῶν κακῶν
ἀποχήν.
Chapter XVII.
Then, in the next place, having either himself
misunderstood the sacred Scriptures, or those (interpreters) by whom
they were not understood, he proceeds to assert that “it is said
by us that there will remain at the time of the visitation which is to
come upon the world by the fire of purification, not only those who are
then alive, but also those who are long ago dead;” not observing
that it is with a secret kind of wisdom that it was said by the apostle
of Jesus: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump;
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XVIII.
But since he has ridiculed at great length the
doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in
the Churches, and which is more clearly understood by the more
intelligent believer; and as it is unnecessary again to quote his
words, which have been already adduced, let us, with regard to the
problem περὶ τοῦ
προβλήματος
τούτου. Cf. Cf. ἐν
ἐλαίας
πυρῆνι.
Chapter XIX.
God, then, gives to each thing its own body as He
pleases: as in the case of plants that are sown, so also in the
case of those beings who are, as it were, sown in dying, and who in due
time receive, out of what has been “sown,” the body
assigned by God to each one according to his deserts. And we may
hear, moreover, the Scripture teaching us at great length the
difference between that which is, as it were, “sown,” and
that which is, as it were, “raised” from it in these
words: “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in
incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is
sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it
is raised a spiritual body.” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. διὰ τὰς
τοπικὰς
μεταβάσεις. Cf.
Chapter XX.
But since our views regarding the resurrection have, as
far as time would permit, been stated in part on the present occasion
(for we have systematically examined the subject in greater
σφόδρ᾽
ἀπεμφαίνοντα. μυχθίζειν. [Comp. book iv. capp.
lxv.–lxix. pp. 526–528, supra.]
Chapter XXI.
The disciples of Pythagoras, too, and of Plato,
although they appear to hold the incorruptibility of the world, yet
fall into similar errors. For as the planets, after certain
definite cycles, assume the same positions, and hold the same relations
to one another, all things on earth will, they assert, be like what
they were at the time when the same state of planetary relations
existed in the world. From this view it necessarily follows, that
when, after the lapse of a lengthened cycle, the planets come to occupy
towards each other the same relations which they occupied in the time
of Socrates, Socrates will again be born of the same parents, and
suffer the same treatment, being accused by Anytus and Melitus, and
condemned by the Council of Areopagus! The learned among the
Egyptians, moreover, hold similar views, and yet they are treated with
respect, and do not incur the ridicule of Celsus and such as he; while
we, who maintain that all things are administered by God in proportion
to the relation of the free-will of each individual, and are ever being
brought into a better condition, so far as they admit of being
so, κατὰ τὸ
ἐνδεχόμενον. καὶ τὴν τοῦ
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
φύσιν
γιγνώσκοντες
ἐνδεχομένου
ἃ
ἐνδέχεται.
Chapter XXII.
Let no one, however, suspect that, in speaking as
we do, we belong to those who are indeed called Christians, but who set
aside the doctrine of the resurrection as it is taught in
Scripture. For these persons cannot, so far as their principles
apply, at all establish that the stalk or tree which springs up comes
from the grain of wheat, or anything else (which was cast into the
ground); whereas we, who believe that that which is “sown”
is not “quickened” unless it die, and that there is sown
not that body that shall be (for God gives it a body as it pleases Him,
raising it in incorruption after it is sown in corruption; and after it
is sown in dishonour, raising it in glory; and after it is sown in
weakness, raising it in power; and after it is sown a natural body,
raising it a spiritual),—we preserve both the doctrine βούλημα. Cf.
Chapter XXIII.
We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which
has undergone corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the
grain of wheat which has decayed returns to its former condition.
But we do maintain, that as above the grain of wheat there arises a
stalk, so a certain power λόγος. διαλεκτικαῖς
ἀνάγκαις. εἰ δὲ χρὴ
βεβιασμένως
ὀνομάσαι.
Chapter XXIV.
Moreover, as we have already said that for God to
desire anything unbecoming Himself would be destructive of His
existence as Deity, we will add that if man, agreeably to the
wickedness of his nature, should desire anything that is
abominable, βδελυρόν. Cf. [See note
infra, bk. vi. cap. xlvii. S.]
Chapter XXV.
Let us next notice the statements of Celsus, which
follow the preceding, and which are as follow: “As the
Jews, then, became a peculiar καὶ κατὰ τὸ
ἐπιχώριον
νόμους
θέμενοι. τὰ μέρη τῆς
γῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
ἄλλα ἄλλοις
ἐπόπταις
νενεμημένα. καὶ κατά
τινας
ἐπικρατείας
διειλημμένα. παραλύειν.
Chapter XXVI.
“We must,” he says, “observe the laws, not only because it has occurred to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on.” Thus Celsus, as if he had forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral customs, remarking: “And whatever is done among each nation in this way, would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes (of the superintendents).” And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: “It would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places.” Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it his wish, to whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which prevail, or was it against his will that it was done? You will observe that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various quarters of the earth were not allotted by some one being to the various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.
Chapter XXVII.
Any one, indeed, who chooses, may relate how the various
quarters of the earth, being distributed among certain governing
powers, are administered by those who superintend them; but let him
tell us also how what is done among each nation is done rightly when
agreeable to the wishes of the superintendents. Let him, for
example, tell us whether the laws of the Scythians, which permit the
murder of parents, are right laws; or those of the Persians, which do
not forbid the marriages of sons with their mothers, or of daughters
with their own fathers. But what need is there for me to make
selections from those who have been engaged in the business of enacting
laws among the different nations, and to inquire how the laws are
rightly enacted among each, according as they please the superintending
powers? Let Celsus, however, tell us how it would be an act of
impiety to get rid of those ancestral laws which permit the marriages
of mothers and daughters; or
Chapter XXVIII.
It is probable, however, that to such remarks as
the above, the answer returned would be, that he was pious who kept the
laws of his own country, and not at all chargeable with impiety
for the non-observance of those of other lands; and that, again,
he who was deemed guilty of impiety among certain nations was not
really so, when he worshipped his own gods, agreeably to his
country’s laws, although he made war against, and even feasted
on, καταθοινᾶται. σωφροσύνη.
Chapter XXIX.
It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has
misunderstood some of the deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of
terrestrial affairs, some of which are touched upon ἐφάπτεται. οἰκειοτέρους. Cf. Cf. σύγχυσις. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXX.
All the people upon the earth are to be regarded
as having used one divine language, and so long as they lived
harmoniously together were preserved in the use of this divine
language, and they remained without moving from the east so long as
they were imbued with the sentiments of the “light,” and of
the “reflection” of the eternal light. ἐς
ὅσον
εἰσὶ τὰ τοῦ
φωτὸς καὶ τοῦ
ἀπὸ φωτὸς
ἀϊδίου
ἀπαυγάσματος
φρονοῦντες. ἀλλότρια
ἀνατολῶν
φρονοῦντες. τὰ τῆς
ὕλης.
Chapter XXXI.
Now, in the next place, if any one has the
capacity, let him understand that in what assumes the form of history,
and which contains some things that are literally true, while yet it
conveys a deeper meaning, those who preserved their original language
continued, by reason of their not having migrated from the east, in
possession of the east, and of their eastern language. And let
him notice, that these alone became the portion of the Lord, and His
people who were called Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance;
and these alone were governed by a ruler who did not receive those who
were placed under him for the purpose of punishment, as was the case
with the others. Let him also, who has the capacity to perceive
as far as mortals may, observe that in the body politic πολιτείᾳ. καὶ
τίσαντας
δίκην. ὡσπερεὶ
παιδευθέντας.
Chapter XXXII.
And by this means let those who have the capacity
of comprehending truths so profound, learn that he to whom were
allotted those who had not formerly sinned is far more powerful than
the others, since he has been able to make a selection of individuals
from the portion of the whole, ἀπὸ
τῆς πάντων
μερίδος. Cf. ἀλλὰ
καὶ
βουλόμεθα,
οὐχ ὅπη ᾖ
ἐκείνοις
φίλον, ποιεῖν
τὰ ἐκείνων.
Chapter XXXIII.
The remarks which we have made not only answer the
statements of Celsus regarding the superintending spirits, but
anticipate in some measure what he afterwards brings forward, when he
says: “Let the second party come forward; and I shall ask
them whence they come, and whom they regard as the originator of their
ancestral customs. They will reply, No one, because they spring
from the same source as the Jews themselves, and derive their
instruction and superintendence χοροστάτην. Cf. Cf. ἐλέγχῃ. ἀρχηγέτην. συγκόψαι
τὰς
πολεμικὰς
ἡμῶν λογικὰς
μαχαίρας καὶ
ὑβριστικὰς
εἰς ἄροτρα,
καὶ τὰς κατὰ
τὸ πρότερον
ἡμῶν μάχιμον
ζιβύνας εἰς
δρέπανα
μετασκευάζομεν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXXIV.
But, that we may not pass without notice what
Celsus has said between these and the preceding paragraphs, let us
quote his words: “We might adduce Herodotus as a witness on
this point, for he expresses himself as follows: ‘For the
people of the cities Marea and Apis, who inhabit those parts of Egypt
that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves as Libyans,
and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship oppressive, and
wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows’ flesh, sent to
the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no relationship
between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the Delta, that
there was no community of sentiment between them and the Egyptians, and
that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of food.
But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying that
that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the inundation
of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the south of
the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.’ Cf. Herodot., ii.
18. ὁ δὲ
῎Αμμων οὐδέν
τι κακίων
διαπρεσβεῦσαι
τὰ δαιμόνια,
ἢ οἱ
᾽Ιουδαίων
ἄγγελοι. εὐφημεῖν
μιν
ἐκέλευον. Cf. Herodot., iii.
38.
Chapter XXXV.
The argument of Celsus appears to point by these
illustrations to this conclusion: that it is “an obligation
incumbent on all men to live according to their country’s
customs, in which case they will escape censure; whereas the
Christians, who have abandoned their native usages, and who are not one
nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving their adherence to
the teaching of Jesus.” Let him then tell us whether it is
a becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have been taught not
to yield to superstition, to abandon their country’s customs, so
as to eat of those articles of food which are prohibited in their
respective cities? or whether this proceeding of theirs is opposed to
what is becoming? For if, on account of their philosophy, and the
instructions which they have received against superstition, they should
eat, in disregard of their native laws, what was interdicted by their
fathers, why should the Christians (since the Gospel requires
them not to busy themselves about statues and images, or even
about any of the created works of God but to ascend on high, and
present the soul to the Creator); when acting in a similar manner to
the philosophers, be censured for so doing? But if, for the sake
of defending the thesis which he has proposed to himself, Celsus, or
those who think with him, should say, that even one who had studied
philosophy would keep his country’s laws, then philosophers in
Egypt, for example, would act most ridiculously in avoiding the eating
of onions, in order to observe their country’s laws, or certain
parts of the body, as the head and shoulders, in order not to
transgress the traditions of their fathers. And I do not speak of
those Egyptians who shudder with fear at the discharge of wind from the
body, because if any one of these were to become a philosopher, and
still observe the laws of his country, he would be a ridiculous
philosopher, acting very unphilosophically. γέλοιος ἀν
εἴη
φιλόσοφος
ἀφιλόσοφα
πράττων.
Chapter XXXVI.
But what sort of being is this Ammon of Herodotus,
whose words Celsus has quoted, as if by way of demonstrating how each
one ought to keep his country’s laws? For this Ammon would
not allow the people of the cities of Marea and Apis, who inhabit the
districts adjacent to Libya, to treat as a matter of indifference the
use of cows’ flesh, which is a thing not only indifferent in its
own nature, but which does not prevent a man from being noble and
virtuous. If Ammon, then, forbade the use of cows’ flesh,
because of the advantage which results from the use of the animal in
the cultivation of the ground, and in addition to this, because it is
by the female that the breed is increased, the account would possess
more plausibility. But now he simply requires that those who
drink of the Nile should observe the laws of the Egyptians regarding
kine. And hereupon Celsus, taking occasion to pass a jest upon
the employment of the angels among the Jews as the ambassadors of God,
says that “Ammon did not make a worse ambassador of divine things
than did the angels of the Jews,” into the meaning of whose words
and manifestations he instituted no investigation; otherwise he would
have seen, that it is not for oxen that God is concerned, even where He
may appear to legislate for them, or for irrational animals, but that
what is written for the sake of men, under the appearance of relating
to irrational animals, contains certain truths of nature. φυσιολογίαν.
Chapter XXXVII.
As there are, then, generally two laws presented to us,
the one being the law of nature, of which God would be the legislator,
and the πρεσβύτατον
πάντων τῶν
δημιουργημάτων. Cf.
Chapter XXXVIII.
I wish, however, to show how Celsus asserts
without any good reason, that each one reveres his domestic and native
institutions. For he declares that “those Ethiopians who
inhabit Meroe know only of two gods, Jupiter and Bacchus, and worship
these alone; and that the Arabians also know only of two, viz.,
Bacchus, who is also an Ethiopian deity, and Urania, whose worship is
confined to them.” According to his account, neither do the
Ethiopians worship Urania, nor the Arabians Jupiter. If, then, an
Ethiopian were from any accident to fall into the hands of the
Arabians, and were to be judged guilty of impiety because he did not
worship Urania, and for this reason should incur the danger of death,
would it be proper for the Ethiopian to die, or to act contrary to his
country’s laws, and do obeisance to Urania? Now, if it
would be proper for him to act contrary to the laws of his country, he
will do what is not right, so far as the language of Celsus is any
standard; while, if he should be led away to death, let him show the
reasonableness of selecting such a fate. I know not whether, if
the Ethiopian doctrine taught men to philosophize on the immortality of
the soul, and the honour which is paid to religion, they would
reverence those as deities who are deemed to be such by the laws of the
country. This sentence is
regarded by Guietus as an interpolation, which should be struck out of
the text. ἵνα
δόξῃ μετὰ
τῶν
ἀτελέστων
τελετῶν, καὶ
τῶν καλουσῶν
δαίμονας
μαγγανειῶν,
οὐχ ὑπὸ
ἀγαλματοποιῶν
μόνων
κατασκευάζεσθαι
θεὸς, ἀλλὰ
καὶ ὑπὸ
μάγων, καὶ
φαρμακῶν, καὶ
τῶν ἐπῳδαῖς
αὐτῶν
κηλουμένων
δαιμόνων.
Chapter XXXIX.
We must therefore inquire what may be fittingly
eaten or not by the rational and gentle ἡμέρῳ. μέτριον. οὐ γὰρ παρὰ
τὸ θηλυκὸν
ὄνομα, καὶ τῇ
οὐσίᾳ
θήλειαν
νομιστέον
εἶναι τὴν
σοφίαν, καὶ
τὴν
δικαιοσύνην. Cf.
Chapter XL.
But since, after Celsus had spoken to the above effect of the different kinds of laws, he adds the following remark, “Pindar appears to me to be correct in saying that law is king of all things,” let us proceed to discuss this assertion. What law do you mean to say, good sir, is “king of all things?” If you mean those which exist in the various cities, then such an assertion is not true. For all men are not governed by the same law. You ought to have said that “laws are kings of all men,” for in every nation some law is king of all. But if you mean that which is law in the proper sense, then it is this which is by nature “king of all things;” although there are some individuals who, having like robbers abandoned the law, deny its validity, and live lives of violence and injustice. We Christians, then, who have come to the knowledge of the law which is by nature “king of all things,” and which is the same with the law of God, endeavour to regulate our lives by its prescriptions, having bidden a long farewell to those of an unholy kind.
Chapter XLI.
Let us notice the charges which are next advanced
by Celsus, in which there is exceedingly little that has reference to
the Christians, as most of them refer to the Jews. His words
are: “If, then, in these respects the Jews were carefully
to preserve their own law, they are not to be blamed for so doing, but
those persons rather who have forsaken their own usages, and adopted
those of the Jews. And if they pride themselves on it, as being
possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof from intercourse with
others, as not being equally pure with themselves, they have already
heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not peculiar to them,
but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago been received by
the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. ‘For they
have a custom,’ he says, ‘of going up to the tops of the
mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter, giving the name of
Jupiter to the whole circle of the heavens.’ Cf. Herodot., i.
131. οἷον δή τινα
μακάρων
χώραν
λαχοῦσιν. χορός.
Chapter XLII.
It is evident that, by the preceding remarks,
Celsus charges the Jews with falsely giving themselves out as the
chosen portion of the Supreme God above all other nations. And he
accuses them of boasting, because they gave out that they knew the
great God, although they did not really know Him, but were led away by
the artifices of Moses, and were deceived by him, and became his
disciples to no good end. Now we have in the preceding pages
already spoken in part of the venerable and distinguished polity of the
Jews, when it existed amongst them as a symbol of the city of God, and
of His temple, and of the sacrificial worship offered in it and at the
altar of sacrifice. But if any one were to turn his attention to
the meaning of the legislator, and to the constitution which he
established, and were to examine the various points relating to him,
and compare them with the present method of worship among other
nations, there are none which he would admire to a greater degree;
because, so far as can be accomplished among mortals, everything that
was not of advantage to the human race was withheld from them, and only
those things which are useful bestowed. [Note this eulogy on
the law, even though it “made nothing perfect.”] ὑπὲρ
τὰ σώματα. συμπληρώσει
τοῦ λόγου.
Chapter XLIII.
But what need is there to point out how agreeable
to sound reason, and unattended with injury either to master or slave,
was the law that one of the same faith τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν
αὐτῶν
ὁρώμενον
δογμάτων. Cf.
Chapter XLIV.
But as Celsus would compare the venerable customs of the
Jews with the laws of certain nations, let us proceed to look at
them. He is of opinion, accordingly, that there is no
differ Cf.
Chapter XLV.
As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters
nothing whether the highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai,
or Sabaoth, or Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappæus (as
the Scythians entitle him), let us discuss the point for a little,
reminding the reader at the same time of what has been said above upon
this question, when the language of Celsus led us to consider the
subject. And now we maintain that the nature of names is not, as
Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose them. ὅτι ἡ
τῶν ὀνομάτων
φύσις οὐ
θεμένων εἰσὶ
νόμοι. μεταλαμβάνεται
γάρ τι, φερ᾽
εἰπεῖν. In the editions of
Hœschel and Spencer, τι is wanting. ὁ θεὸς πατρὸς
ἐκλεκτοῦ τῆς
ἠχοῦς, καὶ ὁ
θεὸς τοῦ
γέλωτος, καὶ
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ
πτερνιστοῦ.
Cf. note in Benedictine ed.
It was for these and similar mysterious reasons,
with which Moses and the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade
the name of other gods to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of
praying to the one Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart
which had been taught to be pure from all foolish thoughts and
words. And for these reasons we should prefer to endure all
manner of suffering rather than acknowledge Jupiter to be God.
For we do not consider Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor Jupiter
to be at all divine, but that some demon, unfriendly to men and to the
true God, rejoices under this title. δαίμονα δέ
τινα χαίρειν
οὕτως
ὀνομαζόμενον. [Note the bearing of
this chapter on the famous controversy concerning the Chinese
renderings of God’s name.]
Chapter XLVII.
Now the reason why circumcision is practised among
the Jews is not the same as that which explains its existence among the
Egyptians and Colchians, and therefore it is not to be considered the
same circumcision. And as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to
the same god, although he appears to perform the rite of sacrifice in a
similar manner, and he who offers up prayer does not pray to the same
divinity, although he asks the same things in his supplication; so, in
the same way, if one performs the rite of circumcision, it by no means
follows that it is not a different act from the circumcision performed
upon another. For the purpose, and the law, and the wish of him
who performs the rite, place the act in a different category. But
that the whole subject may be still better understood, we have to
remark that the term for “righteousness” δικαιοσύνη. ἰδιοπραγίαν
τῶν μερῶν τῆς
ψυχῆς. ἀνδρεία. τοῦ θυμικοῦ
μέρους τῆς
ψυχῆς
φάσκοντος
αὐτὸ εἰναι
ἀρετὴν, καὶ
ἀποτάσσοντος
αὐτῇ τόπον
τὸν περὶ τὸν
θώρακα.
Chapter XLVIII.
Although the Jews, then, pride themselves on
circumcision, they will separate it not only from that of the Colchians
and Egyptians, but also from that of the Arabian Ishmaelites; and yet
the latter was derived from their ancestor Abraham, the father of
Ishmael, who underwent the rite of circumcision along with his
father. The Jews say that the circumcision performed on the
eighth day is the principal circumcision, and that which is performed
according to circumstances is different; and probably it was performed
on account of the hostility of some angel towards the Jewish nation,
who had the power to injure such of them as were not circumcised, but
was powerless against those who had undergone the rite. This may
be said to appear from what is written in the book of Exodus, where the
angel before the circumcision of Eliezer Cf. ἐνεργεῖν
κατὰ
Μωϋσέως. Cf. κατὰ τῶν ἐν
τῇ θεοσεβείᾳ
ταύτῃ
περιτεμνομένων
δύναμις. Boherellus
inserts μὴ before
περιτεμνομένων,, which has been adopted in the text.
Chapter XLIX.
But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon
abstaining from swine’s flesh, as if it were some great thing;
but upon their having ascertained the nature of clean and unclean
animals, and the cause of the distinction, and of swine being classed
among the unclean. And these distinctions were signs of certain
things until the advent of Jesus; after whose coming it was said to His
disciple, who did not yet comprehend the doctrine concerning these
matters, but who said, “Nothing that is common or unclean hath
entered into my mouth,” Cf.
“And some one, lifting up his beloved son,
Will slay him after prayer; O how foolish
he!” καί τις
φίλον υἱὸν
ἀείρας, σφάξει
ἐπευχόμενος
μέγα
νήπιος. —A verse of Empedocles, quoted by
Plutarch, de Superstitione, c. xii. Spencer. Cf. note
in loc. in Benedictine edition.
We, however, when we do abstain, do so because “we keep
under our body, and bring it into subjection,” Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter L.
Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the
Jews, says: “It is not probable that they are in great
favour with God, or are regarded by Him with more affection than
others, or that angels are sent by Him to them alone, as if to them had
been allotted some region of the blessed. For we may see both the
people themselves, and the country of which they were deemed
worthy.” We shall refute this, by remarking that it is
evident that this nation was in great favour with God, from the fact
that the God who presides over all things was called the God of the
Hebrews, even by those who were aliens to our faith. And because
they were in favour with God, they were not abandoned by Him; καὶ ὡς
εὐδοκιμοῦντές
γε ὅσον οὐκ
ἐγκατλείποντο.
The negative particle (οὐκ) is wanting in the editions of
Hœschel and Spencer, but is found in the Royal, Basil, and Vatican
mss. Guietus would delete
ὅσον (which emendation has been adopted in
the translation), while Boherellus would read ὅσοι instead.—Ruæus. [Josephus,
Antiquities, b. xi. cap. viii.]
But seeing that we have answered to the best of
our ability the charges brought by Celsus against the Jews and their
doctrine, let us proceed to consider what follows, and to prove that it
is no empty boast on our part when we make a profession of knowing the
great God, and that we have not been led away by any juggling
tricks γοητείᾳ. τὸν
κυνοκέφαλον. ὅτι
κρεῖττον
εὕρομεν.
Chapter LII.
But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the following: “Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one, but according to others, two—who answered the women that he had arisen. For the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they might take up the young Child and flee away (into Egypt). But what need is there to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of greater importance (than those who preceded him), as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are obscurely hinted at.”
Chapter LIII.
The preceding remarks might suffice as an answer
to the charges of Celsus, so far as regards those points in which our
Saviour Jesus Christ is made the subject of special
investigation. But that we may avoid the appearance of
intentionally passing over any portion of his work, as if we were
unable to meet him, let us, even at the risk of being tautological
(since we are challenged to this by Celsus), endeavour as far as we can
with all due brevity to continue our discourse, since perhaps something
either more precise or more novel may occur to us upon the several
topics. He says, indeed, that “he has omitted the
refutations which have been adduced against the claims which Christians
advance on behalf of their teacher,” although he has not
omitted anything which he was able to bring forward, as is manifest
from his previous language, but makes this statement only as an empty
rhetorical device. That we are not refuted, however, on the
subject of our great Saviour, although the accuser may appear to
refute us, will be manifest to those who peruse in a spirit of
truth-loving investigation all that is predicted and recorded of
Him. And, in the next place, since he considers that he makes a
concession in saying of the Saviour, “Let him appear to be really
an angel,” we reply that we do not accept of such a concession
from Celsus; but we look to the work of Him who came to visit the whole
human race in His word and teaching, as each one of His adherents was
capable of receiving Him. And this was the work of one who, as
the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but the
“Angel of the great counsel:” Cf.
Chapter LIV.
In the next place, he proceeds to answer himself
as he thinks fit in the following terms: “And so he is not
the only one who is recorded to have visited the human race, as even
those who, under pretext of teaching in the name of Jesus, have
apostatized from the Creator as an inferior being, and have given in
their adherence to one who is a superior God and father of him who
visited (the world), assert that before him certain beings came from
the Creator to visit the human race.” Now, as it is in the
spirit of truth that we investigate all that relates to the subject, we
shall remark that it is asserted by Apelles, the celebrated disciple of
Marcion, who became the founder of a certain sect, and who treated the
writings of the Jews as fabulous, that Jesus is the only one that came
to visit the human race. Even against him, then, who maintained
that Jesus was the only one that came from God to men, it would be in
vain for Celsus to quote the statements regarding the descent of other
angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we have already mentioned, the
miraculous narratives of the Jewish Scriptures; and much more will he
decline to admit what Celsus has adduced, from not understanding the
contents of the book of Enoch. No one, then, convicts us of
falsehood, or of making contradictory assertions, as if we maintained
both that our Saviour was the only being that ever came to men, and yet
that many others came on different occasions. And in a most
confused manner, moreover, does he adduce, when examining the subject
of the visits of angels to men, what he has derived, without seeing its
meaning, from the contents of the book of Enoch; for he does not appear
to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the
books which bear the name Enoch [See p. 380,
supra.]
