========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA
  by Origen of Alexandria
========================================================================

Writings of Origen of Alexandria (c. AD 253). Origen of Alexandria was an early
church father whose writings have been preserved for the edification of the
church.

  Chapters: 43

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    0. Writings of Origen of Alexandria
    1. A Letter from Origen to Africanus
    2. A Letter from Origen to Gregory
    3. A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna
    4. Against Celsus - Book 1
    5. Against Celsus - Book 2
    6. Against Celsus - Book 3
    7. Against Celsus - Book 4
    8. Against Celsus - Book 5
    9. Against Celsus - Book 6
   10. Against Celsus - Book 7
   11. Against Celsus - Book 8
   12. Commentary on John - Book 1
   13. Commentary on John - Book 10
   14. Commentary on John - Book 13
   15. Commentary on John - Book 19
   16. Commentary on John - Book 2
   17. Commentary on John - Book 20
   18. Commentary on John - Book 28
   19. Commentary on John - Book 32
   20. Commentary on John - Book 4
   21. Commentary on John - Book 5
   22. Commentary on John - Book 6
   23. Commentary on Matthew - Book 1
   24. Commentary on Matthew - Book 10
   25. Commentary on Matthew - Book 11
   26. Commentary on Matthew - Book 12
   27. Commentary on Matthew - Book 13
   28. Commentary on Matthew - Book 14
   29. Commentary on Matthew - Book 2
   30. Commentary on Matthew - Introduction
   31. De Principiis - Book 1
   32. De Principiis - Book 2
   33. De Principiis - Book 3
   34. De Principiis - Book 4
   35. Homilies on Luke
   36. Letter of Origen to Gregory
   37. On Prayer - On Prayer
   38. On Prayer - Preface
   39. Philocalia - Footnotes
   40. Philocalia - Introductory material
   41. Philocalia - The Philocalia of Origen
   42. Prologue of Rufinus

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 0: WRITINGS OF ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA
========================================================================


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: A LETTER FROM ORIGEN TO AFRICANUS
========================================================================

A Letter from Origen to Africanus. A Letter from Origen to Africanus.

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.1 And I, when I consider, as best
I can, the measure of my intellect, that I may know myself, am aware that I am
wanting in the accuracy necessary to reply to your letter; and that the more,
that the few days I have spent in Nicomedia have been far from sufficient to
send you an answer to all your demands and queries even after the fashion of the
present epistle. Wherefore pardon my little ability, and the little time I had,
and read this letter with all indulgence, supplying anything I may omit.

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."2 But in the Hebrew copies the words, "And these three men,
Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire," are
immediately followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and
rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors." For so Aquila,
following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the
Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose
version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which
has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave,
one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of
Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at
the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough
guess, to more than two hundred verses.

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 edify the reader, is found in the
Hebrew. Neither are the letters;3 nor the one written to Amman about the rooting
up of the Jewish nation, nor that of Mardochaios in the name of Artaxerxes
delivering the nation from death. Then in Job, the words from "It is written,
that he shall rise again with those whom the Lord raises," to the end, are not
in the Hebrew, and so not in Aquila's edition; while they are found in the
Septuagint and in Theodotion's version, agreeing with each other at least in
sense. And many other places I found in Job where our copies have more than the
Hebrew ones, sometimes a little more, and sometimes a great deal more: a little
more, as when to the words, "Rising up in the morning, he offered
burnt-offerings for them according to their number," they add, "one heifer for
the sin of their soul; "and to the words, "The angels of God came to present
themselves before God, and the devil came with them," "from going to and fro in
the earth, and from walking up and down in it." Again, after "The Lord gave, the
Lord has taken away," the Hebrew has not, "It was so, as seemed good to the
Lord." Then our copies are very much fuller than the Hebrew, when Job's wife
speaks to him, from "How long wilt thou hold out? And he said, Lo, I wait yet a
little while, looking for the hope of my salvation," down to "that I may cease
from my troubles, and my sorrows which compass me." For they have only these
words of the woman, "But say a word against God, and die."

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;4 whom, although His Son, God who is love spared
not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all
things?5

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."6 Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish
Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings.
This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to
the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions
and various readings;7 while I paid particular attention to the interpretation
of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches
which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a
starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and
to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I
make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my
controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their
copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it
should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our
discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile
believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. So far as
to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew.

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 words between prinos and prisis, schinos and
schisis. You say that you can see how this can be in Greek, but that in Hebrew
the words are altogether distinct. On this point, however, I am still in doubt;
because, when I was considering this passage (for I myself saw this difficulty),
I consulted not a few Jews about it, asking them the Hebrew words for prinos and
prisein, and how they would translate schinos the tree, and how schisis. And
they said that they did not know these Greek words prinos and schinos, and asked
me to show them the trees, that they might see what they called them. And I at
once (for the truth's dear sake) put before them pieces of the different trees.
One of them then said, that he could not with any certainty give the Hebrew name
of anything not mentioned in Scripture, since, if one was at a loss, he was
prone to use the Syriac word instead of the Hebrew one; and he went on to say,
that some words the very wisest could not translate. "If, then," said he, "you
can adduce a passage in any Scripture where the schinos is mentioned, or the
prinos, you will find there the words you seek, together with the words which
have the same sound; but if it is nowhere mentioned, we also do not know it."
This, then, being what the Hebrews said to whom I had recourse, and who were
acquainted with the history, I am cautious of affirming whether or not there is
any correspondence to this play of words in the Hebrew. Your reason for
affirming that there is not, you yourself probably know.

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 How, then,
could the one be sawn asunder by an angel, and the other rent in pieces? The
answer is, that these things were prophesied not of this world, but of the
judgment of God, after the departure from this world. For as the lord of that
wicked servant who says, "My lord delayeth his coming," and so gives himself up
to drunkenness, eating and drinking with drunkards, and smiting his
fellow-servants, shall at his coming "cut him asunder, and appoint him his
portion with the unbelievers,"9 even so the angels appointed to punish will
accomplish these things (just as they will cut asunder the wicked steward of
that passage) on these men, who were called indeed elders, but who administered
their stewardship wickedly. One will saw asunder him who was waxen old in wicked
days, who had pronounced false judgment, condemning the innocent, and letting
the guilty go free;10 and another will rend in pieces him of the seed of
Chanaan, and not of Judah, whom beauty had deceived, and whose heart lust had
perverted.11

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.12 Wherefore it is that the prophet Daniel calls the
one "waxen old in wicked days," and says to the other, "Thus have ye dealt with
the children of Israel; but the daughters of Juda would not abide your
wickedness."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"13 To whom, I ask, does the "sawn asunder" refer (for by an old
idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the
plural, although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very well that
tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and this is found in
some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have purposely tampered with.
introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on
the whole.

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.14 At present I
shall adduce from the Gospel what Jesus Christ testifies concerning the
prophets, together with a story which He refers to, but which is not found in
the Old Testament, since in it also there is a scandal against unjust judges in
Israel. The words of our Saviour run thus: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the
sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers,
we would not have been partaken with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore be ye witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them
which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some
of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your
synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the
righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation."
And what follows is of the same tenor: "O Jerusalem; Jerusalem, thou that
killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you
desolate."15

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."16 In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell
me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or
any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was
slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it
otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is
possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and
elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into
discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the
evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed
and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the
counsel of these elders. 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."17 That Stephen speaks the truth,
every one will admit who receives the Acts of the Apostles; but it is impossible
to show from the extant books of the Old Testament how with any justice he
throws the blame of having persecuted and slain the prophets on the fathers of
those who believed not in Christ. And Paul, in the first Epistle to the
Thessalonians, testifies this concerning the Jews: "For ye, brethren, became
followers of the Churches of Cod which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also
have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews;
who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us;
and they please not God, and are contrary to all men."18 What I have said is, I
think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history
were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by
those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the
Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom,19 as the Spirit would call them.

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."20 This is true not only in the
general, but also of individuals. For if you notice, you will find that the same
saints have been favoured with divine dreams and angelic appearances and
(direct) inspirations. For the present it will suffice to instance what is
testified concerning Jacob. Of dreams from God he speaks thus: "And it came to
pass, at the time that the cattle conceived, that I saw them before my eyes in a
dream, and, behold, the rams and he-goats which leaped upon the sheep and the
goats, white-spotted, and speckled, and grisled. And the angel of God spake unto
me in a dream, saying, Jacob. And I said, What is it? And he said, Lift up thine
eyes and see, the goats and rams leaping on the goats and sheep, white-spotted,
and speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am
God, who appeared unto thee in the place of God, where thou anointedst to Me
there a pillar, and vowedst a vow there to Me: now arise, get thee out from this
land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."21 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."22 And that he also prophesied by inspiration, is evident from this passage:
"And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I
may tell you what shall befall you in the last days. Gather yourselves together,
and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father. Reuben, my
first-born, my might, and the beginning of my children, hard to be born, hard
and stubborn. Thou weft wanton, boil not over like water; because thou wentest
up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou the couch to which thou wentetest
up.23 And so with the rest: it was by inspiration that the prophetic blessings
were pronounced. We need not wonder, then, that Daniel sometimes prophesied by
inspiration, as when he rebuked the elders sometimes, as you say, by dreams and
visions, and at other times by an angel appearing unto him.

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 under (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."24 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 not have been persuaded if Solomon had merely said, "Give
this one the living child, for she is the mother of it; "so Daniel's attack on
the elders would not have been sufficient had there not been added the
condemnation from their own mouth, when both said that they had seen her lying
with the young man under a tree, but did not agree as to what kind of tree it
was. And since you have asserted, as if you knew for certain, that Daniel in
this matter judged by inspiration (which may or may not have been the case), I
would have you notice that there seem to me to be some analogies in the story of
Daniel to the judgment of Solomon, concerning whom the Scripture testifies that
the people saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment.25 This might be
said also of Daniel, for it was because wisdom was in him to do judgment that
the elders were judged in the manner described.

12. I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the
prino-prisein and schino-schiesein 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; "26 and that
"is" means "man," as we see from "Hesre ais," which is, "Blessed is the man."27
According to the Jews, then, "is" is "man," and "essa, " "woman," because she
was taken out of her husband (is). It need not then surprise us if some
interpreters of the Hebrew "Susanna," which had been concealed among them at a
very remote date, and had been preserved only by the more learned and honest,
should have either given the Hebrew word for word, or hit upon some analogy to
the Hebrew forms, that the Greeks might be able to follow them. For in many
other passages we can, I find traces of this kind of contrivance on the part of
the translators, which I noticed when I was collating the various editions.

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? Them, 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."28 And he adds, as if
he were a rich man, "In the days of Nemessarus I gave many alms to my brethren.
I gave my bread to the hungry, and my clothes to the naked: and if I saw any of
my nation dead, and cast outside the walls of Nineve, I buried him; and if king
Senachereim had slain any when he came fleeing from Judea, I buried them privily
(for in his wrath he killed many)." Think whether this great catalogue of
Tobias's good deeds does not betoken great wealth and much property, especially
when he adds, "Understanding that I was sought for to be put to death, I
withdrew myself for fear, and all my goods were forcibly taken away."29 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."30

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 him, with many more, to return and build the temple
again. Why then should we wonder that one Joakim had garden, and house, and
property, whether these were very expensive or only moderate, for this is not
clearly told us in the writing?

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
Caesar 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 shall 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."31 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."32

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,"33 is in the beginning almost identical with Psalms 105., down to "and
do my prophets no harm; "and after that it is the same as Psalms 96., from the
beginning of that psalm, which is something like this, "Praise the Lord all the
earth," down to "For He cometh to judge the earth." (It would have taken up too
much time to quote more fully; so I have given these short references, which are
sufficient for the matter before us.) And you will find the law about not
bearing a burden on the Sabbath-day in Jeremias, as well as in Moses.34 And the
rules about the passover, and the rules for the priests, are not only in Moses,
but also at the end of Ezekiel.35 I would have quoted these, and many more, had
I not found that from the shortness of my stay in Nicomedia my time for writing
you was already too much restricted. 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.

1: [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: "The Song of the Three Holy Children" (in the Apocrypha).

3: This should probably be corrected, with Pat. Jun., into, "Nor are the
letters, neither ," etc.

4: 1 Cor. vi. 20; Rom. xiv. 15.

5: Rom. viii. 32.

6: Prov. xxii. 28.

7: 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 .).

8: Jer. xxix. 22, 23.

9: Luke xii. 45, 46.

10: Susanna 52, 53.

11: Susanna 56.

12: 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.

13: Heb. xi. 37.

14: [See note supra , p. 239. S.] 15: Matt. xxiii. 29-38.

16: Matt. xxiii. 30.

17: Acts vii. 52.

18: 1 Thess. ii. 14, 15.

19: Isa. i. 10.

20: Heb. i. 1.

21: Gen. xxxi. 10-13.

22: Gen. xxxii. 24-31.

23: Gen. xlix. 1-4.

24: 1 Kings iii. 16-28.

25: 1 Kings iii. 28.

26: Ps. cxvi. 13.

27: Ps. i. 1.

28: Tob. i. 12-14.

29: Tob. i. 19.

30: Tob. i. 22.

31: Isa. ii. 2-4.

32: Mic. iv. 1-3.

33: 1 Chron. xvi. 8.

34: Ex. xxxv. 2; Num. xv. 32; Jer. xvii. 21-24.

35: In Levit. passim ; Ezek. xliii. xliv. xlv. xlvi.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: A LETTER FROM ORIGEN TO GREGORY
========================================================================

A Letter from Origen to Gregory.1 A Letter from Origen to Gregory.1

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 other,
that the veils might be made, and the inner and the cuter 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. Ader2 at least, the Idumaean; so
long as he was in" the land of Israel, and had not tasted the bread of the
Egyptians, made no idols. It was when he fled from the wise Solomon, and went
down into Egypt, as it were flying from the wisdom of God, and was made a
kinsman of Pharaoh by marrying his wife's sister, and begetting a child, who was
brought up with the children of Pharaoh, that he did this. Wherefore, although
he did return to the land of Israel, he returned only to divide the people of
God, and to make them say to the golden calf, "These be thy gods, 0 Israel,
which brought thee up from the land of Egypt."3 And I may tell you from my
experience, that not many take from Egypt only the useful, and go away and use
it for the service of God; while Ader the Idumaean has many brethren. These are
they who, from their Greek studies, produce heretical notions, and set them up,
like the' golden calf, in Bethel, which signifies "God's house." In these words
also there seems to me an indication that they have set up their own
imaginations in the Scriptures, where the word of God dwells, which is called in
a figure Bethel. The other figure, the word says, was set up in Dan. Now the
borders of Dan are the most extreme, and nearest the borders of the Gentiles, as
is clear from what is written in Joshua, the son of Nun. Now some of the devices
of these brethren of Ader, as we call them, are also very near the borders of
the Gentiles.

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."4 And applying yourself thus to the divine study, seek aright, and with
unwavering trust in God, the meaning of the holy Scriptures, which so many have
missed. Be not satisfied with knocking and seeking; for prayer is of all things
indispensable to the knowledge of the things of God. For to this the Saviour
exhorted, and said not only, "Knock, and it shall be opened to you; and seek,
and ye shall find,"5 but also, "Ask, and it shall be given unto you."6 My
fatherly love to you has made me thus bold; but whether my boldness be good, God
will know, and His Christ, and all partakers of the Spirit of God and the Spirit
of Christ. May you also be a partaker, and be ever increasing your inheritance,
that you may say not only, "We are become partakers of Christ,"7 but also
partakers of God.

1: This Gregory, styled the Wonder-worker, (Thaumaturgus) was afterwards bishop
of Neo- Caesarea.

2: Origen evidently confounds Hadad the Edomite, of 1 Kings xi. 14, with
Jeroboam.

3: [1 Kings xii. 28. S.]

4: John x. 3.

5: Matt. vii. 7.

6: Luke xi. 9.

7: Heb. iii. 14.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: A LETTER TO ORIGEN FROM AFRICANUS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA
========================================================================

A Letter to Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna. A Letter to
Origen from Africanus About the History of Susanna.

Greeting, my lord and son, most worthy Origen, from Africanus.1 In your sacred
discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel which is related
of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I accepted as genuine. Now,
however, I cannot understand how it escaped you that this part of the book is
spurious. For, in sooth, this section, although apart from this it is elegantly
written, is plainly a more modern forgery. There are many proofs of this. When
Susanna is condemned to die, the prophet is seized by the Spirit, and cries out
that the sentence is unjust. Now, in the first place, it is always in some other
way that Daniel prophesies-by visions, and dreams, and an angel appearing to
him, never by prophetic inspiration. 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" (prinoj), he answered that the angel would saw him asunder (prisein);
and in a similar fashion menaced the other who said, "Under a mastich-tree"
(sxhinoj), with being rent asunder (sxhisthenai). Now, in Greek, it happens that
"holm-tree" and "saw asunder," and "rend" and "mastich-tree" sound alike; but in
Hebrew they are quite distinct. But all the books of the Old Testament have been
translated from Hebrew into Greek.

2. Moreover, how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldaeans, 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? But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with
the other two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among
the Jews. 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
those men, quotes the words of the Lord: "The innocent and righteous shall thou
not slay." From all this I infer that this section is a later addition.
Moreover, the style is different. I have struck the blow; do you give the echo;
answer, and instruct me. Salute all my masters. The learned all salute thee.
With all my heart I pray for your and your circle's health.

1: [See Routh's Reliquiae , 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.]s1.v4.a4.w2.b0f2 Nolte would change hstragalwmenoi
(or astragalwmenoi , as Wetsten. has it), which is a apac eirhmenon , into
straggalwmenoi or astraggalwmenoi , "strangled." He compares Tob. ii. 3.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 1
========================================================================

Book I.

Preface.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L.

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Chapter LXXI.

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,1 why
you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against
the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the
Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest
refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both
disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any
credibility or validity. Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false
witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of
Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect. And the words of
Matthew are as follow: "And the high priest and the council sought false witness
against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses
came forward. At last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am
able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the
high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness
against thee? But Jesus held His peace."2 And that He returned no answer when
falsely accused, the following is the statement: "And Jesus stood before the
governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus
said to him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and
elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how
many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word,
insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."3

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. That the judge would, without any hesitation, have
set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of
him when he said, "Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you,
Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ? "4 and from what the Scripture adds,
"For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him."5 Jesus, however, is at all
times assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the world,
is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before these
things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in the lives of His
genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises
superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded
accusations and charges.

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 not have the appearance of being
reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined, we have endeavoured, to
the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of answer to each of the statements
advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his
arguments have no power to shake the faith of any (true) believer. And forbid,
indeed, that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a
love of God as was (displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose
by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul, when enumerating the
innumerable causes which generally separate men from the love of Christ and from
the love of God in Christ Jesus (to all of which, the love that was in himself
rose superior), did not set down argument among the grounds of separation. For
observe that he says, firstly: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or
peril, or sword? (as it is written, For Thy sake we are killed all the day long;
we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are
more than conquerors through Him that loved us."6 And secondly, when laying down
another series of causes which naturally tend to separate those who are not
firmly grounded in their religion, he says: "For I am persuaded that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able
to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."7

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,"8 which is a stronger statement than that they are simply
"conquerors." But if it be proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation
in not being separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord,
that feeling will be entertained by them, because neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can separate them
from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And therefore I do not
congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus-who no
longer shares the common life of men, but has long since departed-or by any
apparent plausibility of argument.9 For I do not know in what rank to place him
who has need of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus
against the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith,
and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are
considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their faith
shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be preserved by a
reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements and to exhibit the
truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your injunction, and to furnish an
answer to the treatise which you sent us, but which I do not think that any one,
although only a short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a "True
Discourse," as Celsus has entitled it.

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."10 And seeing that there was a
kind of greatness manifest in the words of the world's wisdom, he said that the
words of the philosophers were "according to the rudiments of the world." No man
of sense, however, would say that those of Celsus were "according to the
rudiments of the world." Now those words, which contained some element of
deceitfulness, the apostle named "vain deceit," probably by way of distinction
from a deceit that was not "vain; "and the prophet Jeremiah observing this,
ventured to say to God," O Lord, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; Thou
art stronger than I, and hast prevailed."11 But in the language of Celsus there
seems to me to be no deceitfulness at all, not even that which is "vain; "such
deceitfulness, viz., as is found in the language of those who have founded
philosophical sects, and who have been endowed with no ordinary talent for such
pursuits. And as no one would say that any ordinary error in geometrical
demonstrations was intended to deceive, or would describe it for the sake of
exercise in such matters;12 so those opinions which are to be styled "vain
deceit," and the "tradition of men," and "according to the rudiments of the
world," must have some resemblance to the views of those who have been the
founders of philosophical sects, (if such titles are to be appropriately applied
to them).

6. After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus introduces
the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface to the beginning
(of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to Celsus might fall in
with it first, and see that this book has been composed not for those who are
thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly unacquainted with the
Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle terms them, are "weak in the
faith; "regarding whom he says, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye."13
And this preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one
plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to indicate his
principal objections, and then briefly the answers that were returned to them,
and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse.14 But
afterwards, circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical
of my time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the
commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my
ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for
those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And
if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then, asking
similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you still desire
an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to those men who are
wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises to overthrow the
charges which he brings against us. But better is the man who, although meeting
with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all, but who despises all its
contents, since they are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in
Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.

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 "15 of the Christians, as if they had
their origin in the common danger, and were more binding than any oaths. Since,
then, he babbles about the public law, alleging that the associations of the
Christians are in violation of it, we have to reply, that if a man were placed
among Scythians, whose laws were unholy,16 and having no opportunity of escape,
were compelled to live among them, such an one would with good reason, for the
sake of the law of truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness,17
enter into associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with
himself; so, if truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to
images, and an atheistical polytheism, are "Scythian" laws, or more impious even
than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to form
associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth.
For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in
order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so
Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by
falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power,
and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt
from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic.

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 Christianity18 because of its origin among
barbarians, but gives the latter credit for their ability in discovering (such)
doctrines. To this, however, he adds the statement, that the Greeks are more
skilful than any others in judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the
discoveries of barbarous nations. Now this is our answer to his allegations, and
our defence of the truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to
come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not
only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their
truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to
their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say,
moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any
established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the
apostle the "manifestation of the Spirit and of power: "of "the Spirit," on
account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who
reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ; and of "power,"
because of the signs and wonders which we must believe to have been performed,
both on many other grounds, and on this, that traces of them are still preserved
among those who regulate their lives by the precepts of the Gospel.

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 Graecia; 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,19
alleging that it is only common to us with other philosophers, and no venerable
or new branch of instruction. In reply to which we have to say, that unless all
men had naturally impressed upon their minds sound ideas of morality, the
doctrine of the punishment of sinners would have been excluded by those who
bring upon themselves the righteous judgments of God. It is not therefore matter
of surprise that the same God should have sown in the hearts of all men those
truths which He taught by the prophets and the Saviour, in order that at the
divine judgment every man may be without excuse, having the "requirements20 of
the law written upon his heart,"-a truth obscurely alluded to by the Bible21 in
what the Greeks regard as a myth, where it represents God as having with His own
finger written down the commandments, and given them to Moses, and which the
wickedness of the worshippers of the calf made him break in pieces, as if the
flood of wickedness, so to speak, had swept them away. But Moses having again
hewn tables of stone, God wrote the commandments a second time, and gave them to
him; the prophetic word preparing the soul, as it were, after the first
transgression, for the writing of God a second time.

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 en-graven 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 (would be the
case), when He said: "Many shall say to Me in that day, In Thy name we have cast
out devils, and done many wonderful works."22 Whether Celsus omitted this from
intentional malignity, or from ignorance, I do not know. And he next proceeds to
bring a charge against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it was by means of
sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; and that
foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge, and do the same things,
making a boast of doing them by help of the power of God, He excludes such from
His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if they are justly excluded, while He
Himself is guilty of the same practices, He is a wicked man; but if He is not
guilty of wickedness in doing such things, neither are they who do the same as
He. But even if it be impossible to show by what power Jesus wrought these
miracles, it is clear that Christians employ no spells or incantations, but the
simple, name of Jesus, and certain other words in which they repose faith,
according to the holy Scriptures.

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,23 is made a subject of ridicule among unbelievers. In these
circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is
altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to
the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is
not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in
which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of
Pythagoras were content with his ipse dixit; while others were taught in secret
those doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated to profane and
insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the mysteries that are celebrated
everywhere throughout Greece and barbarous countries, although held in secret,
have no discredit thrown upon them, so that it is in vain that he endeavours to
calumniate the secret doctrines of Christianity, seeing he does not correctly
understand its nature.

Chapter VIII.

It is with a certain eloquence,24 indeed, that he appears to advocate the cause
of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their death, in the
following words: "And I do not maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system
of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that account, he should either
apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions." And he condemns
those who, while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not,
or deny them, saying that "he who holds a certain opinion ought not to feign
recantation, or publicly disown it." And here Celsus must be convicted of
self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he
was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity
with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that
there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is
akin to God, and says that "they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a
healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, mean ing God,
and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to
remembrance." Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a little
before, that "the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine ought not, even
if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow it, or pretend that he
had done so, nor yet openly disown it," he now involves himself in all manner of
contradictions. For he knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he
would not obtain any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce
the doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have
heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were
Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this
one in that of Adrian, and later.

Chapter IX.

He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should follow reason
and a rational guide,25 since he who assents to opinions without following this
course is very liable to be deceived. And he compares inconsiderate believers to
Metragyrtae, and soothsayers, and Mithrae, and Sabbadians, and to anything else
that one may fall in with, and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or
demons. For as amongst such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who,
taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them
away whither they will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he
asserts that certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason
for their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your
faith will save you!" And he alleges that such also say, "The wisdom of this
life is bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!" To which we have to answer,
that if it were possible for all to leave the business of life, and devote
themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by any one, but
this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be found that there is, not
to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much of investigation into articles of
belief, and of explanation of dark sayings, occurring in the prophetical
writings, and of the parables in the Gospels, and of countless other things,
which either were narrated or enacted with a symbolical signification,26 (as is
the case with other systems). But since the course alluded to is impossible,
partly on account of the necessities of life, partly on account of the weakness
of men, as only a very few individuals devote themselves earnestly to study,27
what better method could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude, than
that which was delivered by Jesus to the heathen? And let us inquire, with
respect to the great multitude of believers, who have washed away the mire of
wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them to
believe without a reason, and (so) to have become reformed and improved in their
habits, through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for
good works or not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the strength of
mere faith, but have waited) until they could give themselves to a thorough
examination of the (necessary) reasons. For it is manifest that, (on such a
plan), all men, with very few exceptions, would not obtain this (amelioration of
conduct) which they have obtained through a simple faith, but would continue to
remain in the practice of a wicked life. Now, whatever other evidence can be
furnished of the fact, that it was not without divine intervention that the
philanthropic scheme of Christianity was introduced among men, this also must be
added. For a pious man will not believe that even a physician of the body, who
restores the sick to better health, could take up his abode in any city or
country without divine permission, since no good happens to men without the help
of God. And if he who has cured the bodies of many, or restored them to better
health, does not effect his cures without the help of God, how much more He who
has healed the souls of many, and has turned them (to virtue), and improved
their nature, and attached them to God who is over all things, and taught them
to refer every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all that is displeasing
to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds, or even of the thoughts of
their hearts?

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,28 or because he is provided with a teacher of that school,
adopts such a course for any other reason, except that he believes his
particular sect to be superior to any other? For, not waiting to hear the
arguments of all the other philosophers, and of all the different sects, and the
reasons for condemning one system and for supporting another, he in this way
elects to become a Stoic, e.g., or a Platonist, or a Peripatetic, or an
Epicurean, or a follower of some other school, and is thus borne, although they
will not admit it, by a kind of irrational impulse to the practice, say of
Stoicism, to the disregard of the others; despising either Platonism, as being
marked by greater humility than the others; or Peripateticism, as more human,
and as admitting with more fairness29 than other systems the blessings of human
life. And some also, alarmed at first sight30 about the doctrine of providence,
from seeing what happens in the world to the vicious and to the virtuous, have
rashly concluded that there is no divine providence at all, and have adopted the
views of Epicurus and Celsus.

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 that
worship is due to God alone, and that other things are to be passed by, either
as non-existent, or as existing indeed, and worthy of honour, but not of worship
and reverence? And respecting these things, he who not only believes, but who
contemplates things with the eye of reason, will state the demonstrations that
occur to him, and which are the result of careful investigation. And why should
it not be more reasonable, seeing all human things are dependent upon faith, to
believe God rather than them? For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a
marriage, or becomes the father of children, or casts seed into the ground,
without believing that better things will result from so doing, although the
contrary might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that better things,
even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all men venture upon
uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they expect. And
if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of life in every
uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be rationally accepted by
him who believes on better grounds than he who sails the sea, or tills the
ground, or marries a wife, or engages in any other human pursuit, in the
existence of a God who was the Creator of all these things, and in Him who with
surpassing wisdom and divine greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine
to men in every part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death
considered infamous, which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having
also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to
proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death, to all
quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?

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.31 And the same remark applies to the Syrians, and Indians, and to all
those who have a literature and a mythology.

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."32 The
apostle, therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is foolishness with God,"
but "the wisdom of this world." And again, not, "If any one among you seemeth to
be wise, let him become a fool universally; "but, "let him become a fool in this
world, that he may become wise." We term, then, "the wisdom of this world,"
every false system of philosophy, which, according to the Scriptures, is brought
to nought; and we call foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man
becomes foolish as to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who
believes in the immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its
metempsychosis,33 incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who discard this
opinion; and with the Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato;
and with the Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and
to place a God over all things. Moreover, that it is in agreement with the
spirit of Christianity, of much more importance to give our assent to doctrines
upon grounds of reason and wisdom than on that of faith merely, and that it was
only in certain circumstances that the latter course was desired by
Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether without help, is shown by
that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: "For after that, in the
wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."34 Now by these words it is
clearly shown that it is by the wisdom of God that God ought to be known. But as
this result did not follow, it pleased God a second time to save them that
believe, not by "folly" universally, but by such foolishness as depended on
preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is the "foolishness"
of preaching, as Paul also perceived, when he said, "But we preach Christ
crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to
them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and wisdom
of God."35

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.

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 hook 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 Hecataeus, treat ing of the Jews, in which so high a character
is bestowed upon that nation for its learning, that Herennius Philo, in his
treatise on the Jews, has doubts in the first place, whether it is really the
composition of the historian; and says, in the second place, that if really his,
it is probable that he was carried away by the plausible nature of the Jewish
history, and so yielded his assent to their system.

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 Phoenicians, 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 Florins Josephus has
recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity36 of the Jews, where he brings
together a great collection of writers, who bear witness to the antiquity of the
Jewish people; and there exists the Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the
younger,37 in which with very great learning he enumerates those historians who
have treated of the antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems, then,
to be not from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes
these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which
is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the
Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae, most learned and ancient tribes, on account
of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I
know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far
as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning. And
again, when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred benefits
upon their contemporaries (by their deeds), and upon posterity by their
writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus, to whom Celsus
assigns a foremost place in his list, there exists neither laws nor discourses
which produced a change for the better among any tribes; whereas a whole nation,
dispersed throughout the entire world, obey the laws of Moses. Consider, then,
whether it is not from open malevolence that he has expelled Moses from his
catalogue of learned men, while asserting that Linus, and Musaeus, and Orpheus,
and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these
topics, and that their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus been
preserved down to the present time. And it is intentionally also that he has
omitted to take notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by Orpheus, in which the
gods are described as affected by human weaknesses and passions.

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 as sails (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.38

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 Musaeus, 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 which of the two are the better fitted to change the
character of the hearer on the very spot, and which to harden39 him in his
wickedness; and observe that your series of writers display little concern for
those readers who are to peruse them at once unaided,40 but have composed their
philosophy (as you term it) for those who are able to comprehend its
metaphorical and allegorical signification; whereas Moses, like a distinguished
orator who meditates some figure of Rhetoric, and who carefully introduces in
every part language of twofold meaning, has done this in his five books: neither
affording, in the portion which relates to morals, any handle to his Jewish
subjects for committing evil; nor yet giving to the few individuals who were
endowed with greater wisdom, and who were capable of investigating his meaning,
a treatise devoid of material for speculation. But of your learned poets the
very writings would seem no longer to be preserved, although they would have
been carefully treasured up if the readers had perceived any benefit (likely to
be derived from them); whereas the works of Moses have stirred up many, who were
even aliens to the manners of the Jews, to the belief that, as these writings
testify, the first who enacted these laws and delivered them to Moses, was the
God who was the Creator of the world. For it became the Creator of the universe,
after laying down laws for its government, to confer upon His words a power
which might subdue all men in every part of the earth.41 And this I maintain,
having as yet entered into no investigation regarding Jesus, but still
demonstrating that Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord, is, as the Discourse
will show, greatly superior to your wise poets and philosophers."

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 Phaethon, 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 wise
nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity." Now, in answer
to this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that. Moses did indeed hear a
somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the Hebrews; that if the
doctrine which he heard was false, and neither pious nor venerable, and if
notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to those under his authority,
he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert, he gave his adherence to
opinions that were wise and true, and educated his people by means of them,
what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation? Would, indeed, that not only
Epicurus, but Aristotle, whose sentiments regarding providence are not so
impious (as those of the former), and the Stoics, who assert that God is a body,
had heard such a doctrine! Then the world would not have been filled with
opinions which either disallow or enfeeble the action of providence, or
introduce a corrupt corporeal principle, according to which the god of the
Stoics is a body, with respect to whom they are not afraid to say that he is
capable of change, and may be altered and transformed in all his parts, and,
generally, that he is capable of corruption, if there be any one to corrupt him,
but that he has the good fortune to escape corruption, because there is none to
corrupt. Whereas the doctrine of the Jews and Christians, which preserves the
immutability and unalterableness of the divine nature, is stigmatized as
impious, because it does not partake of the profanity of those whose notions of
God are marked by impiety, but because it says in the supplication addressed to
the Divinity, "Thou art the same,"42 it being, moreover, an article of faith
that God has said, "I change not."43

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
representations44 of the Greeks, which have the appearance of being invested
with bodies, are (really) gods. And why should the fables of the Greeks
regarding the gods be true, any more than those of the Egyptians for example,
who in their language know nothing of a Mnemosyne, mother of the nine Muses; nor
of a Themis, parent of the Hours; nor of a Euphrosyne, one of the Graces; nor of
any other of these names? How much more manifest (and how much better than all
these inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the admirable order
of the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the one Author of one effect,
and which, as being wholly in harmony with itself, cannot on that account have
been the work of many makers; and that we should believe that the whole heaven
is not held together by the movements of many souls, for one is enough, which
bears the whole of the non-wandering45 sphere from east to west, and embraces
within it all things which the world requires, and which are not self-existing!
For all are parts of the world, while God is no part of the whole. But God
cannot be imperfect, as a part is imperfect. And perhaps profounder
consideration will show, that as God is not a part, so neither is He properly
the whole, since the whole is composed of parts; and reason will not allow us to
believe that the God who is over all is composed of parts, each one of which
cannot do what all the other parts, can.

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 Samanaeans, 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.46

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 the use of incantations, relate
that the utterance of the same incantation in its proper language can accomplish
what the spell professes to do; but when translated into any other tongue, it is
observed to become inefficacious and feeble. And thus it is not the things
signified, but the qualities and peculiarities of words, which possess a certain
power for this or that purpose. And so on such grounds as these we defend the
conduct of the Christians, when they struggle even to death to avoid calling God
by the name of Zeus, or to give Him a name from any other language. For they
either use the common name-God-indefinitely, or with some such addition as that
of the "Maker of all things," "the Creator of heaven and earth"-He who sent down
to the human race those good men, to whose names that of God being added,
certain mighty works are wrought among men. And much more besides might be said
on the subject of names, against those who think that we ought to be indifferent
as to our use of them. And if the remark of Plato in the Philebus should
surprise us, when he says, "My fear, O Protagoras, about the names of the gods
is no small one," seeing Philebus in his discussion with Socrates had called
pleasure a "god," how shall we not rather approve the piety of the Christians,
who apply none of the names used in the mythologies to the Creator of the world?
And now enough on this subject for the present.

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."47 Moreover, he promises to show
afterwards "how it was through ignorance that the Jews were deceived and led
into error." Now, if he had discovered that the ignorance of the Jews regarding
Christ was the effect of their not having heard the prophecies about Him, he
would show with truth how the Jews fell into error. But without any wish
whatever that this should appear, he views as Jewish errors what are no errors
at all. And Celsus having promised to make us acquainted, in a subsequent part
of his work, with the doctrines of Judaism, proceeds in the first place to speak
of our Saviour as having been the leader of our generation, in so far as we are
Christians,48 and says that "a few years ago he began to teach this doctrine,
being regarded by Christians as the Son of God." Now, with respect to this
point-His prior existence a few years ago-we have to remark as follows. Could it
have come to pass without divine assistance, that Jesus, desiring during these
years to spread abroad His words and teaching, should have been so successful,
that everywhere throughout the world, not a few persons, Greeks as well as
Barbarians, learned as well as ignorant, adopted His doctrine, so that they
struggled, even to death in its defence, rather than deny it, which no one is
ever related to have done for any other system? I indeed, from no wish to
flatter49 Christianity, but from a desire thoroughly to examine the facts, would
say that even those who are engaged in the healing of numbers of sick persons,
do not attain their object-the cure of the body-without divine help; and if one
were to succeed in delivering souls from a flood of wickedness, and excesses,
and acts of injustice, and from a contempt of God, and were to show, as evidence
of such a result, one hundred persons improved in their natures (let us suppose
the number to be so large), no one would reasonably say that it was without
divine assistance that he had implanted in those hundred individuals a doctrine
capable of removing so many evils. And if any one, on a candid consideration of
these things, shall admit that no improvement ever takes place among men without
divine help, how much more confidently shall he make the same assertion
regarding Jesus, when he compares the former lives of many converts to His
doctrine with their after conduct, and reflects in what acts of licentiousness
and injustice and covetousness they formerly indulged, until, as Celsus, and
they who think with him, allege, "they were deceived," and accepted a doctrine
which, as these individuals assert, is destructive of the life of men; but who,
from the time that they adopted it, have become in some way meeker, and more
religious, and more consistent, so that certain among them, from a desire of
exceeding chastity, and a wish to worship God with greater purity, abstain even
from the permitted indulgences of (lawful) love.

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, -both the
princes of the times, and their chief captains and generals, and all, to speak
generally, who were possessed of the smallest influence, and in addition to
these, the rulers of the different cities, and the soldiers, and the people,-yet
it proved victorious, as being the Word of God, the nature of which is such that
it cannot be hindered; and becoming more powerful than all such adversaries, it
made itself master of the whole of Greece, and a considerable portion of
Barbarian lands, and convened countless numbers of souls to His religion. And
although, among the multitude of converts to Christianity, the simple and
ignorant necessarily outnumbered the more intelligent, as the former class
always does the latter, yet Celsus, unwilling to take note of this, thinks that
this philanthropic doctrine, which reaches to every soul under the sun, is
vulgar,50 and on account of its vulgarity and its want of reasoning power,
obtained a hold only over the ignorant. And yet he himself admits that it was
not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of Jesus to adopt His
religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst them some persons of
moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and possessed of understanding,
and capable of comprehending allegories.

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 from the
good-natured Athenian, who saw that his native country did contribute to his
renown, the following reply: "Neither would I, had I been a Seriphian, have been
so distinguished as I am, nor would you have been a Themistocles, even if you
had had the good fortune to be an Athenian!" And now, our Jesus, who is
reproached with being born in a village, and that not a Greek one, nor belonging
to any nation widely esteemed, and being despised as the son of a poor labouring
woman, and as having on account of his poverty left his native country and hired
himself out in Egypt, and being, to use the instance already quoted, not only a
Seriphian, as it were, a native of a very small and undistinguished island, but
even, so to speak, the meanest of the Seriphians, has yet been able to shake51
the whole inhabited world not only to a degree far above what Themistocles the
Athenian ever did, but beyond what even Pythagoras, or Plato, or any other wise
man in any part of the world whatever, or any prince or general, ever succeeded
in doing.52

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 rate 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 arms53 his followers against men; nor as a rich man, who bestows
help upon those who come to him; nor as one of those who confessedly are
deserving of censure; but as a teacher of the doctrine regarding the God of all
things, and of the worship which belongs to Him, and of all moral precepts which
are able to secure the favour of the Supreme God to him who orders his life in
conformity therewith. Now, to Themistocles, or to any other man of distinction,
nothing happened to prove a hindrance to their reputation; whereas to this man,
besides what we have already enumerated, and which are enough to cover with
dishonour the soul of a man even of the most noble nature, there was that
apparently infamous death of crucifixion, which was enough to efface his
previously acquired glory, and to lead those who, as they who disavow his
doctrine assert, were formerly deluded by him to abandon their delusion, and to
pass condemnation upon their deceiver.

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 tea-sons
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 lives for the public advantage, in order to
remove those evils which had fallen upon cities and countries? Or will they say
that such events actually happened, but that no credit is to be attached to that
account which makes this so-called man to have died to ensure the destruction of
a mighty evil spirit, the ruler of evil spirits, who had held in subjection the
souls of all men upon earth? And the disciples of Jesus, seeing this and much
more (which, it is probable, they learned from Jesus in private), and being
filled, moreover, with a divine power (since it was no mere poetical virgin that
endowed them with strength and courage, but the true wisdom and understanding of
God), exerted all their efforts "to become distinguished among all men," not
only among the Argives, but among all the Greeks and Barbarians alike, and "so
bear away for themselves a glorious renown."54

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 God was to be with man. Now it seems
to me appropriate to the character of a Jew to have quoted the prophecy of
Isaiah, which says that Immanuel was to be born of a virgin. This, however,
Celsus, who professes to know everything, has not done, either from ignorance or
from an unwillingness (if he had read it and voluntarily passed it by in
silence) to furnish an argument which might defeat his purpose. And the
prediction runs thus: "And the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a
sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above· But
Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye
now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye
weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which
is, being interpreted, God with us."55 And that it was from intentional malice
that Celsus did not quote this prophecy, is clear to me from this, that although
he makes numerous quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the
star that appeared at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he
has made no mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say
that the words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman,"56 we reply
that the word "Olmah"-which the Septuagint have rendered by "a virgin," and
others by "a young woman"-occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a
"virgin," in the following connection: "If a damsel that is a virgin be
betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone
them with stones that they die; the damsel,57 because she cried not, being in
the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour's wife."58 And again:
"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie
with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel59
ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death."

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;
"60 and afterwards the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear
a son."61 What kind of sign, then, would that have been-a young woman who was
not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more
appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God with us"),-whether a woman who
has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women,
or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the
latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, "God with us." And should
he be so captious l as to say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed,
"Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God," we shall ask in return, who in
the times of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of,
"Immanuel," i.e., "God with us? "And if no one can be found. then manifestly
what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that
the Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign
is said to be "in the depth or in the height," since "He that descended is the
same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all
things."62 And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in
prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what
meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or the
others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the
future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were
divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the
meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object
of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers.

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 the following manner. "For the nations," as it is written in the law of the
Jews itself, "shall hearken unto observers of times, and diviners; "63 but to
that people it is said: "But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered
thee so to do."64 And to this is subjoined the promise: "A prophet shall the
Lord thy God raise up unto thee from among thy brethren."65 Since, therefore,
the heathen employ modes of divination either by oracles or by omens, or by
birds, or by ventriloquists, or by those who profess the art of sacrifice, or by
Chaldean genealogists-all which practices were forbidden to the Jews-this
people, if they had no means of attaining a knowledge of futurity, being led by
the passion common to humanity of ascertaining the future would have despised
their own prophets, as not having in them any particle of divinity; and would
not have accepted any prophet after Moses, nor committed their words to writing,
but would have spontaneously betaken themselves to the divining usages of the
heathen, or attempted to establish some such practices amongst themselves. There
is therefore no absurdity in their prophets having uttered predictions even
about events of no importance, to soothe those who desire such things, as when
Samuel prophesies regarding three she-asses which were lost,66 or when mention
is made in the third book of Kings respecting the sickness of a king's son.67
And why should not those who desired to obtain auguries from idols be severely
rebuked by the administrators of the law among the Jews?-as Elijah is found
rebuking Ahaziah, and saying, "Is it because there is not a God in Israel that
ye go to inquire of Baalzebub, god of Ekron? "68

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!69 Nay, according to the Greeks themselves, all men
were not born of a man and woman. For if the world has been created, as many
even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the first men must have been
produced not from sexual intercourse, but from the earth, in which spermatic
elements existed; which, however, I consider more incredible than that Jesus was
born like other men, so far as regards the half of his birth. And there is no
absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the view of
showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous
narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in regard to ancient and
heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent occurrence, to relate
as a possible thing that Plato was the son of Amphictione, Ariston being
prevented from having marital intercourse with his wife until she had given
birth to him with whom she was pregnant by Apollo. And yet these are veritable
fables, which have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom
they regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as
having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner
elements than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons
who were too great to be human beings. And since Celsus has introduced the Jew
disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His
birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and
Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, land not
one who is writing in a serious tone.

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, or that our Lord's quitting Judea and residing in Egypt was an event
of any significance; but he invents something altogether different, admitting
somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus, by means of which He induced the
multitude to follow Him as the Christ. And yet he desires to throw discredit on
them, as being done by help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts
"that he (Jesus), having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having
served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain miraculous
powers, returned from thence to his own country, and by means of those powers
proclaimed himself a god." Now I do not understand how a magician should exert
himself to teach a doctrine which persuades us always to act as if God were to
judge every man for his deeds; and should have trained his disciples, whom he
was to employ as the ministers of his doctrine, in the same belief. For did the
latter make an impression upon their hearers, after they had been so taught to
work miracles; or was it without the aid of these? The assertion, therefore,
that they did no miracles at all, but that, after yielding their belief to
arguments which were not at all convincing, like the wisdom of Grecian
dialectics,70 they gave themselves up to the task of teaching the new doctrine
to those persons among whom they happened to take up their abode, is altogether
absurd. For in what did they place their confidence when they taught the
doctrine and disseminated the new opinions? But if they indeed wrought miracles,
then how can it be believed that magicians exposed themselves to such hazards to
introduce a doctrine which forbade the practice of magic?

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 each one of them
separately according to our ability, attending not to the connection and
sequence of the nature of the things themselves, but to the arrangement of the
subjects as they occur in this book. Let us therefore notice what he has to say
by way of impugning the bodily appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Saviour in
the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him
whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew,
"beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air
alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his
interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who
heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is
there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those
individuals who have been punished along with you? "

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
Aeneas 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 Oedipus 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 Heracleidae, 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.'71 After relating which, he adds, `This was the appearance of the likeness
of the glory of the Lord; and He said to me, '"72 etc. Now, if what is related
of Jesus be false, since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly prove it to be true,
it being seen or heard by Himself alone, and, as you appear to have observed,
also by one of those who were punished, why should we not rather say that
Ezekiel also was dealing in the marvellous when he said, "The heavens were
opened," etc.? Nay, even Isaiah asserts, "I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a
throne, high and lifted up; and the seraphim stood round about it: the one had
six wings, and the other had six wings."73 How can we tell whether he really saw
them or not? Now, O Jew, you have believed these visions to be true, and to have
been not only shown to the prophet by a diviner Spirit, but also to have been
both spoken and recorded by the same. And who is the more worthy of belief, when
declaring that the heavens were opened before him, and that he heard a voice, or
beheld the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up,-whether
Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former, indeed, no work has been found equal
to those of the latter; whereas the good deeds of Jesus have not been confined
solely to the period of His tabernacling in the flesh, but up to the present
time His power still produces conversion and amelioration of life in those who
believe in God through Him. And a manifest proof that these things are done by
His power, is the fact that, although, as He Himself said, and as is admitted,
there are not labourers enough to gather in the harvest of souls, there really
is nevertheless such a great harvest of those who are gathered together and
conveyed into the everywhere existing threshing-floors and Churches of God.

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,74 called the "word of wisdom," will explain also the reason of
the heavens opening, and the dove appearing, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to
Jesus in the form of no other living thing than that of a dove. But our present
subject does not require us to explain this, our purpose being to show that
Celsus displayed no sound judgment in representing a Jew as disbelieving, on
such grounds, a fact which has greater probability in its favour than many
events in which he firmly reposes confidence.

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 writing, although they
were seen and witnessed by ourselves, we should afford great occasion for
ridicule to unbelievers, who would imagine that we, like those whom they suppose
to have invented such things, had ourselves also done the same. But God is
witness of our conscientious desire, not by false statements, but by testimonies
of different kinds, to establish the divinity of the doctrine of Jesus. And as
it is a Jew who is perplexed about the account of the Holy Spirit having
descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, we would say to him, "Sir, who is it
that says in Isaiah, `And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit?'"75 In which
sentence, as the meaning is doubtful-viz., whether the Father and the Holy
Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit-the latter
is correct. For, because the Saviour was sent, afterwards the Holy Spirit was
sent also, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was
necessary that the fulfilment of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the
disciples of Jesus for that reason committed the result to writing.

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 Antiquities76 of the
Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising
purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not
believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of
Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that
the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the
people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says
nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these
disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just,
who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death,
although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.77 Paul, a genuine
disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord,
not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought
up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.78 If, then, he says that it
was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake
the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it
happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many
Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of
sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their
actions to His good pleasure.

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 shall find the knowledge of God; "79 and as there are various forms of
this perceptive power, such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see
things that are better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and
seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have not
their being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of living bread
that has come down from heaven, and that giveth life unto the world; and so also
a sense of smelling, which scents such things as leads Paul to say that he is a
sweet savour of Christ unto God;80 and a sense of touch, by which John says that
he "handled with his hands of the Word of life; "81 -the blessed prophets having
discovered this divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner,
and tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of
perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing effluence
from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record as having seen, and
heard what they say they heard, and were affected in a similar manner to what
they describe when eating the roll of a book that was given them.82 And so also
Isaac smelled the savour of his son's divine garments,83 and added to the
spiritual blessing these words: "See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a
full field which the Lord blessed."84 And similarly to this, and more as a
matter to be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus
touched the leper,85 to cleanse him, as I think, in a twofold sense,-freeing him
not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible contact,
but also from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is in this way,
accordingly, that John testifies when he says, "I beheld the Spirit descending
from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that
sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the
Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the
Holy Ghost And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son of God."86 Now it
was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on that occasion no one except
John is recorded to have seen them opened. But with respect to this opening of
the heavens, the Saviour, foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and
that they would see it, says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the
heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
man."87 And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously
seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however, belong
to our present object to explain why Paul says, "Whether in the body, I know
not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth."88 But I shall add to
my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines, viz., that Jesus
Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of
the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the
Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great man did
not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded His disciples on
the occasion of the vision on the mount, "Tell what ye have seen to no man,
until the Son of man he risen from the dead,"89 to have related to His disciples
what was seen and heard by John at the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait
of the character of Jesus, that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk
about Himself; and on that account said, "If I speak of Myself, My witness is
not true."90 And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred
to show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that
reason said to Him, "If Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly."91 And as it is a
Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the
appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, "This is your own
testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment,
whom you adduce," it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is
not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John
with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this
instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing
what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.

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 it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee to
utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in language like
the following: "But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God
will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked." Now it
is not one of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But
although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone,
would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet
certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses,
was the prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of
Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts, but of
the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults against it,
that their arguments might not have the least available influence in shaking, I
do not say the faith, but the little faith of unstable and temporary believers.
A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used the expression, "The 'Son
of God' will come; "for the term which they employ is, "The 'Christ of God' will
come." And many a time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the "Son of
God," saying that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy. We
do not of course assert that the "Son of God" is not the subject of prophecy;
but we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant,
who would not allow that He was, such language as, "My prophet once declared in
Jerusalem that the 'Son of God' will come."

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 ways92 regarding Christ; some by means of dark
sayings, others in allegories or in some other manner, and some also in express
words. And as in what follows he says, in the character of the Jew addressing
the converts from his own nation, and repeating emphatically and malevolently,
that "the prophecies referred to the events of his life may also suit other
events as well," we shall state a few of them out of a greater number; and with
respect to these, any one who chooses may say what he thinks fitted to ensure a
refutation of them, and which may turn away intelligent believers from the
faith.

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."93 Now this prophecy could not
suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders,
and who gave out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown
that He had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth
from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the birth of
Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after
the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have
additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with
the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the
cave94 where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in
swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places,
even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born
that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.95 Moreover, I am
of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of
the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy,
taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had
prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is related that
Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the people, heard from
them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, "whence David was."
It is stated also in the Gospel according to John, that the Jews declared that
the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David was."96 But after our
Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the
place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld
such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals
who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen
Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as
follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And
if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."97

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 l 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 them selves 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."98 Now, any one meeting with this prophecy, which is in reality much
older than Moses, so that one who was not a believer might suspect that it was
not written by him, would be surprised that Moses should be able to predict that
the princes of the Jews, seeing there are among them twelve tribes, should be
born of the tribe of Judah, and should be the rulers of the people; for which
reason also the whole nation are called Jews, deriving their name from the
ruling tribe. And, in the second place, one who candidly considers the prophecy,
would be surprised how, after declaring that the rulers and governors of the
people were to proceed from the tribe of Judah, he should determine also the
limit of their rule, saying that "the ruler should not fail from Judah, nor the
governor from his loins, until there should come that which was reserved for
him, and that He is the expectation of the Gentiles."99 For He came for whom
these things were reserved, viz., the Christ of God, the ruler of the promises
of God. And manifestly He is the only one among those who preceded, and, I might
make bold to say, among those also who followed Him, who was the expectation of
the Gentiles; for converts from among all the Gentile nations have believed on
God through Him, and that in conformity with the prediction of Isaiah, that in
His name the Gentiles had hoped: "In Thy name shall the Gentiles hope."100 And
this man said also to those who are in prison, as every man is a captive to the
chains of his sins, "Come forth; "and to the ignorant, "Come into the light:
"these things also having been thus foretold: "I have given Thee for a covenant
of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate
heritage; saying to the prisoners, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness,
Show yourselves."101 And we may see at the appearing of this man, by means of
those who everywhere throughout the world have reposed a simple faith in Him,
the fulfilment of this prediction: "They shall feed in the ways, and their
pastures shall be in all the beaten tracks."102

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,103 and should suffer stripes because of His condemnation. It was
predicted, moreover, that some from among the Gentiles would come to the
knowledge of Him (among whom the prophets are not included); and it had been
declared that He would be seen in a form which is deemed dishonourable among
men. The words of prophecy run thus: "Lo, my Servant shall have understanding,
and shall be exalted and glorified, and raised exceedingly high. In like manner,
many shall be astonished at Thee; so Thy form shall be in no reputation among
men, and Thy glory among the sons of men. Lo, many nations shall marvel because
of Him; and kings shall close their mouths: because they, to whom no message
about Him was sent, shall see Him; and they who have not heard of Him, shall
have knowledge of Him."104 "Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom was
the arm of the Lord revealed? We have reported, as a child before Him, as a root
in a thirsty ground. He has no form nor glory; and we beheld Him, and He had not
any form nor beauty: but His appearance was without honour, and deficient more
than that of all men. He was a man under suffering, and who knew how to bear
sickness: because His countenance was averted, He was treated with disrespect,
and was made of no account. This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our
behalf; and we regarded Him as in trouble, and in suffering, and as ill-treated.
But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities. The
chastisement of our peace was upon Him; by His stripes we were healed. We all,
like sheep, wandered from the way. A man wandered in his way, and the Lord
delivered Him on account of our sins; and He, because of His evil treatment,
opens not His mouth. As a sheep was He led to slaughter; and as a lamb before
her shearer is dumb, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment
was taken away. And who shall describe His generation? because His life is taken
away from the earth; because of the iniquities of My people was He led unto
death."105

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, appiled 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? "106 At another time
we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them
unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily
as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of
Celsus.

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 Psalms 45, which has this
inscription, in addition to others, "A Psalm for the Beloved," where God is
evidently addressed in these words: "Grace is poured into Thy lips: therefore
God will bless Thee for ever and ever. Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O mighty
One, with Thy beauty and Thy majesty. And stretch forth, and ride prosperously,
and reign, because of Thy truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and Thy right
hand shall lead Thee marvellously. Thine arrows are pointed, O mighty One; the
people will fall under Thee in the heart of the enemies of the King."107 But
attend carefully to what follows, where He is called God: "For Thy throne, O
God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy
kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even
Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."108 And
observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, whose "throne is for ever
and ever," and "a sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of His kingdom," says
that this God has been anointed by a God who was His God, and anointed, because
more than His fellows He had loved righteousness and hated iniquity. And I
remember that I pressed the Jew, who was deemed a learned man, very hard with
this passage; and he, being perplexed about it, gave such an answer as was in
keeping with his Judaistic views, saying that the words, "Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom,"
are spoken of the God of all things; and these, "Thou hast loved righteousness
and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee," etc., refer to the
Messiah.109

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."110 But, according to the Jew of Celsus,
"countless individuals will convict Jesus of falsehood, alleging that those
predictions which were spoken of him were intended of them." We are not aware,
indeed, whether Celsus knew of any who, after coming into this world, and having
desired to act as Jesus did, declared themselves to be also the "sons of God,"
or the "power" of God. But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine
each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews
before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose
death his deluded followers were completely dispersed. And after him, in the
days of the census, when Jesus appears to have been born, one Judas, a Galilean,
gathered around him many of the Jewish people, saying he was a wise man, and a
teacher of certain new doctrines. And when he also had paid the penalty of his
rebellion, his doctrine was overturned, having taken hold of very few persons
indeed, and these of the very humblest condition. And after the times of Jesus,
Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the
Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views.
But it is not absurd, in quoting the extremely wise observation of that Gamaliel
named in the book of Acts, to show how those persons above mentioned were
strangers to the promise, being neither "sons of God" nor "powers" of God,
whereas Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God. Now Gamaliel, in the passage
referred to, said: "If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to
nought" (as also did the designs of those men already mentioned after their
death); "but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow this doctrine, lest haply ye
be found even to fight against God."111 There was also Simon the Samaritan
magician, who wished to draw away certain by his magical arts. And on that
occasion he was successful; but now-a-days it is impossible to find, I suppose,
thirty of his followers in the entire world, and probably I have even overstated
the number. There are exceedingly few in Palestine; while in the rest of the
world, through which he desired to spread the glory of his name, you find it
nowhere mentioned. And where it is found, it is found quoted from the Acts of
the Apostles; so that it is to Christians that he owes this mention of himself,
the unmistakeable result having proved that Simon was in no respect divine.

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 Chaeremon 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 i to this effect: "There shall arise a star
out of Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel."112 And now, if it shall be
deemed necessary to examine the narrative about the Magi, and the appearance of
the star at the birth of Jesus, the following is what we have to say, partly in
answer to the Greeks, and partly to the Jews.

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 such predictions, and finding among them
the prophecy about the star, and the words, "I shall show him to him, but not
now; I deem him happy, although he will not be near,"113 they conjectured that
the man whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had
actually come into the world; and having pro-determined that he was superior in
power to all demons, and to all common appearances and powers, they resolved to
offer him homage. They came, accordingly, to Judea, persuaded that some king had
been born; but not knowing over what kingdom he was to reign, and being ignorant
also of the place of his birth. bringing gifts, which they offered to him as one
whose nature partook, if I may so speak, both of God and of a mortal man,-gold,
viz., as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to a God;
and they brought these offerings after they had learned the place of His birth.
But since He was a God, the Saviour of the human race, raised far above all
those angels which minister to men, an angel rewarded the piety of the Magi for
their worship of Him, by making known to them that they were not to go back to
Herod, but to return to their own homes by another way.

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."114 Now, if Celsus had seen this, he
would not have said: "But if, then, this was done in order that you might not
reign in his stead when you had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach
that estate, do you not become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering
about in so mean a condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a
miserable life up and down? "Now, it is not dishonourable to avoid exposing
one's self to dangers, but to guard carefully against them, when this is done,
not through fear of death, but from a desire to benefit others by remaining in
life, until the proper time come for one who has assumed human nature to die a
death that will be useful to mankind. And this is plain to him who reflects that
Jesus died for the sake of men,-a point of which we have spoken to the best of
our ability in the preceding pages.

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 Lebes115 also, who was a follower of
Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of the number of the
apostles, except according to a statement in one of the copies of Mark's
Gospel.116 And we have not ascertained the employments of the remaining
disciples, by which they earned their livelihood before becoming disciples of
Jesus. I assert, therefore, in answer to such statements as the above, that it
is clear to all who are able to institute an intelligent and candid examination
into the history of the apostles of Jesus, that it was by help of a divine power
that these men taught Christianity, and succeeded in leading others to embrace
the word of God. For it was not any power of speaking, or any orderly
arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or
rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers.
Nay, I am of opinion that if Jesus had selected some individuals who were wise
according to the apprehension of the multitude, and who were fitted both to
think and speak so as to please them, and had used such as the ministers of His
doctrine, He would most justly have been suspected of employing artifices, like
those philosophers who are the leaders of certain sects, and consequently the
promise respecting the divinity of His doctrine would not have manifested
itself; for had the doctrine and the preaching consisted in the persuasive
utterance and arrangement of words, then faith also, like that of the
philosophers of the world in their opinions, would have been through the wisdom
of men, and not through the power of God. Now, who is there on seeing fishermen
and tax-gatherers, who had not acquired even the merest elements of learning (as
the Gospel relates of them, and in respect to which Celsus believes that they
speak the truth, inasmuch as it is their own ignorance which they record),
discoursing boldly not only among the Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching
Him with success among other nations, would not inquire whence they derived this
power of persuasion, as theirs was certainly not the common method followed by
the multitude? And who would not say that the promise, "Follow Me, and I will
make you fishers of men,"117 had been accomplished by Jesus in the history of
His apostles by a sort of divine power? And to this also, Paul, referring in
terms of commendation, as we have stated a little above, says: "And my speech
and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in
the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."118 For, according to the
predictions in the prophets, foretelling the preaching of the Gospel, "the Lord
gave the word in great power to them who preached it, even the King of the
powers of the Beloved,"119 in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled which
said, "His words shall run very swiftly."120 And we see that "the voice of the
apostles of Jesus has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the end
of the world,"121 On this account are they who hear the word powerfully
proclaimed filled with power, which they manifest both by their dispositions and
their lives, and by struggling even to death on behalf of the truth; while some
are altogether empty, although they profess to believe in God through Jesus,
inasmuch as, not possessing any divine power, they have the appearance only of
being converted to the word of God. And although I have previously mentioned a
Gospel declaration uttered by the Saviour, I shall nevertheless quote it again,
as appropriate to the present occasion, as it confirms both the divine
manifestation of our Saviour's foreknowledge regarding the preaching of His
Gospel, and the power of His word, which without the aid of teachers gains the
mastery over those who yield their assent to persuasion accompanied with divine
power; and the words of Jesus referred to are, "The harvest is plenteous, but
the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He will
send forth labourers into His harvest."122

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."123 And in the
Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am
a sinful man."124 Moreover, Paul, who himself also at a later time became an
apostle of Jesus, says in his Epistle to Timothy, "This is a faithful saying,
that Jesus Christ came into, the world to save sinners, of whom I am the
chief."125 And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have
thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the
Churches that are in Christ. He saw, probably, that anything he might say about
that apostle would require to be explained, in consistency with the fact that,
after being a persecutor of the Church of God, and a bitter opponent of
believers, who went so far even as to deliver over the disciples of Jesus to
death, so great a change afterwards passed over him, that he preached the Gospel
of Jesus from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, and was ambitious to carry the
glad tidings where he needed not to build upon another man's foundation, but to
places where the Gospel of God in Christ had not been proclaimed at all. What
absurdity, therefore, is there, if Jesus, desiring to manifest to the human race
the power which He possesses to heal souls, should have selected notorious and
wicked men, and should have raised them to such a degree of moral excellence,
that they, became a pattern of the purest virtue to all who were converted by
their instrumentality to the Gospel of Christ?

Chapter LXIV. But if we were to reproach those who have been converted with
their former lives, then we would have occasion to accuse Phaedo also, even
after he became a philosopher; since, as the history relates, he was drawn away
by Socrates from a house of bad fame126 to the pursuits of philosophy. Nay, even
the licentious life of Polemo, the successor of Xenocrates, will be a subject of
reproach to philosophy; whereas even in these instances we ought to regard it as
a ground of praise, that reasoning was enabled, by the persuasive power of these
men, to convert from the practice of such vices those who had been formerly
entangled by them. Now among the Greeks there was only one Phaedo, I know, not
if there were a second, and one Polemo, who betook themselves to philosophy,
after a licentious and most wicked life; while with Jesus there were not only at
the time we speak of, the twelve disciples, but many more at all times, who,
becoming a band of temperate men, speak in the following terms of their former
lives: "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived,
serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and
hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour
towards man appeared, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost, which He shed upon us richly,"127 we became such as we are. For "God sent
forth His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions,"128
as the prophet taught in the book of Psalms. And in addition to what has been
already said, I would add the following: that Chrysippus, in his treatise on the
Cure of the Passions, in his endeavours to restrain the passions of the human
soul, not pretending to determine what opinions are the true ones, says that
according to the principles of the different sects are those to be cured who
have been brought under the dominion of the passions, and continues: "And if
pleasure be an end, then by it must the passions be healed; and if there be
three kinds of chief blessings, still, according to this doctrine, it is in the
same way that those are to be freed from their passions who are under their
dominion; "whereas the assailants of Christianity do not see in how many persons
the passions have been brought under restraint, and the flood of wickedness
checked, and savage manners softened, by means of the Gospel. So that it well
became those who are ever boasting of their zeal for the public good, to make a
public acknowledgement of their thanks to that doctrine which by a new method
led men to abandon many vices, and to bear their testimony at least to it, that
even though not the truth, it has at all events been productive of benefit to
the human race.

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,"129 to which teaching He added the example of a consistent life, acting
so as not to expose Himself to danger rashly, or unseasonably, or without good
grounds; from this Celsus takes occasion to bring a malicious and slanderous
accusation,-the Jew whom he brings forward saying to Jesus, "In company with
your disciples you go and hide yourself in different places." Now similar to
what has thus been made the ground of a slanderous charge against Jesus and His
disciples, do we say was the conduct recorded of Aristotle. This philosopher,
seeing that a court was about to be summoned to try him, on the ground of his
being guilty of impiety on account of certain of his philosophical tenets which
the Athenians regarded as impious, withdrew from Athens, and fixed his school in
Chalcis, defending his course of procedure to his friends by saying, "Let us
depart from Athens, that we may not give the Athenians a handle for incurring
guilt a second time, as formerly in the case of Socrates, and so prevent them
from committing a second act of impiety against philosophy." He further says,
"that Jesus went about with His disciples, and obtained His livelihood in a
disgraceful and importunate manner." Let him show wherein lay the disgraceful
and importunate element in their manner of subsistence. For it is related in the
Gospels, that there were certain women who had been healed of their diseases,
among whom also was Susanna, who from their own possessions afforded the
disciples the means of support. And who is there among philosophers, that, when
devoting himself to the service of his acquaintances, is not in the habit of
receiving from them what is needful for his wants? Or is it only in them that
such acts are proper and becoming; but when the disciples of Jesus do the same,
they are accused by Celsus of obtaining their livelihood by disgraceful
importunity?

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 Egygt? 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."130 We now, believing Jesus Himself, when He says
respecting His divinity, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life,"131 and
employs other terms of similar import; and when He says respecting His being
clothed with a human body, "And now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you
the truth,"132 conclude that He was a kind of compound being. And so it became
Him who was making provision for His sojourning in the world as a human being,
not to expose Himself unseasonably to the danger of death. And in like manner it
was necessary that He should be taken away by His parents, acting under the
instructions of an angel from heaven, who communicated to them the divine will,
saying on the first occasion, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;
"133 and on the second, "Arise, and take the young Child, and His mother, and
flee into Egypt; and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek
the young Child to destroy Him."134 Now, what is recorded in these words appears
to me to be not at all marvellous. For in either passage of Scripture it is
stated that it was in a dream that the angel spoke these words; and that in a
dream certain persons may have certain things pointed out to them to do, is an
event of frequent occurrence to many individuals,-the impression on the mind
being produced either by an angel or by some other thing. Where, then, is the
absurdity in believing that He who had once become incarnate, should be led also
by human guidance to keep out of the way of dangers? Not indeed from any
impossibility that it should be otherwise, but from the moral fitness that ways
and means should be made use of to ensure the safety of Jesus. And it was
certainly better that the Child Jesus should escape the snare of Herod, and
should reside with His parents in Egypt until the death of the conspirator, than
that Divine Providence should hinder the free-will of Herod in his wish to put
the Child to death, or that the fabled poetic helmet of Hades should have been
employed, or anything of a similar kind done with respect to Jesus, or that they
who came to destroy Him should have been smitten with blindness like the people
of Sodom. For the sending of help to Him in a very miraculous and unnecessarily
public manner, would not have been of any service to Him who, wished to show
that as a man, to whom witness was borne by God, He possessed within that form
which was seen by the eyes of men some higher element of divinity,-that which
was properly the Son of God-God the Word-the power of God, and the wisdom of
God-He who is called the Christ. But this is not a suitable occasion for
discussing the composite nature of the incarnate Jesus; the investigation into
such a subject being for believers, so to speak, a sort of private question.

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 Aeacus,
and Minos, were not believed by us. Nevertheless, that they might not appear
unworthy of credit, they represented the deeds of these personages as great and
wonderful, and truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is
noble or wonderful either in deed or in word? Thou hast made no manifestation to
us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some unmistakeable
sign that you were the Son of God." In reply to which we have to say Let the
Greeks show to us, among those who have been enumerated, any one whose deeds
have been marked by a utility and splendour extending to after generations, and
which have been so great as to produce a belief in the fables which represented
them as of divine descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those
men of whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to what Jesus
did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories, wishing us to
believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel
accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole
habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the existence of
those Churches of God which have been founded through Him by those who have been
converted from the practice of innumerable sins.135 And the name of Jesus can
still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel demons, and also take
away diseases; and produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change
of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in those individuals
who do not feign themselves to be Christians for the sake of subsistence or the
supply of any mortal wants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine
concerning God and Christ, and the judgment to come.

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
justified136 by God. And jugglers do none of these things, because they have
neither the power nor the will, nor any desire to busy themselves about the
reformation of men, inasmuch as their own lives are full of the grossest and
most notorious sins. But how should not He who, by the miracles which He did,
induced those who beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of
their characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but also
to others, as a pattern of most virtuous life, in order that His disciples might
devote themselves to the work of instructing men in the will of God, and that
the others, after being more fully instructed by His word and character than by
His miracles, as to how they were to direct their lives, might in all their
conduct have a constant reference to the good pleasure of the universal God? And
if such were the life of Jesus, how could any one with reason compare Him with
the sect of impostors, and not, on the contrary, believe, according to the
promise, that He was God, who appeared in human form to do good to our race?

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 have belonged to God." Now, in answer to this, we have to say that
Jesus, on entering into the world, assumed, as one born of a woman, a human
body, and one which was capable of suffering a natural death. For which reason,
in addition to others, we say that He was also a great wrestler;137 having, on
account of His human body, been tempted in all respects like other men, but no
longer as men, with sin as a consequence, but being altogether without sin. For
it is distinctly clear to us that "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His
mouth; and as one who knew no sin,"138 God delivered Him up as pure for all who
had sinned. Then Celsus says: "The body of god would not have been so generated
as you, O Jesus, were." He saw, besides, that if, as it is written, it had been
born, His body somehow might be even more divine than that of the multitude, and
in a certain sense a body of god. But he disbelieves the accounts of His
conception by the Holy Ghost, and believes that He was begotten by one Panthera,
who corrupted the Virgin, "because a god's body would not have been so generated
as you were." But we have spoken of these matters at greater length in the
preceding pages.

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,"139 we shall begin, in what
follows, the consideration of the second appearance of the Jew, in which he is
represented by Celsus as addressing those who have become converts to Jesus.

1: 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.] 2: Cf. Matt. xxvi. 59-63.

3: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 11-14.

4: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 18.

5: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 18.

6: Rom. viii. 35-37.

7: Rom. viii. 38, 39.

8: Rom. viii. 37, upernikwmen .

9: htinoj piqanothtoj logou .

10: Col. ii. 8.

11: Cf. Jer. xx. 7.

12: Kai wsper ou to tuxon twn yeudomenwn en gewmetrikoij qewrhmase
yeudografoumenon tij an legoi, h kai anagrafai gumnasiou eneken tou apo
toioutwn. Cf. note of Ruaeus in loc .

13: Rom. xiv. 1.

14: swmatopoihsai .

15: thn kaloumenhn agaphn .

16: aqesmouj .

17: paranomian .

18: tw logw .

19: ton hqikon topon .

20: to boulhma tou nomon .

21: o logoj .

22: Cf. Matt. vii. 22.

23: The words, as they stand in the text of Lommatzsch, are, alla kai mhn nohqen
to peri thj anastasewj musthrion . Ruaeus would read mh instead of mhn . This
emendation has been adopted in the translation.

24: deinothtoj .

25: logw kai logikw odhgw .

26: sumbolikwj gegenhmenwn, h nenomoqethmenwn .

27: sfodra oligwn epi ton logon attontwn .

28: apoklhrwtikwj .

29: mallon eugnwmonwj .

30: apo prwthj prosbolhj .

31: Par oij eise teletai, presbeuomenai men logikwj upo twn par autoij logiwn,
sumbolikwj de ginomenai upo twn par autoij pollwn kai apipolaioterwn. For
ginomenai Ruaeus prefers ginwskomenai , which is adopted in the translation.

32: 1 Cor. iii. 18, 19.

33: metenswmatwsewj .

34: Eti de oti kai kata to tw logw areskon, pollw diaferei meta logou kai sofiaj
sugkatatiqesqai toij dogmasin, hper meta yilhj thj pistewj kai oti kata
peristasin kai tout eboulhqh o Logoj, ina mh panth anwfeleij eash touj
anqrwpouj, dhloi o tou Ihsou gnhsioj maqhthj , etc.

35: 1 Cor. i. 23, 24.

36: [ arxaiothtoj . See Josephus's Works , for the treatise in two books,
usually designated, as written, Against Apion . S.] 37: [See vol. ii. pp. 80,
81. S.]

38: Oionei kwluetai, kathgorhsaj wj bouletai, apologeisqai touj dunamenouj wj
pefuken exein ta pragmata. We have taken kwluetai as middle. Some propose kwluei
. And we have read boulontai , a lection which is given by a second hand in one
ms.

39: Epitriyai . Other readings are epistreyai and apostreyai , which convey the
opposite meaning.

40: autoqen .

41: [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.] 42: Ps. cii.
27.

43: Mal. iii. 6.

44: anaplasmata .

45: thn aplanh .

46: Epi ton tuflon plouton, kai epi thn sarkwn kai aimatwn kai astewn summetrian
en ugieia kai enecia, h thn noumizomenhn eugeneian.

47: Lev. xix. 31.

48: Wj genomenou hgemonoj th kaqo Xristianoi esmen genesei hmwn .

49: oukolakeuwn .

50: idiwtikhn .

51: seisai .

52: [This striking chapter is cited, as a specimen of Christian eloquence, in
the important work of Guillon, Cours d' Eloquence Sacrèe , Bruxelles, 1828].

53: Gelenius reads oplizwn (instead of aleifwn ), which has been adopted in the
translation.

54: Cf. Homer's Iliad , v. 2, 3.

55: Cf. Isa. vii. 10-14 with Matt. i. 23.

56: neanij .

57: neanin .

58: Cf. Deut. xxii. 23, 24.

59: th neanide .

60: Cf. Isa. vii. 11.

61: Isa. vii. 14.

62: Cf. Eph. iv. 10.

63: Cf. Deut. xviii. 14.

64: Cf. Deut. xviii. 14.

65: Cf. Deut. xviii. 15.

66: Cf. 1 Sam. ix. 10.

67: Cf. 1 Kings xiv. 12 [See note 3, supra , p. 362. S.] 68: Cf. 2 Kings i. 3.

69: Pepoihken anti spermatikou logou, tou ek micewj twn arrenwn taij gumaice,
allw tropw genesqai ton logon tou texqhsomenou .

70: 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.

71: Cf. Ezek. i. 1.

72: Cf. Ezek. i. 28 and ii. 1.

73: Cf. Ezek. vi. 1, 2.

74: xarismati .

75: Cf. Isa. xlviii. 16.

76: [ arxaiologiaj . S.] Cf. Joseph., Antiq ., book xviii. c. v. sec. 2.

77: [ Ibid ., b. xx. c. ix. §1. S.] 78: Cf. Gal. i. 19.

79: Cf. Prov. ii. 5.

80: Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 15.

81: Cf. 1 John i. 1.

82: Cf. Ezek. iii. 2, 3.

83: Wsfranqh thj osmhj twn tou uiou qeioterwn imatiwn .

84: Cf. Gen. xxvii. 27.

85: Cf. Matt. viii. 3.