Chapter LV.
But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of
candour what he has not discovered in the contents of the book of
Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that
they were fair, took to them wives of all whom they
chose,” [
Chapter LVI.
Proceeding immediately after to mix up and compare with
one another things that are dissimilar, and incapable of being united,
he subjoins to his statement regarding the sixty or seventy angels who
came down from heaven, and who, according to him, shed fountains of
warm water for tears, the following: “It is related also
that there came to the tomb of Jesus himself, according to some, two
angels, accord [See Dr. Lee on
The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 383, where it is pointed
out that the primitive Church was fully aware of the difficulties urged
against the historic accuracy of the Four Gospels. Dr. Lee also
notes that the culminating sarcasm of Gibbon’s famous fifteenth
chapter “has not even the poor merit of originality.”
S.]
Chapter LVII.
Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes
been witnessed by human beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only
by those of them who might be suspected of composing fabulous
narratives, but also by those who have given every evidence of being
genuine philosophers, and of having related with perfect truth what had
happened to them. Accounts of this kind we have read in the
writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also some things of the same kind
relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some of the more recent writers
who lived a very short time ago, as in the treatise of Plutarch of
Chæronea “on the Soul,” and in the second book of the
work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the “Incorruptibility of the
Soul.” Now, when such accounts are related by the Greeks,
and especially by the philosophers among them, they are not to be
received with mockery and ridicule, nor to be regarded as fictions and
fables; but when those who are devoted to the God of all things, and
who endure all kinds of injury, even to death itself, rather than allow
a falsehood to escape their lips regarding God, announce the
appearances of angels which they have themselves witnessed, they are to
be deemed unworthy of belief, and their words are not to be regarded as
true! Now it is opposed to sound reason to judge in this way
whether individuals are speaking truth or falsehood. For those
who act honestly, only after a long and careful examination into the
details of a subject, slowly and cautiously express their opinion of
the veracity or falsehood of this or that person with regard to the
marvels which they may relate; since it is the case that neither do all
men show themselves worthy of belief, nor do all make it distinctly
evident that they are relating to men only fictions and fables.
Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we have
this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an
occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce
that Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of
those who believed in such an event to the advantage of their
souls. Nor does it appear to me at all unreasonable, that those
who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit
of their faith not to be lightly esteemed, their possession of a
virtuous τὸν
ἐῤῥωμένον
βίον.
Chapter LVIII.
But Celsus challenges the account also that an
angel rolled away the stone from the sepulchre where the body of Jesus
lay, acting like a lad at school, who should bring a charge against any
one by help of a string of commonplaces. And, as if he had
discovered some clever objection to the narrative, he remarks:
“The Son of God, then, it appears, could not open his tomb, but
required the aid of another to roll away the stone.” Now,
not to overdo the discussion of this matter, or to have the appearance
of unreasonably introducing philosophical remarks, by explaining the
figurative meaning at present, I shall simply say of the narrative
alone, that it does appear in itself a more respectful proceeding, that
the servant and inferior should have rolled away the stone, than that
such an act should have been performed by Him whose resurrection was to
be for the advantage of mankind. I do not speak of the desire of
those who conspired against the Word, and who wished to put Him to
death, and to show to all men that He was dead and
non-existent, καὶ τὸ μηδὲν
τυγχάνοντα. ἑαυτῶν. Guietus would read
αὐτῶν, to
agree with τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν. Instead of τὰς ἀπὸ
τῆς
διδασκαλίας
τοῦ ᾽Ιησοῦ
ἁφορμάς, Boherellus
conjectures τοὺς…ἀφορμῶντας,
which has been adopted in the translation.
Chapter LIX.
Celsus then continues: “The Jews
accordingly, and these (clearly meaning the Christians), have the same
God;” and as if advancing a proposition which would not be
conceded, he proceeds to make the following assertion: “It
is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church τῶν ἀπὸ
μεγάλης
ἐκκλησίας. κατέπαυσεν. ἀναπαυσάμενος. σαββατισμοῦ. τὴν ἐκεῖθεν
ἐπάνοδον. φυγήν.
Chapter LX.
If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves
with precision in our answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the
same opinions on the matters in question as do the Jews, we would say
that we both agree that the books (of Scripture) were written by the
Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of
their contents; for we do not regulate our lives like the Jews, because
we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that
which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain,
that “when Moses is read, the veil is upon their
heart,” ἀσπασαμένοις.
After the above remarks he proceeds as
follows: “Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some
of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews,
while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the
latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son
came.” Now, if he imagine that the existence of numerous
heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against
Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of
accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers
differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon
those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a
subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools.
Let it be admitted, then, that there are amongst us some who deny that
our God is the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that
account those are not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures
that one and the same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles
alike, as Paul, too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to
Christianity, “I thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers
with a pure conscience.” ἐκ
κατασκευῆς. ἀπὸ
τοῦ
πλήθους. Σιβυλλιστάς.
He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God, but term Simon the “power” of God, regarding whom they relate certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could become possessed of similar powers to those with which be believed Jesus to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was amongst the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.
Chapter LXIII.
In the next place, that he may have the appearance of
knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his
usual custom, that “there are others who have wickedly invented
some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great
darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the
Egyptian Antinous.” And he seems to me, indeed, in touching
on these matters, to say with a certain degree of truth, that there are
certain others who have wickedly invented another demon, and who have
found him to be their lord, as they wallow about in the great darkness
of their ignorance. With respect, however, to Antinous, who is
compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said
in the preceding pages. “Moreover,” he continues,
“these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies,
saying all manner of things shameful Κίρκας καὶ
κύκηθρα
αἱμύλα.
Chapter LXIV.
Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the
statement of the apostle, which declares that “in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits
and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their
conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding
to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them who believe;” Cf. ἀκοῆς
καυστήρια.
Cf. note in Benedictine ed. αἰνίγματα.
Cf. note in Benedictine ed. σκανδάλου. ἐξορχουμένας
καὶ
σοφιστρίας. Cf.
Chapter LXV.
But since he asserts that “you may hear all
those who differ so widely saying, ‘The world is crucified to me,
and I unto the world,’” we shall show the falsity of such a
statement. For there are certain heretical sects which do not
receive the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two sects of
Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites. [Irenæus, vol. i.
p. 353.]
Chapter I.
In beginning this our
sixth book, we desire, my reverend Ambrosius, to answer in it those
accusations which Celsus brings against the Christians, not, as
might be supposed, those objections which he has adduced from
writers on philosophy. For he has quoted a considerable
number of passages, chiefly from Plato, and has placed alongside of
these such declarations of holy Scripture as are fitted to impress even
the intelligent mind; subjoining the assertion that “these things
are stated much better among the Greeks (than in the Scriptures), and
in a manner which is free from all exaggerations ἀνατάσεως. πολὺ δὲ τὸ
ἥμερον
ἐὰν…οἷος τέ
τις γένηται
ἐπιστρέφειν. πολλὰ
χαίρειν
φράσαντες. ἀνδραπόδοις. καὶ μὴ οἷοί
τε
κατακούειν
τῆς ἐν φράσει
λόγων καὶ
τάξει
ἀπαγγελλομένων
ἀκολουθίας,
μόνων
ἐφρόντισαν
τῶν
ἀνατραφέντων
ἐν λόγοις καὶ
μαθήυασιν.
Chapter II.
I have made these remarks in reply to the charges
which Celsus and others bring against the simplicity of the language of
Scripture, which appears to be thrown into the shade by the splendour
of polished discourse. For our prophets, and Jesus Himself, and
His apostles, were careful to adopt ἐνεῖδον. [See Dr.
Burton’s Bampton Lectures On the Heresies of the Apostolic
Age, pp. 198, 529. S.] φιλολόγων. Such is the reading of
the Septuagint version. The Masoretic text has: “The
Lord gave a word; of them who published it there was a great
host.” [Cf.
Chapter III.
Let the ancient sages, then, make known their
sayings to those who are capable of understanding them. Suppose
that Plato, for example, the son of Ariston, in one of his Epistles, is
discoursing about the “chief good,” and that he says,
“The chief good can by no means be described in words, but is
produced by long habit, and bursts forth suddenly as a light in the
soul, as from a fire which had leapt forth.” We, then, on
hearing these words, admit that they are well said, for it is God who
revealed to men these as well as all other noble expressions. And
for this reason it is that we maintain that those who have entertained
correct ideas regarding God, but who have not offered to Him a worship
in harmony with the truth, are liable to the punishments which fall on
sinners. For respecting such Paul says in express words:
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they
glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping
things.” Cf. ἐκ
πολλῆς
συνουσίας
γινομένης
περὶ τὸ
πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ,
καὶ τοῦ
συζῇν.
Chapter IV.
Notwithstanding, those who have written in this
manner regarding the “chief good” will go down to the
Piræus and offer prayer to Artemis, as if she were God, and will
look (with approval) upon the solemn assembly held by ignorant men; and
after giving utterance to philosophical remarks of such profundity
regarding the soul, and describing its passage (to a happier world)
after a virtuous life, they pass from those great topics which God has
revealed to them, and adopt mean and trifling thoughts, and offer a
cock to Æsculapius! Cf. Plato,
Phædo [lxvi. p. 118. S.] καὶ τὰ
ἀόρατα τοῦ
Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰς
ἰδέας
φαντασθέντες
ἀπὸ τῆς
κτίσεως τοῦ
κόσμου, καὶ
τῶν αἰσθητῶν,
ἀφ᾽ ὧν
ἀναβαίνουσιν
ἐπὶ τὰ
νοούμενα·
τὴν τε ἀΐδιον
αὐτοῦ
δύναμιν καὶ
θειότητα οὐκ
ἀγεννῶς
ἰδόντες, etc. Cf. ἐπιτηδείοις. καὶ τίνι τῶν
ἐν ἡμῖν. Boherellus
understands ὅμοιος, which has been
adopted in the translation. Cf.
Chapter V.
But that a light is suddenly kindled in the soul,
as by a fire leaping forth, is a fact known long ago to our Scriptures;
as when the prophet said, “Light ye for yourselves the light of
knowledge.” Cf. τὸν
ἀληθινὸν καὶ
νοητόν. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. ἐνθουσιᾷν. Cf.
Chapter VI.
Seeing, however, that Celsus quotes from an
epistle of Plato another statement to the following effect, viz.:
“If it appeared to me that these matters could be adequately
explained to the multitude in writing and in oral address, what nobler
pursuit in life could have been followed by me, than to commit to
writing what was to prove of such advantage to human beings, and to
lead the nature of all men onwards to the light?”—let us
then consider this point briefly, viz., whether or not Plato were
acquainted with any doctrines more profound than are contained in his
writings, or more divine than those which he has left behind him,
leaving it to each one to investigate the subject according to his
ability, while we demonstrate that our prophets did know of greater
things than any in the Scriptures, but which they did not commit to
writing. Ezekiel, e.g., received a roll, κεφαλίδα
βιβλίου. οὐαί: cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter VII.
There might also be found in the writings of Moses
and of the prophets, who are older not only than Plato, but even than
Homer and the invention of letters among the Greeks, passages worthy of
the grace of God bestowed upon them, and filled with great thoughts, to
which they gave utterance, but not because they understood Plato
imperfectly, as Celsus imagines. For how was it possible that
they should have heard one who was not yet born? And if any one
should apply the words of Celsus to the apostles of Jesus, who were
younger than Plato, say whether it is not on the very face of it an
incredible assertion, that Paul the tentmaker, and Peter the fisherman,
and John who left his father’s nets, should, through
misunderstanding the language of Plato in his Epistles, have expressed
themselves as they have done regarding God? But as Celsus now,
after having often required of us immediate assent (to his views), as
if he were babbling forth something new in addition to what he has
already advanced, only repeats himself, πολλάκις δὲ
ἤδη ὁ Κέλσος
θρυλλήσας ὡς
ἀξιούμενον
εὐθέως
πιστεύειν, ὡς
καινόν τι
παρὰ τὰ
πρότερον
εἰρημένα.
Guietus thus amends the passage: πολλάκις δὲ
ἤδη ὁ Κέλσος
ἀξιούμενος
εὐθέως
πιστεύειν, ὡς
καινόν τι
παρὰ τὰ
πρότερον
εἰρημένα
θρυλλήσας,
etc. Boherellus would change ἀξιούμενον
into ἀξιοῦμεν. παιδεία
ἀνεξέλεγκτος
πλανᾶται: cf.
γνῶσις
ἀσυνέτου
ἀδιεξέταστοι
λόγοι: cf.
Chapter VIII.
In the next place, after other Platonic
declarations, which demonstrate that “the good” can be
known by few, he adds: “Since the multitude, being puffed
up with a contempt for others, which is far from right, and being
filled with vain and lofty hopes, assert that, because they have come
to the knowledge of some venerable doctrines, certain things are
true.” “Yet although Plato predicted these things, he
nevertheless does not talk marvels, οὐ
τερατεύεται. The night before
Ariston brought Plato to Socrates as his pupil, the latter dreamed that
a swan from the altar of Cupid alighted on his bosom. Cf.
Pausanias in Atticis, p. 58. “Alicubi forsan
occurrit: me vero uspiam legisse non memini. Credo Platonem
per tertium oculum suam πολυμάθειαν
et scientiam, quâ ceteris anteibat, denotare
voluisse.”—Spencer. Plato,
Epist., vi.
Chapter IX.
Celsus quotes another saying of Plato to the
following effect: “It has occurred to me to speak once more
upon these subjects at greater length, as perhaps I might express
myself about them more clearly than I have already done for there is a
certain ‘real’ cause, which proves a hindrance in the way
of him who has ventured, even to a slight extent, to write on such
topics; and as this has been frequently mentioned by me on former
occasions, it appears to me that it ought to be stated now. In
each of existing things, which are necessarily employed in the
acquisition of knowledge, there are three elements; knowledge itself is
the fourth; and that ought to be laid down as the fifth which is both
capable of being known and is true. Of these, one is
‘name;’ the second is ‘word;’ the third,
‘image;’ the fourth,
‘knowledge.’” ὧν ἓν
μὲν ὄνομα·
δεύτερον δὲ
λόγος· τὸ δὲ
τρίτον
εἴδωλον· τὸ
τέταρτον δὲ
ἐπιστήμη. τρανότερον
φήσομεν ἐν τῇ
ψυχῇ
γινόμενον
μετὰ τὸν
λόγον τῶν
τραυμάτων
τύπον, τοῦτον
εἶναι τὸν ἑν
ἑκάστῳ
Χριστὸν, ἀπὸ
Χριστοῦ
Λόγου.
Chapter X.
He next continues: “You see how Plato,
although maintaining that (the chief good) cannot be described in
words, yet, to avoid the appearance of retreating to an irrefutable
position, subjoins a reason in explanation of this difficulty, as even
‘nothing’ τὸ μηδέν. εἰκῆ
πιστεύοντι. [p. 41. S.] τοῦ
δημιουργοῦ. Cf. χθὲς καὶ
πρώην.
After this Celsus continues: “If these
(meaning the Christians) bring forward this person, and others, again,
a different individual (as the Christ), while the common and ready
cry κοινὸν δὲ
πάντων ἢ καὶ
πρόχειρον.
For ἢ, Boherellus reads
ᾖ. οἱ γὰρ
ὁμοίως Κελσῷ
ὑπολαβόντες
τετερατεῦσθαι.
The word ὁμοίως formerly stood, in
the text of Spencer and Ruæus, before τετερατεῦθαι,
but is properly expunged, as arising from the preceding ὁμοίως. Boherellus
remarks: “Forte aliud quid exciderit, verbi gratiâ,
τὰ τοῦ
Ιησοῦ.” τερατεύσασθαι. τὸ οὐδέν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XII.
Accordingly, let us pass on to another charge made
by Celsus, who is not even acquainted with the words (of our sacred
books), but who, from misunderstanding them, has said that “we
declare the wisdom that is among men to be foolishness with God;”
Paul having said that “the wisdom of the world is
foolishness with God.” Cf. πεπλασμένον
ἡμῖν. ἦθος
γὰρ
ἀνθρώπειον
μὲν οὐκ ἔχει
γνώμας, θεῖον
δὲ ἔχει. Cf. Plato’s
Apolog., v. μετρίων
ὄντων.
Chapter XIII.
According to the foregoing, then, the one kind of
wisdom is human, and the other divine. Now the
“human” wisdom is that which is termed by us the wisdom of
the “world,” which is “foolishness with God;”
whereas the “divine”—being different from the
“human,” because it is “divine”—comes,
through the grace of God who bestows it, to those who have evinced
their capacity for receiving it, and especially to those who, from
knowing the difference between either kind of wisdom, say, in their
prayers to God, “Even if one among the sons of men be perfect,
while the wisdom is wanting that comes from Thee, he shall be accounted
as nothing.” Cf. τέλειοι. γνῶσις.
Chapter XIV.
In designating others by the epithets of
“uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant,” Celsus, I
suppose, means those who are not acquainted with his laws, nor trained
in the branches of Greek learning; while we, on the other hand, deem
those to be “uninstructed” who are not ashamed to address
(supplications) to inanimate objects, and to call upon those for health
that have no strength, and to ask the dead for life, and to entreat the
helpless for assistance. τοὺς μὴ
αἰσχυνομένους
ἐν τῷ τοῖς
ἀψύχοις
προσλαλεῖν,
καὶ περὶ μὲν
ὑγείας τὸ
ἀσθενὲς
ἐπικαλουμένους,
περὶ δὲ ζωῆς
τὸ νεκρὸν
ἀξιοῦντας,
περὶ δὲ
ἐπικουρίας
τὸ
ἀπορώτατον
ἱκετεύοντας. βαναύσων. τοὺς
ἐσχάτους. γόητας. προτροπάδ῾ν. τοὺς
χαριεστέρους. παλεύομεν.
[See note supra, p. 482. S.] Cf.
Celsus, in the next place, as one who has heard
the subject of humility greatly talked about, ὡς
περιηχηθεὶς
τὰ περὶ
ταπεινοφροσύνης. μὴ ἐπιμελῶς
αὐτὴν
νοήσας. εὐθείᾳ
περαίνει
κατὰ φύσιν
παραπορευόμενος. Plato, de
Legibus, iv. p. 716. τῇ
ἰδιωτείᾳ. τῇ
ἰδιωτείᾳ. διὰ τὸν
ἰδιωτισμόν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XVI.
In the next place, with regard to the declaration
of Jesus against rich men, when He said, “It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God,” Cf. Cf. Plato, de
Legibus, v. p. 743. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XVII.
Since Celsus, moreover, from a desire to
depreciate the accounts which our Scriptures give of the kingdom of
God, has quoted none of them, as if they were unworthy of being
recorded by him (or perhaps because he was unacquainted with them),
while, on the other hand, he quotes the sayings of Plato, both from his
Epistles and the Phædrus, as if these were divinely
inspired, but our Scriptures were not, let us set forth a few points,
for the sake of comparison with these plausible declarations of Plato,
which did not however, dispose the philosopher to worship in a manner
worthy of him the Maker of all things. For he ought not to have
adulterated or polluted this worship with what we call
“idolatry,” but what the many would describe by the term
“superstition.” Now, according to a Hebrew figure of
speech, it is said of God in the Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. ἀγένητον. Locus
diligenter notandus, ubi Filius e creaturarum numero diserte eximitur,
dum ἀγένητος dicitur.
At non dissimulandum in unico Cod. Anglicano secundo legi:
τὸν
γεννητόν: cf.
Origenianorum, lib. ii. quæstio 2, num.
23.—Ruæus. [Bishop Bull, in the
Defensio Fidei Nicenæ, book ii. cap. ix. 9, says, “In
these words, which are clearer than any light, Origen proves the
absolutely divine and uncreated nature of the Son.” S.] ὅ τι
ποτ᾽ ἂν χωρῇ
γιγνώσκειν.
Boherellus proposes ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἂν
χωρῇ, etc.
Chapter XVIII.
I thought it right to quote these few instances
from a much larger number of passages, in which our sacred writers
express their ideas regarding God, in order to show that, to those who
have eyes to behold the venerable character of Scripture, the sacred
writings of the prophets contain things more worthy of reverence than
those sayings of Plato which Celsus admires. Now the declaration
of Plato, quoted by Celsus, runs as follows: “All things
are around the King of all, and all things exist for his sake, and he
is the cause of all good things. With things of the second rank
he is second, and with those of the third rank he is third. The
human soul, accordingly, is eager to learn what these things are,
looking to such things as are kindred to itself, none of which is
perfect. But as regards the King and those things which I
mentioned, there is nothing which resembles them.” Cf. Plato,
Epist., ii., ad Dionys. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XIX.
Celsus in the next place alleges, that
“certain Christians, having misunderstood the words of Plato,
loudly boast of a ‘super-celestial’ God, thus ascending
beyond the heaven of the Jews.” By these words, indeed, he
does not make it clear whether they also ascend beyond the God
of the Jews, or only beyond the heaven by which they swear. It is
not our purpose at present, however, to speak of those who acknowledge
another god than the one worshipped by the Jews, but to defend
ourselves, and to show that it was impossible for the prophets of the
Jews, whose writings are reckoned among ours, to have borrowed anything
from Plato, because they were older than he. They did not then
borrow from him the declaration, that “all things are around the
King of all, and that all exist on account of him;” for we have
learned that nobler thoughts than these have been uttered by the
prophets, by Jesus Himself and His disciples, who have clearly
indicated the meaning of the spirit that was in them, which was none
other than the spirit of Christ. Nor was the philosopher the
first to present to view the “super-celestial” place; for
David long ago brought to view the profundity and multitude of the
thoughts concerning God entertained by those who have ascended above
visible things, when he said in the book of Psalms: “Praise
God, ye heaven of heavens and ye waters that be above the heavens, let
them praise the name of the Lord.” Cf. Plato in
Phædro, p. 247. Cf.
Chapter XX.
Now, to those who are capable of understanding
him, the apostle manifestly presents to view “things which are
the objects of perception,” calling them “things
seen;” while he terms “unseen,” things which are the
object of the understanding, and cognisable by it alone. He
knows, also, that things “seen” and visible are
“temporal,” but that things cognisable by the mind, and
“not seen,” are “eternal;” and desiring to
remain in the contemplation of these, and being assisted by his earnest
longing for them, he deemed all affliction as “light” and
as “nothing,” and during the season of afflictions and
troubles was not at all bowed down by them, but by his contemplation of
(divine) things deemed every calamity a light thing, seeing we also
have “a great High Priest,” who by the greatness of His
power and understanding “has passed through the heavens, even
Jesus the Son of God,” who has promised to all that have truly
learned divine things, and have lived lives in harmony with them, to go
before them to the things that are supra-mundane; for His words
are: “That where I go, ye may be also.” Cf. πρὸς ἄκροις
τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς. ποταμοὺς
τῶν
θεωρήματων. For ὅσον γε Boherellus proposes
ὅσοι γε, which is adopted in the
translation. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XXI.
The Scriptures which are current in the
Churches [Bishop Pearson,
in his Exposition of the Creed, Art. IX., notes that
“Origen for the most part speaks of the Church in the plural
number, αι
ἐκκλησίαι.”
S.] [But see Cf. Plato in
Timæo, p. 42. Cf. ἐπεστηριγμένον.
Chapter XXII.
After this, Celsus, desiring to exhibit his
learning in his treatise against us, quotes also certain Persian
mysteries, where he says: “These things are obscurely
hinted at in the accounts of the Persians, and especially in the
mysteries of Mithras, which are celebrated amongst them. For in
the latter there is a representation of the two heavenly
revolutions,—of the movement, viz., of the fixed τῆς τε
ἀπλανοῦς. κλίμαξ
ἱψίπυλος.
Boherellus conjectures ἑπτάπυλος. κεραστοῦ
νομίσματος. τὴν
χαλκοβάτην
καὶ
στεῤῥάν. τλήμονα γὰρ
ἔργων
ἁπάντων, καὶ
χρηματιστὴν,
καὶ
πολύκμητον
εἶναι, τόν τε
σίδηρον καὶ
τὸν ῾Ερμῆν. τῆς λοιπῆς
ὕλης. For ὕλης, another reading is πύλης. For ὡς
ἐκείνοις
ἀρκεῖσθαι,
Spencer introduced into his text, οὐδ᾽
ἐκείνοις
ἀρκεῖσθαι, which
has been adopted in the translation. ἐν
οἷς πολλοὶ
σεμνύνονται. ἀπὸ
τῆς
συγκλήτου
βουλῆς.
Chapter XXIII.
If one wished to obtain means for a profounder
contemplation of the entrance of souls into divine things, not from the
statements of that very insignificant sect from which he quoted, but
from books—partly those of the Jews, which are read in their
synagogues, and adopted by Christians, and partly from those of
Christians alone—let him peruse, at the end of Ezekiel’s
prophecies, the visions beheld by the prophet, in which gates of
different kinds are enumerated, Cf. ἐπὶ
τὰ
κρείττονα. Cf. θεωρήματα.
Chapter XXIV.
After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic
mysteries, Celsus declares that he who would investigate the Christian
mysteries, along with the aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two
together, and on unveiling the rites of the Christians, see in this way
the difference between them. Now, wherever he was able to give
the names of the various sects, he was nothing loth to quote those with
which he thought himself acquainted; but when he ought most of all to
have done this, if they were really known to him, and to have informed
us which was the sect that makes use of the diagram he has drawn, he
has not done so. It seems to me, however, that it is from some
statements of a very insignificant sect called Ophites, [Vol. i. p. 354, this
series.] “Utinam
exstaret! Multum enim lucis procul dubio antiquissimorum Patrum
libris, priscæ ecclesiæ temporibus, et quibusdam sacræ
Scripturæ locis, accederet.”—Spencer. κατὰ τὸ
φιλομαθὲς
ἡμῶν. Cf.