86: Cf. John i. 32-34.

87: Cf. John i. 51.

88: Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2.

89: Cf. Matt. xvii. 9.

90: John v. 31.

91: John x. 24.

92: pantodapwj proeipon .

93: Cf. Mic. v. 2. and Matt. ii. 6.

94: [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.]

95: [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.] 96: Cf. John vii. 42.

97: Cf. Matt. xxviii. 13, 14.

98: Cf. Gen. xlix. 10, ewj an elqh ta apokeimena autw . This is one of the
passages of the Septuagint which Justin Martyr charges the Jews with corrupting;
the true reading, according to him, being ewj an elqh w apokeitai . Cf. Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho , vol. i. p. 259.

99: Cf. Gen. xlix. 10.

100: Isa. xlii. 4. (Sept.) 101: Cf. Isa. xlix. 8, 9.

102: Isa. xlix. 9.

103: uper autwn .

104: Cf. Isa. lii 13-15 in the Septuagint version (Roman text).

105: Cf. Isa. liii. 1-8 in the Septuagint version (Roman text).

106: [Col. ii. 15. S.] 107: Ps. xlv. 2-5.

108: Ps. xlv. 6, 7.

109: proj ton Xriston .

110: Rom. viii. 15.

111: Cf. Acts v. 38, 39.

112: Cf. Num. xxiv. 17 (Septuag.).

113: Cf. Num. xxiv. 17 (Septuag.).

114: Cf. John xviii. 36.

115: Lebhj .

116: Cf. Mark iii. 18 with Matt. x. 3.

117: Matt. iv. 19.

118: Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.

119: Cf. Ps. lxviii. 11 (Septuag.).

120: Ps. cxlvii. 15.

121: Ps. xix. 4.

122: Matt. ix. 37, 38.

123: Epistle of Barnabas , chap. v. vol. i. p. 139.

124: Luke v. 8.

125: Cf. 1 Tim. i. 15.

126: apo oikhmatoj . Such is the reading in the text of Lommatzsch. Hoeschel and
Spencer read apo oikhmatoj eteiou , and Ruaus proposes etairiou .

127: Cf. Tit. iii. 3-6.

128: Cf. Ps. cvii. 20.

129: Cf. Matt. x. 23.

130: Cf. Iliad, v. 340.

131: John xiv. 6.

132: Cf. John viii. 40.

133: Cf. Matt. i. 20.

134: Cf. Matt. ii. 13.

135: [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.] 136: wj dikaiwqhsomenouj .

137: megan agwnisthn .

138: [1 Pet. ii. 22; 2 Cor. v. 21. S.] 139: Ps. liv. 5.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 2
========================================================================

Book II.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Chapter LXXI.

Chapter LXXII.

Chapter LXXIII.

Chapter LXXIV.

Chapter LXXV.

Chapter LXXVI.

Chapter LXXVII.

Chapter LXXVIII.

Book II.

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.1 And we call attention, in the first place, to this
special question, viz., why Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the
introduction of individuals upon the stage of his book, did not represent the
Jew as addressing the converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism,
seeing that his discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to
produce an impression.2 But probably this claimant to universal knowledge does
not know what is appropriate in the matter of such representations; and
therefore let us proceed to consider what he has to say to the converts from
Judaism. He asserts that "they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in
consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most
ridiculously deceived, and that they have become deserters to another name and
to another mode of life." Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have
not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its
prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according
to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies "poor" among the
Jews,3 and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name
of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a considerable time
the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from
Jesus to ascend from the law that is regulated according to the letter, to that
which is interpreted according to the spirit,-a fact which we learn from the
Acts of the Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God appeared to
Cornelius, suggesting to him "to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter," Peter
"went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became very
hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready he fell into a trance,
and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been
a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were
all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of
the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter
said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that
call thou not common."4 Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is represented
as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and unclean animals. And
from the narrative that follows, it is manifest that he, as being yet a Jew, and
living according to their traditions, and despising those who were beyond the
pale of Judaism, stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate to
Cornelius (who was not an Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who
were with him, the word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians,
Paul states that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of
James to eat with the Gentiles, and "separated himself from them, fearing them
that were of the circumcision; "5 and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also,
followed the same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those
should not abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to
minister to the circumcision, when they who "seemed to be pillars" gave the
right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting
themselves to the circumcision, the latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why
do I mention that they who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated
themselves from the heathen, when even Paul himself "became as a Jew to the
Jews, that he might gain the Jews? "Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles
it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might
satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law.6 Now, if Celsus had
been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented the
Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism: "What induced
you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your fathers, and to allow your
minds to be led captive by him with whom we have just conversed, and thus be
most ridiculously deluded, so as to become deserters from us to another name,
and to the practices of another life? "

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."7 And when
we inquire what were the "many things" referred to in the passage which Jesus
had to say to His disciples, but which they were not then able to bear, I have
to observe that, probably because the apostles were Jews, and had been trained
up according to the letter of the Mosaic law, He was unable to tell them what
was the true law, and how the Jewish worship consisted in the pattern and shadow
of certain heavenly things, and how future blessings were foreshadowed by the
injunctions regarding meats and drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and
sabbaths. These were many of the subjects which He had to explain to them; but
as He saw that it was a work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the mind
opinions that have been almost born with a man, and amid which he has been
brought up till he reached the period of maturity, and which have produced in
those who have adopted them the belief that they are divine, and that it is an
act of impiety to overthrow them; and to demonstrate by the superiority of
Christian doctrine, that is, by the truth, in a manner to convince the hearers,
that such opinions were but "loss and dung," He postponed such a task to a
future season-to that, namely, which followed His passion and resurrection. For
the bringing of aid unseasonably to those who were not yet capable of receiving
it, might have overturned the idea which they had already formed of Jesus, as
the Christ, and the Son of the living God. And see if there is not some
well-grounded reason for such a statement as this, "I have many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot hear them now; "seeing there are many points in the law
which require to be explained and cleared up in a spiritual sense, and these the
disciples were in a manner unable to bear, having been born and brought up
amongst Jews. I am of opinion, moreover, that since these rites were typical,
and the truth was that which was to be taught them by the Holy Spirit, these
words were added, "When He is come who is the Spirit of truth, He will lead you
into all the truth; "as if He had said, into all the truth about those things
which, being to you but types, ye believed to constitute a true worship which ye
rendered unto God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of
truth came to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-footed beasts, and
creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air: "Arise, Peter; kill, and
eat." And the Spirit came to him while he was still in a state of superstitious
ignorance; for he said, in answer to the divine command, "Not so Lord; for I
have never yet eaten anything common or unclean." He instructed him, however, in
the true and spiritual meaning of meats, by saying, "What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common." And so, after that vision, the Spirit of truth,
which conducted Peter into all the truth, told him the many things which he was
unable to bear when Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But I shall have
another opportunity of explaining those matters, which are connected with the
literal acceptation of the Mosaic law.

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,"8 etc.? And how have they abandoned the law of their fathers, who are
ever speaking of the usages of their fathers in such words as these: "Or does
not the law say these things also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou
shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God care
for oxen? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? for for our sakes it was
written," and so on?9 Now, how confused is the reasoning of the Jew in regard to
these matters (although he had it in his power to speak with greater effect)
when he says: "Certain among you have abandoned the usages of our fathers under
a pretence of explanations and allegories; and some of you, although, as ye
pretend, interpreting them in a spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the
customs of our fathers; and some of you, without any such interpretation, are
willing to accept Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses
according to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind
of the Spirit." Now how was Celsus able to see these things so clearly in this
place, when in the subsequent parts of his work he makes mention of certain
godless heresies altogether alien from the doctrine of Jesus, and even of others
which leave the Creator out of account altogether, and does not appear to know
that there are Israelites who are converts to Christianity, and who have not
abandoned the law of their fathers? It was not his object to investigate
everything here in the spirit of truth, and to accept whatever he might find to
be useful; but he composed these statements in the spirit of an enemy, and with
a desire to overthrow everything as soon as he heard it.

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,"10 and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as ye allege,
treat the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they
bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious
reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the
Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even
fabulous.11 And what absurdity should there be in our system-that is, the
Gospel-having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said
to those who would not believe upon Him: "If ye had believed Moses, ye would
have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye do not believe his writings, how
shall ye believe My words? "12 Nay, even one of the evangelists-Mark-says: "The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah,
Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before
Thee,"13 which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the
Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of
Celsus, that "if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit
mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God? "Or how is it a
charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For
although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert
from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of
Moses.

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 stale14 opinions, and thinks that he will overthrow
Christianity by asserting that there is nothing new in its teaching upon these
points, we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews not
to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a
parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them, and given to the
converts from heathenism. For which reason, now, we may also see of a truth that
all the doctrines of the Jews of the present day are mere trifles and fables,15
since they have not the light that proceeds from the knowledge of the
Scriptures; whereas those of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise
and elevate the soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to seek a
citizenship, not like the earthly16 Jews here below, but in heaven. And this
result shows itself among those who are able to see the grandeur of the ideas
contained in the law and the prophets, and who are able to commend them to
others.

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 mythologizings17 of the Jews, and have our minds
chastened and educated by the mystical contemplation of the law and the
prophets. For the prophets themselves, as not resting the sense of these Words
in the plain history which they relate, nor in the legal enactments taken
according to the word and letter, express themselves somewhere, when about to
relate histories, in words like this, "I will open my mouth in parables, I will
utter hard sayings of old; "18 and in another place, when offering up a prayer
regarding the law as being obscure, and needing divine help for its
comprehension, they offer up this prayer, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may
behold wondrous things out of Thy law."19

Chapter VII.

Moreover, let them show where there is to be found even the appearance of
language dictated by arrogance20 and proceeding from Jesus. For how could an
arrogant man thus express himself "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly of
heart, and you shall find rest for your souls? "21 or how can He be styled
arrogant, who after supper laid aside His garments in the presence of His
disciples, and, after girding Himself with a towel, and pouring water into a
basin, proceeded to wash the feet of each disciple, and rebuked him who was
unwilling to allow them to be washed, with the words, "Except I wash thee, thou
hast no part with Me?22 Or how could He be called such who said, "I was amongst
you, not as he that sitteth at meat, but as he that serveth? "23 And let any one
show what were the falsehoods which He uttered, and let him point out what are
great and what are small falsehoods, that he may prove Jesus to have been guilty
of the former. And there is yet another way in which we may confute him. For as
one falsehood is not less or more false than another, so one truth is not less
or more true than another. And what charges of impiety he has to bring against
Jesus, let the Jew of Celsus especially bring forward. Was it impious to abstain
from corporeal circumcision, and from a literal Sabbath, and literal festivals,
and literal new moons, and from clean and unclean meats, and to turn the mind to
the good and true and spiritual law of God, while at the same time he who was an
ambassador for Christ knew how to become to the Jews as a Jew, that he might
gain the Jews, and to those who are under the law, as under the law, that he
might gain those who are under the law?

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 shall see, and shall not perceive: for the heart of this people
has become fat,"24 etc. And let them explain why it was predicted to the Jews,
that although they both heard and saw, they would not understand what was said,
nor perceive what was seen as they ought. For it is indeed manifest, that when
they beheld Jesus they did not see who He was; and when they heard Him, they did
not understand from His words the divinity that was in Him, and which
transferred God's providential care, hitherto exercised over the Jews, to His
converts from the heathen. Therefore we may see, that after the advent of Jesus
the Jews were altogether abandoned, and possess now none of what were considered
their ancient glories, so that there is no indication of any Divinity abiding
amongst them. For they have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to
a considerable extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more
remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves have
witnessed, if our testimony may be received.25 But the Jew of Celsus exclaims:
"Why did we treat him, whom we announced beforehand, with dishonour? Was it that
we might be chastised more than others? "To which we have to answer, that on
account of their unbelief, and the other insults which they heaped upon Jesus,
the Jews will not only suffer more than others in that judgment which is
believed to impend over the world, but have even already endured such
sufferings. For what nation is an exile from their own metropolis, and from the
place sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And these
calamities they have suffered, because they were a most wicked nation, which,
although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished so severely for none,
as for those that were committed against our Jesus.

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."26 But as,
according to the Jewish manner of speaking, "I am the Lord, the God of all
flesh," and, "Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after
Me," God is believed to be He who employs the soul and body of the prophet as an
instrument; and as, according to the Greeks, he who says, "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,"

27 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 to28 the God and Father of all things. For we
assert that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic
account of the creation He uttered the words, "Let there be light," and "Let
there be a firmament," and gave the injunctions with regard to those other
creative acts which were performed; and that to Him also were addressed the
words, "Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness; "and that the Logos, when
commanded, obeyed all the Father's will. And we make these statements not from
our own conjectures, but because we believe the prophecies circulated among the
Jews, in which it is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express
words, as follows: "He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were
created."29 Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were formed, who,
according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could He be that was able to
carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who, so to speak, is the living
Logos and the Truth? And that the Gospels do not consider him who in Jesus said
these words, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," to have been of so
circumscribed a nature30 as to have an existence nowhere out of the soul and
body of Jesus, is evident both from many considerations, and from a few
instances of the following kind which we shall quote. John the Baptist, when
predicting that the Son of God was to appear immediately, not in that body and
soul, but as manifesting Himself everywhere, says regarding Him: "There stands
in the midst of you One whom ye know not, who cometh after me."31 For if he had
thought that the Son of God was only there, where was the visible body of Jesus,
how could he have said, "There stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not?
"And Jesus Himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of
the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name,
there am I in the midst of you."32 And of the same nature is His promise to His
disciples: "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world."33 And we
quote these passages, making no distinction between the Son of God and Jesus.
For the soul and body of Jesus formed, after the oi0konomi/a, one being with the
Logos of God. Now if, according to Paul's teaching, "he that is joined unto the
Lord is one spirit,"34 every one who understands what being joined to the Lord
is, and who has been actually joined to Him, is one spirit with the Lord; how
should not that being be one in a far greater and more divine degree, which was
once united with the Logos of God?35 He, indeed, manifested Himself among the
Jews as the power of God, by the miracles which He performed, which Celsus
suspected were accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of that time were
attributed I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words "He casteth out devils
through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils."36 But these our Saviour convicted
of uttering the greatest absurdities, from the fact that the kingdom of evil was
not yet come to an end. And this will be evident to all intelligent readers of
the Gospel narrative, which it is not now the time to explain.

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? "37 But in so saying, He
spake of the temple of His body; while they thought, not being able to
understand the meaning of the speaker, that His reference was to the temple of
stone, which was treated by the Jews with greater respect than He was who ought
to have been honoured as the true Temple of God-the Word, and the Wisdom, and
the Truth. And who can say that "Jesus attempted to make His escape by
disgracefully concealing Himself? "Let any one point to an act deserving to be
called disgraceful. And when he adds, "he was taken prisoner," I would say that,
if to be taken prisoner implies an act done against one's will, then Jesus was
not taken prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not prevent Himself falling
into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that He might take away the sin of
the world. For, knowing all things that were to come upon Him, He went forth,
and said to them, "Whom seek ye? "and they answered, "Jesus of Nazareth; "and He
said unto them, "I am He." And Judas also, who betrayed Him, was standing with
them. When, therefore, He had said to them, "I am He," they went backwards and
fell to the ground. Again He asked them, "Whom seek ye? "and they said again,
"Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I told you I am He; if then ye seek
Me, let these go away."38 Nay, even to Him who wished to help Him, and who smote
the high priest's servant, and cut off his ear, He said: "Put up thy sword into
its sheath: for all they who draw the sword shall perish by the sword. Thinkest
thou that I cannot even now pray to My Father, and He will presently give Me
more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be
fulfilled, that thus it must be?"39 And if any one imagines these statements to
be inventions of the writers of the Gospels, why should not those statements
rather be regarded as inventions which proceeded from a spirit of hatred and
hostility against Jesus and the Christians? and these the truth, which proceed
from those who manifest the sincerity of their feelings towards Jesus, by
enduring everything, whatever it may be, for the sake of His words? For the
reception by the disciples of such power of endurance and resolution continued
even to death, with a disposition of mind that would not invent regarding their
Teacher what was not true, is a very evident proof to all candid judges that
they were fully persuaded of the truth of what they wrote, seeing they submitted
to trials so numerous and so severe, for the sake of Him whom they believed to
be the Son of God.

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 be 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; "40 -and that, having thrown the money down in the temple, he
departed, and went and hanged himself. But if this covetous Judas, who also
stole the money placed in the bag for the relief of the poor, repented, and
brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, it is
clear that the instructions of Jesus had been able to produce some feeling of
repentance in his mind, and were not altogether despised and loathed by this
traitor. Nay, the declaration, "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the
innocent blood," was a public acknowledgment of his crime. Observe, also, how
exceedingly passionate41 was the sorrow for his sins that proceeded from that
repentance, and which would not suffer him any longer to live; and how, after he
had cast the money down in the temple, he withdrew, and went away and hanged
himself: for he passed sentence upon himself, showing what a power the teaching
of Jesus had over this sinner Judas, this thief and traitor, who could not
always treat with contempt what he had learned from Jesus. Will Celsus and his
friends now say that those proofs which show that the apostasy of Judas was not
a complete apostasy, even after his attempts against his Master, are inventions,
and that this alone is true, viz., that one of His disciples betrayed Him; and
will they add to the Scriptural account that he betrayed Him also with his whole
heart? To act in this spirit of hostility with the same writings, both as to
what we are to believe and what we are not to believe, is absurd.42 And if we
must make a statement regarding Judas which may overwhelm our opponents with
shame, we would say that, in the book of Psalms, the whole of the Psalms 108
contains a prophecy about Judas, the beginning of which is this: "O God, hold
not Thy peace before my praise; for the mouth of the sinner, and the mouth of
the crafty man, are opened against me."43 And it is predicted in this psalm,
both that Judas separated himself from the number of the apostles on account of
his sins, and that another was selected in his place; and this is shown by the
words: "And his bishopric let another take."44 But suppose now that He had been
betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was possessed by a worse spirit than
Judas, and who had completely poured out, as it were, all the words which he had
heard from Jesus, what would this contribute to an accusation against Jesus or
the Christian religion? And how will this demonstrate its doctrine to be false?
We have replied in the preceding chapter to the statements which follow this,
showing that Jesus was not taken prisoner when attempting to flee, but that He
gave Himself up voluntarily for the sake of us all. Whence it follows, that even
if He were bound, He was bound agreeably to His own will; thus teaching us the
lesson that we should undertake similar things for the sake of religion in no
spirit of unwillingness.

Chapter XII. 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?45
And if I were still in doubt, I would continue thus: Was Plato no longer mighty
in dialectics, nor able to defend his views, after Aristotle had taken his
departure; and, on that account, are the opinions of Plato false? Or may it not
be, that while Plato is true, as the pupils of his philosophy would maintain,
Aristotle was guilty of wickedness and ingratitude towards his teacher? Nay,
Chrysippus also, in many places of his writings, appears to assail Cleanthes,
introducing novel opinions opposed to his views, although the latter had been
his teacher when he was a young man, and began the study of philosophy.
Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato's pupil for twenty years, and no
inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in the school of Cleanthes; while
Judas did not remain so much as three years with Jesus.46 But from the
narratives of the lives of philosophers we might take many instances similar to
those on which Celsus founds a charge against Jesus on account of Judas. Even
the Pythagoreans erected cenotaphs47 to those who, after betaking themselves to
philosophy, fell back again into their ignorant mode of life; and yet neither
was Pythagoras nor his followers, on that account, weak in argument and
demonstration.

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,48 in pretending to
have something to say, while in reality he had nothing to produce beyond the
Gospel narrative which could impress the hearer with a feeling of its truth, and
furnish a clear ground of accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he
charges the disciples with having invented the statement that Jesus foreknew and
foretold all that happened to Him; but the truth of this statement we shall
establish, although Celsus may not like it, by means of many other predictions
uttered by the Saviour, in which He foretold what would befall the Christians in
after generations. And who is there who would not be astonished at this
prediction: "Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a
testimony against them and the Gentiles; "49 and at any others which He may have
delivered respecting the future persecution of His disciples? For what system of
opinions ever existed among men on account of which others are punished, so that
any one of the accusers of Jesus could say that, foreseeing the impiety or
falsity of his opinions to be the ground of an accusation against them he
thought that this would redound to his credit, that he had so predicted
regarding it long before? Now if any deserve to be brought, on account of their
opinions, before governors and kings, what others are they, save the Epicureans,
who altogether deny the existence of providence? And also the Peripatetics, who
say that prayers are of no avail, and sacrifices offered as to the Divinity? But
some one will say that the Samaritans suffer persecution because of their
religion. In answer to whom we shall state that the Sicarians,50 on account of
the practice of circumcision, as mutilating themselves contrary to the
established laws and the customs permitted to the Jews alone, are put to death.
And you never hear a judge inquiring whether a Sicarian who strives to live
according to this established religion of his will be released from punishment
if he apostatizes, but will be led away to death if he continues firm; for the
evidence of the circumcision is sufficient to ensure the death of him who has
undergone it. But Christians alone, according to the prediction of their
Saviour, "Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake," are urged
up to their last breath by their judges to deny Christianity, and to sacrifice
according to the public customs; and after the oath of abjuration, to return to
their homes, and to live in safety. And observe whether it is not with great
authority that this declaration is uttered: "Whosoever therefore shall confess
Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father who is in heaven. And
whosoever shall deny Me before men,"51 etc. And go back with me in thought to
Jesus when He uttered these words, and see His predictions not yet accomplished.
Perhaps you will say, in a spirit of incredulity, that he is talking folly, and
speaking to no purpose, for his words will have no fulfilment; or, being in
doubt about assenting to his words, you will say, that if these predictions be
fulfilled, and the doctrine of Jesus be established, so that governors and kings
think of destroying those who acknowledge Jesus, then we shall believe that he
utters these prophecies as one who has received great power from God to implant
this doctrine among the human race, and as believing that it will prevail. And
who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back in thought to Him who then
taught and said, "This Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, for
a testimony against them and the Gentiles,"52 and beholds, agreeably to His
words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached in the whole world under heaven to
Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish alike? For the word, spoken with power,
has gained the mastery over men of all sorts of nature, and it is impossible to
see any race of men which has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. But let
this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to
Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish
worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of
the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of
Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without
committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus
contained in their works.53 Now in these it is recorded, that "when ye shall see
Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall ye know that the desolation
thereof is nigh."54 But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem,
encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of
Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed
Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus
who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of
Jesus Christ the Son of God.

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 shall 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, these were matters which ought to have been passed over in silence
by men who wished to teach the readers of the Gospels to despise death for the
sake of confessing Christianity. But now, seeing that the word, by its power,
will gain the mastery over men, they related those facts which they have done,
and which, I know not how, were neither to do any harm to their readers, nor to
afford any pretext for denial.

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,55 or the
statements of the prophets, on this subject. And it escaped him that certain
heretics have declared that Jesus underwent His sufferings in appearance, not in
reality. For had he known, he would not have said: "For ye do not even allege
this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this punishment, though not
undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, ye acknowledge that he openly
suffered." But we do not view His sufferings as having been merely in
appearance, in order that His resurrection also may not be a false, but a real
event. For he who really died, actually arose, if he did arise; whereas he who
appeared only to have died, did not in reality arise. But since the resurrection
of Jesus Christ is a subject of mockery to unbelievers, we shall quote the words
of Plato,56 that Erus the son of Armenius rose from the funeral pile twelve days
after he had been laid upon it, and gave an account of what he had seen in
Hades; and as we are replying to unbelievers, it will not be altogether useless
to refer in this place to what Heraclides57 relates respecting the woman who was
deprived of life. And many persons are recorded to have risen from their tombs,
not only on the day of their burial, but also on the day following. What wonder
is it, then, if in the case of One who performed many marvellous things, both
beyond the power of man and with such fulness of evidence, that he who could not
deny their performance, endeavoured to calumniate them by comparing them to acts
of sorcery, should have manifested also in His death some greater display of
divine power, so that His soul, if it pleased, might leave its body, and having
performed certain offices out of it, might return again at pleasure? And such a
declaration is Jesus said to have made in the Gospel of John, when He said: "No
man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it
down, and I have power to take it again."58 And perhaps it was on this account
that He hastened His departure from the body, that He might preserve it, and
that His legs might not be broken, as were those of the robbers who were
crucified with Him. "For the soldiers brake the legs of the first, and of the
other who was crucified with Him; but when they came to Jesus, and saw that He
was dead, they brake not His legs."59 We have accordingly answered the
question," How is it credible that Jesus could have predicted these things? "And
with respect to this, "How could the dead man be immortal? "let him who wishes
to understand know, that it is not the dead man who is immortal, but He who rose
from the dead. So far, indeed, was the dead man from being immortal, that even
the Jesus before His decease-the compound being, who was to suffer death-was not
immortal.60 For no one is immortal who is destined to die; but he is immortal
when he shall no longer be subject to death. But "Christ, being raised from the
dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him; "61 although those
may be unwilling to admit this who cannot understand how such things should be
said.

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 from prison, to avoid these calamities; but nevertheless he
decided, as it appeared to him consistent with fight reason, that it was better
for him to die as became a philosopher, than to retain his life in a manner
unbecoming one. Leonidas also, the Lacedaemonian general, knowing that he was on
the point of dying with his followers at Thermopylae, did not make any effort to
preserve his life by disgraceful means but said to his companions, "Let us go to
breakfast, as we shall sup in Hades." And those who are interested in collecting
stories of this kind will find numbers of them. Now, where is the wonder if
Jesus, knowing all things that were to happen, did not avoid them, but
encountered what He foreknew; when Paul, His own disciple, having heard what
would befall him when he went up to Jerusalem, proceeded to face the danger,
reproaching those who were weeping around him, and endeavouring to prevent him
from going up to Jerusalem? Many also of our contemporaries, knowing well that
if they made a confession of Christianity they would be put to death, but that
if they denied it they would be liberated, and their property restored, despised
life, and voluntarily selected death for the sake of their religion.

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 once62 by the foreknowledge. But whence he derived
the statement, "that these persons betrayed and denied him without manifesting
any concern about him," I know not; for it was proved, with respect to the
traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his master without an
exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was shown to be equally true of
him who denied Him; for he went out, after the denial, and wept bitterly.

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 to answer even those charges of Celsus which
seem to me frivolous,63 the following is our reply to such statements. Celsus
imagines that an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass because
it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it
was not the cause of its happening, because he foretold it would happen; but the
future event itself, which would have taken place though not predicted, afforded
the occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its
occurrence. Now, certainly this result is present to the foreknowledge of him
who predicts an event, when it is possible that it may or may not happen, viz.,
that one or other of these things will take place. For we do not assert that he
who foreknows an event, by secretly taking away the possibility of its happening
or not, makes any such declaration as this: "This shall infallibly happen, and
it is impossible that it can be otherwise." And this remark applies to all the
foreknowledge of events dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the
sacred Scriptures or in the histories of the Greeks. Now, what is called by
logicians an" idle argument,"64 which is a sophism, will be no sophism as far as
Celsus can help, but according to sound reasoning it is a sophism. And that this
may be seen, I shall take from the Scriptures the predictions regarding Judas,
or the foreknowledge of our Saviour regarding him as the traitor; and from the
Greek histories the oracle that was given to Laius, conceding for the present
its truth, since it does not affect the argument. Now, in Ps. cviii., Judas is
spoken of by the mouth of the Saviour, in words beginning thus: "Hold not Thy
peace, O God of my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the
deceitful are opened against me." Now, if you carefully observe the contents of
the psalm, you will find that, as it was foreknown that he would betray the
Saviour, so also was he considered to be himself the cause of the betrayal, and
deserving, on account of his wickedness, of the imprecations contained in the
prophecy. For let him suffer these things," because," says the psalmist, "he
remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man." Wherefore
it was possible for him to show mercy, and not to persecute him whom he did
persecute. But although he might have done these things, he did not do them, but
carried out the act of treason, so as to merit the curses pronounced against him
in the prophecy. 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."65 Now from this it is clear that it was within the power of
Laius not to try to beget children, for the oracle would not have commanded an
impossibility; and it was also in his power to do the opposite, so that neither
of these courses was compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against
the begetting of children was, that he suffered from so doing the calamities
described in the tragedies relating to (Edipus and Jocasta and their sons. Now
that which is called the "idle argument," being a quibble, is such as might be
applied, say in the case of a sick man, with the view of sophistically
preventing him from employing a physician to promote his recovery; and it is
something like this: "If it is decreed that you should recover from your
disease, you will recover whether you call in a physician or not; but if it is
decreed that you should not recover, you will not recover whether you call in a
physician or no. But it is certainly decreed either that you should recover, or
that you should not recover; and therefore it is in vain that you call in a
physician." Now with this argument the following may be wittily compared: "If it
is decreed that you should beget children, you will beget them, whether you have
intercourse with a woman or not. But if it is decreed that you should not beget
children, you will not do so, whether you have intercourse with a woman or no.
Now, certainly, it is decreed either that you should beget children or not;
therefore it is in vain that you have intercourse with a woman." For, as in the
latter instance, intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain, seeing it is
an utter impossibility for him who does not use it to beget children; so, in the
former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the healing
art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore false to say
that "in vain do you call in a physician." We have brought forward all these
illustrations on account of the assertion of this learned Celsus, that "being a
God He predicted these things, and the predictions must by all means come to
pass." Now, if by "by all means" he means "necessarily," we cannot admit this.
For it was quite possible, also, that they might not come to pass. But if he
uses "by all means" in the sense of "simple futurity,"66 which nothing hinders
from being true (although it was possible that they might not happen), he does
not at all touch my argument; nor did it follow, from Jesus having predicted the
acts of the traitor or the perjurer, that it was the same thing with His being
the cause of such impious and unholy proceedings. For He who was amongst us, and
knew what was in man, seeing his evil disposition, and foreseeing what he would
attempt from his spirit of covetousness, and from his want of stable ideas of
duty towards his Master, along with many other declarations, gave utterance to
this also: "He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray
Me."67

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,68 have entered into
a conspiracy against their entertainers? The whole of Greek and Barbarian
history is full of such instances. And the Iambic poet of Paros,69 when
upbraiding Lycambes with having violated covenants confirmed by the salt of the
table, says to him:-

"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,70 can quote numerous instances, showing that they who shared in
the hospitality of others entered into conspiracies against them.

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? '"71 Now in these words observe the
malignity of Celsus, how not accepting the love of truth which actuates the
writers of the Gospels (who might have passed over in silence those points
which, as Celsus thinks, are censurable, but who did not omit them for many
reasons, which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can give in their proper
place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement, grossly
exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the Gospels, seeing
it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he changes the words in the
expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me," and does not
give what follows immediately after, which manifests at once the ready obedience
of Jesus to His Father, and His greatness of mind, and which runs thus:
"Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt."72 Nay, even the cheerful
obedience of Jesus to the will of His Father in those things which He was
condemned to suffer, exhibited in the declaration, "If this cup cannot pass from
Me except I drink it, Thy will be done," he pretends not to have observed,
acting here like those wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a
malignant spirit, and "who talk wickedness with lofty head." For they appear to
have heard the declaration, "I kill,"73 and they often make it to us a subject
of reproach; but the words, "I will make alive," they do not remember,-the whole
sentence showing that those who live amid public wickedness, and who work
wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a better life is infused into them
instead, even one which God will give to those who have died to sin. And so also
these men have heard the words, "I will smite; "but they do not see these, "and
I will heal," which are like the words of a physician, who cuts bodies asunder,
and inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract from them substances that are
injurious and prejudicial to health, and who does not terminate his work with
pains and lacerations, but by his treatment restores the body to that state of
soundness which he has in view. Moreover, they have not heard the whole of the
announcement, "For He maketh sore, and again bindeth up; "but only this part,
"He maketh sore." So in like manner acts this Jew of Celsus who quotes the
words, "O Father, would that this cup might pass from Me; "but who does not add
what follows, and which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for
suffering. But these matters, which afford great room for explanation from the
wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be pondered over74 by those whom Paul
calls "perfect" when he said, "We speak wisdom among them who are perfect,"75 we
pass by for the present, and shall speak for a little of those matters which are
useful for our present purpose.

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."76 And here, accordingly, he describes the element of
weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed
in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression, "Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me; "the readiness of the spirit in this,
"Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." And since it is proper to
observe the order of our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there is
mentioned only the single instance, as one would say, indicating the weakness of
the flesh; and afterwards those other instances, greater in number, manifesting
the willingness of the spirit. For the expression, "Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from Me," is only one: whereas more numerous are those others,
viz., "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt; "and, "O My Father, if this cup cannot
pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." It is to be noted also, that
the words are not, "let this cup depart from Me; "but that the whole expression
is marked by a tone of piety and reverence, "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me." I know, indeed, that there is another explanation of this
passage to the following effect:-The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which
the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the
wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other
motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that
they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer,
"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." It is as if He had said,
"Because of My drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be
forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from Me, in
order that Thy portion, which was guilty of such crimes against Me, may not be
altogether deserted by Thee." But if, as Celsus would allege, "nothing at that
time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing," how could men
afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of
religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but only had the
appearance of so doing?

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 things, who could have reproached us
with Jesus having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus,
indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both to be
deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy,
and to invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were
false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but
such were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they
were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views, and
were not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.

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.77 For in this way he would not appear hastily to assume so important
a position on small grounds, and particularly when he asserts that the
"prophecies agree with ten thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus."
And he ought to have carefully met this powerful argument of the Christians, as
being the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to
each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater
probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive that this was a
plausible argument to be advanced against the Christians only by one who was an
opponent of the prophetic writings; but Celsus has here put l in the mouth of a
Jew an objection which a Jew would not have made. For a Jew will not admit that
the prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability
than to Jesus; but he will endeavour, after giving what appears to him the
meaning of each, to oppose the Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means
adducing convincing reasons, but only attempting to do so.

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."78 For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any
argument to prove that a pestilence converts men from the practice of evil to a
life which is according to nature, and distinguished by temperance and other
virtues.

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 birth, God preparing the nations for His teaching,
that they might be under one prince, the king of the Romans, and that it might
not, owing to the want of union among the nations, caused by the existence of
many kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the
task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, "Go and teach all
nations." Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus,
who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the
earth. Now the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the
spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the
reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men everywhere
engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the
case before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote, when
necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and Athenians warred against each
other, and other nations in like manner. How, then, was it possible for the
Gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon
enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus79 a
milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?

Chapter XXXI.

He next charges the Christians with being "guilty of sophistical reasoning, in
saying that the Son of God is the Logoj Himself." And he thinks that he
strengthens the accusation, because "when we declare the Logoj to be the Son of
God, we do not present to view a pure and holy Logoj, 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,"80 -a passage
of which we spoke a little ago. Now, although I have conferred with many Jews
who professed to be learned men, I never heard any one expressing his approval
of the statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do,
in putting into the mouth of the Jew such a declaration as this: "If your Logos
is the Son of God, we also give out assent to the same."

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 sun failing to give light? "81
But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in
them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when
they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: "Sir,82 either
disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can
found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look
in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to
confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility
of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are
healed by His name.83 And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius
Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great
earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the
thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles."84

Chapter XXXIV. This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is
described as being acquainted with the Bacchae of Euripides, in which Dionysus
says:-

"The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish."85 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."86 And yet he does not know that it was
not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that "for envy the Jews had
delivered Him"), as the Jewish nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent
in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what
happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of
Pilate's wife, who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a
message to her husband, saying: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for
I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him? "87 And again,
passing by in silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to
cast reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who
mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and
placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you derive these
statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you, accordingly, see that
they were fit matters for reproach; while they who recorded them did not think
that you, and such as you, would turn them into ridicule; but that others would
receive from them an example how to despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him
on account of His religion, who appropriately laid down His life for its sake?
Admire rather their love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things
voluntarily for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and
long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation, or that
after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything unbecoming.

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? '"88 He puts
this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall show from the serious
narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not like it, that it was no
mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the body of Jesus, but that, after
His death, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and there came
there-out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is
true, and he knoweth that he saith the truth."89 Now, in other dead bodies the
blood congeals, and pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous feature
in the case of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead body blood and
water flowed forth from the side. But if this Celsus, who, in order to find
matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel
even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the
evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him
read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept
watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred, were
greatly afraid, saying, "This man was the Son of God."90

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 mouth91 to drink of them,
and could not endure his thirst as any ordinary man frequently endures it." Now
this matter admits of an explanation of a peculiar and figurative kind; but on
the present occasion, the statement that the prophets predicted this very
incident may be accepted as the more common answer to the objection. For in the
Psalms 69 there is written, with reference to Christ: "And they gave me gall for
my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,"92 Now, let the Jews
say who it is that the prophetic writing represents as uttering these words; and
let them adduce from history one who received gall for his food, and to whom
vinegar was given as drink. Would they venture to assert that the Christ whom
they expect still to come might be placed in such circumstances? Then we would
say, What prevents the prediction from having been already accomplished? For
this very prediction was uttered many ages before, and is sufficient, along with
the other prophetic utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the whole matter
to the conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as Christ, and as the
Son of God.

Chapter XXXVIII. The few next remarks: "You, O sincere believers,93 find fault
with us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with you
that he endured these (sufferings) for the benefit of mankind, in order that we
also might despise punishment." Now, in answer to this, we say that we blame the
Jews, who have been brought up under the training of the law and the prophets
(which foretell the coming of Christ), because they neither refute the arguments
which we lay before them to prove that He is the Messiah,94 adducing such
refutation as a defence of their unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any
refutation, do they believe in Him who was the subject of prophecy, and who
clearly manifested through His disciples, even after the period of His
appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these things for the benefit of
mankind; having, as the object of His first advent, not to condemn men and their
actions95 before He had instructed them, and pointed out to them their duty,96
nor to chastise the wicked and save the good, but to disseminate His doctrine in
an extraordinary97 manner, and with the evidence of divine power, among the
whole human race, as the prophets also have represented these things. And we
blame them, moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of
the power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the souls
of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame them because
they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who overlooked not only no
city, but not even a single village in Judea, that He might everywhere announce
the kingdom of God, accusing Him of leading the wandering life of a vagabond,
and passing an anxious existence in a disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace
in enduring such labours for the benefit of all those who may be able to
understand Him.

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
only by the persuasive98 language of Him whose words were always appropriate to
His hearers, but who also by His miracles made an impression on those who were
not moved to belief by His words? And is it not a manifest falsehood to say that
"he did not gain over even his own disciples," who exhibited, indeed, at that
time some symptoms of human weakness arising from cowardly fear-for they had not
yet been disciplined to the exhibition of full courage-but who by no means
abandoned the judgments which they had formed regarding Him as the Christ? For
Peter, after his denial, perceiving to what a depth of wickedness he had fallen,
"went out and wept bitterly; "while the others, although stricken with dismay on
account of what had happened to Jesus (for they still continued to admire Him),
had, by His glorious appearance,99 their belief more firmly established than
before that He was the Son of God.