Chapter XXV.
In this diagram were described ten circles,
distinct from each other, but united by one circle, which was said to
be the soul of all things, and was called
“Leviathan.” Cf. note in
Spencer’s edition. παίγνιον. Cf. Cf.
It is in the precincts of Jerusalem, then, that
punishments will be inflicted upon those who undergo the process of
purification, χωνευομένων. ποῦ. Cf. [See Dean
Plumptre’s The Spirits in Prison, on “The
Universalism of Origen,” p. 137, et seqq. S.] μάτην
ἐκκείμενα.
Chapter XXVII.
After the matter of the diagram, he brings forward
certain monstrous statements, in the form of question and
answer, ἀλλόκοτα καὶ
ἀμοιβαίας
φωνάς. ἀρχοντικῶν. οὐκ
εὔγνωμον
ἀλλά…πάνυ
ἀγνωμονέστατον.
Chapter XXVIII.
With some such object as this in view does Celsus
seem to have been actuated, when he alleged that Christians term the
Creator an “accursed divinity;” in order that he who
believes these charges of his against us, should, if possible, arise
and exterminate the Christians as the most impious of mankind.
Confusing, moreover, things that are distinct, φύρων δὲ τὰ
πράγματα. συνέδριον. μέτριος τὰ
ἤθη. ἀρχηγοῦ τῶν
καλῶν. ᾽Οφιᾶνοι: cf.
Irenæus, vol. i. pp. 354–358. τὴν
εὐτέλειαν
ἀγαπήσας. ἀπὸ
τῆς
παντελοῦς
ἀκτημοσύνης. “Euphraten hujus
hæresis auctorem solus Origenes
tradit.”—Spencer; cf. note in
Spencer’s edition.
Chapter XXIX.
In the next place, as if it were the Christians
whom he was calumniating, he continues his accusations against those
who termed the God of Moses and of his law an “accursed”
divinity; and imagining that it is the Christians who so speak, he
expresses himself thus: “What could be more foolish or
insane than such senseless ἀναισθήτου. Boherellus proposes
φῇς for the textual
reading φησί. καὶ τοῖς
προφήταις
ἐμπνέοντα. ὅταν
δὲ τὰ
ἐναντία ὁ
σὸς
διδάσκαλος
᾽Ιησοῦς, καὶ
ὁ ᾽Ιουδαίων
Μωϋσῆς,
νομοθετῇ. ψυχικόν.
Chapter XXX.
He next returns to the subject of the Seven ruling
Demons, Cf. Spencer’s
note, as quoted in Benedictine edition. “Nescio,
an hæresium Scriptores hujus Thauthabaoth, Erataoth, Thaphabaoth,
Onoeles, et Thartharaoth, usquam meminerint. Hujus generis
vocabula innumera invenies apud Epiphan., Hær., 31,
quæ est Valentinianorum, pp.
165–171.”—Spencer.
Chapter XXXI.
Moreover, if any one would wish to become
acquainted with the artifices of those sorcerers, through which they
desire to lead men away by their teaching (as if they possessed the
knowledge of certain secret rites), but are not at all successful in so
doing, let him listen to the instruction which they receive after
passing through what is termed the “fence of
wickedness,” φραγμὸν
κακίας. πύλας
ἀρχόντων
αἰῶνι
δεδεμένας. μονότροπον. λήθην
ἀπερίσκεπτον. ᾽Ογδοάδος.
Cf. Tertullian, de Præscript. adv.
Hæreticos, cap. xxxiii. (vol. iii. p. 259), and other
references in Benedictine ed. Φαίνων. “Ea,
quæ Saturni stella dicitur, φαινων que a Græcis
dicitur.”—Cicero,
de Nat. Deorum, book ii. c. 20. συμπαθεῖν. νυκτοφαής. πεντάδι
δυνατωτέρᾳ. μύστην. χάριν
κρυπτομένην
δυνάμεσιν
ἐξουσιῶν. For καταλυθέν
Boherellus conjectures καταγλυφθέν,
which has been adopted in the translation.
Chapter XXXII.
The supposed great learning of Celsus, which is
composed, however, rather of curious trifles and silly talk than
anything else, has made us touch upon these topics, from a wish to show
to every one who peruses his treatise and our reply, that we have no
lack of information on those subjects, from which he takes occasion to
calumniate the Christians, who neither are acquainted with, nor concern
themselves about, such mat φαντασίας. ἀπατεώνων.
Chapter XXXIII.
Celsus next relates other fables, to the effect
that “certain persons return to the shapes of the
archontics, εἰς τὰς
ἀρχοντικὰς
μορφάς. Guietus thinks that
some word has been omitted here, as ξίφος, which seems very
probable. τὸ τῆς
ἀτελέστου
τελετῆς
πέρας.
Chapter XXXIV.
After finishing the foregoing, and those analogous
matters which we ourselves have added, Celsus continues as
follows: “They continue to heap together one thing after
another,—discourses of prophets, and circles upon circles, and
effluents ἀποῤῥοίας. ἀπὸ
ξύλου.
Chapter XXXV.
It is our practice, indeed, to make use of the
words of the prophets, who demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ
predicted by them, and who show from the prophetic writings the events
in the Gospels regarding Jesus have been fulfilled. But when
Celsus speaks of “circles upon circles,” (he perhaps
borrowed the expression) from the aforementioned heresy, which includes
in one circle (which they call the soul of all things, and Leviathan)
the seven circles of archontic demons, or perhaps it arises from
misunderstanding the preacher, when he says: “The wind
goeth in a circle of circles, and returneth again upon its
circles.” κατὰ τὴν
πεπλανηένην
ἑαυτῶν
σοφίαν. ψυχικὸν
δημιουργόν. οὐκ
ἀγεννῶς.
Chapter XXXVI.
We would say, moreover, that death ceases in the
world when the sin of the world dies, referring the saying to the
mystical words of the apostle, which run as follows: “When
He shall have put all enemies under His feet, then the last enemy that
shall be destroyed is death.” Cf. Cf. κάθοδον
στενήν. Cf. Cf. Cf. [See note
supra, p. 582. S.] Cf., however,
Chapter XXXVII.
Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented
this “tree of life” to give an allegorical meaning to the
cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds:
“If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a
pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a
precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or
a cord of immortality.” And again: “If the
‘tree of life’ were an invention, because
he—Jesus—(is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would
follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been
said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed
stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love.” Now,
who does not see at once αὐτόθεν. ἄρχοντας.
Chapter XXXVIII.
Our noble (friend), moreover, not satisfied with
the objections which he has drawn from the diagram, desires, in order
to strengthen his accusations against us, who have nothing in common
with it, to introduce certain other charges, which he adduces from the
same (heretics), but yet as if they were from a different source.
His words are: “And that is not the least of their marvels,
for there are between the upper circles—those that are above the
heavens—certain inscriptions of which they give the
interpretation, and among others two words especially, ‘a greater
and a less,’ which they refer to Father and Son.” ἄλλα
τε, καὶ δύο
ἄττα, μεῖζον
τε καὶ
μικρότερον
υἱοῦ καὶ
πατρός. For ἄλλους, the textual reading,
Gelenius, with the approval of Boherellus, proposes καὶ ἄλλου
συγκειμένου,
which has been followed in the translation.
Chapter XXXIX.
In the next place, speaking of those who employ
the arts of magic and sorcery, and who invoke the barbarous names of
demons, he remarks that such persons act like those who, in reference
to the same things, ἐπὶ
τοῖς αὐτοῖς
ὑποκειμένοις. Cf. Herodot., iv.
59. ποία γὰρ
πιθανότης. For the textual
reading, οὔπω
δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ
τῶν λοιπῶν
ταὐτόν τι
ἐρεῖ, Boherellus conjectures εἴρηται,
which has been adopted in the translation. For αἰσθητῶν,
Lommatzsch adopts the conjecture of Boherellus, approved by Ruæus,
ἐσθητων.
Chapter XL.
After these things, Celsus appears to me to act
like those who, in their intense hatred of the Christians, maintain, in
the presence of those who are utterly ignorant of the Christian faith,
that they have actually ascertained that Christians devour the flesh of
infants, and give themselves without restraint to sexual intercourse
with their women. Now, as these statements have been condemned as
falsehoods invented against the Christians, and this admission made by
the multitude and those altogether aliens to our faith; so would the
following statements of Celsus be found to be calumnies invented
against the Christians, where he says that “he has seen in the
hands of certain presbyters belonging to our faith δόξης.
Chapter XLI.
In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it
was his object to write against the Christians, he says that,
“having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian
musician, the latter told him, with respect to magic arts, that it was
only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals that they had any
power, while on philosophers they were unable to produce any effect,
because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of
life.” If, now, it had been our purpose to treat of magic,
we could have added a few remarks in addition to what we have already
said on this topic; but since it is only the more important matters
which we have to notice in answer to Celsus, we shall say of magic,
that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were ever led
captive by it or not, can read what has been written by Moiragenes
regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher Apollonius of
Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian, but a
philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were won
over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him as
a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned Euphrates
and a certain Epicurean. Now we, on the other hand,
affirm, and have learned by experience, that they who worship the God
of all things in conformity with the Christianity which comes by Jesus,
and who live according to His Gospel, using night and day, continuously
and becomingly, the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by
magic or demons. For verily “the angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivereth
them” Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLII.
After these matters, Celsus brings the following
charges against us from another quarter: “Certain most
impious errors,” he says, “are committed by them, due to
their extreme ignorance, in which they have wandered away from the
meaning of the divine enigmas, creating an adversary to God, the devil,
and naming him in the Hebrew tongue, Satan. Now, of a truth, such
statements are altogether of mortal invention, θνητά. Instead of this
reading, Guietus conjectures πτηκτά, which is approved
of by Ruæus. ᾽Ωγηνόν, i.e., in Oceanum,
Hesych.; ᾽Ωγήν,
ὠκεανός, Suid. καὶ μὴ
παραμυθησάμενος.
“Once in your cause I felt his matchless might,
Hurled headlong downward from the ethereal
height.” Cf.
Iliad, i. 590 (Pope’s translation).
And in those of Zeus to Hera:—
“Hast thou forgot, when, bound and fix’d on high,
From the vast concave of the spangled sky,
I hung thee trembling in a golden chain,
And all the raging gods opposed in vain?
Headlong I hurled them from the Olympian hall,
Stunn’d in the whirl, and breathless with
the fall.” Cf.
Iliad, xv. 18–24 (Pope’s translation).
Interpreting, moreover, the words of Homer, he adds:
“The words of Zeus addressed to Hera are the words of God
addressed to matter; and the words addressed to matter obscurely
signify that the matter which at the beginning was in a state of
discord (with God), was taken by Him, and bound together and arranged
under laws, which may be analogically compared to chains; ἀναλογίαις
τισὶ
συνέδησε καὶ
ἐκόσμησεν ὁ
Θεός. ἀμήτωρ τις
καὶ ἄχραντος
δαίμων.
Chapter XLIII.
Mark now, whether he who charges us with having
committed errors of the most impious kind, and with having wandered
away from the (true meaning) of the divine enigmas, is not himself
clearly in error, from not observing that in the writings of Moses,
which are much older not merely than Heraclitus and Pherecydes, but
even than Homer, mention is made of this wicked one, and of his having
fallen from heaven. For the serpent Cf. τὸ
θηλύτερον
γένος. Cf. Cf. ἐναντίοι
ὄντες τοῖς
ἁπὸ τοῦ
κλήρου τοῦ
Θεοῦ, ἔρημοί
εἰσι Θεοῦ. [ [See the
elaborate articles on the book of Job, by Canon Cook, in Dr.
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. pp.
1087–1100. S.] Cf. περιστάσεσί. ἀγρίῳ
ἐλέφαντι. Cf. Cf. πτεροῤῥυησάντων.
Cf. supra, bk. iv. cap. xl. p. 516.
Chapter XLIV.
For it is impossible that the good which is the
result of accident, or of communication, should be like that good which
comes by nature; and yet the former will never be lost by him who, so
to speak, partakes of the “living” bread with a view to his
own preservation. But if it should fail any one, it must be
through his own fault, in being slothful to partake of this
“living bread” and “genuine drink,” by means of
which the wings, nourished and watered, are fitted for their purpose,
even according to the saying of Solomon, the wisest of men, concerning
the truly rich man, that “he made to himself wings like an eagle,
and returns to the house of his patron.” Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLV.
But since Celsus rejects the statements concerning
Antichrist, as it is termed, having neither read what is said of him in
the book of Daniel Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. ἀκρότητας. μετά τινος
ἐπικρύψεως.
Cf.
Chapter XLVI.
It is thus that the apostle expresses
himself: “We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be
not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by word, nor by
spirit, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord is at
hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth
himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he
sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
things? And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be
revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already
work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken
out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the
Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with
the brightness of His coming: even him, whose coming is
after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying
wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that
perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness.” Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLVII.
Celsus, after what has been said, goes on as
follows: “I can tell how the very thing occurred, viz.,
that they should call him ‘Son of God.’ Men of
ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his child
and his son. παῖδά τε
αὐτοῦ καὶ
ἡίθεον. παραποιήσαντας. [See Dr.
Burton’s learned discussion as to the Logos of Plato, and the connection of Plato’s
doctrines with the Gospel of the Son of God: Bampton
Lectures, pp. 211–223, 537–547. See also
Fisher’s Beginnings of Christianity, p. 147 (1877).
S.] Cf. Cf.
Chapter XLVIII.
In the next place, when the philosophers of the
Porch, who assert that the virtue of God and man is the same, maintain
that the God who is over all things is not happier than their
wise man, but that the happiness of both is equal, Celsus neither
ridicules nor scoffs at their opinion. If, however, holy
Scripture says that the perfect man is joined to and made one with the
Very Word by means of virtue, so that we infer that the soul of Jesus
is not separated from the first-born of all creation, he laughs at
Jesus being called “Son of God,” not observing what is said
of Him with a secret and mystical signification in the holy
Scriptures. But that we may win over to the reception of our
views those who are willing to accept the inferences which flow from
our doctrines, and to be benefited thereby, we say that the holy
Scriptures declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to
be the whole Church of God, and the members of this
body—considered as a whole—to consist of those who are
believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which of
itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so the
Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the Church, to befitting
action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the
Church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word. Since all
this, then, follows by a train of reasoning not to be depreciated,
where is the difficulty in maintaining that, as the soul of
Jesus is joined in a perfect and inconceivable manner with the very
Word, so the person of Jesus, generally speaking, ἁπαξαπλῶς.
Chapter XLIX.
Let us notice now what follows, where, expressing
in a single word his opinion regarding the Mosaic cosmogony, without
offering, however, a single argument in its support, he finds fault
with it, saying: “Moreover, their cosmogony is extremely
silly.” μάλα
εὐηθική. Cf. ἀκατασκεύαστον. Cf. τὴν ἐκ
περιστάσεως
γενομένην. γραφάς. ἀπρόσλογα.
Chapter L.
In the next place, Celsus, after heaping together,
simply as mere assertions, the varying opinions of some of the ancients
regarding the world, and the origin of man, alleges that “Moses
and the prophets, who have left to us our books, not knowing at all
what the nature of the world is, and of man, have woven together a web
of sheer nonsense.” συνθεῖναι
ληρον
βαθύν. ὅτι
τίς ποτέ
ἐστιν ἡ φύσις
τοῦ νοῦ, καὶ
τοῦ ἐν τοῖς
προφήταις
λόγου.
Chapter LI.
On the present occasion, however, it is not our
object to enter into an explanation of the subject of intelligent and
sensible beings, περὶ νοητῶν
καὶ
αἰσθητῶν. αἱ φύσεις
τῶν ἡμερῶν. ἐν
καταστάσει
ἔσεσθαι
ἡμέρας. Cf. εὐκτικῶς.
Chapter LII.
Celsus proceeds as follows: “With
regard to the origin of the world and its destruction, whether it is to
be regarded as uncreated and indestructible, or as created indeed, but
not destructible, or the reverse, I at present say
nothing.” For this reason we too say nothing on these
points, as the work in hand does not require it. Nor do we allege
that the Spirit of the universal God mingled itself in things here
below as in things alien to itself, ὡς
ἐν
ἀλλοτρίοις
τοῖς τῇδε. μακρὰν
χαιρέτωσαν. περιορᾷ.
Chapter LIII.
In the next place, mixing up together various
heresies, and not observing that some statements are the utterances of
one heretical sect, and others of a different one, he brings forward
the objections which we raised against Marcion. Cf. bk. v. cap.
liv. The textual reading
is, ἀπό τινων
εὐτελῶς καὶ
ἰδιωτικῶς, for
which Ruæus reads, ἀπό
τινων
εὐτελῶν καὶ
ἰδιωτικῶν, which
emendation has been adopted in the translation. οἱονεὶ
θαυμαστικῶς. ἀκλήρων. σκυβάλων. τέχνην. ἐκ
παρακολουθήσεως
γεγένηται
τῆς πρὸς τὰ
προηγούμενα.
Chapter LIV.
Let us see, then, briefly what holy Scripture has to say
regarding good and evil, and what answer we are to return to the
questions, “How is it that God created evil?” and,
“How is He incapable of persuading and admonishing
men?” Now, according to holy Scripture, properly speaking,
virtues and virtuous actions are good, as, properly speaking, the
reverse of these are evil. We shall be satisfied with quoting on
the present occasion some verses from the Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LV.
Passages, indeed, might be found where corporeal
and external (benefits) are improperly καταχρηστικώτερον. Cf. Cf. Cf. παῤῥησίαν
ἔχειν. ὕφος. ὀλίγα must be taken
comparatively, on account of the πολλάς that follows
afterwards. πολλάς. See note
11. τὰ
ἑλικοειδῆ
ξέσματα καὶ
πρίσματα. τὰ
παρακείμενα.
Chapter LVI.
If we speak, however, of what are called
“corporeal” and “external” evils,—which
are improperly so termed,—then it may be granted that there
are occasions when some of these have been called into existence
by God, in order that by their means the conversion of certain
individuals might be effected. And what absurdity would follow
from such a course? For as, if we should hear those
sufferings πόνους. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LVII.
With respect to the question, “How is he
incapable of persuading and admonishing men?” it has been already
stated that, if such an objection were really a ground of charge, then
the objection of Celsus might be brought against those who accept the
doctrine of providence. Any one might answer the charge that God
is incapable of admonishing men; for He conveys His admonitions
throughout the whole of Scripture, and by means of those persons who,
through God’s gracious appointment, are the instructors of His
hearers. Unless, indeed, some peculiar meaning be understood to
attach to the word “admonish,” as if it signified both to
penetrate into the mind of the person admonished, and to make him hear
the words of his τὸ καὶ
ἐπιτυγχάνειν
ἐν τῷ
νουθετουμένῳ
καὶ ἀκούειν
τὸν τοῦ
διδάσκοντος
λόγον. ὡσπερεὶ τῶν
καλουμένων
ἀντιπεπονθότων
ἐστίν. ἀνάλογον τῷ
κείρεσθαι
ἄνθρωπον,
ἐνεργοῦντα
τὸ παρέχειν
ἑαυτὸν τῷ
κείροντι. πειθοῦς
δημιουργῶν. Cf. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LVIII.
There is next to be answered the following
query: “And how is it that he repents when men become
ungrateful and wicked; and finds fault with his own handwork, and
hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring?” Now
Celsus here calumniates and falsities what is written in the book of
Genesis to the following effect: “And the Lord God, seeing that the wickedness of men upon the earth
was increasing, and that every one in his heart carefully meditated to
do evil continually, was grieved ἐνεθυμήθη, in all
probability a corruption for ἐθυμώθη, which Hoeschel
places in the text, and Spencer in the margin of his ed.: Heb.
סחֶנָּיִּוַ. ἐνεθυμήθην.
Cf. remark in note 2. Cf. Cf. Plato in
Timæo.
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 κόσμος. τὸν
περίγειον
τόπον. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.
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, ἐρηρεισμένης. τῇδε
φερομένου. Cf. τὸν
προσεχῶς
δημιουργόν. αὐτουργόν. συναγωγάς. τὰ ὑπὸ
μόνης φύσεως
διοικούμενα. τὰ νηκτά. Cf.
Chapter LXI.
Again, not understanding the meaning of the words,
“And God ended [συνετέλεσεν,
complevit. S.] κατέπαυσεν. κατέπαυσεν. Cf. ἀνεπαύσατο. τῶν
ἐπιβαλλόντων. οὐ θέμις. χειρουργεῖν. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXII.
Celsus, again, having perhaps misunderstood the
words, “For the mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it,” Cf. ἐπὶ
τῶν
δυνάμεων. Cf. Cf. Cf.
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 nor 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 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 I the
Lord your God am holy,” Cf. The words as they
stand in the text are probably corrupt: we have adopted in the
translation the emendation of Guietus: ἔτι
και ναός ἐστι
τοῦ Θεοῦ το
σῶμα τοῦ
τοιαύτην
ἔχοντος
ψυχὴν, καὶ ἐν
τῇ ψυχῇ διὰ
τὸ κατ᾽
εἰκόνα, τὸν
Θεόν.
Chapter LXIV.
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 permanent, and He invites the righteous man also to do the same,
saying: “But as for thee, stand thou here by
Me.” Cf. οὐσία. πρεσβείᾳ
καὶ
δυνάμει. Cf. [“It is a
remarkable fact, that it was Origen who discerned the heresy outside
the Church on its first rise, and actually gave the alarm, sixty years
before Arius’s day. See Athanasius, De Decret. Nic.,
§ 27; also the περὶ ἀρχῶν
(if Rufinus may be trusted), for Origen’s denouncement of the
still more characteristic Arianism of the ἠν
ὅτε οὐκ ἦν and the
ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων.”—Newman’s The Arians of the Fourth Century, p.
97. See also Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, vol.
i. pp. 130–133. S.]
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; For αὐτοῦ Boherellus
conjectures αὑτοῦ, and translates,
“Propria ipse principia, quæ sunt Epicuri,
subruens.” οὐδὲ λογῷ
ἐφικτός. εἴτε
ἐνδιαθέτῳ
εἴτε καὶ
προφορικῷ. οὐδὲν τῶν
ἐν λέξεσι καὶ
σημαινομένοις. χειραγωγῆσαι.
Chapter LXVI.
Let us look also at his next statement, in which
he introduces, 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 individual
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 power of vision affected κολάζεσθαι. Cf.
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 following manner: “Woe unto them that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness.” Cf. ὀφθαλμούς. ὀφθαλμούς.
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, σωματικῶς. [ Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXIX.
Celsus, however, asserts that the answer which we
give is based upon a probable conjecture, εἰκότι
στοχασμῷ. δυσθεώρητος. σύμμετρον. For οὑτωσί we have
adopted the conjecture of Guietus, τούτου. ὡς
εὐθεώρητον.
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,” Cf. Cf. πᾶσαν
οὐσίαν. πνεῦμα. There is an
allusion to the two meanings of πνεῦμα, “wind”
and “spirit.” τὴν
αἰσθητὴν
ἐκδοχήν. τυπικῶς here evidently
must have the above meaning. Cf. ἐν
τύποις. Cf.
Celsus accordingly, as not understanding the
doctrine relating to the Spirit of God (“for the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned” Cf. ἑαυτῷ
συνάπτει. οὐχ ὡς σῶμα
δὲ περιέχον
περιέχει, ὅτι
καὶ σῶμά
ἐστι τὸ
περιεχόμενον. πάνυ
ἀπεμφαῖνον.
Chapter LXXII.
It is therefore in vain that Celsus asserts, as one who knows not the nature of the Spirit of God, that “as the Son of God, who existed in a human body, is a Spirit, this very Son of God would not be immortal.” He next becomes confused in his statements, as if there were some of us who did not admit that God is a Spirit, but maintain that only with regard to His Son, and he thinks that he can answer us by saying that there “is no kind of spirit which lasts for ever.” This is much the same as if, when we term God a “consuming fire,” he were to say that there “is no kind of fire which lasts for ever;” not observing the sense in which we say that our God is a fire, and what the things are which He consumes, viz., sins, and wickedness. For it becomes a God of goodness, after each individual has shown, by his efforts, what kind of combatant he has been, to consume vice by the fire of His chastisements. He proceeds, in the next place, to assume what we do not maintain, that “God must necessarily have given up the ghost;” from which also it follows that Jesus could not have risen again with His body. For God would not have received back the spirit which He had surrendered after it had been stained by contact with the body. It is foolish, however, for us to answer statements as ours which were never made by us.
Chapter LXXIII.
He proceeds to repeat himself, and after saying a
great deal which he had said before, and ridiculing the birth of God
from a virgin,—to which we have already replied as we best
could,—he adds the following: “If God had wished to
send down His Spirit from Himself, what need was there to breathe it
into the womb of a woman? For as one who knew already how to form
men, He could also have fashioned a body for this person, without
casting His own Spirit into so much pollution; εἰς
τοσοῦτον
μίασμα. Cf. book iv. capp.
xiv. and lxviii. τῇ αἰσθήσει
τὴν ἀρχὴν. τὸ αἰσθητὸν
σῶμα. προσαχθήσῃ
δὲ τῷ
λεγομένῳ. κἃν
βιασάμενος ὁ
λόγος εὕρῃ.
Chapter LXXIV.
After this he returns to the subject of
Marcion’s opinions (having already spoken frequently of them),
and states some of them correctly, while others he has misunderstood;
these, however, it is not necessary for us to answer or refute.