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
ineradicable100 idea of Him (which is implanted in the human mind), and
especially when they eagerly rush to destroy those who have yielded themselves
up with their whole soul (even unto death), to the clear evidence of one God who
is over all things.

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 labour101 to be the greatest of
evils, and pleasure the perfect good,-a view accepted by none of those
philosophers who admit the doctrine of providence, and who allow that courage,
and fortitude, and magnanimity are virtues. Jesus, therefore, by His sufferings
cast no discredit upon the faith of which He was the object; but rather
confirmed the same among those who would approve of manly courage, and among
those who were taught by Him that what was truly and properly the happy life was
not here below, but was to be found in that which was called, according to His
own words, the "coming world; "whereas in what is called the "present world"
life is a calamity, or at least the first and greatest struggle of the soul.102

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.103

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).104 But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to
robbers, and says that "any similarly shameless fellow might be able to say
regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken, that such an
one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to his fellow-robbers that
he would suffer such punishment as he actually did suffer," it might, in the
first place, be answered, that it is not because He predicted that He would
suffer such things that we entertain those opinions regarding Jesus which lead
us to have confidence in Him, as one who has come down to us from God. And, in
the second place, we assert that this very comparison105 has been somehow
foretold in the Gospels; since God was numbered with the transgressors by wicked
men, who desired rather a "murderer" (one who for sedition and murder had been
cast into prison) to be released unto them, and Jesus to be crucified, and who
crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is ever crucified with robbers
among His genuine disciples and witnesses to the truth, and suffers the same
condemnation which they do among men. And we say, that if those persons have any
resemblance to robbers, who on account of their piety towards God suffer all
kinds of injury and death, that they may keep it pure and unstained, according
to the teaching of Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such
teaching, is with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a band of
robbers. But neither was He who died for the common good of mankind, nor they
who suffered because of their religion, and alone of all men were persecuted
because of what appeared to them the right way of honouring God, put to death in
accordance with justice, nor was Jesus persecuted without the charge of impiety
being incurred by His persecutors.

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,"106 etc., to which the Scripture adds, "This spake He, signifying by
what death he should glorify God; "nor how James the brother of John-an apostle,
the brother of an apostle-was slain with the sword by Herod for the doctrine of
Christ; nor even the many instances of boldness displayed by Peter and the other
apostles because of the Gospel, and "how they went forth from the presence of
the Sanhedrim after being scourged, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to
suffer shame for His name,"107 and so surpassing many of the instances related
by the Greeks of the fortitude and courage of their philosophers. From the very
beginning, then, this was inculcated as a precept of Jesus among His hearers,
which taught men to despise the life which is eagerly sought after by the
multitude, but to be earnest in living the life which resembles that of God.

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, be 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 be 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, because108 we know that his punishment was undergone to bring about the
destruction Of the father of evil." Now we were won over to His doctrine by
innumerable other considerations, of which we have stated only the smallest part
in the preceding pages; but, if God permit, we shall continue to enumerate them,
not only while dealing with the so-called True Discourse of Celsus, but also on
many other occasions. And, as if we said that we consider Him to be the Son of
God because He suffered punishment, he asks: "What then? have not many others,
too, been punished, and that not less disgracefully? "And here Celsus acts like
the most contemptible enemies of the Gospel, and like those who imagine that it
follows as a consequence from our history of the crucified Jesus, that we should
worship those who have undergone crucifixion!

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."109 And that He also raised the dead, and that it is
no fiction of those who composed the Gospels, is shown by this, that if it had
been a fiction, many individuals would have been represented as having risen
from the dead, and these, too, such as had been many years in their graves. But
as it is no fiction, they are very easily counted of whom this is related to
have happened; viz., the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom I know
not why He said, "She is not dead, but sleepeth," stating regarding her
something which does not apply to all who die); and the only son of the widow,
on whom He took compassion and raised him up, making the bearers of the corpse
to stand still; and the third instance, that of Lazarus, who had been four days
in the grave. Now, regarding these cases we would say to all persons of candid
mind, and especially to the Jew, that as there were many lepers in the days of
Elisha the prophet, and none of them was healed save Naaman the Syrian, and many
widows in the days of Elijah the prophet, to none of whom was Elijah sent save
to Sarepta in Sidonia (for the widow there had been deemed worthy by a divine
decree of the miracle which was wrought by the prophet in the matter of the
bread); so also there were many dead in the days of Jesus, but those only rose
from the grave whom the Logos knew to be fitted for a resurrection, in order
that the works done by the Lord might not be merely symbols of certain things,
but that by the very acts themselves He might gain over many to the marvellous
doctrine of the Gospel. I would say, moreover, that, agreeably to the promise of
Jesus, His disciples performed even greater works than these miracles of Jesus,
which were perceptible only to the senses.110 For the eyes of those who are
blind in soul are ever opened; and the ears of those who were deaf to virtuous
words, listen readily to the doctrine of God, and of the blessed life with Him;
and many, too, who were lame in the feet of the "inner man," as Scripture calls
it, having now been healed by the word, do not simply leap, but leap as the
hart, which is an animal hostile to serpents, and stronger than all the poison
of vipers. And these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to
trample, with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and
scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy; and
though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also have become
stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.

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 apparent111
miracles to gain over to them the disciples of Jesus, said in a certain passage:
"Then, if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it
not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show
great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive
the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore, if they shall say
unto you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, he is in the secret
chambers, believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even to the west, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be."112 And
in another passage: "Many will say unto Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
eaten and drunk in Thy name, and by Thy name have cast out demons, and done many
wonderful works? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, because ye are
workers of iniquity."113 But Celsus, wishing to assimilate the miracles of Jesus
to the works of human sorcery, says in express terms as follows: "O light and
truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have
recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a
similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and he calls him who makes use
of such devices, one Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works
at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being
compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the
doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a
miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the
other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted
wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against
himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a
divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked
men." Observe, now, whether Celsus is not clearly convicted of slandering the
Gospel by such statements, since what Jesus says regarding those who are to work
signs and wonders is different from what this Jew of Celsus alleges it to be.
For if Jesus had simply told His disciples to be on their guard against those
who professed to work miracles, without declaring what they would give
themselves out to be, then perhaps there would have been some ground for his
suspicion. But since those against whom Jesus would have us to be on our guard
give themselves out as the Christ-which is not a claim put forth by
sorcerers-and since He says that even some who lead wicked lives will perform
miracles in the name of Jesus, and expel demons out of men, sorcery in the case
of these individuals, or any suspicion of such, is rather, if we may so speak,
altogether banished, and the divinity of Christ established, as well as the
divine mission114 of His disciples; seeing that it is possible that one who
makes use of His name, and who is wrought upon by some power, in some way
unknown, to make the pretence that he is the Christ, should seem to perform
miracles like those of Jesus, while others through His name should do works
resembling those of His genuine disciples.

Paul, moreover, in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, shows in what manner
there will one day be revealed "the man of sin, 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."115 And again he says to the Thessalonians: "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 will consume with
the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming:
even him, whose cunning is after the working of Satan, with all power, and
signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish."116 And in assigning the reason why the man of sin is permitted to
continue in existence, he says: "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."117 Let any one now
say whether any of the statements in the Gospel, or in the writings of the
apostle, could give occasion for the suspicion that there is therein contained
any prediction of sorcery. Any one, moreover, who likes may find the prophecy in
Daniel respecting antichrist.118 But Celsus falsities the words of Jesus, since
He did not say that others would come working similar miracles to Himself, but
who are wicked men and sorcerers, although Celsus asserts that He uttered such
words. For as the power of the Egyptian magicians was not similar to the
divinely-bestowed grace of Moses, but the issue clearly proved that the acts of
the former were the effect of magic, while those of Moses were wrought by divine
power; so the proceedings of the antichrists, and of those who feign that they
can work miracles as being the disciples of Christ, are said to be lying signs
and wonders, prevailing with all deceivableness of unrighteousness among them
that perish; whereas the works of Christ and His disciples had for their fruit,
not deceit, but the salvation of human souls. And who would rationally maintain
that an improved moral life, which daily lessened the number of a man's
offences, could proceed from a system of deceit?

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
question119 when he asserts that "Jesus did not deny that these works have in
them nothing of divinity, but proceed from wicked men," for he makes things
which differ in kind to be the same. Now, as a wolf is not of the same species
as a dog, although it may appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its
body and in its voice, nor a common wood-pigeon120 the same as a dove,121 so
there is no resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is the
effect of sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the calumnies of
Celsus, Are those to be regarded as miracles which are wrought through sorcery
by wicked demons, but those not which are performed by a nature that is holy and
divine? and does human life endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now
it appears to me that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as,
wherever anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with
the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to the evil;
so also, in opposition to those things which are brought about by sorcery, there
must also of necessity be some things in human life which are the result of
divine power. And it follows from the same, that we must either annihilate both,
and assert that neither exists, or, assuming the one, and particularly the evil,
admit also the reality of the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works
are wrought by means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works
which are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who
should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the
appearance of establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while
denying that truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed
from sophistry. But if we once admit that it is consistent with the existence of
magic and sorcery (which derive their power from evil demons, who are
spell-bound by elaborate incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that
some works must be found among men which proceed from a power that is divine,
why shall we not test those who profess to perform them by their lives and
morals, and the consequences of their miracles, viz., whether they tend to the
injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of evil demons,
e.g., can do such things? and by means of what incantations and magic arts? And
who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul and his spirit, and I
imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state, receives a divine spirit, and
performs such works in order to benefit men, and to lead them to believe on the
true God? But if we must once investigate (without being carded away by the
miracles themselves) who it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by
help of an evil power, so that we may neither slander all without
discrimination, nor yet admire and accept all as divine, will it not be
manifest, from what occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire
nations were established in consequence of their miracles, that these men
wrought by means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For
wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not only above
idols and images erected by men, but also above all created things, and to
ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the universe.

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, need122 to work such miracles as, on account of
their greater grandeur and divinity (in comparison with those of Moses), were
able to convert men from Jewish fables, and from the human traditions which
prevailed among them, and make them admit that He who taught and did such things
was greater than the: prophets? For how was not He greater than the prophets,
who was proclaimed by them to be the Christ, and the Saviour of the human race?

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,123 -both of
them, so far as the language of this Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to
the same charge; as, e.g., when this Jew says of Christ, "But, O light and
truth! Jesus with his own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves have
recorded, that there will appear among you others also, who will perform
miracles like mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers," some one, either
Greek or Egyptian, or any other party who disbelieved the Jew, might say
respecting Moses, "But, O light and truth! Moses with his own voice expressly
declares, as ye also have recorded, that there will appear among you others
also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers.
For it is written in your law, 'If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer
of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to
pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods which thou
hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shall not hearken to the words of
that prophet, or dreamer of dreams,'"124 etc. Again, perverting the words of
Jesus, he says, "And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan; "while
one, applying this to Moses, might say, "And he terms him who devises such
things, a prophet who dreams." And as this Jew asserts regarding Jesus, that
"even he himself does not deny that these works have in them nothing of
divinity, but are the acts of wicked men; "so any one who disbelieves the
writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been already said, the same thing,
viz., that, "even Moses does not deny that these works have in them nothing of
divinity, but are the acts of wicked men." And he will do the same thing also
with respect to this: "Being compelled by the force of truth, Moses at the same
time both exposed the doings of others, and convicted himself of the same." And
when the Jew says, "Is it not a wretched inference from the same acts, to
conclude that the one is a God, and the others sorcerers? "one might object to
him, on the ground of those words of Moses already quoted, "Is it not then a
wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one is a prophet and
servant of God, and the others sorcerers? "But when, in addition to those
comparisons which I have already mentioned, Celsus, dwelling upon the subject,
adduces this also: "Why from these works should the others be accounted wicked,
rather than this man, seeing they have him as a witness against himself? "-we,
too, shall adduce the following, in addition to what has been already said:
"Why, from those passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who exhibit
signs and wonders, ought we to consider such persons as wicked, rather than
Moses, because he calumniates some of them in respect of their signs and
wonders? "And urging more to the same effect, that he may appear to strengthen
his attempt, he says: "He himself acknowledged that these were not the works of
a divine nature, but were the inventions of certain deceivers, and of very
wicked men." Who, then, is "himself? "You O Jew, say that it is Jesus; but he
who accuses you as liable to the same charges, will transfer this "himself" to
the person of Moses.

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 Loud; and they buried him in Moab, near the house
of Phogor: and no one knoweth his sepulchre until this day? '"125 For as the Jew
casts discredit upon the statement, that "Jesus foretold that after His death He
would rise again," another person might make a similar assertion about Moses,
and would say in reply, that Moses also put on record (for the book of
Deuteronomy is his composition) the statement, that "no one knoweth his
sepulchre until this day," in order to magnify and enhance the importance of his
place of burial, as being unknown to mankind.

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 Zamolxis126 in Scythia, the slave of
Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in Italy; and with Rhampsinitus127 in
Egypt (the latter of whom, they say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and
returned to the upper world with a golden napkin which he had received from her
as a gift); and also with Orpheus128 among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in
Thessaly, and Hercules129 at Cape Taenarus, and Theseus. But the question is,
whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body.130 Or do
you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the
appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible
termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his
last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no
assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of
his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A
half-frantic131 woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who
were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to
a peculiar state of mind,132 or under the influence of a wandering imagination
bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes,133 which has
been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who
desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish
an occasion to impostors like himself."

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
engaged in such juggling tricks) than in that of a Jew, who is not very learned
in the histories of the Greeks. An Egyptian, moreover, who did not believe the
miracles of Moses, might credibly adduce the instance of Rhampsinitus, saying
that it was far more credible that he had descended to Hades, and had played at
dice with Demeter, and that after stealing from her a golden napkin he exhibited
it as a sign of his having been in Hades, and of his having returned thence,
than that Moses should have recorded that he entered into the darkness, where
God was, and that he alone, above all others, drew near to God. For the
following is his statement: "Moses alone shall come near the Lord; but the rest
shall not come nigh."134 We, then, who are the disciples of Jesus, say to the
Jew who urges these objections: "While assailing our belief in Jesus, defend
yourself, and answer the Egyptian and the Greek objectors: what will you say to
those charges which you brought against our Jesus, but which also might be
brought against Moses first? And if you should make a vigorous effort to defend
Moses, as indeed his history does admit of a clear and powerful defence, you
will unconsciously, in your support of Moses, be an unwilling assistant in
establishing the greater divinity of Jesus."

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,135
maintaining that these heroes disappeared for a certain time, and secretly
withdrew themselves from the sight of all men, and gave themselves out
afterwards as having returned from Hades,-for such is the meaning which his
words seem to convey respecting the Odrysian Orpheus, and the Thessalian
Protesilaus, and the Taenarian Hercules, and Theseus also,-let us endeavour to
show that the account of Jesus being raised from the dead cannot possibly be
compared to these. For each one of the heroes respectively mentioned might, had
he wished, have secretly withdrawn himself from the sight of men, and returned
again, if so determined, to those whom he had left; but seeing that Jesus was
crucified before all the Jews, and His body slain in the presence of His nation,
how can they bring themselves to say that He practised a similar deception136
with those heroes who are related to have gone down to Hades, and to have
returned thence? But we say that the following consideration might be adduced,
perhaps, as a defence of the public crucifixion of Jesus, especially in
connection with the existence of those stories of heroes who are supposed to
have been compelled137 to descend to Hades: that if we were to suppose Jesus to
have died an obscure death, so that the fact of His decease was not patent to
the whole nation of the Jews, and afterwards to have actually risen from the
dead, there would, in such a case, have been ground for the same suspicion
entertained regarding the heroes being also entertained regarding Himself.
Probably, then, in addition to other causes for the crucifixion of Jesus, this
also may have contributed to His dying a conspicuous death upon the cross, that
no one might have it in his power to say that He voluntarily withdrew from the
sight of men, and seemed only to die, without really doing so; but, appearing
again, made a juggler's trick138 of the resurrection from the dead. But a clear
and unmistakeable proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking of His
disciples, who devoted themselves to the teaching of a doctrine which was
attended with danger to human life,-a doctrine which they would not have taught
with such courage had they invented the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; and
who also, at the same time, not only prepared others to despise death, but were
themselves the first to manifest their disregard for its terrors.

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,139 and the other by Elisha.140 And on this account, too, I think it was
that Jesus appeared to no other nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed
to miraculous occurrences; so that, by comparing what they themselves believed
with the works which were done by Him, and with what was related of Him, they
might confess that He, in regard to whom greater things were done, and by whom
mightier marvels were performed, was greater than all those who preceded Him.

Chapter LVIII.

Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced respecting those who
were guilty of juggling practices,141 and who pretended to have risen from the
dead, he says to those Jews who are converts to Christianity: "Do you imagine
the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of
such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your
drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last? "We reply to the
Jew: "What you adduce as myths, we regard also as such; but the statements of
the Scriptures which are common to us both, in which not you only, but we also,
take pride, we do not at all regard as myths. And therefore we accord our belief
to those who have therein related that some rose from the dead, as not being
guilty of imposition; and to Him especially there mentioned as having risen, who
both predicted the event Himself, and was the subject of prediction by others.
And His resurrection is more miraculous than that of the others in this respect,
that they were raised by the prophets Elijah and Elisha, while He was raised by
none of the prophets, but by His Father in heaven. And therefore His
resurrection also produced greater results than theirs. For what great good has
accrued to the world from the resurrection of the children through the
instrumentality of Elijah and Elisha, such as has re-suited from the preaching
of the resurrection of Jesus, accepted as an article of belief, and as effected
through the agency of divine power? "

Chapter LIX.

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention;142
but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according
to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events
took place at the time when our Saviour suffered.143 And he goes on to say, that
"Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after
death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had
been pierced by nails." We ask him what he means by the expression, "was of no
assistance to himself? "For if he means it to refer to want of virtue, we reply
that He was of very great assistance. For He neither uttered nor committed
anything that was improper, but was truly "led as a sheep to the slaughter, and
was dumb as a lamb before the shearer; "144 and the Gospel testifies that He
opened not His mouth. But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent
and corporeal,145 (meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to Himself,)
we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went voluntarily to
encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that
after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands
had been pierced, he asks, "Who beheld this? "And discrediting the narrative of
Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen Him, he replies, "A half-frantic
woman, as ye state." And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have
seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew
of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, "And some one else of
those engaged in the same system of deception!"

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.146 But Celsus, unwilling to
admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream,147 and,
under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to themselves such an
image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take
place while one is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those
who are not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium
or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman
"half-mad,"-a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but
from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.

Chapter LXI.

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.148 And therefore he did not merely say, "Unless I see, I
will not believe; "but he added, "Unless I put my hand into the print of the
nails, and lay my hands upon His side, I will not believe." These words were
spoken by Thomas, who deemed it possible that the body of the soul149 might be
seen by the eye of sense, resembling in all respects its former appearance,
"Both in size, and in beauty of eyes, And in voice; " and frequently, too,

"Having, also, such garments around the person150 (as when alive)."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."151

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."152 And
truly, after His resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, as it were,
between the grossness of that which He had before His sufferings, and the
appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body. And hence it was, that when His
disciples were together, and Thomas with them, there "came Jesus, the doors
being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He
to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,"153 etc. And in the Gospel of Luke also,
while Simon and Cleopas were conversing with each other respecting all that had
happened to them, Jesus "drew near, and went with them. And their eyes were
holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of
communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk? "And when
their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, then the Scripture says, in express
words, "And He vanished out of their sight."154 And although Celsus may wish to
place what is told of Jesus, and of those who saw Him after His resurrection, on
the same level with imaginary appearances of a different kind, and those who
have invented such, yet to those who institute a candid and intelligent
examination, the events will appear only the more miraculous.

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."155 And in the Gospels156 it is
not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion He appeared in
their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut, and on another in some
similar fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle
to the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did
in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: "For I delivered unto you
first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the
greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep. After
that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen
of me also, as of one born out of due time."157 I am of opinion now that the
statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are
beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but
even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them
the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His
resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event. And in a
treatise of this nature, composed in answer to a work directed against the
Christians and their faith, observe whether we are able to adduce a few rational
arguments out of a greater number, and thus make an impression upon the hearers
of this apology.

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;158 nor was He seen in the same way by all who beheld Him. Now, that He
was more things than one, according to the varying point of view, is clear from
this statement, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; "and from this, "I
am the bread; "and this, "I am the door," and innumerable others. And that when
seen He did not appear in like fashion to all those who saw Him, but according
to their several ability to receive Him, will be clear to those who notice why,
at the time when He was about to be transfigured on the high mountain, He did
not admit all His apostles (to this sight), but only Peter, and James, and John,
because they alone were capable of beholding His glory on that occasion, and of
observing the glorified appearance of Moses and Elijah, and of listening to
their conversation, and to the voice from the heavenly cloud. I am of opinion,
too, that before He ascended the mountain where His disciples came to Him alone,
and where He taught them the beatitudes, when He was somewhere in the lower part
of the mountain, and when, as it became late, He healed those who were brought
to Him, freeing them from all sickness and disease, He did not appear the same
person to the sick, and to those who needed His healing aid, as to those who
were able by reason of their strength to go up the mountain along with Him. Nay,
even when He interpreted privately to His own disciples the parables which were
delivered to the multitudes without, from whom the explanation was withheld, as
they who heard them explained were endowed with higher organs of hearing than
they who heard them without explanation, so was it altogether the same with the
eyes of their soul, and, I think, also with those of their body.159 And the
following statement shows that He had not always the same appearance, viz., that
Judas, when about to betray Him, said to the multitudes who were setting out
with him, as not being acquainted with Him, "Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same
is He."160 And I think that the Saviour Himself indicates the same thing by the
words: "I was daily with you, teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on
Me."161 Entertaining, then, such exalted views regarding Jesus, not only with
respect to the Deity within, and which was hidden from the view of the
multitude, but with respect to the transfiguration of His body, which took place
when and to whom He would, we say, that before Jesus had "put off the
governments and powers,"162 and while as yet He was not dead unto sin, all men
were capable of seeing Him; but that, when He had "put off the governments and
powers," and had no longer anything which was capable of being seen by the
multitude, all who had formerly seen Him were not now able to behold Him. And
therefore, sparing them, He did not show Himself to all after His resurrection
from the dead.

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 intermission163 to receive His
divinity. For His deity was more resplendent after lie had finished the
economy164 (of salvation): and this Peter, surnamed Cephas, the first-fruits as
it were of the apostles, was enabled to behold, and along with him the twelve
(Matthias having been substituted in room of Judas); and after them He appeared
to the five hundred brethren at once, and then to James, and subsequently to all
the others besides the twelve apostles, perhaps to the seventy also, and lastly
to Paul, as to one born out of due time, and who knew well how to say, "Unto me,
who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given; "and probably the
expression "least of all" has the same meaning with "one born out of due time."
For as no one could reasonably blame Jesus for not having admitted all His
apostles to the high mountain, but only the three already mentioned, on the
occasion of His transfiguration, when He was about to manifest the splendour
which appeared in His garments, and the glory of Moses and Elias talking with
Him, so none could reasonably object to the statements of the apostles, who
introduce the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection as having been made not
to all, but to those only whom He knew to have received eyes capable of seeing
His resurrection. I think, moreover, that the following statement regarding Him
has an apologetic value165 in reference to our subject, viz.: "For to this end
Christ died, and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the `dead and
living.'"166 For observe, it is conveyed in these words, that Jesus died that He
might be Lord of the dead; and that He rose again to be Lord not only of the
dead, but also of the living. And the apostle understands, undoubtedly, by the
dead over whom Christ is to be Lord, those who are so called in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians, "For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible; "167 and by the living, those who are to be changed, and
who are different from the dead who are to be raised. And respecting the living
the words are these, "And we shall be changed; "an expression which follows
immediately after the statement, "The dead shall be raised first."168 Moreover,
in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, describing the same change in
different words, he says, that they who sleep are not the same as those who are
alive; his language being, "I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning them who are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no
hope. For if we believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even so them also that
sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of
the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall
not prevent them that are asleep."169 The explanation which appeared to us to be
appropriate to this passage, we gave in the exegetical remarks which we have
made on the first Epistle to the Thessalonians.

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; "170 which
is the same as saying, "Hitherto ye were not able, neither yet now are ye able,
for ye are still carnal."171 The Scripture, therefore, doing everything by
appointment of God, has recorded of Jesus, that before His sufferings He
appeared to all indifferently, but not always; while after His sufferings He no
longer appeared to all in the same way, but with a certain discrimination which
measured out to each his due. And as it is related that "God appeared to
Abraham," or to one of the saints, and this "appearance" was not a thing of
constant occurrence, but took place at intervals, and not to all, so understand
that the Son of God appeared in the one case on the same principle that God
appeared to the latter.172

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."173 Jesus, accordingly,
wished to show that His power was divine to each one who was capable of seeing
it, and according to the measure of His capability. And I do not suppose that He
guarded against being seen on any other ground than from a regard to the fitness
of those who were incapable of seeing Him. And it is in vain for Celsus to add,
"For he had no longer occasion to fear any man after his death, being, as you
say, a God; nor was he sent into the world at all for the purpose of being hid."
Yet He was sent into the world not only to become known, but also to be hid. For
all that He was, was not known even to those to whom He was known, but a certain
part of Him remained concealed even from them; and to some He was not known at
all. And He opened the gates of light to those who were the sons of darkness and
of night, and had devoted themselves to becoming the sons of light and of the
day. For our Saviour Lord, like a good physician, came rather to us who were
full of sins, than to those who were righteous.

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 to
have at once disappeared from the cross." Now this seems to me to be like the
argument of those who oppose the doctrine of providence, and who arrange things
differently from what they are, and allege that the world would be better if it
were as they arrange it. Now, in those instances in which their arrangement is a
possible one, they are proved to make the world, so far as depends upon them,
worse by their arrangement than it actually is; while in those cases in which
they do not portray things worse than they really are, they are shown to desire
impossibilities; so that in either case they are deserving of ridicule. And
here, accordingly, that them was no impossibility in His coming, as a being of
diviner nature, in order to disappear when He chose, is clear from the very
nature of the case; and is certain, moreover, from what is recorded of Him, in
the judgment of those who do not adopt certain portions merely of the narrative
that they may have ground for accusing Christianity, and who consider other
portions to be fiction. For it is related in St. Luke's Gospel, that Jesus after
His resurrection took bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed it to
Simon and Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, "their eyes were
opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight,"174

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; "175 and as His death was necessary, because of the statement,
"For in that He died, He died unto sin once,"176 and this, "Being made
conformable to His death,"177 and this, "For if we be dead with Him, we shall
also live with Him: "178 so also His burial has an application to those who have
been made conformable to His death, who have been both crucified with Him, and
have died with Him; as is declared by Paul, "For we were buried with Him by
baptism, and have also risen with Him."179 These matters, however, which relate
to His burial, and His sepulchre, and him who buried Him, we shall expound at
greater length on a more suitable occasion, when it will be our professed
purpose to treat of such things. But, for the present, it is sufficient to
notice the clean linen in which the pure body of Jesus was to be enwrapped, and
the new tomb which Joseph had hewn out of the rock, where "no one was yet
lying,"180 or, as John expresses it, "wherein was never man yet laid."181 And
observe whether the harmony of the three evangelists here is not fitted to make
an impression: for they have thought it right to describe the tomb as one that
was "quarried or hewn out of the rock; "so that be who examines the words of the
narrative may see something worthy of consideration, both in them and in the
newness of the tomb,-a point mentioned by Matthew and John182 -and in the
statement of Luke and John,183 that no one had ever been interred therein
before. For it became Him, who was unlike other dead men (but who even in death
manifested signs of life in the water and the blood), and who was, so to speak,
a new dead man, to be laid in a new and clean tomb, in order that, as His birth
was purer than any other (in consequence of His being born, not in the way of
ordinary generation, but of a virgin), His burial also might have the purity
symbolically indicated in His body being deposited in a sepulchre which was new,
not built of stones gathered from various quarters, and having no natural unity,
but quarried and hewed out of one rock, united together in all its parts.
Regarding the explanation, however, of these points, and the method of ascending
from the narratives themselves to the things which they symbolized, one might
treat more profoundly, and in a manner more adapted to their divine character,
on a more suitable occasion, in a work expressly devoted to such subjects. The
literal narrative, however, one might thus explain, viz., that it was
appropriate for Him who had resolved to endure suspension upon the cross, to
maintain all the accompaniments of the character He had assumed, in order that
He who as a man had been put to death, and who as a man had died, might also as
a man be buried. But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according to
the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross, he
and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have
brought against it some such objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear
after he had been put upon the cross, and not disappear before he suffered? "If,
then, after learning from the Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the
cross, they imagine that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did
not invent, as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous
disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not reasonable that
they should accord their faith also to His resurrection, and should believe that
He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion, when the doors were shut, stood
in the midst of His disciples, and on another, after distributing bread to two
of His acquaintances, immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to
them certain words?

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." Bat
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 ail 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."184 Now it
is not true that He showed Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the
Gospel according to Matthew, that "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary,
to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the
stone."185 And, shortly after, Matthew adds: "And, behold, Jesus met
them"-clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys-"saying, All hail. And they came
and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him."186 And we answered, too, the
charge, that "while undergoing his punishment he was seen by all, but after his
resurrection only by one," when we offered our defence of the fact that "He was
not seen by all." And now we might say that His merely human attributes were
visible to all men but those which were divine in their nature-I speak of the
attributes not as related, but as distinct187 -were not capable of being
received by all But observe here the manifest contradiction into which Celsus
falls. For having said, a little before, that Jesus had appeared secretly to one
woman and His own boon companions, he immediately subjoins: "While undergoing
his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his resurrection by one,
whereas the opposite ought to have happened." And let us hear what he means by
"ought to have happened." The being seen by all men while undergoing His
punishment, but after His resurrection only by one individual, are opposites.188
Now, so far as his language conveys a meaning, he would have that to take place
which is both impossible and absurd, viz., that while undergoing His punishment
He should be seen only by one individual, but after His resurrection by all men!
or else how will you explain his words, "The opposite ought to have happened? "

Chapter LXXI.

Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, "None knoweth the Father
but the Son; "189 and in these, "No man hath seen God at any time; the
only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him."190
He, treating of Deity, stated to His true disciples the doctrine regarding God;
and we, discovering traces of such teaching in the Scripture narratives, take
occasion from such to aid our theological conceptions,191 hearing it declared in
one passage, that "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all; "192
and in another, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth."193 But the purposes for which the Father sent Him are
innumerable; and these any one may ascertain who chooses, partly from the
prophets who prophesied of Him, and partly from the narratives of the
evangelists. And not a few things also will he learn from the apostles, and
especially from Paul. Moreover, those who are pious He leadeth to the light, and
those who sin He will punish,-a circumstance which Celsus not observing, has
represented Him "as one who will lead the pious to the light, and who will have
mercy on others, whether they sin or repent."194

Chapter LXXII.

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,"195 is not stated to have been
audible to the multitudes, as this Jew of Celsus supposed. The voice from the
cloud on the high mountain, moreover, was heard only by those who had gone up
with Him. For the divine voice is of such a nature, as to be heard only by those
whom the speaker wishes to hear it. And I maintain, that the voice of God which
is referred to, is neither air which has been struck, nor any concussion of the
air, nor anything else which is mentioned in treatises on the voice;196 and
therefore it is heard by a better and more divine organ of hearing than that of
sense. And when the speaker will not have his voice to be heard by all; he that
has the finer ear hears the voice of God, while he who has the ears of his soul
deadened does not perceive that it is God who speaks. These things I have
mentioned because of his asking, "Why was there heard a voice from heaven
proclaiming him to be the Son of God? "while with respect to the query, "Why was
he punished, if he wished to remain hid? "what has been stated at greater length
in the preceding pages on the subject of His suffering may suffice.

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."197 And the object of His coming
had been explained at great length in His discourses on the beatitudes, and in
the announcements which followed them, and in the parables, and in His
conversations with the scribes and Pharisees. And the instruction afforded us by
the Gospel of John, shows that the eloquence of Jesus consisted not in words,
but in deeds; while it is manifest from the Gospel narratives that His speech
was "with power," on which account also they marvelled at Him.

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 fail upon your own swords."198

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."199 And observe whether it
is not entirely in keeping with the character of the same people, who formerly
refused to believe such wonders and such appearances of divinity, throughout the
whole period of wandering in the wilderness, as they are recorded in the law of
the Jews to have done, to refuse to be convinced also, on occasion of the
glorious advent of Jesus, by the mighty words which were spoken by Him with
authority, and the marvels which He performed in the presence of all the people.

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 appearing to those who expect him? or why, pray, is he not recognized
by those who have been long looking for him? "what answer friends, would you
have us return to your200 questions? Which class of miracles, in your judgment,
do you regard as the greater? Those which were wrought in Egypt and the
wilderness, or those which we declare that Jesus performed among you? For if the
former are in your opinion greater than the latter, does it not appear from this
very fact to be in conformity with the character of those who disbelieved the
greater to despise the less? And this is the opinion entertained with respect to
our accounts of the miracles of Jesus. But if those related of Jesus are
considered to be as great as those recorded of Moses, what strange thing has
come to pass among a nation which has manifested incredulity with regard to the
commencement of both dispensations?201 For the beginning of the legislation was
in the time of Moses, in whose work are recorded the sins of the unbelievers and
wicked among you, while the commencement of our legislation and second covenant
is admitted to have been in the time of Jesus. And by your unbelief of Jesus ye
show that ye are the sons of those who in the desert discredited the divine
appearances; and thus what was spoken by our Saviour will be applicable also to
you who believed not on Him: "Therefore ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds
of your fathers."202 And there is fulfilled among you also the prophecy which
said: "Your life shall hang in doubt before your eyes, and you will have no
assurance of your life."203 For ye did not believe in the life which came to
visit the human race.

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; "204 and, "Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning
that they may follow strong drink; "205 and, "Woe unto them that draw their sins
after them as with a long rope; "206 and, "Woe unto them that call evil good,
and good evil; "207 and, "Woe unto those of you who are mighty to drink wine;
"208 and innumerable other passages of the same kind. And does not the following
resemble the threats of which he speaks: "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with
iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters? "209 and so on, to
which he subjoins such threats as are equal in severity to those which, he says,
Jesus made use of. For is it not a threatening, and a great one, which declares,
"Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land,
strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by
strangers? "210 And are there not revilings in Ezekiel directed against the
people, when the Lord says to the prophet, "Thou dwellest in the midst of
scorpions? "211 Were you serious, then, Celsus, in representing the Jew as
saying of Jesus, that "he makes use of threats and revilings on slight grounds,
when he employs the expressions, `Woe unto you, 'and `I tell you beforehand? '"
Do you not see that the charges which this Jew of yours brings against Jesus
might be brought by him against God? For the God who speaks in the prophetic
writings is manifestly liable to the same accusations, as Celsus regards them,
of inability to persuade. I might, moreover, say to this Jew, who thinks that he
makes a good charge against Jesus by such statements, that if he undertakes, in
support of the scriptural account, to defend the numerous curses recorded in the
books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we should make as good, or better, a defence
of the revilings and threatenings which are regarded as having been spoken by
Jesus. And as respects the law of Moses itself, we are in a position to make a
better defence of it than the Jew is, because we have been taught by Jesus to
have a more intelligent apprehension of the writings of the law. Nay, if the Jew
perceive the meaning of the prophetic Scriptures, he will be able to show that
it is for no light reason that God employs threatenings and revilings, when He
says, "Woe unto you," and "I tell you beforehand." And how should God employ
such expressions for the conversion of men, which Celsus thinks that even a
prudent man would not have recourse to? But Christians, who know only one
God-the same who spoke in the prophets and in the Lord (Jesus)-can prove the
reasonableness of those threatenings and revilings, as Celsus considers and
entitles them. And here a few remarks shall be addressed to this Celsus, who
professes both to be a philosopher, and to be acquainted with all our system.
How is it, friend, when Hermes, in Homer, says to Odysseus,

"Why, now, wretched man, do you come wandering alone over the mountain-tops?
"212 that you are satisfied with the answer, which explains that the Homeric
Hermes addresses such language to Odysseus to remind him of his duty,213 because
it is characteristic of the Sirens to flatter and to say pleasing things, around
whom "Is a huge heap of bones,"214 and who say,

"Come hither, much landed Odysseus, great glory of the Greeks; "215 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 healing216 medicine? Unless,
indeed, you would have God, or one who partakes of the divine nature, when
conversing with men, to have regard to His own nature alone, and to what is
worthy of Himself, but to have no regard to what is fitting to be brought before
men who are under the dispensation and leading of His word, and with each one of
whom He is to converse agreeably to his individual character. And is it not a
ridiculous assertion regarding Jesus, to say that He was unable to persuade men,
when you compare the state of matters not only among the Jews, who have many
such instances recorded in the prophecies, but also among the Greeks, among whom
all of those who have at-rained great reputation for their wisdom have been
unable to persuade those who conspired against them, or to induce their judges
or accusers to cease from evil, and to endeavour to attain to virtue by the way
of philosophy?

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 I 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 articulate217 understanding of such a topic, and
is able to plead well on its behalf,218 or not, but has only given his assent to
it as being of a legendary character.219 Let the above, then, be our reply to
this Jew of Celsus. And when he adds, "Where, then, is he, that we may see him
and believe upon him? "we answer: Where is He now who spoke in the prophecies,
and who wrought miracles, that we may see and believe that He is part of God?
Are you to be allowed to meet the objection, that God does not perpetually show
Himself to the Hebrew nation, while we are not to be permitted the same defence
with regard to Jesus, who has both once risen Himself, and led His disciples to
believe in His resurrection, and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth, that
they show to all men by their sufferings how they are able to laugh at all the
troubles of life, beholding the life eternal and the resurrection clearly
demonstrated to them both in word and deed?