Again, after this he brings forward the various arguments that may be
urged on Marcion’s behalf, and also against him, enumerating what
the opinions are which exonerate him from the charges, and what expose
him to them; and when he desires to support the statement which
declares that Jesus has been the subject of prophecy,—in order to
found a charge against Marcion and his followers,—he distinctly
asks, “How could he, who was punished in such a manner, be shown
to be God’s Son, unless these things had been predicted of
him?” He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to
pour ridicule upon the subject, introducing “two sons of God, one
the son of the Creator, τοῦ
δημιουργοῦ. ὀρτύγων. ληροῦντας. πραγματικῶς. ἐσεμνολόγει. σεμνῶν
λόγων. τοσαύτην
φλυαρίαν.
Chapter LXXV.
To the preceding remarks he adds the
following: “Since a divine Spirit inhabited the body (of
Jesus), it must certainly have been different from that of other
beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or strength, or voice, or
impressiveness, κατάπληξιν. ἀγενές. Cf. Cf.
Chapter LXXVI.
Let it be supposed, however, that he had not read
the prophecy, or that he had read it, but had been drawn away by
those who misinterpreted it as not being spoken of Jesus Christ.
What has he to say of the Gospel, in the narratives of which Jesus
ascended up into a high mountain, and was transfigured before the
disciples, and was seen in glory, when both Moses and Elias,
“being seen in glory, spake of the decease which He was about to
accomplish at Jerusalem?” [ προβαινειν.
Chapter LXXVII.
But again, how did he who said, “Since a
divine Spirit inhabited the body (of Jesus), it must certainly have
been different from that of other beings in respect of grandeur, or
voice, or strength, or impressiveness, or persuasiveness,” not
observe the changing relation of His body according to the capacity of
the spectators (and therefore its corresponding utility), inasmuch as
it appeared to each one of such a nature as it was requisite for him to
behold it? Moreover it is not a subject of wonder that the
matter, which is by nature susceptible of being altered and changed,
and of being transformed into anything which the Creator chooses, and
is capable of receiving all the qualities which the Artificer desires,
should at one time possess a quality, agreeably to which it is said,
“He had no form nor beauty,” and at another, one so
glorious, and majestic, and marvellous, that the spectators of such
surpassing loveliness—three disciples who had ascended (the
mount) with Jesus—should fall upon their faces. He will
say, however, that these are inventions, and in no respect different
from myths, as are also the other marvels related of Jesus; which
objection we have answered at greater length in what has gone
before. But there is also something mystical in this doctrine,
which announces that the varying appearances of Jesus are to be
referred to the nature of the divine Word, who does not show Himself in
the same manner to the multitude as He does to those who are capable of
following Him to the high mountain which we have mentioned; for to
those who still remain below, and are not yet prepared to ascend, the
Word “has neither form nor beauty,” because to such persons
His form is “without honour,” and inferior to the words
given forth by men, which are figuratively termed “sons of
men.” For we might say that the words of
philosophers—who are “sons of men”—appear far
more beautiful than the Word of God, who is proclaimed to the
multitude, and who also exhibits (what is called) the
“foolishness of preaching,” and on account of this apparent
“foolishness of preaching” those who look at this alone
say, “We saw Him; but He had no form nor beauty.” To
those, indeed, who have received power to follow Him, in order that
they may attend Him even when He ascends to the “lofty
mount,” He has a diviner appearance, which they behold, if
there happens to be (among them) a Peter, who has received within
himself the edifice of the Church based upon the Word, and who has
gained such a habit (of goodness) that none of the gates of Hades will
prevail against him, having been exalted by the Word from the gates of
death, that he may “publish the praises of God in the gates of
the daughter of Sion,” and any others who have derived their
birth from impressive preaching, καὶ εἴ τινές
εἰσιν ἐκ
λόγων την
γένεσιν
λαχόντες
μεγαλοφώνων.
Chapter LXXVIII.
Celsus next makes certain observations of the following nature: “Again, if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this Spirit of which you speak into one corner (of the earth)? He ought to have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedæmonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?” Observe in such language as this the irreverent character of Celsus, who, unlike a philosopher, takes the writer of a comedy, whose business is to cause laughter, and compares our God, the Creator of all things, to the being who, as represented in the play, on awaking, despatches Mercury (on an errand)! We stated, indeed, in what precedes, that it was not as if awakening from a lengthened slumber that God sent Jesus to the human race, who has now, for good reasons, fulfilled the economy of His incarnation, but who has always conferred benefits upon the human race. For no noble deed has ever been performed amongst men, where the divine Word did not visit the souls of those who were capable, although for a little time, of admitting such operations of the divine Word. Moreover, the advent of Jesus apparently to one corner (of the earth) was founded on good reasons, since it was necessary that He who was the subject of prophecy should make His appearance among those who had become acquainted with the doctrine of one God, and who perused the writings of His prophets, and who had come to know the announcement of Christ, and that He should come to them at a time when the Word was about to be diffused from one corner over the whole world.
Chapter LXXIX.
And therefore there was no need that there should
everywhere exist many bodies, and many spirits like Jesus, in order
that the whole world of men might be enlightened by the Word of
God. For the one Word was enough, having arisen as the “Sun
of righteousness,” to send forth from Judea His coming rays into
the soul of all who were willing to receive Him. But if any one
desires to see many bodies filled with a divine Spirit, similar to the
one Christ, ministering to the salvation of men everywhere, let him
take note of those who teach the Gospel of Jesus in all lands in
soundness of doctrine and uprightness of life, and who are themselves
termed “christs” by the holy Scriptures, in the passage,
“Touch not Mine anointed, τῶν χριστῶν
μου. Cf. τοὺς
μετόχους
αὐτοῦ. δυσδιηγήτους
τὰς
κρίσεις.
Chapter LXXX.
After this, it seemed proper to Celsus to term the
Chaldeans a most divinely-inspired nation from the very earliest
times, ἐξ
ἀρχῆς. γενεθλιαλογία. [On the manners of
heathen nations, note this. See Cf.
Chapter LXXXI.
I do not understand, however, how he should say of God, that although “knowing all things, He was not aware of this, that He was sending His Son amongst wicked men, who were both to be guilty of sin, and to inflict punishment upon Him.” Certainly he appears, in the present instance, to have forgotten that all the sufferings which Jesus was to undergo were foreseen by the Spirit of God, and foretold by His prophets; from which it does not follow that “God did not know that He was sending His Son amongst wicked and sinful men, who were also to inflict punishment upon Him.” He immediately adds, however, that “our defence on this point is that all these things were predicted.” But as our sixth book has now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall stop here, and begin, God willing, the argument of the seventh, in which we shall consider the reasons which he thinks furnish an answer to our statement, that everything regarding Jesus was foretold by the prophets; and as these are numerous, and require to be answered at length, we wished neither to cut the subject short, in consequence of the size of the present book, nor, in order to avoid doing so, to swell this sixth book beyond its proper proportions.
Chapter I.
In the six former books we have endeavoured,
reverend brother Ambrosius, according to our ability to meet the
charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and have as far as
possible passed over nothing without first subjecting it to a full and
close examination. And now, while we enter upon the seventh book,
we call upon God through Jesus Christ, whom Celsus accuses, that He who
is the truth of God would shed light into our hearts and scatter the
darkness of error, in accordance with that saying of the prophet which
we now offer as our prayer, “Destroy them by Thy
truth.”
Chapter II.
Celsus now sets himself to combat the views of those who say that the Jewish prophets foretold events which happened in the life of Christ Jesus. At the outset let us refer to a notion he has, that those who assume the existence of another God besides the God of the Jews have no ground on which to answer his objections; while we who recognise the same God rely for our defence on the prophecies which were delivered concerning Jesus Christ. His words are: “Let us see how they can raise a defence. To those who admit another God, no defence is possible; and they who recognise the same God will always fall back upon the same reason, ‘This and that must have happened.’ And why? ‘Because it had been predicted long before.’” To this we answer, that the arguments recently raised by Celsus against Jesus and Christians were so utterly feeble, that they might easily be overthrown even by those who are impious enough to bring in another God. Indeed, were it not dangerous to give to the weak any excuse for embracing false notions, we could furnish the answer ourselves, and show Celsus how unfounded is his opinion, that those who admit another God are not in a position to meet his arguments. However, let us for the present confine ourselves to a defence of the prophets, in continuation of what we have said on the subject before.
Chapter III.
Celsus goes on to say of us: “They set no
value on the oracles of the Pythian priestess, of the priests of
Dodona, of Clarus, of Branchidæ, of Jupiter Ammon, and of a
multitude of others; although under their guidance we may say that
colonies were sent forth, and the whole world peopled. But those
sayings which were uttered or not uttered in Judea, after the manner of
that country, as indeed they are still delivered among the people of
Phœnicia and Palestine—these they look upon as marvellous
sayings, and unchangeably true.” In regard to the oracles
here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us to gather
from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not a few
things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other
oracles. From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote
passages to show that even among the Greeks themselves there were some
who utterly discredited the oracles which were recognised and admired
throughout the whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the
responses delivered by the Pythian and other oracles were not the
utterances of false men who pretended to a divine inspiration; and let
us see if, after all, we cannot convince any sincere inquirers that
there is no necessity to attribute these oracular responses to any
divinities, but that, on the other hand, they may be traced to wicked
demons—to spirits which are at enmity with the human race, and
which in this way wish to hinder the soul from rising upwards,
Chapter IV.
Accordingly, we can show from an examination of
the sacred Scriptures, that the Jewish prophets, who were enlightened
as far as was necessary for their prophetic work by the Spirit of God,
were the first to enjoy the benefit of the inspiration; and by the
contact—if I may so say—of the Holy Spirit they became
clearer in mind, and their souls were filled with a brighter
light. And the body no longer served as a hindrance to a virtuous
life; for to that which we call “the lust of the flesh” it
was deadened. For we are persuaded that the Divine Spirit
“mortifies the deeds of the body,” and destroys that enmity
against God which the carnal passions serve to excite. If, then,
the Pythian priestess is beside herself when she prophesies, what
spirit must that be which fills her mind and clouds her judgment with
darkness, unless it be of the same order with those demons which many
Christians cast out of persons possessed with them? And this, we
may observe, they do without the use of any curious arts of magic, or
incantations, but merely by prayer and simple adjurations which the
plainest person can use. Because for the most part it is
unlettered persons who perform this work; thus making manifest the
grace which is in the word of Christ, and the despicable weakness of
demons, which, in order to be overcome and driven out of the bodies and
souls of men, do not require the power and wisdom of those who are
mighty in argument, and most learned in matters of faith. [See Dr. Lee on
“the immemorial doctrine of the Church of God” as to the
Divine influence upon the intellectual faculties of the prophets:
Inspiration of Holy Scripture: its Nature and Proof, pp.
78, 79. S.]
Chapter V.
Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also by many others among the Greeks and Barbarians, that the human soul lives and subsists after its separation from the body; and if reason supports the idea that pure souls which are not weighed down with sin as with a weight of lead ascend on high to the region of purer and more ethereal bodies, leaving here below their grosser bodies along with their impurities; whereas souls that are polluted and dragged down to the earth by their sins, so that they are unable even to breathe upwards, wander hither and thither, at some times about sepulchres, where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits, at others among other objects on the ground;—if this is so, what are we to think of those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or by their own natural wickedness? Are we not compelled by reason to set down as evil such spirits as employ the power of prophesying—a power in itself neither good nor bad—for the purpose of deceiving men, and thus turn them away from God, and from the purity of His service? It is moreover evident that this is their character, when we add that they delight in the blood of victims, and in the smoke odour of sacrifices, and that they feed their bodies on these, and that they take pleasure in such haunts as these, as though they sought in them the sustenance of their lives; in this resembling those depraved men who despise the purity of a life apart from the senses, and who have no inclination except for the pleasures of the body, and for that earthly and bodily life in which these pleasures are found. If the Delphian Apollo were a god, as the Greeks suppose, would he not rather have chosen as his prophet some wise man? or if such an one was not to be found, then one who was endeavouring to become wise? How came he not to prefer a man to a woman for the utterance of his prophesies? And if he preferred the latter sex, as though he could only find pleasure in the breast of a woman, why did he not choose among women a virgin to interpret his will?
Chapter VI.
But no; the Pythian, so much admired among the Greeks,
judged no wise man, nay, no man at
“Sophocles is wise, and Euripides is wiser,
But wiser than all men is
Socrates.” Suidas in Σοφός.
As, then, he gives the designation “wise” to the
tragic poets, it is not on account of his philosophy that he holds up
Socrates to veneration, or because of his love of truth and
virtue. It is poor praise of Socrates to say that he prefers him
to men who for a paltry reward compete upon the stage, and who by their
representations excite the spectators at one time to tears and grief,
and at another to unseemly laughter (for such is the intention of the
satyric drama). And perhaps it was not so much in regard to his
philosophy that he called Socrates the wisest of all men, as on account
of the victims which he sacrificed to him and the other demons.
For it seems that the demons pay more regard in distributing their
favours to the sacrifices which are offered them than to deeds of
virtue. Accordingly, Homer, the best of the poets, who describes
what usually took place, when, wishing to show us what most influenced
the demons to grant an answer to the wishes of their votaries,
introduces Chryses, who, for a few garlands and the thighs of bulls and
goats, obtained an answer to his prayers for his daughter Chryseis, so
that the Greeks were driven by a pestilence to restore her back to
him. And I remember reading in the book of a certain Pythagorean,
when writing on the hidden meanings in that poet, that the prayer of
Chryses to Apollo, and the plague which Apollo afterwards sent upon the
Greeks, are proofs that Homer knew of certain evil demons who delight
in the smoke of sacrifices, and who, to reward those who offer them,
grant in answer to their prayers the destruction of others.
“He,” that is, Jupiter, “who rules over wintry
Dodona, where his prophets have ever unwashed feet, and sleep upon the
ground,” Homer,
Iliad, xvi. 234, etc.
Chapter VII.
In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of
them were wise men before they became divinely inspired prophets, while
others became wise by the illumination which their minds received when
divinely inspired. They were selected by Divine Providence to
receive the Divine Spirit, and to be the depositaries of His holy
oracles, on the ground of their leading a life of almost unapproachable
excellence, intrepid, noble, unmoved by danger or death. For
reason teaches that such ought to be the character of the prophets of
the Most High, in comparison with which the firmness of Antisthenes,
Crates, and Diogenes will seem but as child’s play. It was
therefore for their firm adherence to truth, and their faithfulness in
the reproof of the wicked, that “they were stoned; they were sawn
asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about
in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
they wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the
earth, of whom the world was not worthy:” [ [ [ [
Chapter VIII.
I do not know what led Celsus, when saying,
“But what things were spoken or not spoken in the land of Judea,
according to the custom of the country,” to use the words
“or not spoken,” as though implying that he was
incredulous, and that he suspected that those things which were written
were never spoken. In fact, he is unacquainted with these times;
and he does not know that those prophets who foretold the coming of
Christ, predicted a multitude of other events many years
beforehand. He adds, with the view of casting a slight upon the
ancient prophets, that “they prophesied in the same way as we
find them still doing among the inhabitants of Phœnicia and
Palestine.” But he does not tell us whether he refers to
persons who are of different principles from those of the Jews and
Christians, or to persons whose prophecies are of the same character as
those of the Jewish prophets. However it be, his statement is
false, taken in either way. For never have any of those who have
not embraced our faith done any thing approaching to what was done by
the ancient prophets; and in more recent times, since the coming of
Christ, no prophets have arisen among the Jews, who have confessedly
been abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their impiety towards
God, and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke. Moreover, the
Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of
Christ’s ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more;
but since that time these signs have diminished, although there are
still traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified
by the Gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence.
“For the holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove
from thoughts that are without understanding.”
Chapter IX.
But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which prophecies are delivered in Phœnicia and Palestine, speaking as though it were a matter with which he had a full and personal acquaintance, let us see what he has to say on the subject. First he lays it down that there are several kinds of prophecies, but he does not specify what they are; indeed, he could not do so, and the statement is a piece of pure ostentation. However, let us see what he considers the most perfect kind of prophecy among these nations. “There are many,” he says, “who, although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in cities or among armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting surprise. These are accustomed to say, each for himself, ‘I am God; I am the Son of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have come because the world is perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your iniquities. But I wish to save you, and you shall see me returning again with heavenly power. Blessed is he who now does me homage. On all the rest I will send down eternal fire, both on cities and on countries. And those who know not the punishments which await them shall repent and grieve in vain; while those who are faithful to me I will preserve eternally.’” Then he goes on to say: “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.”
Chapter X.
But if he were dealing honestly in his accusations, he
ought to have given the exact terms of the prophecies, whether those in
which the speaker is introduced as claiming to be God Almighty, or
those in which the Son of God speaks, or finally those under the name
of the Holy Spirit. For thus he might have endeavoured to
overthrow these assertions, and have shown that there was no divine
inspiration in those words which urged men to forsake their sins, which
condemned the past and foretold the future. For the prophecies
were recorded and preserved by men living at the time, that those who
came after might read and admire them as the oracles of God, and that
they might profit not only by the warnings and admonitions, but also by
the predictions, which, being shown by events to have proceeded from
the Spirit of God, bind men to the practice of piety as set forth in
the law and the prophets. The prophets have therefore, as God
commanded them, declared with all plainness those things which it was
desirable that the hearers should understand at once for the regulation
of their conduct; while in regard to deeper and more mysterious
subjects, which lay beyond the reach of the common understanding, they
set them forth in the form of enigmas and allegories, or of what are
called dark sayings, parables, or similitudes. And this plan they
have followed, that those who are ready to shun no labour and spare no
pains in their
Chapter XI.
I am convinced, indeed, that much better arguments
could be adduced than any I have been able to bring forward, to show
the falsehood of these allegations of Celsus, and to set forth the
divine inspiration of the prophecies; but we have according to our
ability, in our commentaries on Isaiah, Ezekiel, and some of the twelve
minor prophets, explained literally and in detail what he calls
“those fanatical and utterly unintelligible
passages.” [See note
supra, p. 612. S.]
Chapter XII.
He thinks, besides, that those who support the
cause of Christ by a reference to the writings of the prophets can give
no proper answer in regard to statements in them which attribute to God
that which is wicked, shameful, or impure; and assuming that no answer
can be given, he proceeds to draw a whole train of inferences, none of
which can be allowed. But he ought to know that those who wish to
live according to the teaching of sacred Scripture understand the
saying, “The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without
sense,”
Chapter XIII.
And there is no truth in the statement of Celsus, that
“God does the most shameless deeds, or suffers the most shameless
sufferings,” or that “He favours the commission of
evil;” for whatever he may say, no such things have ever been
foretold. He ought to have cited from the prophets the passages
in which God is represented as favouring evil, or as doing and enduring
the most shameless deeds, and not to have sought without foundation to
prejudice the minds of Book ii. cap.
xxxvii.
Chapter XIV.
In the next place, wishing to shake the faith of those who believe in Jesus on the ground of the prophecies which were delivered in regard to Him, Celsus says: “But pray, if the prophets foretold that the great God—not to put it more harshly—would become a slave, or become sick or die; would there be therefore any necessity that God should die, or suffer sickness, or become a slave, simply because such things had been foretold? Must he die in order to prove his divinity? But the prophets never would utter predictions so wicked and impious. We need not therefore inquire whether a thing has been predicted or not, but whether the thing is honourable in itself, and worthy of God. In that which is evil and base, although it seemed that all men in the world had foretold it in a fit of madness, we must not believe. How then can the pious mind admit that those things which are said to have happened to him, could have happened to one who is God?” From this it is plain that Celsus feels the argument from prophecy to be very effective for convincing those to whom Christ is preached; but he seems to endeavour to overthrow it by an opposite probability, namely, “that the question is not whether the prophets uttered these predictions or not.” But if he wished to reason justly and without evasion, he ought rather to have said, “We must show that these things were never predicted, or that those things which were predicted of Christ have never been fulfilled in him,” and in that way he would have established the position which he holds. In that way it would have been made plain what those prophecies are which we apply to Jesus, and how Celsus could justify himself in asserting that that application was false. And we should thus have seen whether he fairly disproved all that we bring from the prophets in behalf of Jesus, or whether he himself is convicted of a shameless endeavour to resist the plainest truths by violent assertions.
Chapter XV.
After assuming that some things were foretold
which are impossible in themselves, and inconsistent with the character
of God, he says: “If these things were predicted of the
Most High God, are we bound to believe them of God simply because they
were predicted?” And thus he thinks he proves, that
although the prophets may have foretold truly such things of the Son of
God, yet it is impossible for us to believe in those prophecies
declaring that He would do or suffer such things. To this our
answer is that the supposition is absurd, for it combines two lines of
reasoning which are opposed to each other, and therefore mutually
destructive. This may be shown as follows. The one argument
is: “If any true prophets of the Most High say that God
will become a slave, or suffer sickness, or die, these things will come
to God; for it is impossible that the prophets of the great God should
utter lies.” The other is: “If even true
prophets of the Most High God say that these same things shall come to
pass, seeing that these things foretold are by the nature of things
impossible, the prophecies are not true, and therefore those things
which have been foretold will not happen to God.” When,
then, we find two processes of reasoning in both of which the major
premiss is the same, leading to two contradictory conclusions, we use
the form of argument called “the theorem of two
propositions,” διὰ δύο
τροπικῶν
θεωρήμα. We follow
Bouhéreau and Valesius, who expunge the negative particle in this
clause.
Chapter XVI.
But besides, the prophecies which he introduces
into his argument are very different from what the prophets actually
foretold of Jesus Christ. For the prophecies do not foretell that
God will be crucified, when they say of Him who should suffer,
“We beheld Him, and He had no form or comeliness; but His form
was dishonoured and marred more than the sons of men; He was a man of
sorrows, and acquainted with grief.”
Chapter XVII.
In one point alone is Celsus correct in his
statements on this subject. It is that in which he says:
“The prophets would not foretell this, because it involves that
which is wicked and impious,”—namely, that the great God
should become a slave or suffer death. But that which is
predicted by the prophets is worthy of God, that He who is the
brightness and express image of the divine nature should come into the
world with the holy human soul which was to animate the body of Jesus,
to sow the seed of His word, which might bring all who received and
cherished it into union with the Most High God, and which would lead to
perfect blessedness all those who felt within them the power of God the
Word, who was to be in the body and soul of a man. He was to be
in it indeed, but not in such a way as to confine therein all the rays
of His glory; and we are not to suppose that the light of Him who is
God the Word is shed forth in no other way than in this. If,
then, we consider Jesus in relation to the divinity that was in Him,
the things which He did in this capacity present nothing to offend our
ideas of God, nothing but what is holy; and if we consider Him as man,
distinguished beyond all other men by an intimate communion with the
Eternal Word, with absolute Wisdom, He suffered as one who was wise and
perfect, whatever it behoved Him to suffer who did all for the good of
the human race, yea, even for the good of all intelligent beings.
And there is nothing absurd in a man having died, and in His death
being not only an example of death endured for the sake of piety, but
also the first blow in the conflict which is to overthrow the power of
that evil spirit the devil, who had obtained dominion over the whole
world. [
Chapter XVIII.
Celsus adds: “Will they not besides make
this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold
that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same
God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to
extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every
age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself
did—as Moses says—threatening them, moreover, that if they
did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies;
whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated
laws quite op
Chapter XIX.
Now if these words in the law, “Thou shalt
have dominion over many nations, and no one shall rule over
thee,” were simply a promise to them of dominion, and if they
contain no deeper meaning than this, then it is certain that the people
would have had still stronger grounds for despising the promises of the
law. Celsus brings forward another passage, although he changes
the terms of it, where it is said that the whole earth shall be filled
with the Hebrew race; which indeed, according to the testimony of
history, did actually happen after the coming of Christ, although
rather as a result of God’s anger, if I may so say, than of His
blessing. As to the promise made to the Jews that they should
slay their enemies, it may be answered that any one who examines
carefully into the meaning of this passage will find himself unable to
interpret it literally. It is sufficient at present to refer to
the manner in which in the Psalms the just man is represented as
saying, among other things, “Every morning will I destroy the
wicked of the land; that I may cut off all workers of iniquity from the
city of Jehovah.”
Chapter XX.
Celsus adds, that it was foretold to the Jews, that if
they did not obey the law, they would be treated in the same way as
they treated their enemies; and then he quotes from the teaching of
Christ some precepts which he considers contrary to those of the law,
and uses that as an argument against us. But before proceeding to
this point, we must speak of that which precedes. We hold, then,
that the law has a twofold sense, [
Chapter XXI.
When, then, the letter of the law promises riches
to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which killeth, and understand
it of worldly riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to
those riches which enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in
all utterance and in all knowledge.” And in this sense we
“charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not
high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who
giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be
rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to
communicate.”
Chapter XXII.
If I must now explain how the just man “slays his
enemies,” and prevails everywhere, it is to be observed that,
when he says, “Every morning will I destroy the wicked of the
land, that I may cut off all workers of iniquity from the city of
Jehovah,” by “the land” he means the flesh whose
lusts are at enmity with God; and by “the city of Jehovah”
he designates his own soul, in which was the temple of God, containing
the true idea and conception of God, which makes it to be admired by
all who look upon it. As soon, then, as the rays of the Sun of
righteousness shine into his soul, feeling strengthened and invigorated
by their influence, he sets himself to destroy all the lusts of the
flesh, which are called “the wicked of the land,” and
drives out of that city of the Lord which is in his soul all thoughts
which work iniquity, and all suggestions which are opposed to the
truth. And in this way also the just give up to destruction all
their enemies, which are their vices, so that they do not spare even
the children, that is, the early beginnings and promptings of
evil. In this sense also we understand the language of the
Chapter XXIII.
From what has been said, it is clear then that
Jesus, “the man of Nazareth,” did not promulgate laws
opposed to those just considered in regard to riches, when He said,
“It is hard for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God;”
Chapter XXIV.
The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is
forbidden not only by the teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old
Testament. Accordingly we find one of the prophets, when
imprecating upon himself certain punishments for the commission of
certain sins, includes among the punishments this one of earthly
glory. He says, “O Lord my God, if I have done this; if
there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that
was at peace with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered him that without
cause is mine enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it;
yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and set my glory up
on high.”
Chapter XXV.
Celsus then extracts from the Gospel the precept,
“To him who strikes thee once, thou shalt offer thyself to be
struck again,” although without giving any passage from the Old
Testament 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
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 subjection 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. 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 subject 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 continue 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 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;”
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:
Odyss., iv.
563. Phædo,
lviii. p. 109.
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 Judea 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 Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of
angels.”
Chapter XXX.
It seems to me also that the 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
Chapter XXXI.
Referring to the passage in the Phædon
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
contemplation, 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 present 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
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.”
Chapter XXXIII.
As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of
the resurrection 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
objections, 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, Bouhèreau follows
the reading, “the mind which sees what is made in the image of
the Creator.”
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,”
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 deceived men, but they are ever open to
intercourse with those
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 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 imprecations 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 uneducated 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 persons 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 consistency 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.
Chapter XXXVII.
Now if this is a true account 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, apprehended by
the reason, νοητά, falling under the
province of νοῦς, the reason. For
convenience, we translate it elsewhere “intellectual.”
Chapter XXXVIII.
Since we hold that the great God is in essence
simple, invisible, and incorporeal, Himself pure intelligence, or
something transcending intelligence and existence, we can never say
that God is apprehended by any other means than through the
intelligence which is formed in His image, though now, in the words of
Paul, “we see in a glass obscurely, but then face to
face.”
Chapter XXXIX.
Now let us hear what it is that he invites us to
learn, that we may ascertain from him how we are to know God, although
he thinks that his words are beyond the capacity of all
Christians. “Let them hear,” says he, “if they
are able to do so.” We have then to consider what the
philosopher wishes us to hear from him. But instead of
instructing us as he ought, he abuses us; and while he should have
shown his goodwill to those whom he addresses at the outset of his
discourse, he stigmatizes as “a cowardly race” men who
would rather die than abjure Christianity even by a word, and who are
ready to suffer every form of torture, or any kind of death. He
also applies to us that epithet “carnal” or
“flesh-indulging,” “although,” as we are wont
to say, “we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
we know Him no more,”
Chapter XL.
Next to the remarks of Celsus on which we have
already commented, come others which he addresses to all Christians,
but which, if applicable to any, ought to be addressed to persons whose
doctrines differ entirely from those taught by Jesus. For it is
the Ophians who, as we have before shown, See book vi. cap.
xxx., etc.
Chapter XLI.
But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus would have us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who are recommended both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to divinely inspired poets, as he calls them, to wise men and philosophers, without mentioning their names; so that, after promising to point out those who should guide us, he simply hands us over in a general way to divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If he had specified their names in particular, we should have felt ourselves bound to show him that he wished to give us as guides men who were blinded to the truth, and who must therefore lead us into error; or that if not wholly blinded, yet they are in error in many matters of belief. But whether Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even Homer himself, and Hesiod, are the persons whom he means by “inspired poets,” let any one show how those who follow their guidance walk in a better way, or lead a more excellent life, than those who, being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even all Jewish superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of God to the one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those wise men and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so many divine truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of God, the prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many things by a truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light and taught the way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can reproach Him if he remains without a share in the knowledge of His mysteries? Such, indeed, was the abounding love which He had for men, that He gave to the more learned a theology capable of raising the soul far above all earthly things; while with no less consideration He comes down to the weaker capacities of ignorant men, of simple women, of slaves, and, in short, of all those who from Jesus alone could have received that help for the better regulation of their lives which is supplied by his instructions in regard to the Divine Being, adapted to their wants and capacities.
Chapter XLII.
Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective
teacher of theological truth, and quotes [See note
supra, p. 573. S.]
Chapter XLIII.
Observe that when Plato says, that “after
having found out the Creator and Father of the universe, it is
impossible to make Him known to all men,” he does not speak of
Him as unspeakable, and as incapable of being expressed in words.
On the contrary, he implies that He may be spoken of, and that there
are a few to whom He may be made known. But Celsus, as if
forgetting the language which he had just quoted from Plato,
immediately gives God the name of “the unspeakable.”
He says: “since the wise men have found out this way, in
order to be able to give us some idea of the First of Beings, who is
unspeakable.” For ourselves, we hold that not God alone is
unspeakable, but other things also which are inferior to Him.
Such are the things which Paul labours to express when he says,
“I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to
utter,”
Chapter XLIV.
Celsus supposes that we may arrive at a knowledge of God
either by combining or separating certain things after the methods
which mathematicians call synthesis and analysis, or again by analogy,
which is employed by them also, and that in this way we may as it were
gain admission to the chief good. But when the Word of God says,
“No man knoweth the Father but the Son, [Vol. ii. p. 186, this
series.]
Chapter XLV.
But let us see further what the things are which
he proposes to teach us, if indeed we can comprehend them, since he
speaks of us as being “utterly wedded to the flesh;”
although if we live well, and in accordance with the teaching of Jesus,
we hear this said of us: “Ye are not in the flesh, but in
the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.” γένεσις. For the
distinction between οὐσία and γένεσις, see
Plato’s Sophista, p. 246.
We are careful not to oppose fair arguments even
if they proceed from those who are not of our faith; we strive not to
be captious, or to seek to overthrow any sound reasonings. But
here we have to reply to those who slander the character of persons
wishing to do their best in the service of God, who accepts the faith
which the meanest place in Him, as well as the more refined and
intelligent piety of the learned; seeing that both alike address to the
Creator of the world their prayers and thanksgivings through the High
Priest who has set before men the nature of pure religion. We
say, then, that those who are stigmatized as “lamed and mutilated
in spirit,” as “living only for the sake of the body which
is dead,” are persons whose endeavour it is to say with
sincerity: “For though we live
Chapter XLVII.
For Scripture testifies, in regard to those who
have a knowledge of those things of which Celsus speaks, and who
profess a philosophy founded on these principles, that they,
“when they knew God, glorified Him not as God, neither were
thankful, but became vain in their imaginations;” and
notwithstanding the bright light of knowledge with which God had
enlightened them, “their foolish heart” was carried away,
and became “darkened.”
Chapter XLVIII.
But those who are despised for their ignorance, and set
down as fools and abject slaves, no sooner commit themselves to
God’s guidance by accepting the teaching of Jesus, than, so far
from defiling themselves by licentious indulgence or the gratification
of shameless passion, they in many cases, like perfect priests, for
whom such pleasures have no charm, keep themselves in act and in
thought in a state of virgin purity. The Athenians have one
hierophant, who, not having [See
Robertson’s History of the Church, vol. i. p. 145.
S.]
Chapter XLIX.
What I have now said, then, is offered not for the
purpose of 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.”
Chapter L.
Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the
“becoming,” or product of generation; nor has he expressed
himself 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 produced by
generation, tell us that a sacrifice for sin was offered even for
new-born infants, as not being free from sin. [The noteworthy
testimony of the Alexandrian school to the doctrine of birth-sin.] Euripides. [See
De la Rue’s note ad loc. in his edition of
Origen’s Works. S.]
Chapter LI.
But what need is there to quote any more passages
against Celsus, in order to prove that
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.”
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 Æsculapius, and other heroes
of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was confessedly a divinely inspired
man, who died a violent 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
interpretation 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
it?’ 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 presumption
to include in her writings many impious things, [See vol. i. p. 169,
note 9, and cap. lvi. infra.]
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 accompanied with curses. Again he proposes Æsculapius to us, as if to oblige us to repeat what we have said already; but we forbear. In regard to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to make him assert that, by common consent, he was regarded as a divinely inspired man, and lived a noble life? I 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
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 subjected 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 against 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.”
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 interpolated
many impious statements, though he does not mention what those
interpolations are. [Vol. i. pp. 280, 288,
289; vol. ii. pp. 192, 194, 346, and 622.]
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 repentance
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, 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.”
Chapter LVIII.
Let us now consider what follows.
“They have also,” says he, “a precept to this effect,
that we ought not to avenge ourselves 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?’ ‘It 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 received; 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.’ Plato’s
Crito, p. 49.
Chapter LIX.
When Celsus here or elsewhere finds himself unable to
dispute 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 unpretending
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
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 language and style to the capacities of the common people, and avoid whatever would seem foreign to them, lest by the introduction 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 Barbarian 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 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 that they may easily be induced, after their first introduction, to strive after an acquaintance with the deeper truths which lie hidden in Scripture. 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.
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,”
Chapter LXII.
Let us now see what follows. “Let us pass
on,” says he, “to another point. They cannot
[The temples here
meant are such as enshrined images.] Herod., i. 131.
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 to them are the same as theirs. We must inquire into the principles on which the objection to temples and images is founded, in order that we may approve of those who object on sound principles, and condemn those whose principles are false. For one and the same thing may be done for different reasons. For example, the philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing adultery, the followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others again who do so on no philosophical principles; but observe what different reasons determine the conduct of these different classes. The first consider the interests of society, and hold it to be forbidden by nature that a man who is a reasonable being should corrupt a woman whom the laws have already given to another, and should thus break up the household of another man. The Epicureans do not reason in this way; but if they abstain from adultery, it is because, regarding pleasure as the chief end of man, they perceive that one who gives himself up to adultery, encounters for the sake of this one pleasure a multitude of obstacles to pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile, and death itself. They often, indeed, run considerable risk at the outset, while watching for the departure from the house of the master and those in his interest. So that, supposing it possible for a man to commit adultery, and escape the knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others whose esteem he would forfeit, then the Epicurean would yield to the commission of the crime for the sake of pleasure. The man of no philosophical system, again, who abstains from adultery when the opportunity comes to him, does so generally from dread of the law and its penalties, and not for the sake of enjoying a greater number of other pleasures. You see, then, that an act which passes for being one and the same—namely, abstinence from adultery—is not the same, but differs in different men according to the motives which actuate it: one man refraining for sound reasons, another for such bad and impious ones as those of the Epicurean, and the common person of whom we have spoken.
Chapter LXIV.
As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in
appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in
different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead
to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of
the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians,
the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this
with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different
principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on
the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and
reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of
men. [Note this wholesome
fear of early Christians.]
Chapter LXV.
In regard to the Persians, we have already said
that though they do not build temples, yet they worship the sun and the
other works of God. This is forbidden to us, for we have been
taught not to worship the creature instead of the Creator, but to know
that “the creation shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God;”
and “the earnest expectation of the creation is waiting for the
revelation of the sons of God;” and “the creation was made
subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who made it
subject, in hope.” [Let this be noted;
and see book viii. 20, infra.]
Chapter LXVI.
And the charge of folly applies not only to those
who offer prayers to images, but also to such as pretend to do so in
compliance with the example of the multitude: and to this class
belong the Peripatetic philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and
Democritus. For there is no falsehood or pretence in the soul
which is possessed with true piety towards God. Another reason
also why we abstain from doing honour to images, is that we may give no
support to the notion that the images are gods. It is on this
ground that we condemn Celsus, and all others who, while admitting that
they are not gods, yet, with the reputation of being wise men, render
to them what passes for homage. In this way they lead into sin
the multitude who follow their example, and who worship these images
not simply out of deference to custom, but from a belief into which
they have fallen that they are true gods, and that those are not to be
listened to who hold that the objects of their worship are not true
gods. Celsus, indeed, says that “they do not take them for
gods, but only as offerings dedicated to the gods.” But he
does not prove that they are not rather dedicated to men than, as he
says, to the honour of the gods themselves; for it is clear that they
are the offerings of men who were in error in their views of the Divine
Being. Moreover, we do not imagine that these images are
representations of God, for they cannot represent a being who is
invisible and incorporeal. [Vol. ii. p. 186, note
1.]
Chapter LXVII.
His next remark upon the Christians is:
“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
Chapter LXVIII.
After all that we have already said concerning Jesus, it would be a useless repetition for us to answer these words of Celsus: “It is easy to convict them of worshipping not a god, not even demons, but a dead person.” Leaving, then, this objection for the reason assigned, let us pass on to what follows: “In the first place, I would ask why we are not to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to God’s will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many masters.” Observe here again how he settles at once a number of questions which require considerable research, and a profound acquaintance with what is most mysterious in the government of the universe. For we must inquire into the meaning of the statement, that “all things are ordered according to God’s will,” and ascertain whether sins are or are not included among the things which God orders. For if God’s government extends to sins not only in men, but also in demons and in any other spiritual beings who are capable of sin, it is for those who speak in this manner to see how inconvenient is the expression that “all things are ordered by the will of God.” For it follows from it that all sins and all their consequences are ordered by the will of God, which is a different thing from saying that they come to pass with God’s permission. For if we take the word “ordered” in its proper signification, and say that “all the results of sin were ordered,” then it is evident that all things are ordered according to God’s will, and that all, therefore, who do evil do not offend against His government. And the same distinction holds in regard to “providence.” When we say that “the providence of God regulates all things,” we utter a great truth if we attribute to that providence nothing but what is just and right. But if we ascribe to the providence of God all things whatsoever, however unjust they may be, then it is no longer true that the providence of God regulates all things, unless we refer directly to God’s providence things which flow as results from His arrangements. Celsus maintains also, that “whatever happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, is regulated by the law of the Most High God.” But this also is incorrect; for we cannot say that transgressors follow the law of God when they transgress; and Scripture declares that it is not only wicked men who are transgressors, but also wicked demons and wicked angels.
Chapter LXIX.
And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons,
but almost all who acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus,
then, it is not true that all observe the law of the Most High; for all
who fall away from the divine law, whether through heedlessness, or
through depravity and vice, or through ignorance of what is right, all
such do not keep the law of God, but, to use a new phrase which we find
in Scripture, “the law of sin.” I say, then, that in
the opinion of most of those who believe in the existence of demons,
some of them are wicked; and these, instead of keeping the law of God,
offend against it. But, according to our belief, it is true of
all demons, that they were not demons originally, but they became so in
departing from the true way; so that the name “demons” is
given to those beings who have fallen away from God. Accordingly,
those who worship God must not serve demons. We may also learn
the true nature of demons if we consider the practice of those who call
upon them by charms to prevent certain things, or for many other
purposes. For this is the method they adopt, in order by means of
incantations and magical arts to invoke the demons, and induce them to
further their wishes. Wherefore, the worship of all demons would
be inconsistent in us who worship the Supreme God; and the service of
demons is the service of so-called gods, for “all the gods of the
heathen are demons.”
Chapter LXX.
His next remark was, “Have not these
inferior powers had assigned to them by God different departments,
according as each was deemed worthy?” But this is a
question which requires a very profound knowledge. For we must
determine whether the Word of God, who governs all things, has
appointed wicked demons for certain employments, in the same way as in
states executioners are appointed, and other officers with cruel but
needful duties to discharge; or whether as among robbers, who infest
desert places, it is customary for them to choose out of their number
one who may be their leader,—so the demons, who are scattered as
it were in troops in different parts of the earth, have chosen for
themselves a chief under whose command they may plunder and pillage the
souls of men. To explain this fully, and to justify the conduct
of the Christians in refusing homage to any object except the Most High
God, and the First-born of all creation, who is His Word and God, we
must quote this from Scripture, “All that ever came before Me are
thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them;” and
again, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and
to destroy;”
Chapter I.
Having completed seven books, I now propose to
begin the eighth. And may God and His Only-begotten Son the Word
be with us, to enable us effectively to refute the falsehoods which
Celsus has published under the delusive title of A True
Discourse, and at the same time to unfold the truths of
Christianity with such fulness as our purpose requires. And as
Paul said, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did
beseech you by us,”
Chapter II.
In a passage previously quoted Celsus asks us why we do not worship demons, and to his remarks on demons we gave such an answer as seemed to us in accordance with the divine word. After having put this question for the purpose of leading us to the worship of demons, he represents us as answering that it is impossible to serve many masters. “This,” he goes on to say, “is the language of sedition, and is only used by those who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those who speak in this way ascribe,” as he supposes, “their own feelings and passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss, it is,” he thinks, “absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods, as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort.” He says also, “He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him.” And he adds, “It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not given honour.” “Wherefore,” he says, “in honouring and worshipping all belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong.”
Chapter III.
Before proceeding to the next point, it may be
well for us to see whether we do not accept with approval the saying,
“No man can serve two masters,” with the addition,
“for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he
will hold to the one, and despise the other,” and further,
“Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
Chapter IV.
The sacred Scriptures teach us to think, in like
manner, of the Lord of lords. For they say in one place,
“Give thanks to the God of gods, for His mercy endureth for
ever. Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His mercy endureth
for ever;” and in another, “God is King of kings, and Lord
of lords.” For Scripture distinguishes between those gods
which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether
they are called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to
the use of the word “lords.” To this effect Paul
says, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords
many.” Plato,
Phædrus, p. 246.
Chapter V.
Whilst there are thus many gods and lords, whereof
some are such in reality, and others are such only in name, we strive
to rise not only above those whom the nations of the earth worship as
gods, but also beyond those spoken of as gods in Scripture, of whom
they are wholly ignorant who are strangers to the covenants of God
given by Moses and by our Saviour Jesus, and who have no part in the
promises which He has made to us through them. That man rises
above all demon-worship who does nothing that is pleasing to demons;
and he rises to a blessedness beyond that of those whom Paul calls
“gods,” if he is enabled, like them, or in any way he may,
“to look not at the things which are seen, but at the things
which are unseen.” And he who considers that “the
earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of
the sons of God, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the
same in hope,” whilst he praises the creature, and sees how
“it shall be freed altogether from the bondage of corruption, and
restored to the glorious liberty of the children of
God,”
Chapter VI.
But when we refuse to serve any other than God through
His word and wisdom, we do so, not as though we would thereby be doing
any harm or injury to God, in the same way as injury would be done to a
man by his servant entering into the service of another, but we fear
that we ourselves should suffer harm by depriving ourselves of our
portion in God, through which we live in the participation of the
divine blessedness, Herod., vii. 136.
Chapter VII.
But when Celsus speaks of heroes and demons, he starts a deeper question than he is aware of. For after the statement which he made in regard to service among men, that “the first master is injured when any of his servants wishes at the same time to serve another,” he adds, that “the same holds true of heroes, and other demons of that kind.” Now we must inquire of him what nature he thinks those heroes and demons possess of whom he affirms that he who serves one hero may not serve another, and he who serves one demon may not serve another, as though the former hero or demon would be injured in the same way as men are injured when they who serve them first afterwards give themselves to the service of others. Let him also state what loss he supposes those heroes or demons will suffer. For he will be driven either to plunge into endless absurdities, and first repeat, then retract his previous statements; or else to abandon his frivolous conjectures, and confess that he understands nothing of the nature of heroes and demons. And in regard to his statement, that men suffer injury when the servant of one man enters the service of a second master, the question arises: “What is the nature of the injury which is done to the former master by a servant who, while serving him, wishes at the same time to serve another?”
Chapter VIII.
For if he answers, as one who is unlearned and ignorant of philosophy, that the injury sustained is one which regards things that are outside of us, it will be plainly manifest that he knows nothing of that famous saying of Socrates, “Anytus and Melitus may kill me, but they cannot injure me; for it is impossible that the better should ever be injured by the worse.” But if by injury he means a wicked impulse or an evil habit, it is plain that no injury of this kind would befall the wise, by one man serving two wise men in different places. If this sense does not suit his purpose, it is evident that his endeavours are vain to weaken the authority of the passage, “No man can serve two masters;” for these words can be perfectly true only when they refer to the service which we render to the Most High through His Son, who leadeth us to God. And we will not serve God as though He stood in need of our service, or as though He would be made unhappy if we ceased to serve Him; but we do it because we are ourselves benefited by the service of God, and because we are freed from griefs and troubles by serving the Most High God through His only-begotten Son, the Word and Wisdom.
Chapter IX.
And observe the recklessness of that expression,
“For if thou worship any other of the things in the
universe,” as though he would have us believe that we are led by
our service of God to the worship of any other things which belong to
God, without any injury to ourselves. But, as if feeling his
error, he corrects the words, “If thou worship any other of the
things in the universe,” by adding, “We may honour none,
however, except those to whom that right has been given by
God.” And we would put to Celsus this question in regard to
those who are honoured as gods, as demons, or as heroes:
“Now, sir, can you prove that the right to be honoured has been
given to these by God, and that it has not arisen from the ignorance
and folly of men who in their wanderings have fallen away from Him to
whom alone worship and service are properly due? You said a
little ago, O Celsus, that Antinous, the favourite of Adrian, is
honoured; but surely you will not say that the right to be worshipped
as a god was given to him by the God of the universe? And so of
the others, we ask proof that the right to be worshipped was given to
them by the Most High God.” But if the same question is put
to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to
be honoured was given to Him by God, “that all may honour the
Son, even as they honour the Father.”
Chapter X.
But that the honour which we pay to the Son of
God, as well as that which we render to God the Father, consists of an
upright course of life, is plainly taught us by the passage,
“Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law
dishonourest thou God?”
Chapter XI.
He adds, “And indeed he who, when speaking of God, asserts that there is only one who may be called Lord, speaks impiously, for he divides the kingdom of God, and raises a sedition therein, implying that there are separate factions in the divine kingdom, and that there exists one who is His enemy.” He might speak after this fashion, if he could prove by conclusive arguments that those who are worshipped as gods by the heathens are truly gods, and not merely evil spirits, which are supposed to haunt statues and temples and altars. But we desire not only to understand the nature of that divine kingdom of which we are continually speaking and writing, but also ourselves to be of those who are under the rule of God alone, so that the kingdom of God may be ours. Celsus, however, who teaches us to worship many gods, ought in consistency not to speak of “the kingdom of God,” but of “the kingdom of the gods.” There are therefore no factions in the kingdom of God, nor is there any god who is an adversary to Him, although there are some who, like the Giants and Titans, in their wickedness wish to contend with God in company with Celsus, and those who declare war against Him who has by innumerable proofs established the claims of Jesus, and against Him who, as the Word, did, for the salvation of our race, show Himself before all the world in such a form as each was able to receive Him.
Chapter XII.
In what follows, some may imagine that he says
something plausible against us. “If,” says he,
“these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would
perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others.
But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared
among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship
also His servant.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had
known that saying, “I and My Father are one,” [See note
infra, cap. xxvi. S.] [ἡ τῆς
ἀληθείας
οὐσία: see
Neander’s History of the Church, vol. ii. pp. 282, 283;
also note supra, book vi. cap. lxiv. p. 603.
S.]
Chapter XIII.
He further supposes, that “because we join
along with the worship of God the worship of His Son, it follows that,
in our view, not only God, but also the servants of God, are to be
worshipped.” If he had meant this to apply to those who are
truly the servants of God, after His only-begotten Son,—to
Gabriel and Michael, and the other angels and archangels, and if he had
said of these that they ought to be worshipped,—if also he had
clearly defined the meaning of the word “worship,” and the
duties of the worshippers,—we might perhaps have brought forward
such thoughts as have occurred to us on so important a subject.
But as he reckons among the servants of God the demons which are
worshipped by the heathen, he cannot induce us, on the plea of
consistency, to worship such as are declared by the word to be servants
of the evil one, the prince of this world, who leads astray from God as
many as he can. We decline, therefore, altogether to worship and
serve those whom other men worship, for the reason that they are not
servants of God. For if we had been taught to regard them as
servants of the Most High, we would not have called them demons.
Accordingly, we worship with all our power the one God, and His only
Son, the Word and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications; and
we offer our petitions to the God of the universe through His
only-begotten Son. To the Son we first present them, and beseech
Him, as “the propitiation for our sins,”
Chapter XIV.
Again Celsus proceeds: “If you should
tell them that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father
of all, and that He alone ought to be truly worshipped, they would not
consent to discontinue their worship of him who is their leader in the
sedition. And they call him Son of God, not out of any extreme
reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus
Christ.” We, however, have learned who the Son of God is,
and know that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express
image of His person,” and “the breath of the power of God,
and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;”
moreover, “the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted
mirror of the power of God, and the image of His
goodness.”
Chapter XV.
Celsus goes on to say: “That I may
give a true representation of their faith, I will use their own words,
as given in what is called A Heavenly Dialogue: ‘If
the Son is mightier than God, [See note, book ii.
cap. ix. p. 433. S.]
Chapter XVI.
The remaining part of the extract given by Celsus seems to have been taken from some other form of heresy, and the whole jumbled together in strange confusion: “How is it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it? Why dost thou shrink with fear when thou hast gone so far on the way? Answer: Thou art mistaken, for I lack neither courage nor weapons.” We who belong to the Church which takes its name from Christ, assert that none of these statements are true. For he seems to have made them simply that they might harmonize with what he had said before; but they have no reference to us. For it is a principle with us, not to worship any god whom we merely “suppose” to exist, but Him alone who is the Creator of this universe, and of all things besides which are unseen by the eye of sense. These remarks of Celsus may apply to those who go on another road and tread other paths from us,—men who deny the Creator, and make to themselves another god under a new form, having nothing but the name of God, whom they esteem higher than the Creator; and with these may be joined any that there may be who say that the Son is greater than the God who rules all things. In reference to the precept that we ought not to serve two masters, we have already shown what appears to us the principle contained in it, when we proved that no sedition or disloyalty could be charged against the followers of Jesus their Lord, who confess that they reject every other lord, and serve Him alone who is the Son and Word of God.
Chapter XVII.