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; "220 and, "I was found of them who sought Me
not; I became manifest to those who inquired not after Me."221 It is certain,
moreover, that the Jews were punished even in this present life, after treating
Jesus in the manner in which they did. And let the Jews assert what they will
when we charge them with guilt, and say, "Is not the providence and goodness of
God most wonderfully displayed in your punishment, and in your being deprived of
Jerusalem, and of the sanctuary, and of your splendid worship? "For whatever
they may say in reply with respect to the providence of God, we shall be able
more effectually to answer it by remarking, that the providence of God was
wonderfully manifested in using the transgression of that people for the purpose
of calling into the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ, those from among the
Gentiles who were strangers to the covenant and aliens to the promises. And
these things were foretold by the prophets, who said that, on account of the
transgressions of the Hebrew nation, God would make choice, not of a nation, but
of individuals chosen from all lands;222 and, having selected the foolish things
of the world, would cause an ignorant nation to become acquainted with the
divine teaching, the kingdom of God being taken from the one and given to the
other. And out of a larger number it is sufficient on the present occasion to
adduce the prediction from the song in Deuteronomy regarding the calling of the
Gentiles, which is as follows, being spoken in the person of the Lord "They have
moved Me to jealousy with those who are not gods; they have provoked Me to anger
with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a
people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."223 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,224 could accomplish what he wished without the divine assistance,
and could rise superior to all who withstood the progress of his doctrine-kings
and rulers, and the Roman senate, and governors in all places, and the common
people. And how could the nature of a man possessed of no inherent excellence
convert so vast a multitude? For it would not be wonderful if it were only the
wise who were so convened; but it is the most irrational of men, and those
devoted to their passions, and who, by reason of their irrationality, change
with the greater difficulty so as to adopt a more temperate course of life. And
yet it is because Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father that
He accomplished, and still accomplishes, such results, although neither the Jews
nor Greeks who disbelieve His word will so admit. And therefore we shall not
cease to believe in God, according to the precepts of Jesus Christ, and to seek
to convert those who are blind on the subject of religion, although it is they
who are truly blind themselves that charge us with blindness: and they, whether
Jews or Greeks, who lead astray those that follow them, accuse us of seducing
men-a good seduction, truly!-that they may become temperate instead of
dissolute, or at least may make advances to temperance; may become just instead
of unjust, or at least may tend to become so; prudent instead of foolish, or be
on the way to become such; and instead of cowardice, meanness, and timidity, may
exhibit the virtues of fortitude and courage, especially displayed in the
struggles undergone for the sake of their religion towards God, the Creator of
all things. Jesus Christ therefore came announced beforehand, not by one
prophet, but by all; and it was a proof of the ignorance of Celsus, to represent
a Jew as saying that one prophet only had predicted the advent of Christ. But as
this Jew of Celsus, after being thus introduced, asserting that these things
were indeed in conformity with his own law, has somewhere here ended his
discourse, with a mention of other matters not worthy of remembrance, I too
shall here terminate this second book of my answer to his treatise. But if God
permit, and the power of Christ abide in my soul, I shall endeavour in the third
book to deal with the subsequent statements of Celsus.

1: [Comp. Justin, Dial. with Trypho ( passim ), vol. i., this series.] 2:
piqanwtatoj .

3: w2yb) 4: Cf. Acts x. 9-15.

5: Cf. Gal. ii. 12.

6: Cf. Acts xxi. 26.

7: John xvi. 12, 13.

8: Gal. iv. 21, 22, 24.

9: 1 Cor. ix. 8-10.

10: Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

11: twn epipolaioteron kai muqikwteron autoij entugxanontwn .

12: John v. 46, 47.

13: Mark i. 1, 2.

14: ewla .

15: muqouj kai lhrouj .

16: toij katw Ioudaioij .

17: muqologiaj .

18: Ps. lxxviii. 2.

19: Ps. cxix. 18.

20: alazoneia .

21: Matt. xi. 29.

22: John xiii. 8.

23: Luke xxii. 27.

24: Isa. vi. 9.

25: ["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.] 26:
Matt. xxvi. 38.

27: Herodot., i. cap. 47.

28: kai Qeon kata ton twn olwn Qeon kai patera . "Ex mente Origenis, inquit
Boherellus, vertendum `Secundo post universi Deum atque parentem loco; 0' non
cum interprete Gelenio, `Ipsius rerum universarum Dei atque Parentis testimonio.
0' Nam si hic esset sensus, frustra post" upo twn profhtwn , adderetur kata ton
Qeon . Praeterea, haec epitheta, ton twn olwn Qeon kai patera , manifestam
continent antithesin ad ista, megalhn onta dunamin kai Qeon , ut Pater supra
Filium evehatur, quemadmodum evehitur, ab Origene infra libro octavo, num. 15.
Tou, kata , inferiorem ordinem denotantis exempla afferre supersedeo, cum obvia
sint." - Ruaeus. [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.] 29: Ps. cxlviii. 5.

30: perigegrammenon tina.

31: John i. 26.

32: Matt. xviii. 20.

33: Matt. xxviii. 20.

34: 1 Cor. vi. 17.

35: ei gar kata thn Paulou didaskalian, legontoj 36: Matt. xii. 24.

37: Matt. xxvi. 61.

38: John xviii. 4 sqq.

39: Matt. xxvi. 52-54.

40: Matt. xxvii. 3-5.

41: diapuroj kai sfodra .

42: apiqanon .

43: Ps. cix. 1, 2. [cviii. 1, 2, Sept. S.] 44: Ps. cix. 8. [cviii, 8, Sept. S.]
45: teretismata .

46: [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.] 47: Cf. Clem. Alex., Strom ., v.
c. ix. [See vol. ii. pp. 457, 458. S.] 48: dokoush deinothti rhtopikh .

49: Matt. x. 18.

50: Modestinus, lib. vi. Regularum, ad legem Corneliam de Sicariis :
"Circumcidere filios suos Judaeis tantum rescripto divi Pii permittitur: in non
ejusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur."

51: Matt. x. 18.

52: Matt. xxiv. 14.

53: ["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.] 54: [Luke xxi. 20. S.] 55: osa peri
toutou kai para tw Paulw pefilosofhtai .

56: Cf. Plato, de Rep., x. p. 614.

57: Cf. Plin., Nat. Hist ., vii. c. 52.

58: John x. 18.

59: John xix. 32, 33.

60: Ou monon oun oux o nekroj aqanatoj, all oud o pro tou nekrou Ihsouj o
sunqetoj aqanatoj hn, oj ge emelle teqnhcesqai .

61: Rom. vi. 9.

62: outwj aqrowj .

63: eutelesi .

64: argoj logoj .

65: Euripid., Phoenissae, 18-20.

66: anti tou estai .

67: Matt. xxvi. 23.

68: alwn kai trapezhj .

69: Archilochus.

70: Guietus would expunge these words as "inept."

71: Matt. xxvi. 39.

72: Matt. xxvi. 39.

73: Deut. xxxii. 39.

74: kai tauto de pollhn exonta dihghsin apo sofiaj Qeou oij o Pauloj wnomase
teleioij eulogwj paradoqhsemenhn .

75: 1 Cor. ii. 6.

76: John viii. 40.

77: The original here is probably corrupt: Oti exrhn auton (wj fhsi) feidomenon
anqrwpwn autaj ekqesqai taj profhteiaj, kai sunagoreusanta taij piqanothsin
autwn, thn fainomenhn autwn anatrophn thj xrhsewj twn profhtikwn ekqesqai . For
feidomenon Boherellus would read khdomenon , and thn fainomenhn autw anatrophn .

78: oleqron .

79: [In fulfillment of the great plan foreshadowed in Daniel, and promised by
Haggai (ii. 7), where I adhere to the Anglican version and the Vulgate.] 80: Ps.
cvii. 20.

81: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 51, 52; cf. Luke xxiii. 44, 45.

82: w outoj .

83: [Testimony not to be scorned.] 84: On Phlegon, cf. note in Migne, pp. 823,
854. [See also vol. iii. Elucidation V. p. 58.] 85: Eurip., Bacchae , 498 (ed.
Dindorf).

86: Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles . bk. ii. c. vii.

87: Matt. xxvii. 19.

88: Cf. Iliad , v. 340.

89: Cf. John xix. 34, 35.

90: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 54.

91: xanodon .

92: Ps. lxix. 21.:

93: w pistotatoi .

94: ton Xriston .

95: ta anqrwpwn .

96: marturasqai peri twn praktewn .

97: 98: thj twn logwn autou akolouqiaj .

99: epifaneiaj .

100: thn peri autou adiastrofon ennoian .

101: ponon .

102: agwna ton prwton kai megiston thj yuxhj .

103: [See Dean Plumptre's The Spirits in Prison: Studies on the Life after Death
, p. 85. S.] 104: thj kata thn kakian xusewj .

105: dai tauta .

106: John xxi. 18, 19.

107: Acts v. 41.

108: The reading in the text is ei kai ismen ; for which both Bohereau and De la
Rue propose epei ismen , which has been adopted in the translation: cf. epei
ekolasqh , infra .

109: Cf. Isa. xxxv. 5, 6.

110: wn Ihsouj aisqhtwn .

111: fantasiwn .

112: Matt. xxiv. 23-27.

113: Cf. Matt. vii. 22, 23, with Luke xiii. 26, 27.

114: qeiothj , lit. divinity.

115: 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

116: 2 Thess. ii. 6-10.

117: 2 Thess. ii. 10-12.

118: Cf. Dan. vii. 26.

119: sunarpazei ton logon .

120: fassa .

121: peristera .

122: [ dehsetai . S.] 123: wste mhden diaferein paraplhsion einai legein
gonteian th124: Deut. xiii. 1-3.

125: Cf. Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6.

126: Cf. Herodot., iv. 95.

127: Cf. Herodot., ii. 122.

128: Cf. Herodot., ii. 122.

129: Cf. Diodor., iv., Bibl. Hist.

130: autw swmati . [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.] 131: gunh paroistroj .

132: kata tina kia qesin eneiqwcaj .

133: h kata thn auton boulhsin doch peplanhmenh fantasiwqeij .

134: Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.

135: terateiaj .

136: pwj oiontai to paraplhsion plasasqai legein auton toij istoroumenoij , etc.

137: katabebhkenai bia . Bohereau proposes the omission of bia .

138: eterateusato .

139: Cf. 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22. [3 Kings, Sept. and Vulg. S.] 140: Cf. 2 Kings
iv. 34, 35. [4 Kings, Sept. and Vulg. S.] 141: terateuomenoij .

142: terateian .

143: [See cap. xxxiii., note, p. 455, supra .] 144: Isa. liii. 7.

145: 146: ta men oun ginomena peri yuxhj teqnhkotwn fantasmata apo tinoj
upokeimenou ginetai, toukata thn ufesthkuian en tw kaloumenw augoeidei swmati
yuxhn . Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

147: upar .

148: en swmati antitupw eghgerqai .

149: yuxhj swma .

150: Cf. Homer, Iliad , xxiii. 66, 67.

151: Cf. John xx. 27.

152: Ps. xvi. 9, 10.

153: John xx. 26, 27.

154: Luke xxiv. 15, 31.

155: Acts i. 3.

156: Cf. John xx. 26.

157: 1 Cor. xv. 3-8.

158: pleiona th epinoia hn .

159: outw kai taij oyesi pantwj men thj yuxhj, egw d hgoumai, oti kai tou
swmatoj .

160: Matt. xxvi. 48.

161: Matt. xxvi. 55.

162: ton mh apekdusamenon , etc. Cf. Alford, in loco (Col. ii. 15).

163: dihnekwj .

164: thn oikonomian telesantoj .

165: xrhsimon d oimai proj apologian twn prokeinenwn .

166: Cf. Rom. xiv. 9.

167: 1 Cor. xv. 52.

168: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 52 with 1 Thess. iv. 16.

169: Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16.

170: 1 Cor. ii. 2.

171: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 2, 3.

172: outw moi noei kai ton uion tou Qeou wfqai th paraplhsia eij to peri
ekeinwn, eij to wfqai autoij ton Qeon, krisei .

173: Cf. Gen. xix. 10, 11. [Also Jude 7, "strange (or other ) flesh."] 174: Cf.
Luke xxiv. 30, 31.

175: Cf. Gal. vi. 14.

176: Rom. vi. 10.

177: Phil. iii. 10.

178: 2 Tim. ii. 11.

179: Cf. Rom. vi. 4.

180: Luke xxiii. 53, ouk hn oupw oudeij keimenoj .

181: John xix. 41, en w oudepw oudeij eteqh .

182: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 60 with John xix. 41.

183: Cf. Luke xxiii. 53 with John xix. 41.

184: toij eautou qiaswtaij .

185: Matt. xxviii. 1, 2.

186: Matt. xxviii. 9.

187: legw de ou peri twn sxesin proj etera exontwn, alla peri twn kata diaforan
.

188: enantion ton men kolazomenon pasin ewrasqai, anastanta de ene . The
Benedictine editor reads ton men kolazomenon , and Bohereau proposes enantion tw
kolazomenon men , etc.

189: Cf. Luke x. 22.

190: John i. 18.

191: wn ixnh en toij gegrammenoij euriskontej aformaj axomen qeonlogein .

192: 1 John i. 5.

193: John iv. 24.

194: The text is, touj de amartanontaj h metagnontaj elehson . Bohereau would
read mh metagnontaj , or would render the passage as if the reading were h
amartanontaj, h metagnontaj . This suggestion has been adopted in the
translation.

195: Matt. iii. 17.

196: oudepw de legw, oti ou pantwj estin ahr peplhgmenoj h plhuh aeroj, h o ti
pote legetai en toij peri fwnhj .

197: Cf. Matt. xi. 28.

198: autoi gar eautoij peripiptete . [See note supra , cap. xiii. p. 437. S.]
199: Cf. Ex. xxxii. 4.

200: The text reads hmwn , for which Bohereau and the Benedictine editor propose
either umaj or hmaj , the former of which is preferred by Lommatzsch.

201: kat amfoteraj taj arxaj twn pragmatwn apistounti .

202: Cf. Luke xi. 48.

203: Cf. Deut. xxviii. 66.

204: Isa. v. 8.

205: Isa. v. 11.

206: Isa. v. 18.

207: Isa. v. 20.

208: Isa. v. 22.

209: Cf. Isa. i. 4.

210: Isa. i. 7.

211: Ezek. ii. 6.

212: Cf. Odyss ., x. 281.

213: uper epistrofhj .

214: Cf. Odyss ., xii. 45.

215: Ibid ., xii. 184.

216: paiwnion farmakon .

217: eite diarqrounta to toiouton par eautw .

218: kai dunamenon presbeusai peri tou logou kalwj .

219: alla muqikwteron sugkatatiqemenon tw logw .

220: Cf. 2 Sam. xxii. 44, 45.

221: Cf. Isa. lxv. 1.

222: ouxi eqnoj, alla logadaj pantaxoqen .

223: Cf. Deut. xxxii. 21.

224: thn kat auton qeosebeian kai didaskalian .


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 3
========================================================================

Book III.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter ILL.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L.

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Chapter LXXI.

Chapter LXXII.

Chapter LXXIII.

Chapter LXXIV.

Chapter LXXV.

Chapter LXXVI.

Chapter LXXVII.

Chapter LXXVIII.

Chapter LXXIX.

Chapter LXXX.

Chapter LXXXI.

Book III.

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
tirade1 of this Jew of his, feigned. to have been delivered against Jesus. And
in the second book we met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the
invective2 of the said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God
through Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in
which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own person.

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;' "3 and thinks that "there is nothing of
importance4 in the investigations of the Jews and Christians: for both believe
that it was predicted by the Divine Spirit that one was to come as a Saviour to
the human race, but do not yet agree on the point whether the person predicted
has actually come or not." For we Christians, indeed, have believed in Jesus, as
He who came according to the predictions of the prophets. But the majority of
the Jews are so far from believing in Him, that those of them who lived at the
time of His coming conspired against Him; and those of the present day,
approving of what the Jews of former times dared to do against Him, speak evil
of Him, asserting that it was by means of sorcery5 that he passed himself off
for Him who was predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come, and who
was called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews,6 the Christ.

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;7 and that Emmanuel
should be conceived by a virgin; and that such signs and wonders should be
performed by Him who was the subject of prophecy; and that His word should have
such speedy course, that the voice of His apostles should go forth into all the
earth; and that He should undergo certain sufferings after His condemnation by
the Jews; and that He should rise again from the dead. For was it by chance8
that the prophets made these announcements, with no persuasion of the truth in
their minds,9 moving them not only to speak, but to deem their announcements
worthy of being committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the
Jews, who had long ago received a country of their own wherein to dwell,
recognise certain men as prophets, and reject others as utterers of false
predictions, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction?10 And
was there no motive which induced them to class with the books of Moses, which
were held as sacred, the words of those persons who were afterwards deemed to be
prophets? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly, show us
how the Jewish nation could have continued to subsist, had there existed among
them no promise of the knowledge of future events? and how, while each of the
surrounding nations believed, agreeably to their ancient institutions, that they
received oracles and predictions from those whom they accounted gods, this
people alone, who were taught to view with contempt all those who were
considered gods by the heathen, as not being gods, but demons, according to the
declaration of the prophets, "For all the gods of the nations are demons,"11 had
among them no one who professed to be a prophet, and who could restrain such as,
from a desire to know the future, were ready to desert12 to the demons13 of
other nations? Judge, then, whether it were not a necessity, that as the whole
nation had been taught to despise the deities of other lands, they should have
had an abundance of prophets, who made known events which were of far greater
importance in themselves,14 and which surpassed the oracles of all other
countries.

Chapter ILL. 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
Aesculapius, 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 Aesculapius he mentions Aristeas of
Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and Cleomedes of Astypalaea. 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,15 to assist them,
but who never manifested to them His visible presence. But if this result has
not taken place, and if, on the contrary, they have suffered countless
calamities rather than renounce Judaism and their law, and have been cruelly
treated, at one time in Assyria, at another in Persia, and at another under
Antiochus, is it not in keeping with the probabilities of the case16 for those
to suppose who do not yield their belief to their miraculous histories and
prophecies, that the events in question could not be inventions, but that a
certain divine Spirit being in the holy souls of the prophets, as of men who
underwent any labour for the cause of virtue, did move them to prophesy some
things relating to their contemporaries, and others to their posterity, but
chiefly regarding a certain personage who was to come as a Saviour to the human
race? 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
suppose17 it be granted to Celsus that it was not Jesus who was announced by the
prophets, then, even on such a hypothesis, the investigation of the sense of the
prophetic writings is no search after "the shadow of an ass," if He who was
spoken of can be clearly pointed out, and it can be shown both what sort of
person He was predicted to be, and what He was to do, and, if possible, when He
was to arrive. But in the preceding pages we have already spoken on the point of
Jesus being the individual who was foretold to be the Christ, quoting a few
prophecies out of a larger number. Neither Jews nor Christians, then, are wrong
in assuming that the prophets spoke under divine influence;18 but they are in
error who form erroneous opinions respecting Him who was expected by the
prophets to come, and whose person and character were made known in their "true
discourses."

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 things19 in either instance was rebellion against
the state." Now let us observe what Celsus has here done. The ancient Egyptians,
after inflicting many cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who had settled in Egypt
owing to a famine which had broken out in Judea, suffered, in consequence of
their injustice to strangers and suppliants, that punishment which divine
Providence had decreed was to fall on the whole nation for having combined
against an entire people, who had been their guests, and who had done them no
harm; and after being smitten by plagues from God, they allowed them, with
difficulty, and after a brief period, to go wherever they liked, as being
unjustly detained in slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people, who
hon-outer those who were in any degree related to them far more than they did
strangers of better lives, there is not an accusation which they have omitted to
bring against Moses and the Hebrews,-not altogether denying, indeed, the
miracles and wonders done by him, but alleging that they were wrought by
sorcery, and not by divine power. Moses, however, not as a magician, but as a
devout man, and one devoted to the God of all things, and a partaker in the
divine Spirit, both enacted laws for the Hebrews, according to the suggestions
of the Divinity, and recorded events as they happened with perfect fidelity.

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,20 in favour of the former, accepted as true the
statements of those who had oppressed the strangers, and declared that the
Hebrews, who had been unjustly treated, had departed from Egypt after revolting
against the Egyptians,-not observing how impossible it was for so great a
multitude of rebellious Egyptians to become a nation, which, dating its origin
from the said revolt, should change its language at the time of its rebellion,
so that those who up to that time made use of the Egyptian tongue, should
completely adopt, all at once, the language of the Hebrews! Let it be granted,
however, according to his supposition, that on abandoning Egypt they did
conceive a hatred also of their mother tongue,21 how did it happen that after so
doing they did not rather adopt the Syrian or Phoenician language, instead of
preferring the Hebrew, which is different from both? But reason seems to me to
demonstrate that the statement is false, which makes those who were Egyptians by
race to have revolted against Egyptians, and to have left the country, and to
have proceeded to Palestine, and occupied the land now called Judea. For Hebrew
was the language of their fathers before their descent into Egypt; and the
Hebrew letters, employed by Moses in writing those five books which are deemed
sacred by the Jews, were different from those of the Egyptians.

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."22

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.23 But if it is certain, from
the names being Hebrew, that the people were not Egyptians,-and the Scriptures
are full of Hebrew names, and these bestowed, too, upon their children while
they were in Egypt,-it is clear that the Egyptian account is false, which
asserts that they were Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it
is absolutely certain24 that, being descended, as the Mosaic history records,
from Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language from which they also took the
names which they conferred upon their children. But with regard to the
Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies
(and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic character); and because
they would not, although able, have made war even if they had received authority
to do so,-they have obtained this reward from God, that He has always warred in
their behalf, and on certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against
them and desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing
a few engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted
to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who can be
easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity,-God not
permitting the whole nation to be exterminated, but desiring that it should
continue, and that the whole world should be filled with this salutary and
religious doctrine.25 And again, on the other hand, that those who were of
weaker minds might recover their courage and rise superior to the thought of
death, God interposed His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an
act of His will alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither
kings, nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a
certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus, "that a
revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish state, and
subsequently of Christianity."

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,26 that
they might make converts to God. And no one would maintain that they did this
for the sake of gain, when sometimes they would not accept even necessary
sustenance; or if at any time they were pressed by a necessity of this sort,
were contented with the mere supply of their wants, although many were willing
to share (their abundance) with them, and to bestow help upon them far above
their need. At the present day, indeed, when, owing to the multitude of
Christian believers, not only rich men, but persons of rank, and delicate and
high-born ladies, receive the teachers of Christianity, some perhaps will dare
to say that it is for the sake of a little glory27 that certain individuals
assume the office of Christian instructors. It is impossible, however,
rationally to entertain such a suspicion with respect to Christianity in its
beginnings, when the danger incurred, especially by its teachers, was great;
while at the present day the discredit attaching to it among the rest of mankind
is greater than any supposed honour enjoyed among those who hold the same
belief, especially when such honour is not shared by all. It is false, then,
from the very nature of the case, to say that "if all men wished to become
Christians, the latter would not desire such a result."

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:28 for this was their object from the beginning." That
Christians at first were few in number, in comparison with the multitudes who
subsequently became Christian, is undoubted; and yet, all things considered,
they were not so very few.29 For what stirred up the envy of the Jews against
Jesus, and aroused them to conspire against Him, was the great number of those
who followed Him into the wilderness,-five thousand men on one occasion, and
four thousand on another, having attended Him thither, without including the
women and children. For such was the charm30 of Jesus' words, that not only were
men willing to follow Him to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting31 the
weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety32 in thus following
their Teacher into desert places. Children, too, who are altogether unaffected
by such emotions,33 either following their parents, or perhaps attracted also by
His divinity, in order that it might be implanted within them, became His
followers along with their parents. But let it be granted that Christians were
few in number at the beginning, how does that help to prove that Christians
would be unwilling to make all men believe the doctrine of the Gospel?

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 meaning34 of the books held to be divine.
At all events, while the apostles were still preaching, and while eye-witnesses
of (the works of) Jesus were still teaching His doctrine, there was no small
discussion among the converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the
point whether they ought to observe Jewish customs, or should reject the burden
of clean and unclean meats, as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned
their ancestral Gentile customs, and had become believers in Jesus. Nay, even in
the Epistles of Paul, who was contemporary with those who had seen Jesus,
certain particulars are found mentioned as having been the subject of
dispute,-viz., respecting the resurrection,35 and whether it were already past,
and the day of the Lord, whether it were nigh at hand36 or not. Nay, the very
exhortation to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called: which some professing, have erred concerning the faith,"37 is
enough to show that from the very beginning, when, as Celsus imagines, believers
were few in number, there were certain doctrines interpreted in different
ways.38

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,39 innumerable heresies have
consequently sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than
others. Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies,
in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those of the
prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of veneration to men,
not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus supposes, but to many among the
Greeks who were devoted to literary pursuits,40 there necessarily originated
heresies,-not at all, however, as the result of faction and strife, but through
the earnest desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines
of Christianity. The consequence of which was, that, taking in different
acceptations those discourses which were believed by all to be divine, there
arose heresies, which received their names from those individuals who admired,
indeed, the origin of Christianity, but who were led, in some way or other, by
certain plausible reasons, to discordant views. And yet no one would act
rationally in avoiding medicine because of its heresies; nor would he who aimed
at that which is seemly41 entertain a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many
heresies as a pretext for his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of
Moses and the prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism.

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."42 For as
that man is "approved" in medicine who, on account of his experience in various
(medical) heresies, and his honest examination of the majority of them, has
selected the preferable system,-and as the great proficient in philosophy is he
who, after acquainting himself experimentally with the various views, has given
in his adhesion to the best,-so I would say that the wisest Christian was he who
had carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he
who finds fault with Christianity because of its heresies would find fault also
with the teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many others of
discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error, on
account of Aristotle's having separated from his school, and founded a new
one,-on which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But it appears to
me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not possess
even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard of the sects
called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar nature, which had
departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes
no ground for a charge against the Christian doctrine.

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,43 so that its commencement was God's
teaching men, in the prophetical writings, to expect the advent of Christ, who
was to be the Saviour of mankind. For in so far as this point is not really
refuted (although it may seem to be by unbelievers), in the same proportion is
the doctrine commended as the doctrine of God, and Jesus shown to be the Son of
God both before and after His incarnation. I maintain, moreover, that even after
His incarnation, He is always found by those who possess the acutest spiritual
vision to be most God-like, and to have really come down to us from God, and to
have derived His origin or subsequent development not from human wisdom, but
from the manifestation44 of God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom and
miracles established Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and the
assertion that rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the originating
causes of a doctrine which has converted and improved so many men was
effectually refuted.

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; dearly 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; "45 we shall ask him in reply, "Erroneous opinions from what ancient
sources? "For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught the existence
of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among other things,
predicted the life that follows the present one; he will be unable to show that
we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason, regulate our lives in
conformity with such doctrines, have failed correctly to ascertain the truth.46

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 large and beautiful gateways,47 and
wonderful temples, and magnificent tents around them, and ceremonies of worship
full of superstition and mystery; but when you have entered, and passed within,
the object of worship is seen to be a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat,
or a dog!" Now, what is the resemblance48 between us and the splendours of
Egyptian worship which are seen by those who draw near their temples? And where
is the resemblance to those irrational animals which are worshipped within,
after you pass through the splendid gateways? Are our prophecies, and the God of
all things, and the injunctions against images,49 objects of reverence in the
view of Celsus also, and Jesus Christ crucified, the analogue to the worship of
the irrational animal? But if he should assert this-and I do not think that he
will maintain anything else-we shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding
pages at greater length in defence of those charges affecting Jesus, showing
that what appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature,
was fraught with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole world.

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; "50 while with regard to the truths which are taught in our writings to
those who have made progress in the study of Christianity (through that which is
called by Paul the gift consisting in the "word of wisdom" through the Spirit,
and in the "word of knowledge" according to the Spirit), Celsus does not seem
even to have formed an idea,51 judging not only from what he has already said,
but from what he subsequently adds in his attack upon the Christian system, when
he asserts that Christians "repel every wise man from the doctrine of their
faith, and invite only the ignorant and the vulgar; "on which assertions we
shall remark in due time, when we come to the proper place.

Chapter XIX.

He says, indeed, that "we ridicule the Egyptians, although they present many by
no means contemptible mysteries52 for our consideration, when they teach us that
such rites are acts of worship offered to eternal ideas, and not, as the
multitude think, to ephemeral animals; and that we are silly, because we
introduce nothing nobler than the goats and dogs of the Egyptian worship in our
narratives about Jesus." Now to this we reply, "Good sir,53 (suppose that) you
are right in eulogizing the fact that the Egyptians present to view many by no
means contemptible mysteries, and obscure explanations about the animals
(worshipped) among them, you nevertheless do not act consistently in accusing us
as if you believed that we had nothing to state which was worthy of
consideration, but that all our doctrines were contemptible and of no account,
seeing we unfold54 the narratives concerning Jesus according to the `wisdom of
the word' to those who are `perfect' in Christianity. Regarding whom, as being
competent to understand the wisdom that is in Christianity, Paul says: `We speak
wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the
princes of this world, who 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 this world knew.'"55

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!

Chapter XI. And I have not yet spoken of the observance56 of all that is written
in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine difficult to be
understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by certain of the more
intelligent, including a very profound explanation of the parables which Jesus
delivered to "those without," while reserving the exhibition of their full
meaning57 for those who had passed beyond the stage of exoteric teaching, and
who came to Him privately in the house. And when he comes to understand it, he
will admire the reason why some are said to be "without," and others "in the
house." And again, who would not be filled with astonishment that is able to
comprehend the movements58 of Jesus; ascending at one time a mountain for the
purpose of delivering certain discourses, or of performing certain miracles, or
for His own transfiguration, and descending again to heal the sick and those who
were unable to follow Him whither His disciples went? But it is not the
appropriate time to describe at present the truly venerable and divine contents
of the Gospels, or the mind of Christ-that is, the wisdom and the word-contained
in the writings of Paul. But what we have said is sufficient by way of answer to
the unphilosophic sneers59 of Celsus, in Comparing the inner mysteries of the
Church of God to the cats, and apes, and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of
Egypt.

Chapter XXII. But this low jester60 Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and
ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the
Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Aesculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed by the
Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that "we cannot bear to
call such beings gods, because they were at first men,61 and yet they manifested
many noble qualifies, which were displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we
assert that Jesus was seen after His death by His own followers; "and he brings
against us an additional charge, as if we said that "He was seen indeed, but was
only a shadow!" Now to this we reply, that it was very artful of Celsus not here
clearly to indicate that he did not regard these beings as gods, for he was
afraid of the opinion of those who might peruse his treatise, and who might
suppose him to be an atheist; whereas, if he had paid respect to what appeared
to him to be the truth, he would not have feigner to regard them as gods.62 Now
to either of the allegations we are ready with an answer. Let us, accordingly,
to those who do not regard them as gods reply as follows: These beings, then,
are not gods at all; but agreeably to the view of those who think that the soul
of man perishes immediately (after death), the souls of these men also perished;
or according to the opinion of those who say that the soul continues to subsist
or is immortal, these men continue to exist or are immortal, and they are not
gods but heroes,-or not even heroes, but simply souls. If, then, on the one
hand, you suppose them not to exist, we shall have to prove the doctrine of the
soul's immortality, which is to us a doctrine of pre-eminent importance;63 if,
on the other hand, they do exist, we have still to prove64 the doctrine of
immortality, not only by what the Greeks have so well said regarding it, but
also in a manner agreeable to the teaching of Holy Scripture. And we shall
demonstrate that it is impossible for those who were polytheists during their
lives to obtain a better country and position after their departure from this
world, by quoting the histories that are related of them, in which is recorded
the great dissoluteness of Hercules, and his effeminate bondage with Omphale,
together with the statements regarding Aesculapius, that their Zeus struck him
dead by a thunderbolt. And of the Dioscuri, it will be said that they die often-
"At one time live on alternate days, and at another Die, and obtain honour
equally with the gods."65 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 Aesculapius 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 must examine
each individual instance, and ascertain whether it is well founded,66 and also
in each particular case, whether those beings can have a real existence, and are
deserving of respect and worship who were torn by the Titans, and cast down from
their heavenly throne. Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own
troop67 -for I will take the word that Celsus employs-did really appear, and
Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared
was a shadow. And let the statements of their histories and that of Jesus be
carefully compared together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the
latter, although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they
clearly understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested their
state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of His Gospel, to
be inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act always in conformity with
right reason, would yield his assent at random68 to what is related of the one,
but would rush to the history of Jesus, and without examination refuse to
believe what is recorded of Him?69

Chapter XXIV. And again, when it is said of Aesculapius that a great multitude
both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and
still see, no mere phantom, but Aesculapius 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 incalculable70 number, as he asserts, of Greeks and
Barbarians acknowledge the existence of Aesculapius; while we, if we deem this a
matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude of Greeks and
Barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And some give evidence of
their having received through this faith a marvellous power by the cures which
they perform, revoking no other name over those who need their help than that of
the God of all things, and of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by
these means we too have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and
from distractions of mind,71 and madness, and countless other ills, which could
be cured neither by men nor devils.

Chapter XXV.

Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named Aesculapius,
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,72 and a matter within the reach not merely of
the good,73 but also of the bad; and as the foreknowledge of the future is also
a thing indifferent-for the possessor of foreknowledge does not necessarily
manifest the possession of virtue-you must show that they who practise healing
or who forefell the future are in no respect wicked, but exhibit a perfect
pattern of virtue, and are not far from being regarded as gods. But they will
not be able to show that they are virtuous who practise the art of healing, or
who are gifted with foreknowledge, seeing many who are not fit to live are
related to have been healed; and these, too, persons whom, as leading improper
lives, no wise physician would wish to heal. And in the responses of the Pythian
oracle also you may find some injunctions which are not in accordance with
reason, two of which we will adduce on the present occasion; viz., when it gave
commandment that Cleomedes74 -the boxer, I suppose-should be honoured with
divine honours, seeing some great importance or other attaching to his
pugilistic skill, but did not confer either upon Pythagoras or upon Socrates the
honours which it awarded to pugilism; and also when it called Archilochus "the
servant of the Muses"-a man who employed his poetic powers upon topics of the
most wicked and licentious nature, and whose public character was dissolute and
impure-and entitled him "pious,"75 in respect of his being the servant of the
Muses, who are deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined to think that no one
would assert that he was a "pious" man who was not adorned with all moderation
and virtue, or that a decorous76 man would utter such expressions as are
contained in the unseemly77 iambics of Archilochus. And if nothing that is
divine in itself is shown to belong either to the healing skill of Aesculapius
or the prophetic power of Apollo, how could any one, even were I to grant that
the facts are as alleged, reasonably worship them as pure divinities?-and
especially when the prophetic spirit of Apollo, pure from any body of earth,
secretly enters through the private parts the person of her who is called the
priestess, as she is seated at the mouth of the Pythian cave!78 Whereas
regarding Jesus and His power we have no such notion; for the body which was
born of the Virgin was composed of human material, and capable of receiving
human wounds and death.

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,79 and who showed himself again in
so unmistakeable a fashion, and on many subsequent occasions visited many parts
of the world, and announced marvellous events, and whom Apollo enjoined the
inhabitants of Metapontium to regard as a god, no one considers him to be a
god." This account he appears to have taken from Pindar and Herodotus. It will
be sufficient, however, at present to quote the statement of the latter writer
from the fourth book of his histories, which is to the following effect: "Of
what country Aristeas, who made these verses, was, has already been mentioned,
and I shall now relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus.
They say that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the citizens by birth,
entering into a fuller's shop in Proconnesus, died suddenly, and that the
fuller, having closed his workshop, went to acquaint the relatives of the
deceased. When the report had spread through the city that Aristeas was dead, a
certain Cyzicenian, arriving from Artace, fell into a dispute with those who
made the report, affirming that he had met and conversed with him on his way to
Cyzicus, and he vehemently disputed the truth of the report; but the relations
of the deceased went to the fuller's shop, taking with them what was necessary
for the purpose of carrying the body away; but when the house was opened,
Aristeas was not to be seen, either dead or alive. They say that afterwards, in
the seventh year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed those verses which by the
Greeks are now called Arimaspian, and having composed them, disappeared a second
time. Such is the story current in these cities. But these things I know
happened to the Metapontines in Italy 340 years after the second disappearance
of Aristeas, as I discovered by computation in Proconnesus and Metapontium. The
Metapontines say that Aristeas himself, having appeared in their country,
exhorted them to erect an altar to Apollo, and to place near it a statue beating
the name of Aristeas the Proconnesian; for he said that Apollo had visited their
country only of all the Italians, and that he himself, who was now Aristeas,
accompanied him; and that when he accompanied the god he was a crow; and after
saying this he vanished. And the Metapontines say they sent to Delphi to inquire
of the god what the apparition of the man meant; but the Pythian bade them obey
the apparition, and if they obeyed it would conduce to their benefit. They
accordingly, having received this answer, fulfilled the injunctions. And now, a
statue beating the name of Aristeas is placed near the image of Apollo, and
around it laurels are planted: the image is placed in the public square. Thus
much concerning Aristeas."80

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 jugglery81 or inventions?
And how,82 while charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels
recorded of Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such
statement as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the alleged
occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar appear to you to
speak the truth, while they who have made it their concern to die for the
doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their successors writings so remarkable
on the truths which they believed, entered for the sake of "fictions" (as you
consider them), and "myths," and "juggleries," upon a struggle which entails a
life of danger and a death of violence? Place yourself, then, as a neutral
party, between what is related of Aristeas and what is recorded of Jesus, and
see whether, from the result, and from the benefits which have accrued from the
reformation of morals, and to the worship of the God who is over all things, it
is not allowable to conclude that we must believe the events recorded of Jesus
not to have happened without the divine intervention, but that this was not the
case with the story of Aristeas the Proconnesian.

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 rising83 edifice of
Christianity, but which increased in magnitude also in the succeeding ages, in
which not a few cures are wrought in the name of Jesus, and certain other
manifestations of no small moment have taken place. Now what sort of person is
Apollo, who enjoined the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god? And with what
object does he do this? And what advantage was he procuring to the Metapontines
from this divine worship, if they were to regard him as a god, who a little ago
was a mortal? And yet the recommendations of Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who
has obtained the honour of libation and sacrificial odours84 ) regarding this
Aristeas appear to you to be worthy of consideration; while those of the God of
all things, and of His holy angels, made known beforehand through the
prophets-not after the birth of Jesus, but before He appeared among men-do not
stir you up to admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the Divine
Spirit, but of Him also who was the object of their predictions, whose entrance
into life was so clearly predicted many years beforehand by numerous prophets,
that the whole Jewish people who were hanging in expectation of the coming of
Him who was looked for, did, after the advent of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute
with each other; and that a great multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and
believed Him to be the object of prophecy, while others did not believe in Him,
but, despising the meekness of those who, on account of the teaching of Jesus,
were unwilling to cause even the most trifling sedition, dared to inflict on
Jesus those cruelties which His disciples have so truthfully and candidly
recorded, without secretly omitting from their marvellous history of Him what
seems to the multitude to bring disgrace upon the doctrine of Christianity. But
both Jesus Himself and His disciples desired that His followers should believe
not merely in His Godhead and miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of
human nature, and had assumed the human flesh which "lusteth against the Spirit;
"85 but they saw also that the power which had descended into human nature, and
into the midst of human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and body,
contributed through faith, along with its divine elements, to the salvation of
believers,86 when they see that from Him there began the union of the divine
with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine,
might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only
believe, but87 enter upon the life which Jesus taught, and which elevates to
friendship with God and communion with Him every one who lives according to the
precepts of Jesus.