Celsus then proceeds to say that “we shrink
from raising altars, statues, and temples; and this,” he thinks,
“has been agreed upon among us as the badge or distinctive mark
of a secret and forbidden society.” He does not perceive
that we regard the spirit of every good man as an altar from which
arises an incense which is truly and spiritually sweet-smelling,
namely, the prayers ascending from a pure conscience. Therefore
it is said by John in the Revelation, “The odours are the prayers
of saints;”
Chapter XVIII.
And every one who imitates Him according to his
ability, does by this very endeavour raise a statue according to the
image of the Creator, for in the contemplation of God with a pure heart
they become imitators of Him. And, in general, we see that all
Christians strive to raise altars and statues as we have described them
and these not of a lifeless and senseless kind and not to receive
greedy spirits intent upon lifeless things, but to be filled with the
Spirit of God who dwells in the images of virtue of which we have
spoken, and takes His abode in the soul which is conformed to the image
of the Creator. Thus the Spirit of Christ dwells in those who
bear, so to say, a resemblance in form and feature to Himself.
And the Word of God, wishing to set this clearly before us, represents
God as promising to the righteous, “I will dwell in them, and
walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My
people.”
Chapter XIX.
And if, further, temples are to be compared with
temples, that we may prove to those who accept the opinions of Celsus
that we do not object to the erection of temples suited to the images
and altars of which we have spoken, but that we do refuse to build
lifeless temples to the Giver of all life, let any one who chooses
learn how we are taught, that our bodies are the temple of God, and
that if any one by lust or sin defiles the temple of God, he will
himself be destroyed, as acting impiously towards the true
temple. Of all the temples spoken of in this sense, the best and
most excellent was the pure and holy body of our Saviour Jesus
Christ. When He knew that wicked men might aim at the destruction
of the temple of God in Him, but that their purposes of destruction
would not prevail against the divine power which had built that temple,
He says to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it again.…This He said of the temple of His
body.”
There are, then, among the righteous some who are carbuncles, others sapphires, others jaspers, and others crystals, and thus there is among the righteous every kind of choice and precious stone. As to the spiritual meaning of the different stones,—what is their nature, and to what kind of soul the name of each precious stone especially applies,—we cannot at present stay to examine. We have only felt it necessary to show thus briefly what we understand by temples, and what the one Temple of God built of precious stones truly means. For as if in some cities a dispute should arise as to which had the finest temples, those who thought their own were the best would do their utmost to show the excellence of their own temples and the inferiority of the others,—in like manner, when they reproach us for not deeming it necessary to worship the Divine Being by raising lifeless temples, we set before them our temples, and show to such at least as are not blind and senseless, like their senseless gods, that there is no comparison between our statues and the statues of the heathen, nor between our altars, with what we may call the incense ascending from them, and the heathen altars, with the fat and blood of the victims; nor, finally, between the temples of senseless gods, admired by senseless men, who have no divine faculty for perceiving God, and the temples, statues, and altars which are worthy of God. It is not therefore true that we object to building altars, statues, and temples, because we have agreed to make this the badge of a secret and forbidden society; but we do so, because we have learnt from Jesus Christ the true way of serving God, and we shrink from whatever, under a pretence of piety, leads to utter impiety those who abandon the way marked out for us by Jesus Christ. For it is He who alone is the way of piety, as He truly said, “I am the way, the truth, the life.”
Chapter XXI.
Let us see what Celsus further says of God, and
how he urges us to the use of those things which are properly called
idol offerings, or, still better, offerings to demons, although, in his
ignorance of what true sanctity is, and what sacrifices are
well-pleasing to God, he call them “holy sacrifices.”
His words are, “God is the God of all alike; He is good, He
stands in need of nothing, and He is without jealousy. What,
then, is there to hinder those who are most devoted to His service from
taking part in public feasts. I cannot see the connection which
he fancies between God’s being good, and independent, and free
from jealousy, and His devoted servants taking part in public
feasts. I confess, indeed, that from the fact that God is good,
and without want of anything, and free from jealousy, it would follow
as a consequence that we might take part in public feasts, if it were
proved that the public feasts had nothing wrong in them, and were
grounded upon true views of the character of God, so that they resulted
naturally from a devout service of God. If, however, the
so-called public festivals can in no way be shown to accord with the
service of God, but may on the contrary be proved to have been devised
by men when occasion offered to commemorate some human events, or to
set forth certain qualities of water or earth, or the fruits of the
earth,—in that case, it is clear that those who wish to offer an
enlightened worship to the Divine Being will act according to sound
reason, and not take part in the public feasts. For “to
keep a feast,” as one of the wise men of Greece has well said,
“is nothing else than to do one’s duty;” Thucyd., book i. sect.
lxx.
Chapter XXII.
If it be objected to us on this subject that we
ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the
Lord’s day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have
to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts,
words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days
are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the Lord’s
day. He also who is unceasingly preparing himself for the true
life, and abstaining from the pleasures of this life which lead astray
so many,—who is not indulging the lust of the flesh, but
“keeping under his body, and bringing it into
subjection,”—such a one is always keeping
Preparation-day. Again, he who considers that “Christ our
Passover was sacrificed for us,” and that it is his duty to keep
the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never ceases to keep the
paschal feast; for the pascha means a “passover,”
and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words, and deeds, to pass
over from the things of this life to God, and is hastening towards the
city of God. And, finally, he who can truly say, “We are
risen with Christ,” and “He hath exalted us, and made us to
sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ,” is always living in
the season of Pentecost; and most of all, when going up to the upper
chamber, like the apostles of Jesus,
Chapter XXIII.
But the majority of those who are accounted
believers are not of this advanced class; but from being either unable
or unwilling to keep every day in this manner, they require some
sensible memorials to prevent spiritual things from passing altogether
away from their minds. It is to this practice of setting apart
some days distinct from others, that Paul seems to me to refer in the
expression, “part of the feast;” [Dr. Hessey
notes this as “a curious comment” of Origen’s on St.
Paul’s language: Bampton Lectures, On Sunday: its
Origin, History, and Present Obligation, pp. 48, 286–289, 4th
ed. S.]
Chapter XXIV.
Let us now see on what grounds Celsus urges us to
make use of the idol offerings and the public sacrifices in the public
feasts. His words are, “If these idols are nothing, what
harm will there be in taking part in the feast? On the other
hand, if they are demons, it is certain that they too are God’s
creatures, and that we must believe in them, sacrifice to them
according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be
propitious.” In reference to this statement, it would be
profitable for us to take up and clearly explain the whole passage of
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul treats of offerings
to idols.
Chapter XXV.
Celsus says that “the demons belong to God, and
are therefore to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to laws,
and to be prayed to that they may be propitious.” Those who
are disposed to learn, must know that the word of God nowhere says of
evil things that they belong to God, for it judges them unworthy of
such a Lord. Accordingly, it is not all men who bear the name of
“men of God,” but only those who are worthy of
God,—such as Moses and Elias, and any others who are so called,
or such as resemble those who are so called in Scripture. In the
same way, all angels are not said to be angels of God, but only those
that are blessed: those that have fallen away into sin are called
“angels of the devil,” just as bad men are called
“men of sin,” “sons of perdition,” or
“sons of iniquity.” Since, then, among men some are
good and others bad, and the former are said to be God’s and the
latter the devil’s, so among angels some are angels of God, and
others angels of the devil. But among demons there is no such
dis
Chapter XXVI.
And we are not to believe in demons, although
Celsus urges us to do so; but if we are to obey God, we must die, or
endure anything, sooner than obey demons. In the same way, we are
not to propitiate demons; for it is impossible to propitiate beings
that are wicked and that seek the injury of men. Besides, what
are the laws in accordance with which Celsus would have us propitiate
the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states, he must show
that they are in agreement with the divine laws. But if that
cannot be done, as the laws of many states are quite inconsistent with
each other, these laws, therefore, must of necessity either be no laws
at all in the proper sense of the word, or else the enactments of
wicked men; and these we must not obey, for “we must obey God
rather than men.” Away, then, with this counsel, which
Celsus gives us, to offer prayer to demons: it is not to be
listened to for a moment; for our duty is to pray to the Most High God
alone, and to the Only-begotten, the First-born of the whole creation,
and to ask Him as our High Priest to present the prayers which ascend
to Him from us, to His God and our God, to His Father and the Father of
those who direct their lives according to His word. [See
Liddon’s Bampton Lectures on The Divinity of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, p. 383, where it is pointed out that
“Origen often insists upon the worship of Christ as being a
Christian duty.” S.]
Chapter XXVII.
And Christians have nothing to fear, even if
demons should not be well-disposed to them; for they are protected by
the Supreme God, who is well pleased with their piety, and who sets His
divine angels to watch over those who are worthy of such guardianship,
so that they can suffer nothing from demons. He who by his piety
possesses the favour of the Most High, who has accepted the guidance of
Jesus, the “Angel of the great counsel,”
Chapter XXVIII.
We shall now proceed to the next statement of
Celsus, and examine it with care: “If in obedience to the
traditions of their fathers they abstain from such victims, they must
also abstain from all animal food, in accordance with the opinions of
Pythagoras, who thus showed his respect for the soul and its bodily
organs. But if, as they say, they abstain that they may not eat
along with demons, I admire their wisdom, in having at length
discovered, that whenever they eat they eat with demons, although they
only refuse to do so when they are looking upon a slain victim; for
when they eat bread, or drink wine, or taste fruits, do they not
receive these things, as well as the water they drink and the air they
breathe, from certain demons, to whom have been assigned these
different provinces of nature?” Here I would observe that I
cannot see how those whom he speaks of as abstaining from certain
victims, in accordance with the traditions of their fathers, are
consequently bound to abstain from the flesh of all animals. We
do not indeed deny that the divine word does seem to command something
similar to this, when to raise us to a higher and purer life it says,
“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything
whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made
weak;”
But it is to be observed that the Jews, who claim
for themselves a correct understanding of the law of Moses, carefully
restrict their food to such things as are accounted clean, and abstain
from those that are unclean. They also do not use in their food
the blood of an animal nor the flesh of an animal torn by wild beasts,
and some other things which it would take too long for us at present to
detail. But Jesus, wishing to lead all men by His teaching to the
pure worship and service of God, and anxious not to throw any hindrance
in the way of many who might be benefited by Christianity, through the
imposition of a burdensome code of rules in regard to food, has laid it
down, that “not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,
but that which cometh out of the mouth; for whatsoever entereth in at
the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth are evil thoughts when
spoken, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.”
Chapter XXX.
For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed
to demons, and a man of God must not join the table of demons. As
to things strangled, we are forbidden by Scripture to partake of them,
because the blood is still in them; and blood, especially the odour
arising from blood, is said to be the food of demons. Perhaps,
then, if we were to eat of strangled animals, we might have such
spirits feeding along with us. And the reason which forbids the
use of strangled animals for food is also applicable to the use of
blood. And it may not be amiss, as bearing on this point, to
recall a beautiful saying in the writings of Sextus, [Sextus, or
Xystus. See note of Spencer in Migne. S.] [
Chapter XXXI.
Celsus afterwards states what is adduced by Jews and
Christians alike in defence of abstinence from idol sacrifices, namely,
that it is wrong for those who have dedicated themselves to the Most
High God to eat with demons. What he brings forward against this
view, we have already seen. In our opinion, a man can only be
said to eat and drink with demons when he eats the flesh of what are
called sacred victims, and when he drinks the wine poured out to the
honour of the demons. But Celsus thinks that we cannot eat bread
or drink wine in any way whatever, or taste fruits, or even take a
draught of water, without eating and drinking with demons. He
adds also, that the air which we breathe is received from demons, and
that not an animal can breathe without receiving the air from the
demons who are set over the air. If any one wishes to defend this
statement of Celsus, let him show that it is not the divine angels of
god, but demons, the whole race of whom are bad, that have been
appointed to communicate all those blessings which have been
mentioned. We indeed also maintain with re
Chapter XXXII.
The Psalmist bears witness that divine justice
employs certain evil angels to inflict calamities upon men:
“He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and
indignation, and trouble, sent by evil angels.”
Chapter XXXIII.
From this it is evident that we have already met the
next statement of Celsus, which is as follows: “We must
either not live, and indeed not come into this life at all, or we must
do so on condition that we give thanks and first-fruits and prayers to
demons, who have been set over the things of this world: and that
we must do as long as we live, that they may prove good and
kind.” We must surely live, and we must live according to
the word of God, as far as we are enabled to do so. And we are
thus enabled to live, when, “whether we eat or drink, we do all
to the glory of God;” and we are not to refuse to enjoy those
things which have been created for our use, but must receive them with
thanksgiving to the Creator. And it is under these conditions,
and not such as have been imagined by Celsus, that we have been brought
into life by God; and we are not placed under demons, but we are under
the government of the Most High God, through Him who hath brought us to
God—Jesus Christ. It is not according to the law of God
that any demon has had a share in worldly affairs, but it was by their
own lawlessness that they perhaps sought out for themselves places
destitute of the knowledge of God and of the divine life, or places
where there are many enemies of God. Perhaps also, as being fit
to rule over and punish them, they have been set by the Word, who
governs all things, to rule over those who subjected themselves to evil
and not to God. For this reason, then, let Celsus, as one who
knows not God, give thank-offerings to demons. But we give thanks
to the Creator of all,
Chapter XXXIV.
Celsus would also have us to offer first-fruits to
demons. But we would offer them to Him who said, “Let the
earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the
earth.”
Chapter XXXV.
Now let us consider another saying of Celsus,
which is as follows: “The satrap of a Persian or Roman
monarch, or ruler or general or governor, yea, even those who fill
lower offices of trust or service in the state, would be able to do
great injury to those who despised them; and will the satraps and
ministers of earth and air be insulted with impunity?”
Observe now how he introduces servants of the Most High—rulers,
generals, governors, and those filling lower offices of trust and
service—as, after the manner of men, inflicting injury upon those
who insult them. For he does not consider that a wise man would
not wish to do harm to any, but would strive to the utmost of his power
to change and amend them; unless, indeed, it be that those whom Celsus
makes servants and rulers appointed by the Most High are behind
Lycurgus, the lawgiver of the Lacedæmonians, or Zeno of
Citium. For when Lycurgus had had his eye put out by a man, he
got the offender into his power; but instead of taking revenge upon
him, he ceased not to use all his arts of persuasion until he induced
him to become a philosopher. And Zeno, on the occasion of some
one saying, “Let me perish rather than not have my revenge on
thee,” answered him, “But rather let me perish if I do not
make a friend of thee.” And I am not yet speaking of those
whose characters have been formed by the teaching of Jesus, and who
have heard the words, “Love your enemies, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, that ye may be the children of your Father which
is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Chapter XXXVI.
But the angels, who are the true rulers and generals and
ministers of God, do not, as Celsus supposes, “injure those who
offend them;” and if certain demons, whom Celsus had in mind, do
inflict evils, they show that they are wicked, and that they have
received no office of the kind from God. And they even do injury
to those who are under them, and who have acknowledged them as their
masters; and accordingly, as it would seem that those who break through
the regulations which prevail in any country in regard to matters of
food, suffer for
Chapter XXXVII.
In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is
addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus; and mixing
up other notions with theirs, he absurdly attributes them all to
Christians. “If,” says he, “they who are
addressed are called upon by barbarous names, they will have power, but
no longer will they have any if they are addressed in Greek or
Latin.” Let him, then, state plainly whom we call upon for
help by barbarous names. Any one will be convinced that this is a
false charge which Celsus brings against us, when he considers that
Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names which divine
Scripture applies to God; but the Greeks use Greek names, the Romans
Latin names, and every one prays and sings praises to God as he best
can, in his mother tongue. For the Lord of all the languages of
the earth hears those who pray to Him in each different tongue,
hearing, if I may so say, but one voice, expressing itself in different
dialects. [A very express
testimony in favour “of speaking in the congregation in such a
tongue as the people understandeth” (Art. XXIV. of Church of
England). See Rev. H. Cary’s Testimonies of the Fathers
of the First Four Centuries, etc., p. 287, Oxford, 1835.
S.]
Chapter XXXVIII.
He next represents Christians as saying what he
never heard from any Christian; or if he did, it must have been from
one of the most ignorant and lawless of the people.
“Behold,” they are made to say, “I go up to a statue
of Jupiter or Apollo, or some other god: I revile it, and beat
it, yet it takes no vengeance on me.” He is not aware that
among the prohibitions of the divine law is this, “Thou shalt not
revile the gods,”
Chapter XXXIX.
After putting such words into our mouth, and maliciously
charging Christians with sentiments which they never held, he then
proceeds to give to this supposed expression of Christian feeling an
answer, which is indeed more a mockery than an answer, when he says,
“Do you not see, good sir, that even your own demon is not only
reviled, but banished from every land and sea, and you yourself, who
are as it were an image dedicated to him, are bound and led to
punishment, and fastened to the stake, whilst your demon—or, as
you call him, ‘the Son of God’—takes no vengeance on
the evil-doer?” This answer would be admissible if we
employed such language as he ascribes to us; although even then
Chapter XL.
Such is our doctrine of punishment; and the
inculcation of this doctrine turns many from their sins. But let
us see, on the other hand, what is the response given on this subject
by the priest of Jupiter or Apollo of whom Celsus speaks. It is
this: “The mills of the gods grind slowly.” “The mills of
the gods grind slowly, but they grind to powder”
(Plutarch): [De Sera Numinis Vindicta, sect. iii.
S.] Hom. Il.,
xx. 308.
Chapter XLI.
He then goes on to rail against us after the
manner of old wives. “You,” says he, “mock and
revile the statues of our gods; but if you had reviled Bacchus or
Hercules in person, you would not perhaps have done so with
impunity. But those who crucified your God when present among
men, suffered nothing for it, either at the time or during the whole of
their lives. And what new thing has there happened since then to
make us believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God?
And forsooth, he who sent his Son with certain instructions for
mankind, allowed him to be thus cruelly treated, and his instructions
to perish with him, without ever during all this long time showing the
slightest concern. What father was ever so inhuman?
Perhaps, indeed, you may say that he suffered so much, because it was
his wish to bear what came to him. But it is open to those whom
you maliciously revile, to adopt the same language, and say that they
wish to be reviled, and therefore they bear it with patience; for it is
best to deal equally with both sides,—although these (gods)
severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide
himself, or be taken and perish.” Now to these statements I
would answer that we revile no one, for we believe that “revilers
will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Chapter XLII.
There is an inconsistency into which, strangely enough,
Celsus has fallen unawares. Those demons or gods whom he extolled
a little before, he now shows to be in fact the vilest of creatures,
punishing more for their own revenge than for the improvement of those
who revile them. His words are, “If you had reviled Bacchus
or Hercules when present in person, you would not have escaped with
impunity.” How any one can hear without being present in
person, I leave
Chapter XLIII.
Some new thing, then, has come to pass since the
time that Jesus suffered,—that, I mean, which has happened to the
city, to the whole nation, and in the sudden and general rise of a
Christian community. And that, too, is a new thing, that those
who were strangers to the covenants of God, with no part in His
promises, and far from the truth, have by a divine power been enabled
to embrace the truth. These things were not the work of an
impostor, but were the work of God, who sent His Word, Jesus Christ, to
make known His purposes. ἀγγελμάτων.
Spencer reads ἀγαλμάτων in
this and the following sentences.
Chapter XLIV.
But when the souls of those who die for the Christian
faith depart from the body with great glory, they destroy the power of
the demons, and frustrate their designs against men. Wherefore I
imagine, that as the demons have learnt from experience that they are
defeated and overpowered by the martyrs for the truth, they are afraid
to have recourse again to violence. And thus, until they forget
the defeats they have sustained, it is probable that the world will be
at peace with the Christians. But when they recover their power,
and, with eyes blinded by sin, wish again to take their revenge on
Christians, and persecute them, then again they will be defeated, and
then again the souls of the godly, who lay down their lives for the
cause of godliness, shall utterly destroy the army of the wicked
one. And as the demons perceive that those who meet death
victoriously for the sake of religion destroy their authority, while
those who give way under their sufferings, and deny the faith, come
under their power, I Euripides,
Hippolytus, 612.
Chapter XLV.
Let us see what Celsus next goes on to say. It is as follows: “What need is there to collect all the oracular responses, which have been delivered with a divine voice by priests and priestesses, as well as by others, whether men or women, who were under a divine influence?—all the wonderful things that have been heard issuing from the inner sanctuary?—all the revelations that have been made to those who consulted the sacrificial victims?—and all the knowledge that has been conveyed to men by other signs and prodigies? To some the gods have appeared in visible forms. The world is full of such instances. How many cities have been built in obedience to commands received from oracles; how often, in the same way, delivered from disease and famine! Or again, how many cities, from disregard or forgetfulness of these oracles, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been established and made to flourish by following their orders! How many princes and private persons have, from this cause, had prosperity or adversity! How many who mourned over their childlessness, have obtained the blessing they asked for! How many have turned away from themselves the anger of demons! How many who were maimed in their limbs, have had them restored! And again, how many have met with summary punishment for showing want of reverence to the temples—some being instantly seized with madness, others openly confessing their crimes, others having put an end to their lives, and others having become the victims of incurable maladies! Yea, some have been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary.” I know not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts, whilst at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least, these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had come in their way.
Chapter XLVI.
It is related of the priestess of Apollo, that she
at times allowed herself to be influenced in her answers by bribes; but
our prophets were admired for their plain truthfulness, not only by
their contemporaries, but also by those who lived in later times.
For through the commands pronounced by the prophets cities were
founded, men were cured, and plagues were stayed. Indeed, the
whole Jewish race went out as a colony from Egypt to Palestine, in
accordance with the divine oracles. They also, when they followed
the commands of God, were prosperous; when they departed from them,
they suffered reverses. What need is there to quote all the
princes and private persons in Scripture history who fared well or ill
according as they obeyed or despised the words of the prophets?
If we refer to those who were unhappy because they were childless, but
who, after offering prayers to the Creator of all, became fathers and
mothers, let any one read the accounts of Abraham and Sarah, to whom at
an advanced age was born Isaac, the father of the whole Jewish
nation: and there are other instances of the same thing.
Let him also read the account of Hezekiah, who not only recovered from
his sickness, according to the prediction of Isaiah, but was also bold
enough to say, “Afterwards I shall beget children, who shall
declare Thy righteousness.” [
But the Greeks will say that these accounts are
fabulous, although two whole nations are witnesses to their
truth. But why may we not consider the accounts of the Greeks as
fabulous rather than those? Perhaps some one, however, wishing
not to appear blindly to accept his own statements and reject those of
others, would conclude, after a close examination of the matter, that
the wonders mentioned by the Greeks were performed by certain demons;
those among the Jews by prophets or by angels, or by God through the
means of angels; and those recorded by Christians by Jesus Himself, or
by His power working in His apostles. Let us, then, compare all
these accounts together; let us examine into the aim and purpose of
those who performed them; and let us inquire what effect was produced
upon the persons on whose account these acts of kindness were
performed, whether beneficial or hurtful, or neither the one nor the
other. The ancient Jewish people, before they sinned against God,
and were for their great wickedness cast off by Him, must evidently
have been a people of great wisdom. φιλόσοφον.
Chapter XLVIII.
In the next place, Celsus, after referring to the enthusiasm with which men will contend unto death rather than abjure Christianity, adds strangely enough some remarks, in which he wishes to show that our doctrines are similar to those delivered by the priests at the celebration of the heathen mysteries. He says, “Just as you, good sir, believe in eternal punishments, so also do the priests who interpret and initiate into the sacred mysteries. The same punishments with which you threaten others, they threaten you. Now it is worthy of examination, which of the two is more firmly established as true; for both parties contend with equal assurance that the truth is on their side. But if we require proofs, the priests of the heathen gods produce many that are clear and convincing, partly from wonders performed by demons, and partly from the answers given by oracles, and various other modes of divination.” He would, then, have us believe that we and the interpreters of the mysteries equally teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, and that it is a matter for inquiry on which side of the two the truth lies. Now I should say that the truth lies with those who are able to induce their hearers to live as men who are convinced of the truth of what they have heard. But Jews and Christians have been thus affected by the doctrines they hold about what we speak of as the world to come, and the rewards of the righteous, and the punishments of the wicked. Let Celsus then, or any one who will, show us who have been moved in this way in regard to eternal punishments by the teaching of heathen priests and mystagogues. For surely the purpose of him who brought to light this doctrine was not only to reason upon the subject of punishments, and to strike men with terror of them, but to induce those who heard the truth to strive with all their might against those sins which are the causes of punishment. And those who study the prophecies with care, and are not content with a cursory perusal of the predictions contained in them, will find them such as to convince the intelligent and sincere reader that the Spirit of God was in those men, and that with their writings there is nothing in all the works of demons, responses of oracles, or sayings of soothsayers, for one moment to be compared.
Chapter XLIX.
Let us see in what terms Celsus next addresses us:
“Besides, is it not most absurd and inconsistent in you, on the
one hand, to make so much of the body as you do—to expect that
the same body will rise again, as though it were the best and most
precious part of us; and yet, on the other, to expose it to such
tortures as though it were worthless? But men who hold such
notions, and are so attached to the body, are not worthy of being
reasoned with; for in this and in other respects they show themselves
to be gross, impure, and bent upon revolting without any reason from
the common belief. But I shall direct my discourse to those who
hope for the enjoyment of eternal life with God by means of the soul or
mind, whether they choose to call it a spiritual substance, an
intelli
Chapter L.
But since he reproaches us with too great an
anxiety about the body, let him know that when that feeling is a wrong
one we do not share in it, and when it is indifferent we only long for
that which God has promised to the righteous. But Celsus
considers that we are inconsistent with ourselves when we count the
body worthy of honour from God, and therefore hope for its
resurrection, and yet at the same time expose it to tortures as though
it were not worthy of honour. But surely it is not without honour
for the body to suffer for the sake of godliness, and to choose
afflictions on account of virtue: the dishonourable thing would
be for it to waste its powers in vicious indulgence. For the
divine word says: “What is an honourable seed? The
seed of man. What is a dishonourable seed? The seed of
man.”
Chapter LI.
In the next place, he expresses his approval of
those who “hope that eternal life shall be enjoyed with God by
the soul or mind, or, as it is variously called, the spiritual nature,
the reasonable soul, intelligent, holy, and blessed;” and he
allows the soundness of the doctrine, “that those who had a good
life shall be happy, and the unrighteous shall suffer eternal
punishments.” And yet I wonder at what follows, more than
at anything that Celsus has ever said; for he adds, “And from
this doctrine let not them or any one ever swerve.” For
certainly in writing against Christians, the very essence of whose
faith is God, and the promises made by Christ to the righteous, and His
warnings of punishment awaiting the wicked, he must see that, if a
Christian were brought to renounce Christianity by his arguments
against it, it is beyond doubt that, along with his Christian faith, he
would cast off the very doctrine from which he says that no Christian
and no man should ever swerve. But I think Celsus has been far
surpassed in consideration for his fellow-men by Chrysippus in his
treatise, On the Subjugation of the Passions. For when he
sought to apply remedies to the affections and passions which oppress
and distract the human spirit, after employing such arguments as seemed
to himself to be strong, he did not shrink from using in the second and
third place others which he did not himself approve of.
“For,” says he, “if it were held by any one that
there are three kinds of good, we must seek to regulate the passions in
accordance with that supposition; and we must not too curiously inquire
into the opinions held by a person at the time that he is under the
influence of passion, lest, if we delay too long for the purpose of
overthrowing the opinions by which the mind is possessed, the
opportunity for curing the passion may pass away.” And he
adds, “Thus, supposing that pleasure were the highest good, or
that he was of that opinion whose mind was under the dominion of
passion, we should not the less give him help, and show that, even on
the principle that pleasure is the highest and final good of man, all
passion is disallowed.” And Celsus, in like manner, after
having embraced the doctrine, “that the righteous shall be
blessed, and the wicked shall suffer eternal punishments,” should
have followed out his subject; and, after having advanced what seemed
to him the chief argu
Chapter LII.
For we who have been persuaded by many, yea by
innumerable, arguments to lead a Christian life, are especially anxious
to bring all men as far as possible to receive the whole system of
Christian truth; but when we meet with persons who are prejudiced by
the calumnies thrown out against Christians, and who, from a notion
that Christians are an impious people, will not listen to any who offer
to instruct them in the principles of the divine word, then, on the
common principles of humanity, we endeavour to the best of our ability
to convince them of the doctrine of the punishment of the wicked, and
to induce even those who are unwilling to become Christians to accept
that truth. And we are thus anxious to persuade them of the
rewards of right living, when we see that many things which we teach
about a healthy moral life are also taught by the enemies of our
faith. For you will find that they have not entirely lost the
common notions of right and wrong, of good and evil. Let all men,
therefore, when they look upon the universe, observe the constant
revolution of the unerring stars, the converse motion of the planets,
the constitution of the atmosphere, and its adaptation to the
necessities of the animals, and especially of man, with all the
innumerable contrivances for the well-being of mankind; and then, after
thus considering the order of the universe, let them beware of doing
ought which is displeasing to the Creator of this universe, of the soul
and its intelligent principle; and let them rest assured that
punishment shall be inflicted on the wicked, and rewards shall be
bestowed upon the righteous, by Him who deals with every one as he
deserves, and who will proportion His rewards to the good that each has
done, and to the account of himself that he is able to give. [
Chapter LIII.
Having said so much on this subject, let us proceed to
another statement of Celsus: “Since men are born united to
a body, whether to suit the order of the universe, or that they may in
that way suffer the punishment of sin; or because the soul is oppressed
by certain passions until it is purged from these at the appointed
period of time,—for, according to Empedocles, all mankind must be
banished from the abodes of the blessed for 30,000 periods of
time,—we must therefore believe that they are entrusted to
certain beings as keepers of this prison-house.” You will
observe that Celsus, in these remarks, speaks of such weighty matters
in the language of doubtful human conjecture. He adds also
various opinions as to the origin of man, and shows considerable
reluctance to set down any of these opinions as false. When he
had once come to the conclusion neither indiscriminately to accept nor
recklessly to reject the opinions held by the ancients, would it not
have been in accordance with that same rule of judging, if, when he
found himself not disposed to believe the doctrines taught by the
Jewish prophets and by Jesus, at any rate to have held them as matters
open to inquiry? And should he not have considered whether it is
very probable that a people who faithfully served the Most High God,
and who ofttimes encountered numberless dangers, and even death, rather
than sacrifice the honour of God, and what they believed to be the
revelations of His will, should have been wholly overlooked by
God? Should it not rather be thought probable that people who
despised the efforts of human art to represent the Divine Being, but
strove rather to rise in thought to the knowledge of the Most High,
should have been favoured with some revelation from Himself?
Besides, he ought to have considered that the common Father and Creator
of all, who sees and hears all things, and who duly esteems the
intention of every man who seeks Him and desires to serve Him, will
grant unto these also some of the benefits of His rule, and will give
them an enlargement of that knowledge of Himself which He has once
bestowed upon them. If this had been remembered by Celsus and the
others who hate Moses and the Jewish prophets, and Jesus, and His
faithful disciples, who endured so much for the sake of His word, they
would not thus have reviled Moses, and the prophets, and Jesus, and His
apostles; and they would not have singled out for their contempt the
Jews beyond all the nations of the earth, and said they were worse even
than the Egyptians,—a people who, either from superstition or
some other form of delusion, went as far as they could in degrading the
Divine Being to the level of brute beasts. And we invite inquiry,
not as though we wished to lead any to doubt regarding the truths of
Christianity, but in order to show that it would be better for those
who in every way revile the doctrines of Christianity, at any rate to
suspend their judgment, and not so rashly to state about Jesus and His
apostles such things as they do not know, and as they cannot prove,
either by καταληπτικὴ
φαντασία.
Chapter LIV.
When Celsus adds, “We must therefore believe
that men are entrusted to certain beings who are the keepers of this
prison-house,” our answer is, that the souls of those who are
called by Jeremiah “prisoners of the earth,”
Chapter LV.
Celsus goes on to say: “They must make their
choice between two alternatives. If they refuse to render due
service to the gods, and to respect those who are set over this
service, let them not come to manhood, or marry wives, or have
children, or indeed take any share in the affairs of life; but let them
depart hence with all speed, and leave no posterity behind them, that
such a race may become extinct from the face of the earth. Or, on
the other hand, if they will take wives, and bring up children, and
taste of the fruits of the earth, and partake of all the blessings of
life, and bear its appointed sorrows (for nature herself hath allotted
sorrows to all men; for sorrows must exist, and earth is the only place
for them), then must they discharge the duties of life until they are
released from its bonds, and render due honour to those beings who
control the affairs of this life, if they would not show themselves
ungrateful to them. For it would be unjust in them, after
receiving the good things which they dispense, to pay them no tribute
in return.” To this we reply, that there appears to us to
be no good reason for our leaving this world, except when piety and
virtue require it; as when, for example, those who are set as judges,
and think that they have power over our lives, place before us the
alternative either to live in violation of the commands of Jesus, or to
die if we continue obedient to them. But God has allowed us to
marry, because all are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly
pure life; and God would have us to bring up all our children, and not
to destroy
Chapter LVI.
Although, therefore, Celsus would, in his own
words, “drive us with all haste out of life,” so that
“such a race may become extinct from the earth;” yet we,
along with those who worship the Creator, will live according to the
laws of God, never consenting to obey the laws of sin. We will
marry if we wish, and bring up the children given to us in marriage;
and if need be, we will not only partake of the blessings of life, but
bear its appointed sorrows as a trial to our souls. For in this
way is divine Scripture accustomed to speak of human afflictions, by
which, as gold is tried in the fire, so the spirit of man is tried, and
is found to be worthy either of condemnation or of praise. For
those things which Celsus calls evils we are therefore prepared, and
are ready to say, “Try me, O Lord, and prove me; purge my reins
and my heart.”
Chapter LVII.
Celsus supposes that men “discharge the duties of life until they are loosened from its bonds,” when, in accordance with commonly received customs, they offer sacrifices to each of the gods recognised in the state; and he fails to perceive the true duty which is fulfilled by an earnest piety. For we say that he truly discharges the duties of life who is ever mindful who is his Creator, and what things are agreeable to Him, and who acts in all things so that he may please God. Again, Celsus wishes us to be thankful to these demons, imagining that we owe them thank-offerings. But we, while recognising the duty of thankfulness, maintain that we show no ingratitude by refusing to give thanks to beings who do us no good, but who rather set themselves against us when we neither sacrifice to them nor worship them. We are much more concerned lest we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with His benefits, whose workmanship we are, who cares for us in whatever condition we may be, and who has given us hopes of things beyond this present life. And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist. Besides, as we have shown before, the demons have not the control of those things which have been created for our use; we commit no wrong, therefore, when we partake of created things, and yet refuse to offer sacrifices to beings who have no concern with them. Moreover, as we know that it is not demons, but angels, who have been set over the fruits of the earth, and over the birth of animals, it is the latter that we praise and bless, as having been appointed by God over the things needful for our race; yet even to them we will not give the honour which is due to God. For this would not be pleasing to God, nor would it be any pleasure to the angels themselves to whom these things have been committed. Indeed, they are much more pleased if we refrain from offering sacrifices to them than if we offer them; for they have no desire for the sacrificial odours which rise from the earth.
Chapter LVIII.
Celsus goes on to say: “Let any one inquire
of the Egyptians, and he will find that everything, even to the most
insignificant, is committed to the care of a certain demon. The
body of man is divided into thirty-six parts, and as many demons of the
air are appointed to the care of it, each having charge of a different
part, although others make the number much larger. All these
demons have in the language of that country distinct names; as
Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor,
Reianoor, and other such Egyptian names. Moreover, they call upon
them, and are cured of diseases of particular parts of the body.
What, then, is there to prevent a man from giving honour to these or to
others, if he would
Chapter LIX.
Probably those who embrace the views of Celsus
will smile at us when we say, “At the name of Jesus every knee
shall bow, of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things under
the earth, and every tongue” is brought to “confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Chapter LX.
Celsus, however, suspecting that the tendency of
such teaching as he here gives is to lead to magic, and dreading that
harm may arise from these statements, adds: “Care, however,
must be taken lest any one, by familiarizing his mind with these
matters, should become too much engrossed with them, and lest, through
an excessive regard for the body, he should have his mind turned away
from higher things, and allow them to pass into oblivion. For
perhaps we ought not to despise the opinion of those wise men who say
that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence,
blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such sensual things; and
therefore they are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell
the fortunes of men and cities, and do other such things as relate to
this mortal life.” If there is, then, such a dangerous
tendency in this direction, as even the enemy of the truth of God
confesses, how much better is it to avoid all danger of giving
ourselves too much up to the power of such demons, and of becoming
turned aside from higher things, and suffering them to pass into
oblivion through an excessive attention to the body; by entrusting
ourselves to the Supreme God through Jesus Christ, who has given us
such instruction, and asking of Him all help, and the guardianship of
holy and good angels, to defend us from the earth-spirits intent on
lust, and blood, and sacrificial odours, [Observe this
traditional objection to incense. Comp. vol. ii. p. 532.]
Chapter LXI.
For consider with yourself which disposition of mind
will be more acceptable to the Most High, whose power is supreme and
universal, and who directs all for the welfare of mankind in body, and
in mind, and in outward things,—whether that of the man who gives
himself up to God in all things, or that of the man who is curiously
inquisitive about the names of demons, their powers and agency, the
incantations, the herbs proper to them, and the stones with the
inscriptions graven on them, corresponding sym
Chapter LXII.
In a former passage, Celsus had spoken at length on the subject of oracles, and had referred us to their answers as being the voice of the gods; but now he makes amends, and confesses that “those who foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and concern themselves about mortal affairs, are earth-spirits, who are given up to fleshly lust, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such things, and who are unable to rise above these sensual objects.” Perhaps, when we opposed the theological teaching of Celsus in regard to oracles, and the honour done to those called gods, some one might suspect us of impiety when we alleged that these were stratagems of demoniacal powers, to draw men away to carnal indulgence. But any who entertained this suspicion against us, may now believe that the statements put forth by Christians were well-founded, when they see the above passage from the writings of one who is a professed adversary of Christianity, but who now at length writes as one who has been overcome by the spirit of truth. Although, therefore, Celsus says that “we must offer sacrifices to them, in so far as they are profitable to us, for to offer them indiscriminately is not allowed by reason,” yet we are not to offer sacrifices to demons addicted to blood and odours; nor is the Divine Being to be profaned in our minds, by being brought down to the level of wicked demons. If Celsus had carefully weighed the meaning of the word “profitable,” and had considered that the truest profit lies in virtue and in virtuous action, he would not have applied the phrase “as far as it is profitable” to the service of such demons, as he has acknowledged them to be. If, then, health of body and success in life were to come to us on condition of our serving such demons, we should prefer sickness and misfortune accompanied with the consciousness of our being truly devoted to the will of God. For this is preferable to being mortally diseased in mind, and wretched through being separate and outcasts from God, though healthy in body and abounding in earthly prosperity. And we would rather go for help to one who seeks nothing whatever but the well-being of men and of all rational creatures, than to those who delight in blood and sacrificial odours.
Chapter LXIII.
After having said so much of the demons, and of their
fondness for blood and the odour of sacrifices, Celsus adds, as though
wishing to retract the charge he had made: “The more just
opinion is, that demons desire nothing and need nothing, but that they
take pleasure in those who discharge towards them offices of
piety.” If Celsus believed this to be true, he should have
said so, instead of making his previous statements. But, indeed,
human nature is never utterly forsaken by God and His only-begotten
Son, the Truth. Wherefore even Celsus spoke the truth when he
made the demons take pleasure in the blood and smoke of victims;
although, by the force of his own evil nature, he falls back into his
errors, and compares demons with men who rigorously discharge every
duty, even to those who show no gratitude; while to those who are
grateful they abound in acts of kindness. Here Celsus appears to
me to get into confusion. At one time his judgment is darkened by
the influence of demons, and at another he recovers from their deluding
power, and gets some glimpses of the truth. For again he
adds: “We must never in any way lose our hold of God,
whether by day or by night, whether in public or in secret, whether in
word or in deed, but in whatever we do, or abstain from
doing.” That is, as I understand it, whatever we do in
public, in all our actions, in all our words, “let the soul be
constantly fixed upon God.” And yet again, as though, after
struggling in argument against the insane inspirations of demons, he
were completely overcome by them, he adds: “If this is the
case, what harm is there in gaining the favour of the rulers of the
earth, whether of a nature different from ours, or human princes and
kings? For these have gained their dignity through the
instrumentality of demons.” In a former part, Celsus did
his utmost to debase our souls to the worship of demons; and now he
wishes us to
Chapter LXIV.
There is therefore One whose favour we should
seek, and to whom we ought to pray that He would be gracious to
us—the Most High God, whose favour is gained by piety and the
practice of every virtue. And if he would have us to seek the
favour of others after the Most High God, let him consider that, as the
motion of the shadow follows that of the body which casts it, so in
like manner it follows, that when we have the favour of God, we have
also the good-will of all angels and spirits who are friends of
God. For they know who are worthy of the divine approval, and
they are not only well disposed to them, but they co-operate with them
in their endeavours to please God: they seek His favour on their
behalf; with their prayers they join their own prayers and
intercessions for them. We may indeed boldly say, that men who
aspire after better things have, when they pray to God, tens of
thousands of sacred powers upon their side. These, even when not
asked, pray with them, they bring succour to our mortal race, and if I
may so say, take up arms alongside of it: for they see demons
warring and fighting most keenly against the salvation of those who
devote themselves to God, and despise the hostility of demons; they see
them savage in their hatred of the man who refuses to serve them with
the blood and fumes of sacrifices, but rather strives in every way, by
word and deed, to be in peace and union with the Most High through
Jesus, who put to flight multitudes of demons when He went about
“healing,” and delivering “all who were oppressed by
the devil.”
Chapter LXV.
Moreover, we are to despise ingratiating ourselves
with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by
murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves
impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and
obsequiousness, which things are unworthy of brave and high-principled
men, who aim at joining with their other virtues that highest of
virtues, patience and fortitude. But whilst we do nothing which
is contrary to the law and word of God, we are not so mad as to stir up
against us the wrath of kings and princes, which will bring upon us
sufferings and tortures, or even death. For we read:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God.”
Chapter LXVI.
Then Celsus, following the example of those who are
under the influence of demons—at one time recovering, at another
relapsing, as though he were again becoming sensible—says:
“If, however, any worshipper of God should be ordered to do
anything impious, or to say anything base, such a command should in no
wise be regarded; but we must encounter all kinds of torment, or submit
to any kind of death, rather than say or even think anything unworthy
of God.” Again, however, from ignorance of our principles,
and in entire confusion of thought, he says: “But if any
one commands you to celebrate the sun, or to sing a joyful triumphal
song in praise of Minerva, you will by celebrating their praises seem
to render the higher praise to God; for piety, in extending to all
things, becomes more perfect.” To this our answer is, that
we do not wait for any command to celebrate the praises of the sun; for
we have been
“That owed his nurture to the blue-eyed maid,
But from the teeming furrow took his birth,
The mighty offspring of the foodful
earth.” Homer’s
Iliad, ii. 547, 548.
It is therefore evident, that if we admit Minerva the daughter of Jupiter, we must also admit many fables and fictions which can be allowed by no one who discards fables and seeks after truth.
Chapter LXVII.
And to regard these myths in a figurative sense,
and consider Minerva as representing prudence, let any one show what
were the actual facts of her history, upon which this allegory is
based. For, supposing honour was given to Minerva as having been
a woman of ancient times, by those who instituted mysteries and
ceremonies for their followers, and who wished her name to be
celebrated as that of a goddess, much more are we forbidden to pay
divine honours to Minerva, if we are not permitted to worship so
glorious an object as the sun, although we may celebrate its
glory. Celsus, indeed, says that “we seem to do the greater
honour to the great God when we sing hymns in honour of the sun and
Minerva;” but we know it to be the opposite of that. For we
sing hymns to the Most High alone, and His Only-begotten, who is the
Word and God; and we praise God and His Only-begotten, as do also the
sun, the moon, the stars, and all the host of heaven. [“Origen
pointed out that hymns were addressed only to God and to His
Only-begotten Word, who is also God.…The hymnody of the primitive
Church protected and proclaimed the truths which she taught and
cherished.”—Liddon’s Bampton
Lectures, On the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
pp. 385, 386. S.]
Chapter LXVIII.
Celsus goes on to say: “We must not
disobey the ancient writer, who said long ago, ‘Let one be king,
whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;’” Homer’s
Iliad, ii. 205.
“Whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;”
for we know that no god or father of a god ever devises anything
crooked or crafty. But we are far from setting aside the notion
of a providence, and of things happening directly or indirectly through
the agency of providence. And the king will not “inflict
deserved punishment” upon us, if we say that not the son of
crafty Saturn gave him his kingdom, but He who “removeth and
setteth up kings.” And would that all were to follow my
example in rejecting the maxim of Homer, maintaining the divine origin
of the
Chapter LXIX.
Celsus, then, as if not observing that he was
saying anything inconsistent with the words he had just used, “if
all were to do the same as you,” adds: “You surely do
not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to
neglect their customary duties to gods and men, and were to worship the
Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down
and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than
his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this
and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has
helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole
world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as
for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out
and punished with death.” As the question started is,
“What would happen if the Romans were persuaded to adopt the
principles of the Christians, to despise the duties paid to the
recognised gods and to men, and to worship the Most High?” this
is my answer to the question. We say that “if two” of
us “shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall
ask, it shall be done for them of the Father” of the just,
“which is in heaven;”
Chapter LXX.
But if all the Romans, according to the
supposition of Celsus, embrace the Christian faith, they will, when
they pray, overcome their enemies; or rather, they will not war at all,
being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire
cities for the sake of fifty just persons. For men of God are
assuredly the salt of the earth: they preserve the order of the
world; [Comp. Cowper,
Task, book vi., sub finem.]
Chapter LXXI.
Celsus again, as is usual with him, gets confused, and
attributes to us things which none of us have ever written. His
words are: “Surely it is intolerable for you to say, that
if our present rulers, on embracing your opinions, are taken by
Chapter LXXII.
Afterwards he says: “If it were
possible,” implying at the same time that he thought it most
desirable, “that all the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya,
Greeks and Barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of the earth, were to
come under one law;” but judging this quite impossible, he adds,
“Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.” It
would require careful consideration and lengthened argument to prove
that it is not only possible, but that it will surely come to pass,
that all who are endowed with reason shall come under one law.
However, if we must refer to this subject, it will be with great
brevity. The Stoics, indeed, hold that, when the strongest of the
elements prevails, all things shall be turned into fire. But our
belief is, that the Word shall prevail over the entire rational
creation, and change every soul into His own perfection; in which state
every one, by the mere exercise of his power, will choose what he
desires, and obtain what he chooses. For although, in the
diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which no medical skill
can cure, yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil so strong that
it may not be overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For stronger
than all the evils in the soul is the Word, and the healing power that
dwells in Him; and this healing He applies, according to the will of
God, to every man. The consummation of all things is the
destruction of evil, although as to the question whether it shall be so
destroyed that it can never anywhere arise again, it is beyond our
present purpose to say. Many things are said obscurely in the
prophecies on the total destruction of evil, and the restoration to
righteousness of every soul; but it will be enough for our present
purpose to quote the following passage from Zephaniah:
“Prepare and rise early; all the gleanings of their vineyards are
destroyed. Therefore wait ye upon Me, saith the Lord, on the day that I rise up for a testimony; for My
determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kings,
to pour upon them Mine indignation, even all My fierce anger: for
all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of My jealousy. For
then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call
upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with
one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia My suppliants,
even the daughter of My dispersed, shall bring My offering. In
that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou
hast transgressed against Me: for then I will take away out of
the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; and thou shalt no
more be haughty because of My holy mountain. I will also leave in
the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in
the name of the Lord. The remnant of
Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful
tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down,
and none shall make them afraid.” “A
language to last as long as the world.”—Bouhéreau.
Chapter LXXIII.
In the next place, Celsus urges us “to help the
king with all our might, and to labour with him in the maintenance of
justice, to fight for him; and if he requires it, to fight under him,
or lead an army along with him.” To this our answer is,
that we do, when occasion requires,
Chapter LXXIV.
And if Celsus would have us to lead armies in
defence of our country, let him know that we do this too, and that not
for the purpose of being seen by men, or of vainglory. For
“in secret,” and in our own hearts, there are prayers which
ascend as from priests in behalf of our fellow-citizens. And
Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For
they train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being; and
they promote those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good
and worthy, to a divine and heavenly city, to whom it may be said,
“Thou hast been faithful in the smallest city, come into a great
one,”
Chapter LXXV.
Celsus also urges us to “take office in the
government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of
the laws and the support of religion.” But we recognise in
each state the existence of another national organization, σύστημα
πατρίδος. [A very
notable passage as to the autonomy of the primitive Churches in their
divers nations.]
Chapter LXXVI.
You have here, reverend Ambrosius, the conclusion
of what we have been enabled to accomplish by the power given to us in
obedience to your command. In eight books we have embraced all
that we considered it proper to say in reply to that book of Celsus
which he entitles A True Discourse. And now it remains for
the readers of his discourse and of my reply to judge which of the two
breathes most of the Spirit of
Glory Be to Thee, Our God; Glory Be to Thee.