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 appetites88
of the demons which love bodies, and to those who deem them to be gods on that
account, the demons that are on earth (which are supposed to be gods by those
who are not instructed in the nature of demons), and also their worshippers,
were desirous to prevent the spread of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that
the libations and odours in which they greedily delighted were being swept away
by the prevalence of the instructions of Jesus. But the God who sent Jesus
dissipated all the conspiracies of the demons, and made the Gospel of Jesus to
prevail throughout the whole world for the conversion and reformation of men,
and caused Churches to be everywhere established in opposition to those of
superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for such is the character of the
multitudes who constitute the citizens89 in the assemblies of the various
cities. Whereas the Churches of God which are instructed by Christ, when
carefully contrasted with the assemblies of the districts in which they are
situated, are as beacons90 in the world; for who would not admit that even the
inferior members of the Church, and those who in comparison with the better are
less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to
the assemblies in the different districts?

Chapter XXX. For the Church91 of God, e.g., which is at Athens, is a meek and
stable body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all things;
whereas the assembly92 of the Athenians is given to sedition, and is not at all
to be compared to the Church of God in that city. And you may say the same thing
of the Church of God at Corinth, and of the assembly of the Corinthian people;
and also of the Church of God at Alexandria, and of the assembly of the people
of Alexandria. And if he who hears this be a candid man, and one who
investigates things with a desire to ascertain the truth, he will be filled with
admiration of Him who not only conceived the design, but also was able to secure
in all places the establishment of Churches of God alongside93 of the assemblies
of the people in each city. In like manner, also, in comparing the council94 of
the Church of God with the council in any city, you would find that certain
councillors95 of the Church are worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be
any such city in the whole world;96 whereas the councillors in all other places
exhibit in their characters no quality worthy of the conventional97 superiority
which they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you must
compare the ruler of the Church in each city with the ruler of the people of the
city, in order to observe that even amongst those councillors and rulers of the
Church of God who come very far short of their duty, and who lead more indolent
lives than others who are more energetic, it is nevertheless possible to
discover a general superiority in what relates to the progress of virtue over
the characters of the councillors and rulers in the various cities.98

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."99 For with what object did the deity who
bestowed upon this Hyperborean Abaris the power of being carried along like an
arrow, confer upon him such a gift? Was it that the human race might be
benefited thereby,100 or did he himself obtain any advantage from the possession
of such a power?-always supposing it to be conceded that these statements are
not wholly inventions, but that the thing actually happened through the
co-operation of some demon. But if it be recorded that my Jesus was received up
into glory,101 I perceive the divine arrangement102 in such an act, viz.,
because God, who brought this to pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those
who witnessed it, in order that as men who are contending not for human
doctrine, but for divine teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible
to the God who is over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as
those who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good or evil
which they have wrought in this life.

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 uttered by
Him, might either be evil spoken of, as inventions like these, or might excite
no surprise, as not being more remarkable than other occurrences. But my Jesus
said regarding His own soul (which was separated from the body, not by virtue of
any human necessity, but by the miraculous power which was given Him also for
this purpose): "No one taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."103 For as He had
power to lay it down, He laid it down when He said, "Father, why hast Thou
forsaken Me? And when He had cried with a loud voice, He gave up the ghost,"104
anticipating the public executioners of the crucified, who break the legs of the
victims, and who do so in order that their punishment may not be further
prolonged. And He "took His life," when He manifested Himself to His disciples,
having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews, "Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up again,"105 and "He spake this of the temple
of His body; "the prophets, moreover, having predicted such a result in many
other passages of their writings, and in this, "My flesh also shall rest in
hope: for Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine
Holy One to see corruption."106

Chapter XXXIII.

Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian histories, when he
quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of Astypalaea, "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,107 and by the prophecies uttered
concerning Him, and by the cures wrought in His name, and by the wisdom and
knowledge which are in Him, and the deeper truths which are discovered by those
who know how to ascend from a simple faith, and to investigate the meaning which
lies in the divine Scriptures, agreeably to the injunctions of Jesus, who said,
"Search the Scriptures,"108 and to the wish of Paul, who taught that "we ought
to know how to answer every man; "109 nay, also of him who said, "Be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason of the
faith110 that is in you."111 If he wishes to have it conceded, however, that it
is not a fiction, let him show with what object this supernatural power made
him, through some arrangement of the divinity, flee from the ark. For if he will
adduce any reason worthy of consideration, and point out any purpose worthy of
God in conferring such a power on Cleomedes, we will decide on the answer which
we ought to give; but if he fail to say anything convincing on the point,
clearly because no reason can be discovered, then we shall either speak
slightingly of the story to those who have not accepted it, and charge it with
being false, or we shall say that some demoniac power, casting a glamour over
the eyes, produced, in the case of the Astypalaean, a result like that which is
produced by the performers of juggling tricks,112 while Celsus thinks that with
respect to him he has spoken like an oracle, when he said that "by some divine
arrangement he flew away from the ark."

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 Getae 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 dwelling, as it were, after being removed
(from one place to another) by certain rites and incantations), and are lost in
reverential wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all sensible
things, as being not only corruptible, but destined to corruption, and elevated
them to honour the God who is over all with prayers and a righteous life, which
we offer to Him as being intermediate between the nature of the uncreated and
that of all created things,113 and who bestows upon us the benefits which come
from the Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers to the supreme God.

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 way114 some
such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are then
those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no power in
Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the temple of Amphiaraus,
nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia with Mopsus? Or is there in
such persons some being, either a demon, or a hero, or even a god, working works
which are beyond the reach of man? For if he answer that there is nothing either
demoniacal or divine about these individuals more than others, then let him at
once make known his own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who
does not hold the same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons
nor worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no
purpose that he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he believed
them to be true), together with those which he adds in the following pages. But
if he will assert that the persons spoken of are either demons, or heroes, or
even gods, let him notice that he will establish by what he has admitted a
result which he does not desire, viz., that Jesus also was some such being; for
which reason, too, he was able to demonstrate to not a few that He had come down
from God to visit the human race. And if he once admit this, see whether he will
not be forced to confess that He is mightier than those individuals with whom he
classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the offering of honour to the
others; while He, having confidence in Himself, because He is more powerful than
all those others, forbids them to be received as divine115 because they are
wicked demons, who have taken possession of places on earth, through inability
to rise to the purer and diviner region, whither the grossnesses of earth and
its countless evils cannot reach.

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?116 Nay, further, if one were to investigate, in
a spirit of truth and impartiality, the stories relating to Antinous, he would
find that it was due to the magical arts and rites of the Egyptians that there
was even the appearance of his performing anything (marvellous) in the city
which bears his name, and that too only after his decease,-an effect which is
said to have been produced in other temples by the Egyptians, and those who are
skilled in the arts which they practise. For they set up in certain places
demons claiming prophetic or healing power, and which frequently torture those
who seem to have committed any mistake about ordinary kinds of food, or about
touching the dead body of a man, that they may have the appearance of alarming
the uneducated multitude. Of this nature is the being that is considered to be a
god in Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose (reputed) virtues are the lying inventions
of some who live by the gain derived therefrom;117 while others, deceived by the
demon placed there, and others again convicted by a weak conscience, actually
think that they are paying a divine penalty inflicted by Antinous. Of such a
nature also are the mysteries which they perform, and the seeming predictions
which they utter. Far different from such are those of Jesus. For it was no
company of sorcerers, paying court to a king or ruler at his bidding, who seemed
to have made him a god; but the Architect of the universe Himself, in keeping
with the marvellously persuasive power of His words,118 commended Him as worthy
of honour, not only to those men who were well disposed, but to demons also, and
other unseen powers, which even at the present time show that they either fear
the name of Jesus as that of a being of superior power, or reverentially accept
Him as their legal ruler.119 For if the commendation had not been given Him by
God, the demons would not have withdrawn from those whom they had assailed, in
obedience to the mere mention of His name.

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,120 in order to deceive those who
have not taken refuge with the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy
angels of God are of a different nature and will121 from all the demons on
earth, and that they are known to those exceedingly few persons who have
carefully and intelligently investigated these matters) will not endure a
comparison to be made between them and Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped
with odour and blood and sacrifices; some of them, so acting from their extreme
simplicity, not being able to give a reason for their conduct, but sincerely
observing the precepts which they have received; others, again, for reasons not
to be lightly regarded, nay, even of a profound description, and (as a Greek
would say) drawn from the inner nature of things;122 and amongst the latter of
these God is a frequent subject of conversation, and those who are honoured by
God, through His only-begotten Word, with participation in His divinity, and
therefore also in His name. They speak much, too, both regarding the angels of
God and those who are opposed to the truth, but have been deceived; and who, in
consequence of being deceived, call them gods or angels of God, or good demons,
or heroes who have become such by the transference into them of a good human
soul.123 And such Christians will also show, that as in philosophy there are
many who appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet either deceived
themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting to what was brought
forward and discovered by others; so also, among those souls which exist apart
from bodies, both angels and demons, there are some which have been induced by
plausible reasons to declare themselves gods. And because it was impossible that
the reasons of such things could be discovered by men with perfect exactness, it
was deemed safe that no mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God,
with the exception of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all
things, and who both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

Chapter XXXVIII. The belief, then, in Antinous,124 or any other such person,
whether among the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while
the belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result of
thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the multitude,
and of the latter to exceedingly few.125 And when I speak of a certain belief
being, as the multitude would call it, unfortunate, I in such a case refer the
cause to God, who knows the reasons of the various fates allotted to each one
who enters human life. The Greeks, moreover, will admit that even amongst those
who are considered to be most largely endowed with wisdom, good fortune has had
much to do, as in the choice of teachers of one kind rather than another, and in
meeting with a better class of instructors (there being teachers who taught the
most opposite doctrines), and in being brought up in better circumstances; for
the bringing up of many has been amid surroundings of such a kind, that they
were prevented from ever receiving any idea of better things, but constantly
passed their life, from their earliest youth, either as the favourites of
licentious men or of tyrants, or in some other wretched condition which forbade
the soul to look upwards. And the causes of these varied fortunes, according to
all probability, are to be found in the reasons of providence, though it is not
easy for men to ascertain these; but I have said what I have done by way of
digression from the main body of my subject, on account of the proverb, that
"such is the power of faith, because it seizes that which first presents
itself."126 For it was necessary, owing to the different methods of education,
to speak of the differences of belief among men, some of whom are more, others
less fortunate in their belief; and from this to proceed to show that what is
termed good or bad fortune would appear to contribute even in the case of the
most talented, to their appearing to be more fully endowed with reason and to
give their assent on grounds of reason to the majority of human opinions. But
enough on these points.

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,127 or
false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that souls unacquainted with those
artifices which are taught by the cunning sophistry of the Greeks (which is
characterized by great plausibility and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric
in vogue in the courts of justice, would not have been able thus to invent
occurrences which are fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in
keeping with faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus
wished to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz., that there
might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it might
clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the guileless
purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great simplicity, was
deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power, which accomplished far
more than it seemed possible could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words,
and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.

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 sense128 forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of
corruptible matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in
dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His appearance. And
therefore we say at once of images that they are not gods, and of such creations
(of art) that they are not to be compared with the Creator, but are small in
contrast with the God who is over all, and who created, and upholds, and governs
the universe. And the rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship
(to the divine), at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and
resumes its natural love129 for its Creator; and because of its affection
towards Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations
through the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth, furnished
with divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine regarding God and His
kingdom.

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,130 they received the highest powers, and
after participating in His divinity, were changed into God. And if any one
should feel a difficulty at our saying this regarding His body, let him attend
to what is said by the Greeks regarding matter, which, properly speaking, being
without qualities, receives such as the Creator desires to invest it with, and
which frequently divests itself of those which it formerly possessed, and
assumes others of a different and higher kind. And if these opinions be correct,
what is there wonderful in this, that the mortal quality of the body of Jesus,
if the providence of God has so willed it, should have been changed into one
that was ethereal and divine?131

Chapter XLII.

Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner,132 when he compares the mortal
flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that the former is more
liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak correctly, that which is
incorruptible is not more free from corruption than another thing which is
incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible more liable to corruption than
another corruptible thing. But, admitting that there are degrees of
corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if it is possible for the matter
which underlies all qualities to exchange some of them, how should it be
impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to exchange qualities, and to become such
as it was proper for a body to be which had its abode in the ether and the
regions above it, and possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the
flesh, and those properties which Celsus terms "impurities," and in so terming
them, speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so
because of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far
as it is bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative
principle of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would
return, he says with respect to the change of the body of Jesus, "Well, after he
has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God: "(and if so), why not rather
Aesculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, "What great deed has
Aesculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought? "And what individuals will they
be able to point out as having been improved in character, and made better by
their words and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be gods? For
let us peruse the many narratives regarding them, and see whether they were free
from licentiousness or injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that
kind be found in them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the
forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that,
although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded,
nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are contrary to right
reason, how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men,
on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?

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,133 although ignorant of the grounds134 on which the Cretans observe
such a custom." Observe now that he thus undertakes the defence of the Cretans,
and of Jupiter, and of his tomb, alluding obscurely to the allegorical notions,
in conformity with which the myth regarding Jupiter is said to have been
invented; while he assails us who acknowledge that our Jesus has been buried,
indeed, but who maintain that He has also been raised from the tomb,-a statement
which the Cretans have not yet made regarding Jupiter. But since he appears to
admit that the tomb of Jupiter is in Crete, when he says that "we are ignorant
of the grounds on which the Cretans observe such a custom," we reply that
Callimachus the Cyrenian, who had read innumerable poetic compositions, and
nearly the whole of Greek history, was not acquainted with any allegorical
meaning which was contained in the stories about Jupiter and his tomb; and
accordingly he accuses the Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in the
words:135 - "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.136 But birth upon earth is the beginning of death. And his
words run:- "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 weft 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, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed
evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or
foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging
that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they
desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid,
with women and children."137 In reply to which, we say that, as if, while Jesus
teaches continence, and says, "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her,
hath already committed adultery with her in his heart," one were to behold a few
of those who are deemed to be Christians living licentiously, he would most
justly blame them for living contrary to the teaching of Jesus, but would act
most unreasonably if he were to charge the Gospel with their censurable conduct;
so, if he found nevertheless that the doctrine of the Christians invites men to
wisdom, the blame then must remain with those who rest in their own ignorance,
and who utter, not what Celsus relates (for although some of them are simple and
ignorant, they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of
much less serious import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from the
practice of wisdom.

Chapter XLV. But that the object of Christianity138 is that we should become
wise, can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which we also
use, but especially from those which were composed after the time of Jesus, and
which are believed among the Churches to be divine. Now, in the Psalms 50, David
is described as saying in his prayer to God these words: "The unseen and secret
things of Thy wisdom Thou hast manifested to me."139 Solomon, too, because he
asked for wisdom, received it; and if any one were to peruse the Psalms, he
would find the book filled with many maxims of wisdom: and the evidences of his
wisdom may be seen in his treatises, which contain a great amount of wisdom
expressed in few words, and in which you will find many laudations of wisdom,
and encouragements towards obtaining it. So wise, moreover, was Solomon, that
"the queen of Sheba, having heard his name, and the name of the Lord, came to
try him with difficult questions, and spake to him all things, whatsoever were
in her heart; and Solomon answered her all her questions. There was no question
omitted by the king which he did not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all
the wisdom of Solomon, and the possessions which he had140 and there was no more
spirit in her.141 And she said to the king, The report is true which I heard in
mine own land regarding thee and thy wisdom; and I believed not them who told
me, until I had come, and mine eyes have seen it. And, lo, they did not tell me
the half. Thou hast added wisdom and possessions above all the report which I
heard."142 It is recorded also of him, that "God gave Solomon wisdom and
understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is
on the seashore. And the wisdom that was in Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom
of all the ancients, and of all the wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than all
men, even than Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Aradab, the sons
of Madi. And he was famous among all the nations round about. And Solomon spake
three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. And he spake of
trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop which springeth out
of the wall; and also of fishes and of beasts. And all nations came to hear the
wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth who had heard of the fame
of his wisdom."143 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.144 And one of
the prophets-Hosea-says at the end of his prophecies: "Who is wise, and he will
understand these things? or prudent, and he shall know them? "145 Daniel,
moreover, and his fellow-captives, made such progress in the learning which the
wise men around the king in Babylon cultivated, that they were shown to excel
all of them in a tenfold degree. And in the book of Ezekiel it is said to the
ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself on his wisdom, "Art thou wiser than
Daniel? Every secret was not revealed to thee."146

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 His own
disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming above the multitudes those who
desired to know His wisdom. And He promises to those who believe upon Him to
send them wise men and scribes, saying, "Behold, I will send unto you wise men
and scribes, and some of them they shall kill and crucify."147 And Paul also, in
the catalogue of "charismata" bestowed by God, placed first "the word of
wisdom," and second, as being inferior to it, "the word of knowledge," but
third, and lower down, "faith."148 And because he regarded "the word" as higher
than miraculous powers, he for that reason places "workings of miracles" and
"gifts of healings" in a lower place than the gifts of the word. And in the Acts
of the Apostles Stephen bears witness to the great learning of Moses, which he
had obtained wholly from ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For
he says: "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians."149 And
therefore, with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he wrought them
perhaps, not in virtue of his professing to come from God, but by means of his
Egyptian knowledge, in which he was well versed. For the king, entertaining such
a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian magicians, and wise men, and enchanters, who
were found to be of no avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which proved
superior to all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

Chapter XLVII. But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians,150 as being addressed to Greeks who prided
themselves greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it
was not the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of this
opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked men, says of them that
they are wise not in things which relate to the understanding, and which are
unseen and eternal; but that in busying themselves about things of sense alone,
and regarding these as all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as
there are in existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause
of matter and bodies,151 and asserting that everything is corporeal which has a
substantial existence,152 and that besides these nothing else exists, whether it
be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also that these constitute the
wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades away, and belongs only to this
age, while those opinions which raise the soul from things here to the
blessedness which is with God, and to His kingdom, and which teach men to
despise all sensible and visible things as existing only for a season, and to
hasten on to things invisible, and to have regard to those things which are not
seen,-these, it says, constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of
truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are
true, that "although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were
thankful."153 And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this
did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words: "For God
showed it unto them; "154 dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from
things of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds, "For the invisible
things of God 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."155

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;156 some have been led to suppose that no one
who is instructed, or wise, or prudent, embraces the Gospel. Now, in answer to
such an one, we would say that it has not been stated that "no wise man
according to the flesh," but that "not many wise men according to the flesh,"
are called. It is manifest, further, that amongst the characteristic
qualifications of those who are termed "bishops," Paul, in describing what kind
of man the bishop ought to be, lays down as a qualification that he should also
be a teacher, saying that he ought to be able to convince the gainsayers, that
by the wisdom which is in him he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and
deceivers.157 And as he selects for the episcopate a man who has been once
married158 rather than he who has twice entered the married state,159 and a man
of blameless life rather than one who is liable to censure, and a sober man
rather than one who is not such, and a prudent man rather than one who is not
prudent, and a man whose behaviour is decorous rather than he who is open to the
charge even of the slightest indecorum, so he desires that he who is to be
chosen by preference for the office of a bishop should be apt to teach, and able
to convince the gainsayers. How then can Celsus justly charge us with saying,
"Let no one come to us who is `instructed, 'or `wise, 'or `prudent? '" Nay, let
him who wills come to us "instructed," and "wise," and "prudent; "and none the
less, if any one be ignorant and unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish,
let him also come: for it is these whom the Gospel promises to cure, when they
come, by rendering them all worthy of God.

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."160 After this it is superfluous for
us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: "For
why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions,
and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this
offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a
means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth? "Truly it is no
evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank
those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what
even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would
not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall
we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue?
Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as
Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance,
to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise.
And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that
he is an Epicurean.

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 instructed161 them in
private, when they appear (before entering the community) to have sufficiently
evinced their desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not
before, privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are
receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete
purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of their
ability their intention to desire no other things than are approved by
Christians; and among these there are certain persons appointed to make
inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of those who join them, in order
that they may prevent those who commit acts of infamy from coming into their
public assembly, while those of a different character they receive with their
whole heart, in order that they may daily make them better. And this is their
method of procedure, both with those who are sinners, and especially with those
who lead dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although,
according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places perform the
most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to erect
a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from their system of philosophy,
treating them as dead; but the Christians lament as dead those who have been
vanquished by licentiousness or any other sin, because they are lost and dead to
God, and as being risen from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they
receive them afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in
the case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office or
post of rank in the Church of God those who, after professing the Gospel, lapsed
and fell.

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? "162 Now the same writer,163 knowing
that there was a certain kind of nourishment better adapted for the soul, and
that the food of those young164 persons who were admitted was compared to milk,
continues: "And ye are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he
is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those
who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and
evil."165 Would then those who believe these words to be well spoken, suppose
that the noble doctrines of our faith would never be mentioned in an assembly of
wise men, but that wherever (our instructors) see young men, and a mob of
slaves, and a collection of foolish individuals, they bring publicly forward
divine and venerable truths, and before such persons make a display of
themselves in treating of them? But it is clear to him who examines the whole
spirit of our writings, that Celsus is animated with a hatred against the human
race resembling that of the ignorant populace, and gives utterance to these
falsehoods without examination.

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,166 and be ennobled by the word. And those amongst us
who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are
debtors167 to Greeks and Barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not
deny their obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that
as far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to obtain
greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: "Oh, ye fools, be
of an understanding heart,"168 and "Who is the most simple among you, let him
turn unto me; "169 and wisdom exhorts those who are devoid of understanding in
the words, "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mixed for
you. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct understanding in knowledge."170
This too would I say (seeing it bears on the point),171 in answer to the
statement of Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and
do they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and do
they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then, with
philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue? with Pythagoras
for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and with those who recently
encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy? Is it indeed permissible for
you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves and foolish persons to the study of
philosophy, but if we do so, we do not act from philanthropic motives in wishing
to heal every rational nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them
into fellowship with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may
suffice in answer to what are slanders rather than accusations172 on the part of
Celsus.

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;173 but when they get hold of the children privately, and
certain women as ignorant as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements,
to the effect that they ought not to give heed to their father and to their
teachers, but should obey them; that the former are foolish and stupid, and
neither know nor can perform anything that is really good, being preoccupied
with empty trifles; that they alone know how men ought to live, and that, if the
children obey them, they will both be happy themselves, and will make their home
happy also. And while thus speaking, if they see one of the instructors of youth
approaching, or one of the more intelligent class, or even the father himself,
the more timid among them become afraid, while the more forward incite the
children to throw off the yoke, whispering that in the presence of father and
teachers they neither will nor can explain to them any good thing, seeing they
turn away with aversion from the silliness and stupidity of such persons as
being altogether corrupt, and far advanced in wickedness, and such as would
inflict punishment upon them; but that if they wish (to avail themselves of
their aid) they must leave their father and their instructors, and go with the
women and their playfellows to the women's apartments, or to the leather shop,
or to the fuller's shop, that they may attain to perfection;-and by words like
these they gain them over."

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 of sense who lead and drag the young men to all those
disorderly acts which we know are often committed by them. We indeed call away
these also, as far as we can, from the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of
God, by showing forth its excellence aud purity. But as Celsus, by his
statements, has declared that we do not do so, but that we call only the
foolish, I would say to him, "If you had charged us with withdrawing from the
study of philosophy those who were already preoccupied with it, you would not
have spoken the truth, and yet your charge would have had an appearance of
probability; but when you now say that we draw away our adherents from good
teachers, show who are those other teachers save the teachers of philosophy, or
those who have been appointed to give instruction in some useful branch of
study."174

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
bearers (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;
'175 others again thus: `He who is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is
conscious of no evil, and who has lived well and justly.' Such is the
proclamation made by those who promise purification from sins.176 But let us
hear what kind of persons these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a
sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak generally,
whoever is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive. Do you not call him
a sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a housebreaker, and a poisoner,
and a committer of sacrilege, and a robber of the dead? What others would a man
invite if he were issuing a proclamation for an assembly of robbers? "Now, in
answer to such statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those
who are sick in soul to be cured, and those who are in health to the knowledge
and study of divine things. We, however, keeping both these things in view, at
first invite all men to be healed, and exhort those who are sinners to come to
the consideration of the doctrines which teach men not to sin, and those who are
devoid of understanding to those which beget wisdom, and those who are children
to rise in their thoughts to manhood, and those who are simply177 unfortunate to
good fortune,178 or-which is the more appropriate term to use-to blessedness.179
And when those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have
shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can
a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation in our
mysteries. "For we speak wisdom among them that are perfect."180

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,"181 we say, Whoever
has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and by reason of
being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can say, "The lifting up of my
hands is as the evening sacrifice,"182 let him come to us; and whoever has a
wise tongue through meditating on the law of the Lord day and night, and by
"reason of habit has his senses exercised to discern between good and evil," let
him have no reluctance in coming to the strong and rational sustenance which is
adapted to those who are athletes in piety and every virtue. And since the grace
of God is with all those who love with a pure affection the teacher of the
doctrines of immortality, whoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from
what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the
mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure.
The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, "Let him whose soul is conscious of no
evil come." But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus,
will say to those who have been purified in heart, "He whose soul has, for a
long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to
the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in
private by Jesus to His genuine disciples." Therefore in the comparison which he
institutes between the procedure of the initiators into the Grecian mysteries,
and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus, he does not know the difference
between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified
into the sacred mysteries!

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,183 do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and the housebreaker,
and the poisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the plunderer of the dead,
and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerating style, but
such as these we invite to be healed. For there are in the divinity of the word
some helps towards the cure of those who are sick, respecting which the word
says, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; "184
others, gain, which to the pure in soul and body exhibit "the revelation of the
mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest
by the Scriptures of the prophets,"185 and "by the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ,"186 which "appearing" is manifested to each one of those who are
perfect, and which enlightens the reason187 in the true188 knowledge of things.
But as he exaggerates the charges against us, adding, after his list of those
vile individuals whom he has mentioned, this remark, "What other persons would a
robber summon to himself by proclamation? "we answer such a question by saying
that a robber summons around him individuals of such a character, in order to
make use of their villany against the men whom they desire to slay and plunder.
A Christian, on the other hand, even though he invite those whom the robber
invites, invites them to a very different vocation, viz. to bind up these wounds
by His word, and to apply to the soul, festering amid evils, the drugs obtained
from the word, and which are analogous to the wine and oil, and plasters, and
other healing appliances which belong to the art of medicine.

Chapter LXII. In the next place, throwing a slur189 upon the exhortations spoken
and written to those who have led wicked lives, and which invite them to
repentance and reformation of heart, he asserts that we say "that it was to
sinners that God has been sent." Now this statement of his is much the same as
if he were to find fault with certain persons for saying that on account of the
sick who were living in a city, a physician had been sent them by a very
benevolent monarch.190 God the Word was sent, indeed, as a physician to sinners,
but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure and who sin
no more. But Celsus, unable to see this distinction,-for he had no desire to be
animated with a love of truth,-remarks, "Why was he not sent to those who were
without sin? What evil is it not to have committed sin? "To which we reply, that
if by those "who were without sin" he means those who sin no more, then our
Saviour Jesus was sent even to such, but not as a physician. While if by those
"who were without sin" he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he
made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man
thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man
understood to be in Christ Jesus,191 who "did no sin." It is with a malicious
intent, indeed, that Celsus says of us that we assert that "God will receive the
unrighteousness man if he humble himself on account of his wickedness, but that
He will not receive the righteous man, although he look up to Him, (adorned)
with virtue from the beginning." Now we assert that it is impossible for a man
to look up to God (adorned) with virtue from the beginning. For wickedness must
necessarily first exist in men. As Paul also says, "When the commandment came,
sin revived, and I died."192 Moreover, we do not teach regarding the unrighteous
man, that it is sufficient for him to humble himself on account of his
wickedness in order to his being accepted by God, but that God will accept him
if, after passing condemnation upon himself for his past conduct, he walk humbly
on account of it, and in a becoming manner for the time to come.

Chapter LXIII.

After this, not understanding how it has been said that "every one who exalted
himself shall be abased; "193 nor (although taught even by Plato) that "the good
and virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly; "and ignorant, moreover, that we
give the injunction, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of
God, that He may exalt you in due time; "194 he says that "those persons who
preside properly over a trial make those individuals who bewail before them
their evil deeds to cease from their piteous wailings, lest their decisions
should be determined rather by compassion than by a regard to truth; whereas God
does not decide in accordance with truth, but in accordance with flattery."195
Now, what words of flattery and piteous walling are contained in the Holy
Scriptures when the sinner says in his prayers to God, "I have acknowledged my
sin, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgression
to the Lord," etc., etc.? For is he able to show that a procedure of this kind
is not adapted to the conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their
prayers under the hand of God? And, becoming confused by his efforts to accuse
us, he contradicts himself; appearing at one time to know a man "without sin,"
and "a righteous man, who can look up to God (adorned) with virtue from the
beginning; "and at another time accepting our statement that there is no man
altogether righteous, or without sin;196 for, as if he admitted its truth, he
remarks, "This is indeed apparently true, that somehow the human race is
naturally inclined to sin." In the next place, as if all men were not invited by
the word, he says, "All men, then, without distinction, ought to be invited,
since all indeed are sinners." And yet, in the preceding pages, we have pointed
out the words of Jesus: "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest."197 All men, therefore, labouring and being heavy
laden on account of the nature of sin, are invited to the rest spoken of in the
word of God, "for God sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from
their destructions."198

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,"199 and
of the Pharisee who boasted with a certain wicked self-conceit in the words, "I
thank Thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
even as this publican."200 For Jesus subjoins to his narrative of them both the
words: "This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for
every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself
shall be exalted."201 We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we
guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is
conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God, and that
we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our deficiencies, what is
wanting to our (mortal) nature.

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 fight reason.202 Sometimes, also, when very abandoned
men are willing to accept the doctrine of (future) punishment, on account of the
hope which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by their
habit of sinning, being constantly dipped,203 and, as it were, dyed204 in
wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from it easily to a
proper life, and one regulated according to right reason. And although Celsus
observes this, he nevertheless, I know not why, expresses himself in the
following terms: "And yet, indeed, it is manifest to every one that no one by
chastisement, much less by merciful treatment, could effect a complete change in
those who are sinners both by nature and custom, for to change nature is an
exceedingly difficult thing. But they who are without sin are partaken of a
better life."

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,205 and some
not only by nature but by practice, while not all men are incapable of an entire
transformation. For there are found in every philosophical sect, and in the word
of God, persons who are related to have undergone so great a change that they
may be proposed as a model of excellence of life. Among the names of the heroic
age some mention Hercules and Ulysses, among those of later times, Socrates, and
of those who have lived very recently, Musonius.206 Not only against us, then,
did Celsus utter the calumny, when he said that "it was manifest to every one
that those who were given to sin by nature and habit could not by any means-even
by punishments-be completely changed for the better," but also against the
noblest names in philosophy, who have not denied that the recovery of virtue was
a possible thing for men. But although he did not express his meaning with
exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving his words a more favourable
construction, convict him of unsound reasoning. For his words were: "Those who
are inclined to sin by nature and habit, no one could completely reform even by
chastisement; "and his words, as we understood them, we refuted to the best of
our ability.207

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,208 that he might allow himself to
be polluted by any one who liked? And yet such a circumstance is related of
Phaedo! And who will not agree that he who burst, accompanied with a
flute-player and a party of revellers, his profligate associates, into the
school of the venerable Xenocrates, to insult a man who was the admiration of
his friends, was not one of the greatest miscreants209 among mankind? Yet,
notwithstanding this, reason was powerful enough to effect their conversion, and
to enable them to make such progress in philosophy, that the one was deemed
worthy by Plato to recount the discourse of Socrates on immortality, and to
record his firmness in prison, when he evinced his contempt of the hemlock, and
with all fearlessness and tranquillity of mind treated of subjects so numerous
and important, that it is difficult even for those to follow them who are giving
their utmost attention, and who are disturbed by no distraction; while Polemon,
on the other hand, who from a profligate became a man of most temperate life,
was successor in the school of Xenocrates, so celebrated for his venerable
character. Celsus then does not speak the truth when he says "that sinners by
nature and habit cannot be completely reformed even by chastisement."

Chapter LXVIII. That philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly
arrangement and elegant expression,210 should produce such results in the case
of those individuals just enumerated, and upon others211 who have led wicked
lives, is not at all to be wondered at. But when we consider that those
discourses, which Celsus terms "vulgar,"212 are filled with power, as if they
were spells, and see that they at once convert multitudes from a life of
licentiousness to one of extreme regularity,213 and from a life of wickedness to
a better, and from a state of cowardice or unmanliness to one of such high-toned
courage as to lead men to despise even death through the piety which shows
itself within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they
contain? For the words of those who at the first assumed the office of
(Christian) ambassadors, and who gave their labours to rear up the Churches of
God,-nay, their preaching also,-were accompanied with a persuasive power, though
not like that found among those who profess the philosophy of Plato, or of any
other merely human philosopher, which possesses no other qualities than those of
human nature. But the demonstration which followed the words of the apostles of
Jesus was given from God, and was accredited214 by the Spirit and by power. And
therefore their word ran swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of God through
their instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who had been sinners both
by nature and habit, whom no one could have reformed by punishment, but who were
changed by the word, which moulded and transformed them according to its
pleasure.

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,215 so that wickedness has been
naturalized216 in some individuals, are persuaded that for the word of God to
change a nature in which evil has been naturalized is not only not impossible,
but is even a work of no very great difficulty, if a man only believe that he
must entrust himself to the God of all things, and do everything with a view to
please Him with whom it cannot be217 that "Both good and bad are in the same
honour, Or that the idle man and he who laboured much Perish alike."218 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 practice219 avail much towards the accomplishment of
things which appear to be very difficult, and, to speak hyperbolically, almost
impossible. Has the nature of man, when desiring to walk along a rope extended
in the air through the middle of the theatre, and to carry at the same time
numerous and heavy weights, been able by practice and attention to accomplish
such a feat; but when desiring to live in conformity with the practice of
virtue, does it find it impossible to do so, although formerly it may have been
exceedingly wicked? See whether he who holds such views does not bring a charge
against the nature of the Creator of the rational animal220 rather than against
the creature, if He has formed the nature of man with powers for the attainment
of things of such difficulty, and of no utility whatever, but has rendered it
incapable of securing its own blessedness. But these remarks may suffice as an
answer to the assertion that "entirely to change a nature is exceedingly
difficult." He alleges, in the next place, that "they who are without sin are
partakers of a better life; "not making it clear what he means by "those who are
without sin," whether those who are so from the beginning (of their lives), or
those who become so by a transformation. Of those who were so from the beginning
of their lives, there cannot possibly be any; while those who are so after a
transformation (of heart) are found to be few in number, being those who have
become so after giving in their allegiance to the saving word. And they were not
such when they gave in their allegiance. For, apart from the aid of the word,
and that too the word of perfection, it is impossible for a man to become free
from sin.

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,221 nor that whose nature it is to produce light through its
being light can cause darkness; so neither is God able to commit wickedness, for
the power of doing evil is contrary to His deity and its omnipotence. Whereas if
any one among existing things is able to commit wickedness from being inclined
to wickedness by nature, it does so from not having in its nature the ability
not to do evil.

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.222 But those who have passed severe
condemnation upon themselves because of their sins, and who, as on that account,
lament and bewail themselves as lost, so far as their previous conduct is
concerned, and who have manifested a satisfactory change, are received by God on
account of their repentance, as those who have undergone a transformation from a
life of great wickedness. For virtue, taking up her abode in the souls of these
persons, and expelling the wickedness which had previous possession of them,
produces an oblivion of the past. And even although virtue do not effect an
entrance, yet if a considerable progress take place in the soul, even that is
sufficient, in the proportion that it is progressive, to drive out and destroy
the flood of wickedness, so that it almost ceases to remain in the soul.

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,"223 no one who was really wise would reject what is said by a
Christian acquainted with the principles of Christianity, or would be led into
error, or ensnared by it. For true wisdom does not mislead, but ignorance does,
while of existing things knowledge alone is permanent, and the truth which is
derived from wisdom. But if, contrary to the definition of wisdom, you call any
one whatever who dogmatizes with sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in
conformity with what you call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God,
being misled and ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to our
doctrine, wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil, so to
speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by them, I would
therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than wisdom.

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 which he calls "ridiculous." And in his
slanders he says that "no wise man believes the Gospel, being driven away by the
multitudes who adhere to it." And in this he acts like one who should say that
owing to the multitude of those ignorant persons who are brought into subjection
to the laws, no wise man would yield obedience to Solon, for example, or to
Lycurgus, or Zaleucus, or any other legislator, and especially if by wise man he
means one who is wise (by living) in conformity with virtue. For, as with regard
to these ignorant persons, the legislators, according to their ideas of utility,
caused them to be surrounded with appropriate guidance and laws, so God,
legislating through Jesus Christ for men in all parts of the world, brings: to
Himself even those who are not wise in the way in which it is possible for such
persons to be brought to a better life. And God, well knowing this, as we have
already shown in the preceding pages, says in the books of Moses "They have
moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked Me to anger
with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a
people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."224 And Paul also,
knowing this, said, "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise,"225 calling, in a general way, wise all who appear to have
made advances in knowledge, but have fallen into an atheistic polytheism, since
"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."226

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?227 But it is impossible to gain the virtuous, because they have
already given themselves to philosophy. The wicked, then, (you try to gain;) but
if they are wicked, are they "unintelligent? "And many such you seek to win over
to philosophy, and you therefore seek the "unintelligent." But if I seek after
those who are thus termed "unintelligent," I act like a benevolent physician,
who should seek after the sick in order to help and cure them. If, bow-ever, by
"unintelligent" you mean persons who are not clever,228 but the inferior class
of men intellectually,229 I shall answer that I endeavour to improve such also
to the best of my ability, although I would not desire to build up the Christian
community out of such materials. For I seek in preference those who are more
clever and acute, because they are able to comprehend the meaning of the hard
sayings, and of those passages in the law, and prophecies, and Gospels, which
are expressed with obscurity, and which you have despised as not containing
anything worthy of notice, because you have not ascertained the meaning which
they contain, nor tried to enter into the aim of the writers.