Genesis
1:1 1:1 1:2 1:9-10 1:10 1:11 1:16 1:21 1:24 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26-27 1:27 1:27-28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:29 2:2-3 2:4 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:9-14 2:16-17 2:19-20 2:21-22 2:21-22 2:21-22 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23-24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:25 2:25 3 3 3:1 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:19 3:20 3:20 3:21 3:21-24 3:24 3:24 4 4:3 4:8 4:10 4:17-18 4:18-19 4:19-24 5:1 5:3 5:21 5:25 5:28 5:29 6:1-2 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:4 6:5-7 6:8 6:19-20 7:1 7:3 7:7 9:2-5 9:5-6 9:21-22 9:25-27 10:8-17 11:1-2 11:4 11:5-9 11:26-28 11:26-12:5 12:10-20 13:8 15:5 16 17 17:5 17:14 17:14 19:4 19:10-11 19:11 19:17 19:30-38 19:31 20 21:12-20 22:1-19 22:12 23:2-4 23:31 24:64-65 25:21-24 25:27-34 26:6-11 26:15 27:15 27:27 27:41 28:12 28:12-13 30:42 30:43 31:10-13 32:24-31 32:28-30 32:30 38 38:12-30 48:22 48:22 49:1 49:1 49:1-4 49:4 49:10 49:10
Exodus
1:8-16 3:2 3:6 3:8 3:8 3:14 4:21 4:21 4:22 4:23 4:24-25 4:24-26 4:25-26 7:3 8:27-29 8:28-29 9:17 9:17 11:5 12:8 12:12 12:12 12:23 12:23 14:14 16:1-3 16:29 16:29 17:8-12 18:4 19:19 19:19 20:3-4 20:3-5 20:5 20:5 20:5 20:5 20:5 20:5 20:12 20:12 20:12 20:12 20:13-16 20:13-16 20:18 20:21 21:2 21:24 21:24 21:28-29 22:28 23:20-23 24:2 24:2 24:2 24:18 25:10-11 25:40 25:40 25:40 27:20 28:36 32 32:4 32:6 32:15-20 32:20 32:32 33:18-19 33:20 33:23 34:4-9 34:6-7 34:14 34:28 34:29-35 35:2 37:1-2 39:30
Leviticus
3:17 10:9 11:13 11:44 11:44 11:44-45 13:12-14 14:33-42 14:43-45 16:8 16:8 16:8 16:29 16:29 17:10 17:14 17:14 19:2 19:15 19:18 19:20 19:26 19:31 19:31 20:7 20:21 21:11 21:14 22:13 23:26-29 24:2 24:20 26:5
Numbers
4:5 6:24 11:1-6 12:5-8 12:6-8 15:32 16:38 17:8 20:1-12 23:23 24:17 24:17 25:1-9
Deuteronomy
1:10 1:31 2:34 4:16-18 4:19 4:19 4:19-20 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 5:9 5:9 5:31 6:3-4 6:13 6:13 6:15 8:3 8:3 8:12-14 9:3 9:11 9:25 10:12-13 10:17 11:26 13:1-3 13:4 14:5 16:3 18:12 18:14 18:14 18:14 18:15 18:15 18:17-19 19:21 22:13-21 22:23-24 23:1 23:19 24:16 25:4 25:4 25:4 25:4 25:5-6 28 28:12 28:66 30:1 30:15 30:15 30:15-16 30:19 30:19 32 32 32 32:2 32:8 32:8-9 32:8-9 32:9 32:15 32:21 32:21 32:21 32:21 32:22 32:30 32:39 32:39 32:39 34:5-6 34:9-12 34:10
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
1:1-2 1:7-20 1:11 1:15 2:12-17 2:22-25 3:20 4:13 4:17-21 9:10 14:24-25 15:11 15:11 16:7 16:14 16:14 16:14 18:10 18:10 18:10 28:11-19
2 Samuel
11 12:1-13 12:1-14 22:44-45 24:14
1 Kings
3:16-28 3:28 4:29-34 10:1-9 11:14 12:28 13 14:12 17:1 17:1-6 17:21-22 19:1-8 19:1-8 19:3-7 19:6-8 19:9 19:13 19:18 19:18 21 21 22:19-23
2 Kings
1 1:3 1:9-12 4:17 4:34-35 8 9:11 18 19
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Job
1:10-11 1:11 1:12 1:21 1:21 2:6 2:10 5:18 7:1 8:9 10:8 14:7-15 14:19 15:14 15:14 25:5 29:22 32:21 40 40:19 40:20 40:20 41 41:1 41:34
Psalms
1:1 1:1 1:1 2 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:8 2:8 4:6 6 6:1 7:3-5 7:3-5 7:12 8:3 9:13-14 13:3 16:9-10 16:9-10 18 18:11 18:25-26 18:25-26 18:26-27 19:1 19:4 19:4 19:7 19:8 22 22:15 22:19-20 22:27 24:7 24:8 24:19 25:7 26:2 26:4-5 26:6 27:1 27:1 27:1-3 27:3 29:3 30:3 33:5 33:6 33:6 33:9 34 34:7 34:7 34:7 34:7 34:10-14 36 36:9 36:9 37 37 37:8 37:9 37:11 37:22 37:27 37:29 37:30 37:30-31 37:34 37:34 39:5 39:12 40:28 43:20 44:19 44:23 44:25 45 45 45:1-2 45:1-2 45:2-5 45:3-4 45:6-7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:8 45:13 46 48 48:1-2 49:9-10 49:12 49:14 50 50:1 50:6 50:16 50:18 50:19 51 51:4 51:5 51:10 51:10 51:11 51:17 51:18-19 54:5 54:5 54:6 58:3 62:1 63:8 67 68:11 68:11 68:11 69 69:21 69:21 69:23 72:7 72:7 72:8 72:8 72:11 73:1 76:2 76:10 77:2 78 78:1-3 78:2 78:25 78:30-31 78:34 78:49 78:65 81:5 81:13-14 81:13-14 82:1 82:1 82:1 82:1 82:7 84:5 86:4 86:8 89:32 89:50-51 91:13 92:12 95:5 96 96:4 96:5 96:5 96:5 96:5 96:5 97:3 97:9 101:8 102:9 102:25 102:25-26 102:26 102:26-27 102:26-27 102:27 102:27 102:27 104:4 104:6 104:14-15 104:15 104:24 104:24 104:24-26 104:29-30 105 105:15 106:31-33 107:20 107:20 107:20 107:20 108 108 109:1-2 109:8 110:1 116:7 116:13 116:15 118:2 118:19-20 118:144 119:18 119:18 119:18 119:73 119:105 119:105 119:144 127:1 127:1 131:1-2 133 136:2 136:2 136:12 137 137:4 137:8-9 139:16 141:2 141:2 144:7 144:11 147:6 147:15 148:3 148:3-4 148:4 148:4-5 148:5 148:5
Proverbs
2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 4:23 4:23 5:15-17 6:32-34 8:5 8:22-25 8:36 9:1-5 9:4 9:5-6 10:17 10:19 13:8 13:25 15:1 16:26 21:1 22:20-21 22:28 23:5 23:11 27:19 28:6 30:24-28
Ecclesiastes
1:1 1:2 1:6 1:9 1:9-10 1:14 3:1 3:1 6:7 7:23-24 8:11 10:4 10:4
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1:2-4 1:4 1:7 1:10 1:10-15 1:13-14 1:17-18 1:17-18 1:19-20 1:19-20 1:19-20 1:20 2:2-4 2:3 2:4 3:18 3:24 4:4 5:8 5:11 5:12 5:18 5:18 5:20 5:20 5:22 6 6:1-2 6:2 6:3 6:3 6:9 6:9 6:9-10 6:10 7:10-14 7:11 7:14 7:15 7:15 7:16 8:4 8:8-9 8:8-9 9:2 9:2 9:2 9:2 9:6 9:6 10:17 10:17 11:1-2 11:6-7 14:4 14:12-22 20:3 22:13 25:8 25:8 27:1 27:1 29:21 35:5-6 36 37 38:19 41:22-23 42:4 42:5 42:9 42:14 43:18 45:3 45:6 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:12 45:21 47:14-15 47:14-15 47:14-15 47:14-15 48:9 48:16 49:8-9 49:9 49:9 50:11 52:11 52:13-15 53:1-3 53:1-8 53:2-3 53:7 53:7 53:9 53:12 54:1 54:11 54:11-14 54:12 58:3-5 58:3-7 60:1 60:19 63:17-18 63:17-18 64:4 64:4 65:1 66:1 66:1 66:2 66:16 66:22
Jeremiah
1:5-6 1:9 1:9-10 1:14 2:13 4:3 6:20 7:11 7:16 7:16 7:17-18 7:18 10:24 11:14 11:14 14:11-12 14:22 15:14 15:14 16:19 17:5-7 17:10 17:21 17:21-24 20:7 20:7 20:7 20:7-8 23:23 23:24 23:24 23:24 23:24 25:15-16 25:28-29 29:22-23 31:29-30 31:30 31:34 34:8-22 34:14 44:19
Lamentations
3:25 3:27-28 3:30 3:34 3:38 3:41 4:20 4:20
Ezekiel
1 1:1 1:28 2:1 2:6 2:9-10 3:2-3 9:4 9:6 10 11:19-20 11:19-20 11:19-20 11:19-20 16:49 16:53 16:55 18:1-4 18:2-4 18:3 18:4 18:4 18:19 18:20 18:20 18:23 18:32 20:21 20:25 20:25 22:18 22:20 26 28:3 28:11-19 28:12 28:15 28:19 29:3 29:3 32:1-28 32:2 32:5-6 33:11 33:11 34:1-4 43 44 45 46 48
Daniel
1 1:16 2:8 2:21 3:22 4:8 4:37 6:10 7:10 7:10 7:26 8:23 8:23-25 9:1 9:3 9:4 9:20 9:21 9:23 9:25 9:25 9:27 10 10:1-3 10:2 10:5 10:11 10:12 12:1-3 12:3
Hosea
1:2-3 3:1-3 3:4 3:4 5:7 6:6 10:12 10:12 13:14 13:14 14:9 14:9
Joel
Amos
Jonah
Micah
1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12-13 4:1-3 5:2 5:2 5:2 6:8 6:8 6:8
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
1:14 3:1 5:7 7:5 9:10 9:10 13:7 13:9
Malachi
3:2 3:2 3:2-3 3:3 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:16
Matthew
1:20 1:23 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:13 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:12 3:12 3:17 4:3 4:4 4:9-10 4:10 4:12 4:16 4:19 5:3 5:3 5:3 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:9 5:9 5:11 5:13 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:20 5:21-22 5:22 5:22 5:22 5:23-24 5:27-28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:32 5:32 5:34 5:34 5:34 5:34-35 5:36 5:38 5:39 5:39 5:39 5:39 5:39-40 5:42 5:42 5:44-45 5:45 5:45 5:48 5:48 5:48 5:48 6:1-4 6:2 6:9 6:11 6:13 6:16-18 6:23 6:24 6:24 6:25-28 6:25-34 6:26 6:27 6:28-30 6:31 6:34 6:34 7:1 7:2 7:6 7:7 7:13-14 7:14 7:18 7:22 7:22-23 7:22-23 7:22-23 7:24 7:26 7:26 8:3 8:21-22 8:30-34 9:10-11 9:12 9:12 9:13 9:14-15 9:15 9:37-38 10:3 10:5 10:8 10:17 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:22 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:26 10:28 10:28 10:29 10:29 10:29 10:29 10:29-30 10:32-33 10:37-38 11:7-15 11:9 11:13 11:13 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:20 11:21 11:23-24 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 11:28 11:29 11:30 12:7 12:24 12:32 12:32 12:33 12:35 12:38-41 12:42 13:5-6 13:9 13:44 13:44 13:52 13:54 15:11 15:11 15:17-19 15:19 15:24 15:24 16:13-19 16:18 16:19 16:19 17:1-8 17:1-13 17:4 17:9 17:21 18:1-4 18:10 18:10 18:10 18:10 18:11 18:17 18:17 18:19 18:20 18:20 18:20 18:22 19:3-8 19:4 19:5 19:5-6 19:6 19:8 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:13-15 19:16-26 19:17 19:17 19:17 19:17 19:19 19:20 19:23 19:23-24 19:24 19:27 20:1-16 20:25 20:27 21:13 21:43 22:11-14 22:12-13 22:14 22:21 22:23-33 22:23-33 22:29-30 22:30 22:30 22:30 22:30 22:31-32 22:32 22:37 22:37-40 22:39 22:39 22:40 23:1-3 23:8 23:8 23:8 23:9 23:12 23:29-38 23:30 23:34 23:34 23:35 24:4-5 24:12 24:12 24:13 24:14 24:14 24:19 24:19 24:21 24:23-27 24:27 24:29 24:35 24:35 25:4 25:8-9 25:29 25:31-33 25:32-33 25:34 25:34 25:41 25:44 25:46 26:23 26:28 26:29 26:38 26:38 26:38 26:38 26:38 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:41 26:41 26:41 26:41 26:48 26:52-54 26:55 26:59-63 26:61 27:3-5 27:11-14 27:17 27:18 27:19 27:33 27:45-54 27:46-50 27:51-52 27:51-54 27:54 27:55-56 27:60 27:63 28:1-2 28:9 28:13-14 28:20 28:20
Mark
1:1-2 1:29-30 2:7 2:9-11 2:15-16 2:18-20 3:18 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:21 4:28 5:11 5:11-14 6:2 6:3 6:3 6:27 7:15 8:38 9:1-13 9:2-9 9:5 9:17 9:29 10:5 10:8 10:8 10:13-15 10:17-27 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:23-24 10:28 10:44 11:17 12:18-27 12:18-27 12:24-25 12:25 12:25 12:29-30 12:31 12:42 13:31 14:24 15:23 15:42 16:33-39
Luke
1:17 1:26-27 1:35 1:35 1:38 1:52 1:76 2:30 2:36-38 2:52 3:1 3:8 3:8 3:12 3:14 4:1-2 4:3 4:4 5:8 5:21 5:21 5:29-30 5:33-35 6:20 6:21 6:25 6:30 6:35 6:36 6:36 6:37 6:37 6:37 6:42 7:24-30 7:26 7:34 7:34 8:1-3 8:10 8:16 8:18 8:32-33 9:26 9:28-36 9:28-36 9:31 9:33 9:59-60 9:62 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:12-14 10:13 10:18 10:19 10:19 10:19 10:22 10:22 10:27 11:3 11:4 11:9 11:29-30 11:33 11:48 11:52 11:52 12:4-5 12:10 12:45-46 12:48 12:50 13:11 13:16 13:16 13:24 13:26-27 14:11 14:34-35 15:1-2 15:3-7 15:8-10 15:23 16:9 16:13 16:15 16:16 16:16 16:19-31 16:19-31 17:20-21 17:28-29 18:1 18:11 18:13 18:14 18:14 18:18-27 18:19 18:19 18:24-25 18:28 19:14 19:15 19:17 19:17 19:19 19:26 19:46 20:26-38 20:27-40 20:34-36 20:35-36 20:35-36 20:36 20:36 20:36 21:2 21:20 21:23 21:23 21:26 22:20 22:21 22:25 22:27 22:31-32 23:21 23:25 23:39-43 23:44-45 23:44-47 23:53 23:53 24:15 24:30-31 24:31 24:39 24:48-49
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-3 1:1-14 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:5 1:9 1:11 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:26 1:26-27 1:26-27 1:32-34 1:51 2:1-11 2:16 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:19-22 2:21 3:6 3:8 3:21 3:34 4:1-25 4:16-18 4:20 4:21 4:23-24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:31-34 5:19 5:23 5:31 5:33-35 5:34 5:39 5:39 5:39 5:44 5:46-47 6:27 7:15 7:37-39 7:42 8:1-11 8:39 8:40 8:40 8:40 8:46 8:58 9:39 10:3 10:8-10 10:11 10:12 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:18 10:24 10:27 10:30 12:24 12:27 12:27 12:31 12:40 12:43 13:2 13:8 13:27 14:2 14:3 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:11 14:23 14:23 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:27 14:27 14:28 14:30 14:30 14:30 15:2 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:22 15:26 16:11 16:12-13 16:12-13 16:12-13 16:12-13 16:13 16:13 16:14 16:25 16:33 16:33 16:33 17:10 17:16 17:20-21 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:22 17:22 17:22-23 17:24 17:24 17:24 17:25 18:4 18:36 19:2 19:11 19:17 19:19-20 19:32-33 19:33-34 19:34-35 19:41 19:41 19:41 20:17 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:23 20:23 20:26 20:26-27 20:27 21:18-19 21:25 21:25
Acts
1:3 1:4 1:4-5 1:5 1:6-8 1:8 2:1-4 2:13 2:15 2:22 3:1-11 3:22-23 4:32 4:34-35 5:1-6 5:13-16 5:36-37 5:38-39 5:41 7 7:2-4 7:15 7:22 7:42-43 7:45 7:52 8:10 8:18 8:20 9:15 9:15 9:36-43 10 10:1-4 10:9 10:9-15 10:14 10:28 10:30 10:38 10:44-46 11:3 13:6-12 13:17-19 13:46 15:7-11 15:10 15:10 15:28-29 15:28-29 15:28-29 15:30 16:1-3 16:3 16:4 17:28 17:28 19 19:19 20:9-12 20:28 20:28 20:28 21:13 21:20-26 21:26 22:28 23:2 24:26 28:17-29 28:26-27
Romans
1:1 1:1-4 1:3-4 1:14 1:17 1:18-23 1:19 1:19 1:20 1:20 1:20-22 1:21 1:21 1:21-23 1:22-23 1:23 1:24 1:24-25 1:25 1:26 1:27 1:28 1:28 1:28 2:4-5 2:4-5 2:4-10 2:4-10 2:11 2:11 2:13 2:15-16 2:23 2:28-29 2:28-29 2:29 3:26 3:29 3:31 4 4:11 4:11-12 4:16 5 5:7 5:8 5:14 6:1-11 6:3 6:4 6:9 6:10 6:12 6:13 6:19 7:1 7:1-3 7:2-3 7:6 7:9 7:12 7:12 7:12 7:13 7:13 7:14 7:18 7:23 7:23 7:24 7:24 8:2 8:2 8:2 8:3-5 8:5-6 8:6 8:7 8:7 8:8 8:8 8:8 8:9 8:9 8:12 8:13 8:13 8:13 8:14 8:14 8:15 8:19 8:19-20 8:19-21 8:19-21 8:19-21 8:20 8:20-21 8:20-21 8:20-21 8:20-21 8:21 8:22-23 8:23 8:26 8:32 8:32 8:32 8:35 8:35-37 8:37 8:38-39 8:38-39 9:4 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:8 9:8 9:10-13 9:11-12 9:14 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:18 9:18 9:18 9:18 9:18-21 9:18-21 9:20-21 10:6-8 10:10 11:4 11:4 11:11-12 11:11-36 11:17-20 11:22 11:33 11:33 11:36 12:6 12:11 12:14 12:15 12:17 12:17 13:1-2 13:9 13:12-13 13:13 13:13 13:14 13:14 14:1 14:4 14:9 14:13 14:15 14:15 14:17 14:20 14:21 14:21 15:5 15:19 16:25-26 16:25-26
1 Corinthians
1:10 1:14-15 1:18 1:21 1:21 1:23-24 1:24 1:24 1:26 1:26 1:26-27 1:26-28 1:26-28 1:26-28 1:27 1:27 1:27-28 1:27-29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:30 1:30 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:4 2:4-5 2:4-5 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-8 2:6-8 2:6-8 2:6-8 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:12-13 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:16 2:16 3:2 3:2-3 3:2-3 3:6-7 3:6-7 3:8 3:9 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:13-15 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16-17 3:17 3:18 3:18-19 3:19 3:19 3:21 4:3 4:7 4:7 4:8 4:8 4:12-13 4:12-13 4:15 5:1 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6-9 5:9-11 5:11 5:12 5:12 6:1 6:1-6 6:2-3 6:3 6:3 6:9-10 6:10 6:10 6:11 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:15 6:15-17 6:17 6:17 6:17 6:18 6:19 6:19 6:19-20 6:19-20 6:19-20 6:20 6:20 7 7 7 7 7 7:1 7:1-2 7:1-3 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:6 7:6-8 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:8-9 7:8-9 7:9 7:12-14 7:12-14 7:14 7:15-16 7:16 7:17 7:18 7:18 7:21-22 7:25 7:26-28 7:27 7:27 7:27-28 7:28 7:29 7:29 7:29 7:29 7:29 7:29 7:30 7:31 7:31 7:31 7:31 7:32 7:32-33 7:32-34 7:32-35 7:34 7:34 7:35 7:35 7:37 7:38 7:39 7:39 7:39 7:39 7:39 7:39-40 7:40 7:40 8:2 8:4 8:5 8:5-6 8:5-6 8:7 8:8 8:8 8:11 8:12 8:13 9:1 9:1-5 9:4 9:5 9:5 9:6 9:8-10 9:9 9:9 9:9-10 9:9-10 9:9-10 9:9-10 9:9-18 9:15 9:19 9:22 9:26 9:27 9:27 10:1-2 10:3-4 10:4 10:4 10:7 10:8 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:13 10:13 10:13 10:18 10:18 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:31 11 11:2 11:2-16 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:5-16 11:6 11:7 11:10 11:14 11:14-15 11:16 11:19 12:3 12:3 12:4-7 12:6 12:8 12:8-9 12:11 12:27 12:27 13:5 13:10 13:11 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 14:15 14:34-35 14:35 15:2 15:3-8 15:9 15:10 15:11 15:12 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:25 15:25-26 15:28 15:28 15:32 15:32 15:32 15:33 15:35 15:35-38 15:36 15:39-42 15:40-42 15:41 15:41 15:41-42 15:42-43 15:42-44 15:44 15:44 15:45 15:46 15:47 15:48-49 15:50 15:50 15:51 15:51-52 15:52 15:52 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53-56 15:54 15:54 15:58
2 Corinthians
1:22 2:5-11 2:15 3:5-6 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:7-8 3:15 3:15-17 3:17 4:1-2 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:17-18 4:18 4:18 4:18-5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:4 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:8 5:10 5:10 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:20 5:21 5:21 6:5-6 6:10 6:14-16 6:16 6:16-18 6:17 7:1 8:16 8:21 10:3-4 10:3-5 10:5 10:5 10:5 10:9 11:2 11:2 11:14 11:18 11:20 11:22 11:27 12:1 12:2 12:2 12:4 12:4 12:4 12:7 12:7 12:7-10 12:9 12:9 12:10 12:12 12:21 13:3 13:3 13:3 13:4
Galatians
1:4 1:14 1:19 2:4 2:5 2:12 2:18 2:20 3 3 3 3:3 3:7 3:7 3:11 3:13 3:20 3:27 3:27 3:27 3:28 4 4 4 4:4 4:10 4:10 4:10-11 4:19 4:19-31 4:21-22 4:21-24 4:21-24 4:21-31 4:24 4:26 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:31 4:31 5:1 5:1 5:2 5:2-6 5:8 5:8 5:12 5:13 5:13 5:14 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:19-21 5:19-21 5:19-21 5:22 5:25 6:7 6:13 6:14
Ephesians
1:4 1:4 1:9-10 1:13-14 1:21 1:23 2:1 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:7 2:12 2:19 2:20 3:14-15 4:1 4:1-6 4:4-6 4:5-6 4:10 4:13 4:14 4:17-20 4:22-23 4:26 4:27 4:27 4:28 4:29 4:32 5:1 5:3 5:5-6 5:7-8 5:11 5:11-12 5:12 5:16 5:16 5:18 5:19 5:19 5:26 5:26-27 5:31 5:31 5:31-32 5:32 6:2-3 6:2-3 6:2-3 6:9 6:11 6:11 6:11 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:13 6:16 6:18
Philippians
1:20 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 2:4 2:5-9 2:6 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:8 2:10 2:10-11 2:10-11 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:15 3:3 3:3 3:3-4 3:8 3:10 3:12 3:12 3:13 3:13-14 3:15 3:19 3:19 3:21 4:3 4:3 4:5 4:8 4:8-9 4:13 4:13 4:19
Colossians
1:10 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:16-17 1:16-18 1:16-18 2:5 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:11 2:13-14 2:14-15 2:15 2:15 2:16 2:16 2:16 2:18-19 3:3 3:3-4 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:8 3:8 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:25 4:2 4:6 4:6
1 Thessalonians
2:3 2:12 2:14-15 4:3 4:3-5 4:13-15 4:13-17 4:15-16 4:16 4:16-17 4:17 5:4-5 5:5 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:16 5:17 5:21 5:23
2 Thessalonians
2:1-12 2:2 2:3-4 2:3-4 2:4 2:6-10 2:9 2:10-12 2:15 2:15 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:11 3:14-15
1 Timothy
1:13 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:19 1:20 1:20 2:1-2 2:2 2:7 2:11-12 2:14 3:1-2 3:1-7 3:15 3:16 4:1-2 4:1-2 4:1-3 4:1-3 4:1-3 4:3 4:4-5 4:4-5 4:7 4:10 4:10 4:15 5:9 5:9-10 5:10 5:13 5:14 5:17 5:22 5:23 6:8 6:17-18 6:20
2 Timothy
1:3 1:3 1:10 1:15 1:16-18 1:16-18 2:3-4 2:5 2:5 2:11 2:15 2:17-18 2:19 2:20 2:20-21 2:20-21 2:20-21 2:21 3:1 3:1-5 3:6-7 3:8 3:16 4:7
Titus
1:5-6 1:6 1:6-9 1:9-10 1:12 1:15-16 3:3-6 3:5 3:10 3:10-11
Hebrews
1:1 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:7 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 2:1 2:10 3:14 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:15 5:11-14 5:12-14 5:14 6:1 6:1 6:4-6 6:6 6:7-8 6:7-8 6:7-8 7:19 7:26-8:1 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:11 9:3 9:3-4 9:7 9:11-20 9:13 9:14 9:19 9:19-22 9:26 9:26 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:29 10:38 11:1 11:11-12 11:13 11:24-26 11:37 11:37-38 11:37-38 11:40 12:2 12:6 12:22 12:22-23 12:22-23 12:22-23 12:24 12:26-27 12:29 13:12-13
James
2:8 3:1 4:13-15 4:17 5:16 5:17 5:17
1 Peter
1:9 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:19 1:20 2:5 2:9 2:22 2:22 3:1 3:11 3:15 3:15 3:18 3:18-21 3:20 3:21 5:1-4 5:2-3 5:6 5:8
2 Peter
1 John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5-6 1:5-7 1:7 1:8 1:8-9 1:9 2:1-2 2:1-2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:6 2:6 2:8 2:16 2:18 2:29 3 3:1-2 3:2 3:2 3:3 3:3-10 3:10 3:16 4 4:18 4:18 5:16 5:16 5:17-18 5:19 5:19
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
1:6 1:6 1:8 1:20 2:1 2:5 2:8 2:9 2:12 2:18 2:18 2:20-22 3:1 3:7 3:14 3:14 3:18 4:3 5:5 5:8 6:4 6:8 6:9-10 6:11 7:3 8:3-4 10:4 10:9 12:9 14:6 17 21 21:4 21:8 21:8 22:14-15
Tobit
1:12-14 1:19 1:22 2:3 12:7 12:7
Wisdom of Solomon
1:4 1:4 1:5 1:7 7:16 7:16 7:25 7:25-26 7:25-26 7:25-26 9:6 10:5 11:17 11:20 11:26 12:1 12:1-2 12:1-2 18:24
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
2 Maccabees
Sirach
6:4 10:4 10:19 16:21 18:13 21:18 21:18 39:16 39:17 39:21 43:20
i iii v vi 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 169 170 171 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 201 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 221 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670