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 train230 and heal those who have been thus encouraged, persuading them
to devote themselves to the God of all things, and free those who yield
obedience to us from the great wounds inflicted by the words of such as are
deemed to be philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that-we turn away from
physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible god, and
assert that his essence consists of a body, which is capable of being changed
and altered in all its parts,231 and who also maintain that all things will one
day perish, and that God alone will be left; why shall we not even thus
emancipate our subjects from evils, and bring them by pious arguments to devote
themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of the Christian system, who
has so arranged that instruction of the most benevolent kind, and fitted for the
conversion of souls,232 should be distributed throughout the whole human race?
Nay, if we should cure those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the
transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will have it
that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds of irrational
animals, and sometimes into that state of being which is incapable of using the
imagination,233 why should we not improve the souls of our subjects by means of
a doctrine which does not teach that a state of insensibility or irrationalism
is produced in the wicked instead of punishment, but which shows that the
labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God are a kind of
medicines leading to conversion? For those who are intelligent Christians,234
keeping this in view, deal with the simple-minded, as parents do with very
young235 children. We do not betake ourselves then to young persons and silly
rustics, saying to them, "Flee from physicians." Nor do we say, "See that none
of you lay hold of knowledge; "nor do we assert that "knowledge is an evil; "nor
are we mad enough to say that "knowledge causes men to lose their soundness of
mind." We would not even say that any one ever perished through wisdom; and
although we give instruction, we never say, "Give heed to me," but "Give heed to
the God of all things, and to Jesus, the giver of instruction concerning Him."
And none of us is so great a braggart236 as to say what Celsus put in the mouth
of one of our teachers to his acquaintances, "I alone will save you." Observe
here the lies which he utters against us! Moreover, we do not assert that "true
physicians destroy those whom they promise to cure."

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.237

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?238 For, to compare with
that illimitable excellence, which surpasses all created being, things which
ought not to be brought into comparison with it, is the act of those whose
understanding is darkened. We do not then say that those who are sharp-sighted
are suffering from ophthalmia or blindness; but we assert that those who, in
ignorance of God, give themselves to temples and images, and so-called sacred
seasons,239 are blinded in their minds, and especially when, in addition to
their impiety, they live also in licentiousness, not even inquiring after any
honourable work whatever, but doing everything that is of a disgraceful
character.

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."240 For such individuals, through fear of the punishments that are
threatened, which arouses and exhorts them to refrain from those actions which
are followed by punishments, strive to yield themselves up to the Christian
religion, being influenced by the power of the word to such a degree, that
through fear of what are called in the word "everlasting punishments," they
despise all the tortures which are devised against them among men,-even death
itself, with countless other evils,-which no wise man would say is the act of
persons of wicked mind. How can temperance and sober-mindedness, or benevolence
and liberality, be practised by a man of wicked mind? Nay, even the fear of God
cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to which, because it is useful to
the many, the Gospel encourages those who are not yet able to choose that which
ought to be chosen for its own sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and
one above all promise; for this principle cannot be implanted in him who prefers
to live in wickedness.

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 legislator241 replied to the
question of one who asked him whether he had enacted for his citizens the best
laws, that he had not given them absolutely the best, but the best which they
were capable of receiving; so it might be said by the Father of the Christian
doctrine, I have given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of
morals of which the many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary
labours and chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to be
applied for the correction of those who offer resistance, although they do not
at all understand the object of him who inflicts the punishment, nor the effect
of the labours. For the doctrine of punishment is both attended with utility,
and is agreeable to truth, and is stated in obscure terms with advantage.242
Moreover, as for the most part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of
Christianity gain over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him
both what is true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so
clear to them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the Gospel in
a philosophical manner.

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 vault243 of heaven,
and in the super-celestial space to behold the sights which are seen by the
blessed spectators above. According to you, O Celsus, they also who have
accepted the doctrine of the duration of the soul (after death), and who lead a
life through which they become heroes, and make their abodes with the gods, are
won over by vain hopes. Probably also they who are persuaded that the soul comes
(into the body) from without, and that it will be withdrawn from the power of
death,244 would be said by Celsus to be won over by empty hopes. Let him then
come forth to the contest, no longer concealing the sect to which he belongs,
but confessing himself to be an Epicurean, and let him meet the arguments, which
are not lightly advanced among Greeks and Barbarians, regarding the immortality
of the soul, or its duration (after death), or the immortality of the thinking
principle;245 and let him prove that these are words which deceive with empty
hopes those who give their aSsent to them; but that the adherents of his
philosophical system are pure from empty hopes, and that they indeed lead to
hopes of good, or-what is more in keeping with his opinions-give birth to no
hope at all, on account of the immediate and complete destruction of the soul
(after death). Unless, perhaps, Celsus and the Epicureans will deny that it is a
vain hope which they entertain regarding their end,-pleasure,-which, according
to them, is the supreme good, and which consists in the permanent health of the
body, and the hope regarding it which is entertained by Epicurus.246

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
un-mingled 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;247 and let him prove that
the end which is predicted by any of the others is superior to that which we
promise, and consequently that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of
God, nor those who have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words
were not spoken by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets.
And let him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among all men
to be human, are superior to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered by
inspiration.248 And what are the "better" things from which we teach those who
receive them that it would be better to abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to
speak, it is self-evident that nothing can be denied which is better than to
entrust oneself to the God of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which
raises us above all created things, and brings us, through the animate and
living word-which is also living wisdom and the Son of God-to God who is over
all. However, as the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has
extended to a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks to a
close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has subsequently written.

1: dhmhgoriaj : cf. book i. c. 71.

2: dhmhgoriaj : cf. book i. c. 71.

3: kata thn paroimian kaloumenhj onou skiaj maxhj . On this proverb, see
Zenobius, Centuria Sexta , adag. 28, and the note of Schottius. Cf. also Suidas,
s.v. onou skia . - De La Rue.

4: semnon .

5: dia tinoj gohteiaj .

6: kata ta Ioudaiwn patria .

7: twn xrhmatizontwn meridoj Qeou .

8: ara gr wj etuxe .

9: sun oudemia piqanothti .

10: sun oudemia piqanothti .

11: Ps. xcvi. 5, daimonia , "idols," Auth. Vers. We have in this passage, and in
many others, the identification of the daimonej or gods of the heathen with the
daimonej or daimonia , "evil spirits," or angels, supposed to be mentioned in
Gen. vi. 2.

12: The reading in the text is automolein , on which Bohereau, with whom the
Benedictine editor agrees, remarks that we must either read automolhsontaj , or
understand some such word as etoimouj before automolein .

13: Ps. xcvi. 5, daimonia , "idols," Auth. Vers. We have in this passage, and in
many others, the identification of the daimonej or gods of the heathen with the
daimonej or daimonia , "evil spirits," or angels, supposed to be mentioned in
Gen. vi. 2.

14: to meizon autoqen .

15: mexri logou .

16: pwj ouxi ec eikotwn kataskeuazetai .

17: eaq upoqesin .

18: qeoqen .

19: Thj kainotomiaj .

20: Prokatalhfqeij wj upo filtrwn twn Aiguptiwn .

21: Thn suntrofon fwnhn .

22: Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 5.

23: Suggeneij eisin ai proshgoriai .

24: Safwj enargej .

25: [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.]

26: Epauleij .

27: Docarion .

28: staseij idiaj .

29: kai toi ou panth hsan oligoi .

30: iugc .

31: The reading in Spencer's and the Benedictine edition is upotemnomenaj , for
which Lommatzsch reads upomemnhmenaj .

32: kai to dokoun .

33: apaqestata .

34: Ekdoxhn .

35: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 12 sqq.

36: Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 2.

37: Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20.

38: Tinej parekdoxai . [He admits the fact, but does not justify such
oppositions.] 39: pollhn exei diolkhn .

40: filologon .

41: to prepon .

42: 1 Cor. xi. 19.

43: qeiaj energeiaj .

44: epifaneiaj .

45: ta tou palaiou logou parakausmata sumplattontej, toutoij prokatauloumen kai
prokathxoumen touj anqrwpouj, wj oi touj korubantizomenouj peribombountej .

46: ouk an exoi parasthsai, oti hmeij men en parakousmasi genomenoi thj
alhqeia=, osoi ge peirwmeqa meta logou pisteuein, proj ta toiauta zwmen dogmata
.

47: propulaiwn megeqh te kai kallh .

48: to analogon .

49: [Clearly coincident with Clement and other early Fathers on this head.] 50:
fantasian ecapostellein toij tauta memaqhkosin, oti mh mathn memuhtai .

51: pifantasqai .

52: ainigmata .

53: w gennaie .

54: diecodeuwmen .

55: 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.

56: thrhsewj .

57: safhneian .

58: metabaseij .

59: afilosofon xleuhn .

60: bwmoloxoj .

61: The reading in the text is kai prwtoi , for which Bohereau proposes to
prwton , which we have adopted in the translation.

62: We have followed in the translation the emendation of Guietus, who proposes
ei de thn fainomenhn autw alhqeian epresbeusen, ouk a/, k.t.l., , instead of the
textual reading, ei te thj fainomenhj autw alhqeiaj epresbensen, ouk an, k.t.l.

63: ton prohgoumenon hmin peri yuxhj kataskeuasteon logon .

64: Bohereau conjectures, with great probability, that instead of apodekteon ,
we ought to read apokeikteon .

65: Cf. Hom., Odyss ., xi. 303 and 304.

66: eitougiej exousin .

67: qiaswtaij .

68: apoklhrwtikwj .

69: eij de ta peri touton anecetastwj ormwn apisthsai toij peri autou ;

70: amuqhton .

71: ekstasewn .

72: meson .

73: asteiouj .

74: Cf. Smith's Dict. of Biograph ., S.V.

75: eusebh .

76: kosmioj .

77: oimh semnoi .

78: o#te dia\ tou= Puqi/ou stomi/ou perikaqezome0nh th= kaloume0nh profh/tidi
pneu=ma dia\ tw=n gunaikei/wn u9peise/rxetai to\ mantiko\n, o9 'Apo/llwn, to\
kaqaro\n a0po\ ghi/nou sw/mato: . Boherellus conjectures to\ mantiko\n tou=
'Apo/llwnoj to\ kaqaro/n .

79: ou#tw daimoni/wj .

80: Herod., book iv. chaps. 14 and 15 (Cary's transl).

81: teratei/an .

82: Guietus conjectures, kai\ pw=j, w\ lw=ste .

83: th=j kataballome/nhj oi0kodomh=j .

84: tou= kaq' h9ma=j dai/monoj, laxo/ntoj ge/raj loibh=j te kni/sshj te .

85: w9j ou0 koinwnh/santoj th= a0nqrwpi/nh fu/sei, ou0d' a0nalabo/ntoj th\n e0n
a0nqrw/poij sa/rka e0piqumou=san data\ tou= pneu/matoj .

86: 'Alla\ ga\r kai\ th\n kataba=san eij a0nqrwpi/nhn fu/sin kai= ei0j
a0nqrwpi/naj perista/seij du/namin, kai\ a0nalabou=san yuxh\n kai\ sw=ma
a0nqrw/pinon, e9w/rwn e0k tou= pisteuesqai meta\ tw=n qeiote/rwn sumballome/nhn
ei0j swthri/an toi=j pioteu/ousin .

87: meta\ tou= pisteu/ein . Others read, , meta\ to pisteu/ein .

88: lixnei/a .

89: toiau=ta ga\r ta\ pantaxou= politeuo/mena e0n tai=j e0kklhsi/aij
e0kklhsi/aij tw=n po/lewn plh/qh .

90: fwsth=rej . [Phil. ii. 15. Very noteworthy are the details of this and the
following chapter, and their defiant comparisons.] 91: e0kklhsi/a .

92: e0kklhsi/a .

93: paroikou/saj .

94: boulh/n .

95: bouleutai/ .

96: eu#roij a@n ti/nej me\n th=j e0kklhoi/aj bouleutai\ a!cioi/ ei0sin, ei! ti0j
e0stin e0n tw= pa/nti po/gij tou= Qeou=, e0n e0keinh= politeu/esqai . Boherellus
conjectures eu#roij a$n o!ti tine\sme\n, k.t.l .

97: th=j e0k katata/cewj u9peroxh=j .

98: o#ti kai e0pi\ tw=n sfo/dra a0potugxanome/nwn bouleutw=n kai\ a0rxo/ntwn
e0kklhsi/aj Qeou=, kai\ paqumo/teron para\ tou\j eu0tonwte/rwj biou=ntaj,
ou0de\n h[tto\n e0stin eu9rei=n w9j e0pi/pan u9peroxh\n, th\n e0n th= e0pi\ ta\j
a0reta\j prokoph=, para\ ta\ e!qh tw=n e0n tai=j polesi bouleutw=n kai\
a0rxo/ntwn . Boherellus conjectures p9aqumoterwn .

99: w!ste o0i>\stw= be/lei sumferesqai . Spencer and Bohereau would delete
be/lei as a gloss.

100: Guietus would insert h! before i#na ti\ w0felhqh= . this emendation is
adopted in the translation.

101: Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16.

102: thn oi0konomi/an .

103: Cf. John x. 18.

104: Cf. Matt. xxvii. 46-50.

105: Cf. John ii. 19.

106: Ps. xvi. 9, 10.

107: tw=n w0feloume/nwn .

108: John v. 39.

109: Cf. Col. iv. 6.

110: pi/stewj .

111: 1 Pet. iii. 15.

112: h!toi diabalou=men toi=j au0th\n mh\ paradecame/noij, kai\ e0gkale/somen
th= i9stori/a w9j ou0k a0lhqei\, h! daimo\nio\n ti fhsomen paraplh/sion toi=j
e0pideiknupe/noij go/hsin a0path= o0fqalmw=n pepoihke/nai kai\ perip topn
'Astupalaie/a . Spencer in his edition inludes mh\ in brackets, and renders,
"Aut eos incusabimus, qui istam virtutem admiserint."

113: a@j prosa/gomen au0tw=, w9j dia\ metacu\ o!ntoj th=j tou= a0genh/tou kai
th=j tw=n genhtw=n pa!ntwn fu/sewj . "Hoeschel (itemque Spencerus ad marg.)
suspicabatur legendum: w9j dh\ metacu\ o!ntoj . Male. Nihil mutari necesse est.
Agitur quippe de precibus, quas offerimus Deo `per eum qui veluti medius est
inter increatam naturam et creatam. 0'"-Ruaeus.

114: a0dolesxh=sai .

115: ta\j toutwn a0podoxa/j .

116: w9j ka!n to\ tuxo\n a0kolasi/aj ka$n e\p' o0li/gon geusame/nou .

117: ou[ a0reta\j oi9 me=n tinej kubeutikw/teron zw= ntej katayeu/dontai .

118: a0kolou=qwj th= e0n tw= le/gein terasti\wj pistikh= duna/mei .

119: w9j data\ no/mouj au0tw=n a!rxontoj .

120: a0pofora/j .

121: proaire/sewj .

122: e0swterikw=n kai\ e0poptikw=n .

123: h@ h#rwaj e0k metabolh=j susta/ntaj a0gaqh=j a0nqrwpi/nhj yuxh=j .

124: [See vol. ii. p. 185, and the stinging reference of Justin, vol. i. p. 172,
this series.]

125: peri\ de\ to= 'Ihsou= h!toi do/casa a@n ei\nai eu0tuxh\j, h@ kai\
bebasanisme/nwj e0chtasme/nh, dokou=sa me\n eu0tuxh\j para\ toi=j polloi=j,
bebasanisme/nwj de\ e0chtasme/nh para\ pa/nu oligwta/toij .

126: tosou=ton poiei= pi/stij, o0poi/a dh\ prokatasxou=sa .

127: kubeutiko/n .

128: h9 koin\h e!nnoia .

129: fi/ltron fusiko/n .

130: a0lla\ kai\ e9nw/sei kai\ a0nakra/sei .

131: ["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.]
132: dialektiko/j .

133: to\n a0po\ tou= ta/fou .

134: ou0k ei0do/tej pw=j kai\ kaqo/ .

135: Cf. Callimach., Hymn , i. Cf. also Tit. i. 12.

136: th/a0rxhn tou= qanatou gegone/nai peri= to\n Di/a .

137: [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.] 138: o9 lo/goj .

139: ta\ a!dhla kai\ ta\ kru/fia th=j sofi/aj sou e0dh/lwsa/j moi .

140: ta\ kat' au'to/n .

141: kai\ e0c au9th=j e0ge/neto .

142: Cf. 1 Kings x. 1-9.

143: Cf. 1 Kings iv. 29-34. The text reads, peri\ pa/ntwn tw=n basile/wn th=j
gh=j , for which para/ has been substituted.

144: kai\ a!lla dia\ problhma/twn .

145: Hos. xiv. 9.

146: Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 3.

147: Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.

148: Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 8.

149: Acts vii. 22.

150: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 18, etc.

151: ta\ me\n sunagoreu/onta u9gh= kai\ sw/masi .

152: ta\ prohgoume\nwj u9festhko/ta .

153: Cf. Rom. i. 21.

154: Rom. i. 19.

155: Cf. Rom. i. 20-22.

156: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26-28.

157: Cf. Tit. i. 9, 10.

158: Mono/gamon . Cf. Can. Apost ., c. xvii.: " o9 dusi\ ga/moij sumplakei\j
meta= to= ba/ptisma, h@ pallakh\n kthsa/menoj, ou0 dunatai ei\nai e0pi/skopoj,
h@ presbu/teroj, h@ dia/konoj, h@ o#lwj tou= katalo/gou tou= i9eratiko= ." Cf.
note in Benedictine ed.

159: [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."] 160: Cf. 1 John ii. 2.

161: proepa/|santej .

162: [1 Cor. iii. 2, 3. S.] 163: [See note supra , p. 239. S.]

164: nhpi/wn .

165: Heb. v. 12-14.

166: e0leu/qepon a0nalabo/ntej fro/nhma .

167: Cf. Rom. i. 14.

168: Cf. Prov. viii. 5.

169: Cf. Prov. ix. 4.

170: Cf. Prov. ix. 5, 6.

171: dia\ ta\ e0gkei/mena .

172: loidori/aj ma=llon h@ kathgori/aj .

173: 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.

174: Para/sthson tou\j didaska/louj a!llouj para\ tou\j filosofi/aj
didaska/louj, h@ tou\j kata/ ti tw=n xrhsi/mwn pepoihme/nouj. .

175: fwnh\n suneto/j .

176: [Much is to be gathered from this and the following chapters, of the
evangelical character of primitive preaching and discipline.]

177: a9plw=j .

178: eu0daimoni/an .

179: makario/thta .

180: Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.

181: Wisd. Solom. i. 4.

182: Cf. Ps. cxli. 2.

183: Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7.

184: Matt. ix. 12.

185: Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

186: Cf. 2 Tim. i. 10.

187: to\ h9gemoniko/n .

188: a0yedh= .

189: sukofantwn .

190: [The reproaches of the scoffer are very instructive as to the real nature
of the primitive dealing with sinners and with sin.] 191: u9pecairomenou tou=
kata\ to\n 'Ihsou=n nooume/nou a0nqrw/pou .

192: Rom. vii. 9.

193: Cf. Matt. xxiii. 12.

194: 1 Pet. v. 6.

195: pro\j kolakei/an .

196: In the text it is put interrogatively: ti/j a!nqrwpoj telewj di/kaioj ; h@
ti/j a0nama/rthtoj ; The allusion seems to be to Job xv. 14 (Sept.): ti/j ga\r
w@n broto\j, o!ti e!stai a!memptoj\ h@ w9j e0so/menoj di/kaioj gennhto\j
gunaiko/j .

197: Matt. xi. 28.

198: Ps. cvii. 20.

199: Luke xviii. 13.

200: Luke xviii. 11.

201: Luke xviii. 14.

202: kai\ ou0 para\ to\n o0rqo\n lo/gon prosa/goito u9po= tou= e0pi\ pa=si
dikastou=. . [See infra , book iv. cap. lxxix, and Elucidations there named.]
203: [ e0pimo/wj bebamme/noi . S.] 204: [ w9spegei\ deusopoihqe9ntej a9po\ th=j
kaki/aj . S.]

205: [Let us note this in passing, as balancing some other expressions which
could not have been used after the Pelagian controversy.]

206: He is said to have been either a Babylonian or Tyrrhenian, and to have
lived in the rein of Nero. Cf. Philostratus, iv. 12. - Ruaeus.

207: kai\ to\ e0cakouo/menon a0po\ th=j le/cewj w0j dunato\n h9mi=n,
a0netre/yamen .

208: e0pi\ te/gouj . ["Ut quidam scripserunt," says Hoffmann.] 209: miarw/taton
a0nqrw/pwn .

210: 'Alla\ th\n me\n ta/cin kai\ su/nqesin kai\ fra/sin tw=n a0po\ filosofi/aj
lo/gwn .

211: The reading in the text is a!llwj , for which which a!llouj has been
conjectured by Ruaeus and Boherellus, and which has been adopted in the
translation.

212: i0diwtikou/j. .

213: eu0staqe/staton .

214: pistikh\ a0po\ pneu/matoj .

215: para\ ta\j a0natrofa\j, kai\ ta\j diastrofa\j, kai\ ta\j perihxh/seij .

216: fusiwqh=nai .

217: [ par' w[ ou0k e!stin . S.] 218: Cf. Iliad , ix. 319, 320.

219: [See the elaborate article on the book of Job, by Canon Cook, in Dr.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible , vol. i. pp. 1087-1100. S.] 220: tou= logikou\
sw/ou .

221: w#sper ou0 du/natau to\ pefuko\j fkukai/neln tw=| gluku tufxa/nein .

222: i$na koino/teron tw=| e0le/eei xrh/swmai .

223: Cf. Wisd. of Solom. vii. 25, 26.

224: Cf. Deut. xxxii. 21.

225: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27.

226: Rom. i. 22, 23.

227: a0stei/ouj .

228: tou\j mh\ ehntrexei=j .

229: The reading in the text is teratwdeste/rouj , of which Ruaeus remarks, "Hic
nullum habet locum." Katadeeste/rouj has been conjectured instead, and has been
adopted in the translation.

230: For eu0debei=j in the text, Boherellus conjectures eu0sebw=j .

231: qeon fqarto\n ei0safo/ntwn, kai\ th\n ou0si0an au0tou= lefo/ntwn sw=ma
trepro0n dia/lou kai\ a0lloiwto0n kai\ metablhto/n .

232: The words in the text are, filanqrwto/tata e0pistreptilo0nm kai\ yuxw=n
maqh/manta oi0konomh/sanra , for which we have adopted in the translation the
emendation of Boherellus, filanqrwpo/tata 0aul yuxw\b eoustreotu0al naqh/nata .

233: a0lla0 ka@n tou0j peponqo/taj th\n peri\ th=smetenswmatw/swj, a!noian a0po0
i0atew=n, tw=n katabibzo9ntwn th=n lofikh=/ fu0sin o9te me\n e0pi0 th0n a0lofon
pa=san, o0te= de\ kai\ e0til th\n a0fa/ntaston .

234: Instead of oi9 froni0mwj Cristianoi; zw=ntej , as in the text, Ruaeus and
Boherellus conjecture io9froni0mwj Cristianizontej , etc.

235: touj komidh= nhpi0ouj .

236: a0lazw/n .

237: [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.] 238: ei!te xwri0j ton=
dhmiourfou= qeou= ei!te kai\ met' e0kei/nou .

239: i\eromhni/aj .

240: The reading in the text is komyoi/ , which is so opposed to the sense of
the passage, that the conjecture of Guietus, a/komyoi , has been adopted in the
translation.

241: [i.e., Solon. S.]

242: [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.]

243: a0yi=da .

244: Ta/xa de\ kai\ oi0 peisqe/tej peri/ tou= qu/raqen nou=, whj qana/tou
kainou= diecafwfh\n e$contoj , etc. Locus certe obscurus, cui lucem afferre
conatur Boherellus, legendo divism w0j qana/tou kai\ nou=diecafwfh=n e$contoj ,
ut sensus sit "morti etiam mentem subductum iri." Nam si qu/raqen h#kei nou=j ,
consequens est ut qana/tou kai\ nou=j diecafwfh=n e!xh . Cf. Aristot, lib. ii.
c. 3, de generatione animalium . - Spencer.

245: h= rhj tou= nou= a0qanasi/aj .

246: Ei0 mh\ a@ra Ke/lsoj kai\ oi9 'Etikou/reili ou0 fh/sousi kou/fhn ei[nai
e0lti/da th\n peri\ tou= te/louj ai0tw=n th=j h0donh=j. h!tij kat' au0tou/j
e0sti to\ a0laqon, to\ th=j sarko\j eu0staqe\: kata0stma, kai\ to\ perik rau/thj
pisto\n 'Epikou/rw| e!lpisma. .

247: tw=| kaq' e0ka/sthn filoso/fwn ai#resin e0n #Ellhsin h$ barba/roij, h@
musthriw/dh e0paggeli/an. te/lei .

248: [Note the testimony to divine inspiration.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 4
========================================================================

Book IV.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Chapter LXXI.

Chapter LXXII.

Chapter LXXIII.

Chapter LXXIV.

Chapter LXXV.

Chapter LXXVI.

Chapter LXXVII.

Chapter LXXVIII.

Chapter LXXIX.

Chapter LXXX.

Chapter LXXXI.

Chapter LXXXII.

Chapter LXXXIII.

Chapter LXXXIV.

Chapter LXXXV.

Chapter LXXXVI.

Chapter LXXXVII.

Chapter LXXXVIII.

Chapter LXXXIX.

Chapter XC.

Chapter XCI.

Chapter XCII.

Chapter XCIII.

Chapter XCIV.

Chapter XCV.

Chapter XCVI.

Chapter XCVII.

Chapter XCVIII.

Chapter XCIX.

Book IV.

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."1 For we need words now which will root out of every wounded soul the
reproaches uttered against the truth by this treatise of Celsus, or which
proceed from opinions like his. And we need also thoughts which will pull down
all edifices based on false opinions, and especially the edifice raised by
Celsus in his work which resembles the building of those who said "Come, let us
build us a city, and a tower whose top shall reach to heaven."2 Yea, we even
require a wisdom which will throw down all high things that rise against the
knowledge of God,3 and especially that height of arrogance which Celsus displays
against us. And in the next place, as we must not stop with rooting out and
pulling down the hindrances which have just been mentioned, but must, in room of
what has been rooted out, plant the plants of "God's husbandry; "4 mad in place
of what has been pulled down, rear up the building of God, and the temple of His
glory,-we must for that reason pray also to the Lord, who bestowed the gifts
named in the book of Jeremiah, that He may grant even to us words adapted both
for building up the (temple) of Christ, and for planting the spiritual law, and
the prophetic words referring to the same.5 And above all is it necessary to
show, as against the assertions of Celsus which follow those he has already
made, that the prophecies regarding Christ are true predictions. For, arraying
himself at the same time against both parties-against the Jews on the one hand,
who deny that the advent of Christ has taken place, but who expect it as future,
and against Christians on the other, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ
spoken of in prophecy-he makes the following statement:-

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,6 is a most shameless assertion, and one the refutation of which does
not need many words." Now here he appears to pronounce correctly regarding not
"certain" of the Jews, but all of them, that they imagine that there is a
certain (God) who will descend upon the earth; and with regard to Christians,
that certain of them say that He has already come down. For he means those who
prove from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Christ has already taken
place, and he seems to know that there are certain heretical sects which deny
that Christ Jesus was predicted by the prophets. In the preceding pages,
however, we have already discussed, to the best of our ability, the question of
Christ having been the subject of prophecy, and therefore, to avoid tautology,
we do not repeat much that might be advanced upon this head. Observe, now, that
if he had wished with a kind of apparent force7 to subvert faith in the
prophetic writings, either with regard to the future or past advent of Christ,
he ought to have set forth the prophecies themselves which we Christians and
Jews quote in our discussions with each other. For in this way he would have
appeared to turn aside those who are carried away by the plausible character8 of
the prophetic statements, as he regards it, from assenting to their truth, and
from believing, on account of these prophecies, that Jesus is the Christ;
whereas now, being unable to answer the prophecies relating to Christ, or else
not knowing at all what are the prophecies relating to Him, he brings forward no
prophetic declaration, although there are countless numbers which refer to
Christ; but he thinks that he prefers an accusation against the prophetic
Scriptures, while he does not even state what he himself would call their
"plausible character!" He is not, however, aware that it is not at all the Jews
who say that Christ will descend as a God, or the Son of a God, as we have shown
in the foregoing pages. And when he asserts that "he is said by us to have
already come, but by the Jews that his advent as Messiah9 is still future," he
appears by the very charge to censure our statement as one that is most
shameless, and which needs no lengthened refutation.

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").10 We shall therefore, out of a greater number, select a few remarks
by way of answer to the question of Celsus, when he says, "What is the meaning
of such a descent upon the part of God? "And Celsus here returns to himself an
answer which would have been given neither by Jews nor by us, when he asks, "Was
it in order to learn what goes on amongst men? "For not one of us asserts that
it was in order to learn what goes on amongst men that Christ entered into this
life. Immediately after, however, as if some would reply that it was "in order
to learn what goes on among men," he makes this objection to his own statement:
"Does he not know all things? "Then, as if we were to answer that He does know
all things, he raises a new question, saying, "Then he does know, but does not
make (men) better, nor is it possible for him by means of his divine power to
make (men) better." Now all this on his part is silly talk;11 for God, by means
of His word, which is continually passing from generation to generation into
holy souls, and constituting them friends of God and prophets, does improve
those who listen to His words; and by the coming of Christ He improves, through
the doctrine of Christianity, not those who are unwilling, but those who have
chosen the better life, and that which is pleasing to God. I do not know,
moreover, what kind of improvement Celsus wished to take place when he raised
the objection, asking, "Is it then not possible for him, by means of his divine
power, to make (men) better, unless he send some one for that special purpose?
"12 Would he then have the improvement to take place by God's filling the minds
of men with new ideas, removing at once the (inherent) wickedness, and
implanting virtue (in its stead)?13 Another person now would inquire whether
this was not inconsistent or impossible in the very nature of things; we,
however, would say, "Grant it to be so, and let it be possible." Where, then, is
our free will?14 and what credit is there in assenting to the truth? or how is
the rejection of what is false praiseworthy? But even if it were once granted
that such a course was not only possible, but could be accomplished with
propriety (by God), why would not one rather inquire (asking a question like
that of Celsus) why it was not possible for God, by means of His divine power,
to create men who needed no improvement, but who were of themselves virtuous and
perfect, evil being altogether non-existent? These questions may perplex
ignorant and foolish individuals, but not him who sees into the nature of
things; for if you take away the spontaneity of virtue, you destroy its essence.
But it would need an entire treatise to discuss these matters; and on this
subject the Greeks have expressed themselves at great length in their works on
providence. They truly would not say what Celsus has expressed in words, that
"God knows (all things) indeed, but does not make (men) better, nor is able to
do so by His divine power." We ourselves have spoken in many parts of our
writings on these points to the best of our ability, and the Holy Scriptures
have established the same to those who are able to understand them.

Chapter IV. The argument which Celsus employs against us and the Jews will be
turned against himself thus: My good sir, does the God who is over all things
know what takes place among men, or does He not know? Now if you admit the
existence of a God and of providence, as your treatise indicates, He must of
necessity know. And if He does know, why does He not make (men) better? Is it
obligatory, then, on us to defend God's procedure in not making men better,
although He knows their state, but not equally binding on you, who do not
distinctly show by your treatise that you are an Epicurean, but pretend to
recognise a providence, to explain why God, although knowing all that takes
place among men, does not make them better, nor by divine power liberate all men
from evil? We are not ashamed, however, to say that God is constantly sending
(instructors) in order to make men better; for there are to be found amongst men
reasons15 given by God which exhort them to enter on a better life. But there
are many diversities amongst those who serve God, and they are few in number who
are perfect and pure ambassadors of the truth, and who produce a complete
reformation, as did Moses and the prophets. But above all these, great was the
reformation effected by Jesus, who desired to heal not only those who lived in
one corner of the world, but as far as in Him lay, men in every country, for He
came as the Saviour of all men.

Chapter V. The illustrious16 Celsus, taking occasion I know not from what, next
raises an additional objection against us, as if we asserted that "God Himself
will come down to men." He imagines also that it follows from this, that "He has
left His own abode; "for he does not know the power of God, and that "the Spirit
of the Lord filleth the world, and that which upholdeth all things hath
knowledge of the voice."17 Nor is he able to understand the words, "Do I not
fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord."18 Nor does he see that, according to the
doctrine of Christianity, we all "in Him live, and move, and have our being,"19
as Paul also taught in his address to the Athenians; and therefore, although the
God of the universe should through His own power descend with Jesus into the
life of men, and although the Word which was in the beginning with God, which is
also God Himself, should come to us, He does not give His place or vacate His
own seat, so that one place should be empty of Him, and another which did not
formerly contain Him be filled. But the power and divinity of God comes through
him whom God chooses, and resides in him in whom it finds a place, not changing
its situation, nor leaving its own place empty and filling another: for, in
speaking of His quitting one place and occupying another, we do not mean such
expressions to be taken topically; but we say that the soul of the bad man, and
of him who is overwhelmed in wickedness, is abandoned by God, while we mean that
the soul of him who wishes to live virtuously, or of him who is making progress
(in a virtuous life), or who is already living conform-ably thereto, is filled
with or becomes a partaker of the Divine Spirit. It is not necessary, then, for
the descent of Christ, or for the coming of God to men, that He should abandon a
greater seat, and that things on earth should be changed, as Celsus imagines
when he says, "If you were to change a single one, even the least, of things on
earth, all things would be overturned and disappear." And if we must speak of a
change in any one by the appearing of the power of God, and by the entrance of
the word among men, we shall not be reluctant to speak of changing from a wicked
to a virtuous, from a dissolute to a temperate, and from a superstitious to a
religious life, the person who has allowed the word of God to find entrance into
his soul.

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,20 would desire to
make himself known, and to make trial both of those who believe upon him and of
those who do not, like those of mankind who have recently come into the
possession of riches, and who make a display of their wealth; and thus they
testify to an excessive but very mortal ambition on the part of God."21 We
answer, then, that God, not being known by wicked men, would desire to make
Himself known, not because He thinks that He meets with less than His due, but
because the knowledge of Him will free the possessor from unhappiness. Nay, not
even with the desire to try those who do or who do not believe upon Him, does
He, by His unspeakable and divine power, Himself take up His abode in certain
individuals, or send His Christ; but He does this in order to liberate from all
their wretchedness those who do believe upon Him, and who accept His divinity,
and that those who do not believe may no longer have this as a ground of excuse,
viz., that their unbelief is the consequence of their not having heard the word
of instruction. What argument, then, proves that it follows from our views that
God, according to our representations, is "like those of mankind who have
recently come into the possession of riches, and who make a display of their
wealth? "For God makes no display towards us, from a desire that we should
understand and consider His pre-eminence; but desiring that the blessedness
which results from His being known by us should be implanted in our souls, He
brings it to pass through Christ, and His ever-indwelling word, that we come to
an intimate fellowship22 with Him. No mortal ambition, then, does the Christian
doctrine testify as existing on the part of God.

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,23 then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous
lives,24 but neglect to do so before? "To which we answer, that there never was
a time when God did not wish to make men live righteous lives; but He
continually evinced His care for the improvement of the rational animal,25 by
affording him occasions for the exercise of virtue. For in every generation the
wisdom of God, passing into those souls which it ascertains to be holy, converts
them into friends and prophets of God. And there may be found in the sacred book
(the names of) those who in each generation were holy, and were recipients of
the Divine Spirit, and who strove to convert their contemporaries so far as in
their power.

Chapter VIII. And it is not matter of surprise that in certain generations there
have existed prophets who, in the reception of divine influence,26 surpassed, by
means of their stronger and more powerful (religious) life, other prophets who
were their contemporaries, and others also who lived before and after them. And
so it is not at all wonderful that there should also have been a time when
something of surpassing excellence27 took up its abode among the human race, and
which was distinguished above all that preceded or even that followed. But there
is an element of profound mystery in the account of these things, and one which
is incapable of being received by the popular understanding. And in order that
these difficulties should be made to disappear, and that the objections raised
against the advent of Christ should be answered-viz., that, "after so long a
period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous
lives, but neglect to do so before? "-it is necessary to touch upon the
narrative of the divisions (of the nations), and to make it evident why it was,
that "when the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of
Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of
God, and the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, Israel the cord of His
inheritance; "28 and it will be necessary to state the reason why the birth of
each man took place within each particular boundary, under him who obtained the
boundary by lot, and how it rightly happened that "the portion of the Lord was
His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance," and why formerly the
portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His
inheritance. But with respect to those who come after, it is said to the Saviour
by the Father, "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."29 For
there are certain connected and related reasons, bearing upon the different
treatment of human souls, which are difficult to state and to investigate.30

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, not only derived directly
from the sacred Scriptures, but also by inferences deducible from them; while
the more numerous and simpler class of believers, and those who are unable to
comprehend the many varied aspects of the divine wisdom, must entrust themselves
to God, and to the Saviour of our race, and be contented with His "ipse
dixit,"31 instead of this or any other demonstration whatever.

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 trustworthy32 account of them, or none that is
such, let the Greeks tell, and let Celsus and his boon-companions33 listen. But
we defend our own procedure, When we say that our object is to reform the human
race, either by the threats of punishments which we are persuaded are necessary
for the whole world,34 and which perhaps are not without use35 to those who are
to endure them; or by the promises made to those who have lived virtuous lives,
and in which are contained the statements regarding the blessed termination
which is to be found in the kingdom of God, reserved for those who are worthy of
becoming His subjects.

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
arrested36 by the antiquity of Moses, who is related by certain Greek historians
to have lived about the time of Inachus the son of Phoroneus, and is
acknowledged by the Egyptians to be a man of great antiquity, as well as by
those who have studied the history of the Phoenicians. And any one who likes may
peruse the two books of Flavius Josephus on the antiquities of the Jews, in
order that he may see in what way Moses was more ancient than those who asserted
that floods and conflagrations take place in the world after long intervals of
time; which statement Celsus alleges the Jews and Christians to have
misunderstood, and, not comprehending what was said about a conflagration, to
have declared that "God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer."37

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 Solomon38 says, "What is the thing which
hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is the thing which hath been done?
Even that which shall be done,"39 etc., etc., belongs not to the present
occasion to discuss. For it is sufficient only to observe, that Moses and
certain of the prophets, being men of very great antiquity, did not receive from
others the statements relating to the (future) conflagration of the world; but,
on the contrary (if we must attend to the matter of time40 ), others rather
misunderstanding them, and not inquiring accurately into their statements,
invented the fiction of the same events recurring at certain intervals, and
differing neither in their essential nor accidental qualities.41 But we do not
refer either the deluge or the conflagration to cycles and planetary periods;
but the cause of them we declare to be the extensive prevalence of wickedness,42
and its (consequent) removal by a deluge or a conflagration. And if the voices
of the prophets say that God "comes down," who has said, "Do I not fill heaven
and earth? saith the Lord,"43 the term is used in a figurative sense. For God
"comes down" from His own height and greatness when He arranges the affairs of
men, and especially those of the wicked. And as custom leads men to say that
teachers "condescend"44 to children, and wise men to those youths who have just
be-taken themselves to philosophy, not by "descending" in a bodily manner; so,
if God is said anywhere in the holy Scriptures to "come down," it is understood
as spoken in conformity with the usage which so employs the word, and, in like
manner also with the expression "go up."45

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 idea46 of the defence which disposes of the
ridicule of Celsus against us, and then we shall turn to what follows. The
divine word says that our God is "a consuming fire,"47 and that "He draws rivers
of fire before Him; "48 nay, that He even entereth in as "a refiner's fire, and
as a fuller's herb,"49 to purify His own people. But when He is said to be a
"consuming fire," we inquire what are the things which are appropriate to be
consumed by God. And we assert that they are wickedness, and the works which
result from it, and which, being figuratively called "wood, hay, stubble,"50 God
consumes as a fire. The wicked man, accordingly, is said to build up on the
previously-laid foundation of reason, "wood, and hay, and stubble." If, then,
any one can show that these words were differently understood by the writer, and
can prove that the wicked man literally51 builds up "wood, or hay, or stubble,"
it is evident that the fire must be understood to be material, and an object of
sense. But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked man are spoken of
figuratively under the names of "wood, or hay, or stubble," why does it not at
once occur (to inquire) in what sense the word "fire" is to be taken, so that
"wood" of such a kind should be consumed? for (the Scripture) says: "The fire
will try each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide. which he
hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work be burned, he
shall suffer loss."52 But what work can be spoken of in these words as being
"burned," save all that results from wickedness? Therefore our God is a
"consuming fire" in the sense in which we have taken the word; and thus He
enters in as a "refiner's fire," to refine the rational nature, which has been
filled with the lead of wickedness, and to free it from the other impure
materials, which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of the
soul.53 And, in like manner, "rivers of fire" are said to be before God, who
will thoroughly cleanse away the evil which is intermingled throughout the whole
soul.54 But these remarks are sufficient in answer to the assertion, "that thus
they were made to give expression to the erroneous opinion that God will come
down bearing fire like a torturer."

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.55 But if he come down
among men, he must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue
to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst. Who, then, would make
choice of such a change? It is the nature of a mortal, indeed, to undergo change
and remoulding, but of an immortal to remain the same and unaltered. God, then,
could not admit of such a change." Now it appears to me that the fitting answer
has been returned to these objections, when I have related what is called in
Scripture the "condescension"56 of God to human affairs; for which purpose He
did not need to undergo a transformation, as Celsus thinks we assert, nor a
change from good to evil, nor from virtue to vice, nor from happiness to misery,
nor from best to worst. For, continuing unchangeable in His essence, He
condescends to human affairs by the economy of His providence.57 We show,
accordingly, that the holy Scriptures represent God as unchangeable, both by
such words as "Thou art the same,"58 and" I change not; "59 whereas the gods of
Epicurus, being composed of atoms, and, so far as their structure is concerned,
capable of dissolution, endeavour to throw off the atoms which contain the
elements of destruction. Nay, even the god of the Stoics, as being corporeal, at
one time has his whole essence composed of the guiding principle60 when the
conflagration (of the world) takes place; and at another, when a re-arrangement
of things occurs, he again becomes partly material.61 For even the Stoics were
unable distinctly to comprehend the natural idea of God, as of a being
altogether incorruptible and simple, and uncompounded and indivisible.

Chapter XV. And with respect to His having descended among men, He was
"previously in the form of God; "62 and through benevolence, divested Himself
(of His glory), that He might be capable of being received by men. But He did
not, I imagine, undergo any change from "good to evil," for "He did no sin; "63
nor from "virtue to vice," for "He knew no sin."64 Nor did He pass from
"happiness to misery," but He humbled Himself, and nevertheless was blessed,
even when His humiliation was undergone in order to benefit our race. Nor was
there any change in Him from "best to worst," for how can goodness and
benevolence be of "the worst? "Is it befitting to say of the physician, who
looks on dreadful sights and handles unsightly objects in order to cure the
sufferers, that he passes from "good to evil," or from "virtue to vice," or from
"happiness to misery? "And yet the physician, in looking on dreadful sights and
handling unsightly objects, does not wholly escape the possibility of being
involved in the same fate. But He who heals the wounds of our souls, through the
word of God that is in Him, is Himself incapable of admitting any wickedness.
But if the immortal God-the Word65 -by assuming a mortal body and a human soul,
appears to Celsus to undergo a change and transformation, let him learn that the
Word, still remaining essentially the Word, suffers none of those things which
are suffered by the body or the soul; but, condescending occasionally to (the
weakness of) him who is unable to look upon the splendours and brilliancy of
Deity, He becomes as it were flesh, speaking with a literal voice, until he who
has received Him in such a form is able, through being elevated in some slight
degree by the teaching of the Word, to gaze upon what is, so to speak, His real
and pre-eminent appearance.66

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,67 and inferior to that
of the sons of men."68 And let these remarks be an answer to the suppositions of
Celsus, who does not understand the changes or transformations of Jesus, as
related in the histories, nor His mortal and immortal nature.69

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 appropriate70 to a soul which is to
enjoy an everlasting life, and on the opinion which we are to form of its
essence and principles, he would not so have ridiculed the entrance of the
immortal into a mortal body, which took place not according to the
metempsychosis of Plato, but agreeably to another and higher view of things. And
he would have observed one "descent," distinguished by its great benevolence,
undertaken to convert (as the Scripture mystically terms them) the "lost sheep
of the house of Israel," which had strayed down from the mountains, and to which
the Shepherd is said in certain parables to have gone down, leaving on the
mountains those "which had not strayed."

Chapter XVIII. 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.71 Nor does He mislead or prove
false. But if one were to take the change as referring to the soul of Jesus
after it had entered the body, we would inquire in what sense the term "change"
is used. For if it be meant to apply to its essence, such a supposition is
inadmissible, not only in relation to the soul of Jesus, but also to the
rational soul of any other being. And if it be alleged that it suffers anything
from the body when united with it, or from the place to which it has come, then
what inconvenience72 can happen to the Word who, in great benevolence, brought
down a Saviour to the human race?-seeing none of those who formerly professed to
effect a cure could accomplish so much as that soul showed it could do, by what
it performed, even by voluntarily descending to the level of human destinies for
the benefit of our race. And the Divine Word, well knowing this, speaks to that
effect in many passages of Scripture, although it is sufficient at present to
quote one testimony of Paul to the following effect: "Let this mind be in you
which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon
Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found
in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even
the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given
Him a name which is above every name."73

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?74 Where, then, is the
absurdity, if such a saving result were to be accomplished, that some such
events should have taken place? For certain words, when savouring of falsehood,
produce upon such characters a corrective effect (like the similar declarations
of physicians to their patients), rather than when spoken in the spirit of
truth. This, however, must be our defence against other opponents. For there is
no absurdity in Him who healed sick friends, healing the dear human race by
means of such remedies as He would not employ preferentially, but only according
to circumstances.75 The human race, moreover, when in a state of mental
alienation, had to be cured by methods which the Word saw would aid in bringing
back those so afflicted to a sound state of mind. But Celsus says also, that
"one acts thus towards enemies when taking measures to escape danger. But God
does not fear any one, so as to escape danger by leading into error those who
conspire against him." Now it is altogether unnecessary and absurd to answer a
charge which is advanced by no one against our Saviour. And we have already
replied, when answering other charges, to the statement that "no one who is
either in a state of sickness or mental alienation is a friend of God." For the
answer is, that such arrangements have been made, not for the sake of those who,
being already friends, afterwards fell sick or became afflicted with mental
disease, but in order that those who were still enemies through sickness of the
soul, and alienation of the natural reason, might become the friends of God. For
it is distinctly stated that Jesus endured all things on behalf of sinners, that
He might free them from sin, and convert them to righteousness.

Chapter XX. In the next place, as he represents the Jews accounting in 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,"76 etc., etc. Must it be said, then, that if the Greeks make such
assertions, they are to be deemed worthy of respect and consideration, but that
if we too maintain certain of these views, which are quoted with approval by the
Greeks, they cease to be honourable? And yet they who care to attend to the
connection and truth of all our records, will endeavour to establish not only
the antiquity of the writers, but the venerable nature of their writings, and
the consistency of their several parts.

Chapter XXI. But I do not understand how he can imagine the overturning of the
tower (of Babel) to have happened with a similar object to that of the deluge,
which effected a purification of the earth, according to the accounts both of
Jews and Christians. For, in order that the narrative contained in Genesis
respecting the tower may be held to convey no secret meaning, but, as Celsus
supposes, may be taken as true to the letter,77 the event does not on such a
view appear to have taken place for the purpose of purifying the earth; unless,
indeed, he imagines that the so-called confusion of tongues is such a
purificatory process. But on this point, he who has the opportunity will treat
more seasonably when his object is to show not only what is the meaning of the
narrative in its historical connection, but what metaphorical meaning may be
deduced from it.78 Seeing that he imagines, however, that Moses, who wrote the
account of the tower, and the confusion of tongues, has perverted the story of
the sons of Aloeus,79 and referred it to the tower, we must remark that I do not
think any one prior to the time of Homer80 has mentioned the sons of Aloeus,
while I am persuaded that what is related about the tower has been recorded by
Moses as being much older not only than Homer, but even than the invention of
letters among the Greeks. Who, then, are the perverters of each other's
narratives? Whether do they who relate the story of the Aloadae pervert the
history of the time, or he who wrote the account of the tower and the confusion
of tongues the story of the Aloadae? Now to impartial hearers Moses appears to
be more ancient than Homer. The destruction by fire, moreover, of Sodom and
Gomorrah on account of their sins, related by Moses in Genesis, is compared by
Celsus to the story of Phaethon,-all these statements of his resulting from one
blunder, viz., his not attending to the (greater) antiquity of Moses.81 For they
who relate the story of Phaethon seem to be younger even than Homer, who, again,
is much younger than Moses. We do not deny, then, that the purificatory fire and
the destruction of the world took place in order that evil might be swept away,
and all things be renewed; for we assert that we have learned these things from
the sacred books of the prophets. But since, as we have said in the preceding
pages, the prophets, in uttering many predictions regarding future events, show
that they have spoken the truth concerning many things that are past, and thus
give evidence of the indwelling of the Divine Spirit, it is manifest that, with
respect to things still future, we should repose faith in them, or rather in the
Divine Spirit that is in them.

Chapter XXII.

But, according to Celsus, "the Christians, making certain additional statements
to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been already sent on
account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews hating 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-worship82 and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations;
for if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they
were notwithstanding visited (by God),83 and returned to their own country, and
recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their
law. One fact, then, which proves that Jesus was something divine and sacred,84
is this, that Jews should have suffered on His account now for a lengthened time
calamities of such severity. And we say with confidence that they will never be
restored to their former condition.85 For they committed a crime of the most
unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that
city where they offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty
mysteries. It accordingly behoved that city where Jesus underwent these
sufferings to perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be overthrown, and the
invitation to happiness offered them by God to pass to others,-the Christians, I
mean, to whom has come the doctrine of a pure and holy worship, and who have
obtained new laws, in harmony with the established constitution in all
countries;86 seeing those which were formerly imposed, as on a single nation
which was ruled by princes of its own race and of similar manners,87 could not
now be observed in all their entireness.

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 comer 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,88 and this great earth, he becomes a citizen89
among us alone, and to us alone makes his intimations, and does not cease
sending and inquiring, in what way we may be associated with him for ever." And
in his fictitious representation, he compares us to "worms which assert that
there is a God, and that immediately after him, we who are made by him are
altogether like unto God, and that all things have been made subject to
us,-earth, and water, and air, and stars,-and that all things exist for our
sake, and are ordained to be subject to us." And, according to his
representation, the worms-that is, we ourselves-say that "now, since certain
amongst us commit sin, God will come or will send his Son to consume the wicked
with fire, that the rest of us may have eternal life with him." And to all this
he subjoins the remark, that "such wranglings would be more endurable amongst
worms and frogs than betwixt Jews and Christians."

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 cheap90 Christians and Jews, because their opinions are distasteful to you,
and compare them to the animals above mentioned? And whatever answer you may
return to our question, we shall reply by endeavouring to show that such
assertions are most unbecoming, whether spoken of all men in general, or of us
in particular. For, let it be supposed that you say justly that all men, as
compared with God, are (rightly) likened to these worthless91 animals, since
their littleness is not at all to be compared with the superiority of God, what
then do you mean by littleness? Answer me, good sirs. If you refer to littleness
of body, know that superiority and inferiority, if truth is to be judge, are not
determined by a bodily standard.92 For, on such a view, vultures93 and elephants
would be superior to us men; for they are larger, and stronger, and longer-lived
than we. But no sensible person would maintain that these irrational creatures
are superior to rational beings, merely on account of their bodies: for the
possession of reason raises a rational being to a vast superiority over all
irrational creatures. Even the race of virtuous and blessed beings would admit
this, whether they are, as ye say, good demons, or, as we are accustomed to call
them, the angels of God, or any other natures whatever superior to that of man,
since the rational faculty within them has been made perfect, and endowed with
all virtuous qualities.94

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,95 and guilty
of deeds proceeding, like his, from a wicked nature; or an Antiphon, who was
also considered to be indeed an orator, yet who annihilated the doctrine of
providence in his writings, which were entitled Concerning Truth, like that
discourse of Celsus,-such individuals are notwithstanding worms, rolling in a
comer of the dung-heap of stupidity and ignorance. Indeed, whatever be the
nature of the rational faculty, it could not reasonably be compared to a worm,
because it possesses capabilities of virtue.96 For these adumbrations97 towards
virtue do not allow of those who possess the power of acquiring it, and who are
incapable of wholly losing its seeds, to be likened to a worm. It appears,
therefore, that neither can men in general be deemed worms in comparison with
God. For reason, having its beginning in the reason of God, cannot allow of the
rational animal being considered wholly alien from Deity. Nor can those among
Christians and Jews who are wicked, and who, in truth, are neither Christians
nor Jews, be compared, more than other wicked men, to worms rolling in a corner
of a dunghill. And if the nature of reason will not permit of such comparisons,
it is manifest that we must not calumniate human nature, which has been formed
for virtue, even if it should sin through ignorance, nor liken it to animals of
the kind described.

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,98
and compare them with those of the rest of mankind, and see whether it will not
appear to those who have once admitted that certain men are worms and ants, that
they are the worms and ants and frogs who have fallen away from sound views of
God, and, under a vain appearance of piety,99 worship either irrational animals,
or images, or other objects, the works of men's hands;100 whereas, from the
beauty of such, they ought to admire the Maker of them, and worship Him: while
those are indeed men, and more honourable than men (if there be anything that is
so), who, in obedience to their reason, are able to ascend from stocks and
stones,101 nay, even from what is reckoned the most precious of all
matter-silver and gold; and who ascend up also from the beautiful things in the
world to the Maker of all, and entrust themselves to Him who alone is able to
satisfy102 all existing things, and to overlook the thoughts of all, and to hear
the prayers of all; who send up their prayers to Him, and do all things as in
the presence of Him who beholds everything, and who are careful, as in the
presence of the Hearer of all things, to say nothing which might not with
propriety be reported to God. Will not such piety as this-which can be overcome
neither by labours, nor by the dangers of death, nor by logical
plausibilities103 -be of no avail in preventing those who have obtained it from
being any longer compared to worms, even if they had been so represented before
their assumption of a piety so remarkable? Will they who subdue that fierce
longing for sexual pleasures which has reduced the souls of many to a weak and
feeble condition, and who subdue it because they are persuaded that they cannot
otherwise have communion with God, unless they ascend to Him through the
exercise of temperance, appear to you to be the brothers of worms, and relatives
of ants, and to bear a likeness to frogs? What! is the brilliant quality of
justice, which keeps inviolate the rights common to our neighbour, and our
kindred, and which observes fairness, and benevolence, and goodness, of no avail
in saving him who practises it from being termed a bird of the night? And are
not they who wallow in dissoluteness, as do the majority of mankind, and they
who associate promiscuously with common harlots, and who teach that such
practices are not wholly contrary to propriety, worms who roll in
mire?-especially when they are compared with those who have been taught not to
take the "members of Christ," and the body inhabited by the Word, and make them
the "members of a harlot; "and who have already learned that the body of the
rational being, as consecrated to the God of all things, is the temple of the
God whom they worship, becoming such from the pure conceptions which they
entertain of the Creator, and who also, being careful not to corrupt the temple
of God by unlawful pleasure; practise temperance as constituting piety towards
God!

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
heaven104 for us in particular. But if a man is, as Jesus taught, pure in heart,
and meek, and peaceful, and cheerfully submits to dangers for the sake of his
religion, such an one might reasonably have confidence in God, and with a full
apprehension of the word contained in the prophecies, might say this also: "All
these things has God shown beforehand, and announced to us who believe."

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 loathes105 nothing which He has
made, for He would not have created anything in hatred. We have, moreover, read
the declaration: "And Thou sparest all things, because they ate Thine, O lover
of souls. For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all. And therefore those also who
have fallen away for a little time Thou rebukest, and admonishest, reminding
them of their sins."106 How can we assert that "God, leaving the regions of
heaven, and the whole world, and despising this great earth, takes up His abode
amongst us only," when we have found that all thoughtful persons must say in
their prayers, that "the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord,"107 and that
"the mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh; "108 and that God, being good, "maketh
His sun to arise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth His rain upon the just
and the unjust; "109 and that He encourages us to a similar course of action, in
order that we may become His sons, and teaches us to extend the benefits which
we enjoy, so far as in our power, to all men? For He Himself is said to be the
Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe;110 and His Christ to be the
"propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world."111 And this, then, is our answer to the allegations of Celsus.
Certain other statements, in keeping with the character of the Jews, might be
made by some of that nation, but certainly not by the Christians, who have been
taught that "God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us; "112 and although "scarcely for a righteous man
will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die."113
But now is Jesus declared to have come for the sake of sinners in all parts of
the world (that they may forsake their sin, and entrust themselves to God),
being called also, agreeably to an ancient custom of these Scriptures, the
"Christ of God."

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 honourable114 than man; and we have read that "God
standeth in the congregation of gods,"115 but of gods who are not worshipped by
the nations, "for all the gods of the nations are idols."116 We have read also,
that "God, standing in the congregation of the gods, judgeth among the gods."117
We know, moreover, that "though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven
or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many), but to us there is one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by Him."118 And we know that in this way the angels
are superior to men; so that men, when made perfect, become like the angels.
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but the
righteous are as the angels in heaven,"119 and also become "equal to the
angels."120 We know, too, that in the arrangement of the universe there are
certain beings termed "thrones," and others "dominions," and others "powers,"
and others "principalities; "and we see that we men, who are far inferior to
these, may entertain the hope that by a virtuous life, and by acting in all
things agreeably to reason, we may rise to a likeness with all these. And,
lastly, because "it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when
He shall appear, we shall be like God, and shall see Him as He is."121 And if
any one were to maintain what is asserted by some (either by those who possess
intelligence or who do not, but have misconceived sound reason), that "God
exists, and we are next to Him," I would interpret the word "we," by using in
its stead, "We who act according to reason," or rather, "We virtuous, who act
according to reason."122 For, in our opinion, the same virtue belongs to all the
blessed, so that the virtue of man and of God is identical.123 And therefore we
are taught to become "perfect," as our Father in heaven is perfect.124 No good
and virtuous man, then, is a "worm rolling in filth," nor is a pious man an
"ant," nor a righteous man a "frog; "nor could one whose soul is enlightened
with the bright light of truth be reasonably likened to a "bird of the night."

Chapter XXX.

It appears to me that Celsus has also misunderstood this statement, "Let Us make
man in Our image and likeness; "125 and has therefore represented the "worms" as
saying that, being created by God, we altogether resemble Him. If, however, he
had known the difference between man being created "in the image of God" and
"after His likeness," and that God is recorded to have said, "Let Us make man
after Our image and likeness," but that He made man "after the image" of God,
but not then also "after His likeness,"126 he would not have represented us as
saying that "we are altogether like Him." Moreover, we do not assert that the
stars are subject to us; since the resurrection which is called the
"resurrection of the just," and which is understood by wise men, is compared to
the sun, and moon, and stars, by him who said, "There is one glory of the sun,
and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star
differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the
dead."127 Daniel also prophesied long ago regarding these things.128 Celsus says
further, that we assert that "all things have been arranged so as to be subject
to us," having perhaps heard some of the intelligent among us speaking to that
effect, and perhaps also not understanding the saying, that "he who is the
greatest amongst us is the servant of all."129 And if the Greeks say, "Then sun
and moon are the slaves of mortal men,"130 they express approval of the
statement, and give an explanation of its meaning; but since such a statement is
either not made at all by us, or is expressed in a different way, Celsus here
too falsely accuses us. Moreover, we who, according to Celsus, are "worms," are
represented by him as saying that, "seeing some among us are guilty of sin, God
will come to us, or will send His own Son, that He may consume the wicked, and
that we other frogs may enjoy eternal life with Him." Observe how this venerable
philosopher, like a low buffoon,131 turns into ridicule and mockery, and a
subject of laughter, the announcement of a divine judgment, and of the
punishment of the wicked, and of the reward of the righteous; and subjoins to
all this the remark, that "such statements would be more endurable if made by
worms and flogs than by Christians and Jews who quarrel with one another!" We
shall not, however, imitate his example, nor say similar things regarding those
philosophers who profess to know the nature of all things, and who discuss with
each other the manner in which all things were created, and how the heaven and
earth originated, and all things in them; and how the souls (of men), being
either unbegotten, and not created by God, are yet governed by Him, and pass
from one body to another;132 or being formed at the same time with the body,
exist for ever or pass away. For instead of treating with respect and accepting
the intention of those who have devoted themselves to the investigation of the
truth, one might mockingly and revilingly say that such men were "worms," who
did not measure themselves by their comer of their dung-heap in human life, and
who accordingly gave forth their opinions on matters of such importance as if
they understood them, and who strenuously assert that they have obtained a view
of those things which cannot be seen without a higher inspiration and a diviner
power. "For no man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is
in him: even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."133 We
are not, however, mad, nor do we compare such human wisdom (I use the word
"wisdom" in the common acceptation), which busies itself not about the affairs
of the multitude, but in the investigation of truth, to the wrigglings of worms
or any other such creatures; but in the spirit of truth, we testify of certain
Greek philosophers that they knew God, seeing "He manifested Himself to
them,"134 although "they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but
became vain in their imaginations; and professing themselves to be wise, they
became foolish, 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."135

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."136 Now, on the point of their
not being fugitives, nor Egyptians, but Hebrews who settled in Egypt, we have
spoken in the preceding pages. But if he thinks his statement, that "they were
never held in any reputation or account," to be proved, because no remarkable
event in their history is found recorded by the Greeks, we would answer, that if
one will examine their polity from its first beginning, and the arrangement of
their laws, he will find that they were men who represented upon earth the
shadow of a heavenly life, and that amongst them God is recognised as nothing
else, save He who is over all things, and that amongst them no maker of images
was permitted to enjoy the rights of citizenship.137 For neither painter nor
image-maker existed in their state, the law expelling all such from it; that
there might be no pretext for the construction of images,-an art which attracts
the attention of foolish men, and which drags down the eyes of the soul from God
to earth.138 There was, accordingly, amongst them a law to the following effect:
"Do not transgress the law, and make to yourselves a graven image, any likeness
of male or female; either a likeness of any one of the creatures that are upon
the earth, or a likeness of any winged fowl that flieth under the heaven, or a
likeness of any creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, or a likeness of
any of the fishes which are in the waters under the earth."139 The law, indeed,
wished them to have regard to the truth of each individual thing, and not to
form representations of things contrary to reality, feigning the appearance
merely of what was really male or really female, or the nature of animals, or of
birds, or of creeping things, or of fishes. Venerable, too, and grand was this
prohibition of theirs: "Lift not up thine eyes unto heaven, lest, when thou
seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the host of heaven, thou
shouldst be led astray to worship them, and serve them."140 And what a regime141
was that under which the whole nation was placed, and which rendered it
impossible for any effeminate person to appear in public;142 and worthy of
admiration, too, was the arrangement by which harlots were removed out of the
state, those incentives to the passions of the youth! Their courts of justice
also were composed of men of the strictest integrity, who, after having for a
lengthened period set the example of an unstained life, were entrusted with the
duty of presiding over the tribunals, and who, on account of the superhuman
purity of their character,143 were said to be gods, in conformity with an
ancient Jewish usage of speech. Here was the spectacle of a whole nation devoted
to philosophy; and in order that there might be leisure to listen to their
sacred laws, the days termed "Sabbath," and the other festivals which existed
among them, were instituted. And why need I speak of the orders of their priests
and sacrifices, which contain innumerable indications (of deeper truths) to
those who wish to ascertain the signification of things?

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,144 and having overthrown the
doctrine regarding earthly demons, who delight in frankincense, and blood, and
in the exhalations of sacrificial odours, and who, like the fabled Titans or
Giants, drag down men from thoughts of God; and having Himself disregarded their
plots, directed chiefly against the better class of men, enacted laws which
ensure happiness to those who live according to them, and who do not flatter the
demons by means of sacrifices, but altogether despise them, through help of the
word of God, which aids those who look upwards to Him. And as it was the will of
God that the doctrine of Jesus should prevail amongst men, the demons could
effect nothing, although straining every nerve145 to accomplish the destruction
of Christians; for they stirred up both princes, and senates, and rulers in
every place,-nay, even nations themselves, who did not perceive the irrational
and wicked procedure of the demons,-against the word, and those who believed in
it; yet, notwithstanding, the word of God, which is more powerful than all other
things, even when meeting with opposition, deriving from the opposition, as it
were, a means of increase, advanced onwards, and won many souls, such being the
will of God. And we have offered these remarks by way of a necessary digression.
For we wished to answer the assertion of Celsus concerning the Jews, that they
were "fugitives from Egypt, and that these men, beloved by God, never
accomplished anything worthy of note." And further, in answer to the statement
that "they were never held in any reputation or account," we say, that living
apart as a "chosen nation and a royal priesthood," and shunning intercourse with
the many nations around them, in order that their morals might escape
corruption, they enjoyed the protection of the divine power, neither coveting
like the most of mankind the acquisition of other kingdoms, nor yet being
abandoned so as to become, on account of their smallness, an easy object of
attack to others, and thus be altogether destroyed; and this lasted so long as
they were worthy of the divine protection. But when it became necessary for
them, as a nation wholly given to sin, to be brought back by their sufferings to
their God, they were abandoned (by Him), sometimes for a longer, sometimes for a
shorter period, until in the time of the Romans, having committed the greatest
of sins in putting Jesus to death, they were completely deserted.

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,146 appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words, whose
meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they misinterpreted147 to the
unlearned and ignorant, and that, too, when such a point had never been called
in question during the long preceding period." Now Celsus appears to me in these
words to have expressed very obscurely the meaning which he intended to convey.
It is probable, indeed, that his obscurity on this subject is intentional,
inasmuch as he saw the strength of the argument which establishes the descent of
the Jews from their ancestors; while again, on the other hand, he wished not to
appear ignorant that the question regarding the Jews and their descent was one
that could not be lightly disposed of. It is certain, however, that the Jews
trace their genealogy back to the three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And
the names of these individuals possess such efficacy, when united with the name
of God, that not only do those belonging to the nation employ in their prayers
to God, and in the exorcising of demons, the words, "God of Abraham,148 and God
of Isaac, and God of Jacob," but so also do almost all those who occupy
themselves with incantations and magical rites. For there is found in treatises
on magic in many countries such an invocation of God, and assumption of the
divine name, as implies a familiar use of it by these men in their dealings with
demons. These facts, then-adduced by Jews and Christians to prove the sacred
character of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jewish
race-appear to me not to have been altogether unknown to Celsus, but not to have
been distinctly set forth by him, because he was unable to answer the argument
which might be founded on them.

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?149 And when, in answer to our inquiry, no one can show from what
history-whether Greek or Barbarian-or, if not a history, yet at least from what
mystical narrative,150 the accounts of these men are derived, we shall bring
forward the book entitled "Genesis," which contains the acts of these men, and
the divine oracles addressed to them, and will say, Does not the use by you of
the names of these three ancestors of the race, establishing in the clearest
manner that effects not to be lightly regarded are produced by the invocation of
them, evidence the divinity of the men?151 And yet we know them from no other
source than the sacred books of the Jews! Moreover, the phrases, "the God of
Israel," and "the God of the Hebrews," and "the God who drowned in the Red Sea
the king of Egypt and the Egyptians," are formulae152 frequently employed
against demons and certain wicked powers. And we learn the history of the names
and their interpretation from those Hebrews, who in their national literature
and national tongue dwell with pride upon these things, and explain their
meaning. How, then, should the Jews attempt to derive their origin from the
first race of those whom Celsus supposed to be jugglers and deceivers, and
shamelessly endeavour to trace themselves and their beginning back to
these?-whose names, being Hebrew, are an evidence to the Hebrews, who have their
sacred books written in the Hebrew language and letters, that their nation is
akin to these men. For up to the present time, the Jewish names belonging to the
Hebrew language were either taken from their writings, or generally from words
the meaning of which was made known by the Hebrew language.

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 not153 convey any ambiguity, I am at a loss to know
why he has rejected them. And yet, if he had wished honestly to overturn the
genealogy which he deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting
of Abraham and his descendants (as their progenitors), he ought to have quoted
all the passages bearing on the subject; and, in the first place, to have
advocated his cause with such arguments as he thought likely to be convincing,
and in the next to have bravely154 refuted, by means of what appeared to him to
be the true meaning, and by arguments in its favour, the errors existing on the
subject. But neither Celsus nor any one else will be able, by their discussions
regarding the nature of names employed for miraculous purposes, to lay down the
correct doctrine regarding them, and to demonstrate that those men were to be
lightly esteemed whose names merely, not among their countrymen alone, but also
amongst foreigners, could accomplish (such results). He ought to have shown,
moreover, how we, in misinterpreting155 the passages in which these names are
found, deceive our hearers, as he imagines, while he himself, who boasts that he
is not ignorant or unintelligent, gives the true interpretation of them. And he
hazarded the assertion,156 in speaking of those names, from which the Jews
deduce their genealogies, that "never, during the long antecedent period, has
there been any dispute about these names, but that at the present time the Jews
dispute about them with certain others," whom he does not mention. Now, let him
who chooses show who these are that dispute with the Jews, and who adduce even
probable arguments to show that Jews and Christians do not decide correctly on
the points relating to these names, but that there are others who have discussed
these questions with the greatest learning and accuracy. But we are well assured
that none can establish anything of the sort, it being manifest that these names
are derived from the Hebrew language, which is found only among the Jews.

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 life157 in some comer of Palestine, and being a wholly
uneducated people, who had not heard that these matters had been committed to
verse long ago by Hesiod and innumerable other inspired men, wove together some
most incredible and insipid stories,158 viz., that a certain man was formed by
the hands of God, and had breathed into him the breath of life, and that a woman
was taken from his side, and that God issued certain commands, and that a
serpent opposed these, and gained a victory over the commandments of God; thus
relating certain old wives' fables, and most impiously representing God as weak
at the very beginning (of things), and unable to convince even a single human
being whom He Himself had formed." By these instances, indeed, this deeply read
and learned Celsus, who accuses Jews and Christians of ignorance and want of
instruction, clearly evinces the accuracy of his knowledge of the chronology of
the respective historians, whether Greek or Barbarian, since he imagines that
Hesiod and the "innumerable" others, whom he styles "inspired" men, are older
than Moses and his writings-that very Moses who is shown to be much older than
the time of the Trojan war! It is not the Jews, then, who have composed
incredible and insipid stories regarding the birth of man from the earth, but
these "inspired" men of Celsus, Hesiod and his other "innumerable" companions,
who, having neither learned nor heard of the far older and most venerable
accounts existing in Palestine, have written such histories as their Theogonies,
attributing, so far as in their power, "generation" to their deities, and
innumerable other absurdities. And these are the writers whom Plato expels from
his "State" as being corrupters of the youth,159 -Homer, viz., and those who
have composed poems of a similar description! Now it is evident that Plato did
not regard as "inspired" those men who had left behind them such works. But
perhaps it was from a desire to cast reproach upon us, that this Epicurean
Celsus, who is better able to judge than Plato (if it be the same Celsus who
composed two other books against the Christians), called those individuals
"inspired" whom he did not in reality regard as such.

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"160 of the man; white it is Job
and David who have used the expression, "Thy hands have made me and fashioned
me; "161 with reference to which it would need a lengthened discourse to point
out the sense in which these words were understood by those who used them, both
as regards the difference between "making" and "fashioning," and also the
"hands" of God. For those who do not understand these and similar expressions in
the sacred Scriptures, imagine that we attribute to the God who is over all
things a form162 such as that of man; and according to their conceptions, it
follows that we consider the body of God to be furnished with wings, since the
Scriptures, literally understood, attribute such appendages to God. The subject
before us, however, does not require us to interpret these expressions; for, in
our explanatory remarks upon the book of Genesis, these matters have been made,
to the best of our ability, a special subject of investigation. Observe next the
malignity163 of Celsus in what follows. For the Scripture, speaking of the
"fashioning"164 of the man, says, "And breathed into his face the breath of
life, and the man became a living soul."165 Whereon Celsus, wishing maliciously
to ridicule the "inbreathing into his face of the breath of life," and not
understanding the sense in which the expression was employed, states that "they
composed a story that a man was fashioned by the hands of God, and was inflated
by breath blown into him,"166 in order that, taking the word" inflated" to be
used in a similar way to the inflation of skins, he might ridicule the
statement, "He breathed into his face the breath of life,"-terms which are used
figuratively, and require to be explained in order to show that God communicated
to man of His incorruptible Spirit; as it is said, "For Thine incorruptible
Spirit is in all things."167 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,"168 and so on; without quoting the words, which
would give the hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative
meaning. He would not even have it appear that the words were used
allegorically, although he says afterwards, that "the more modest among Jews and
Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow an
allegorical signification." Now we might say to him, Are the statements of your
"inspired" Hesiod, which he makes regarding the woman in the form of a myth, to
be explained allegorically, in the sense that she was given by Jove to men as an
evil thing, and as a retribution for the theft of "the fire; "169 while that
regarding the woman who was taken from the side of the man (after he had been
buried in deep slumber), and was formed by God, appears to you to be related
without any rational meaning and secret signification?170 But is it not
uncandid, not to ridicule the former as myths, but to admire them as
philosophical ideas in a mythical dress, and to treat with contempt171 the
latter, as offending the understanding, and to declare that they are of no
account? For if, because of the mere phraseology, we are to find fault with what
is intended to have a secret meaning, see whether the following lines of Hesiod,
a man, as you say," inspired," are not better fitted to excite laughter:- "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 best 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."172 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."173

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?

Chapter XXXIX. 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,174 and has purposely neither mentioned the paradise175 of God, nor
stated that God is said to have planted it in Eden towards the east, and that
there afterwards sprang up from the earth every tree that was beautiful to the
sight, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the paradise, and
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the other statements which
follow, which might of themselves lead a candid reader to see that all these
things had not inappropriately an allegorical meaning, let us contrast with this
the words of Socrates regarding Eros in the Symposium of Plato, and which are
put in the mouth of Socrates as being more appropriate than what was said
regarding him by all the others at the Symposium. The words of Plato are as
follow: "When Aphrodite was born, the gods held a banquet, and there was
present, along with the others, Porus the son of Metis. And after they had
dined, Penia176 came to beg for something (seeing there was an entertainment),
and she stood at the gate. Porus meantime, having become intoxicated with the
nectar (for there was then no wine), went into the garden of Zeus, and, being
heavy with liquor, lay down to sleep. Penia accordingly formed a secret plot,
with a view of freeing herself from her condition of poverty,177 to get a child
by Porus, and accordingly lay down beside him, and became pregnant with Eros.
And on this account Eros has become the follower and attendant of Aphrodite,
having been begotten on her birthday feast,178 and being at the same time by
nature a lover of the beautiful, because Aphrodite too is beautiful. Seeing,
then, that Eros is the son of Porus and Penia, the following is his
condition.179 In the first place, he is always poor, and far from being delicate
and beautiful, as most persons imagine; but is withered, and sunburnt,180 and
unshod, and without a home, sleeping always upon the ground, and without a
covering; lying in the open air beside gates, and on public roads; possessing
the nature of his mother, and dwelling continually with indigence.181 But, on
the other hand, in conformity with the character of his father, he is given to
plotting against the beautiful and the good, being courageous, and hasty, and
vehement;182 a keen183 hunter, perpetually devising contrivances; both much
given to forethought, and also fertile in resources;184 acting like a
philosopher throughout the whole of his life; a terrible185 sorcerer, and dealer
in drugs, and a sophist as well; neither immortal by nature nor yet mortal, but
on the same day, at one time he flourishes and lives when he has plenty, and
again at another time dies, and once more is recalled to life through possessing
the nature of his father. But the supplies furnished to him are always gradually
disappearing, so that he is never at any time in want, nor yet rich; and, on the
other hand, he occupies an intermediate position between wisdom and
ignorance."186 Now, if those who read these words were to imitate the malignity
of Celsus-which be it far from Christians to do!-they would ridicule the myth,
and would turn this great Plato into a subject of jest; but if, on investigating
in a philosophic spirit what is conveyed in the dress of a myth, they should be
able to discover the meaning of Plato, (they will admire)187 the manner in which
he was able to conceal, on account of the multitude, in the form of this myth,
the great ideas which presented themselves to him, and to speak in a befitting
manner to those who know how to ascertain from the myths the true meaning of him
who wove them together. Now I have brought forward this myth occurring in the
writings of Plato, because of the mention in it of the garden of Zeus, which
appears to bear some resemblance to the paradise of God, and of the comparison
between Penia and the serpent, and the plot against Porus by Penia, which may be
compared with the plot of the serpent against the man. It is not very clear,
indeed, whether Plato fell in with these stories by chance, or whether, as some
think, meeting during his visit to Egypt with certain individuals who
philosophized on the Jewish mysteries, and learning some things from them, he
may have preserved a few of their ideas, and thrown others aside, being careful
not to offend the Greeks by a complete adoption of all the points of the
philosophy of the Jews, who were in bad repute with the multitude, on account of
the foreign character of their laws and their peculiar polity. The present,
however, is not the proper time for explaining either the myth of Plato, or the
story of the serpent and the paradise of God, and all that is related to have
taken place in it, as in our exposition of the book of Genesis we have
especially occupied ourselves as we best could with these matters.

Chapter XL. 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 objection188 is much the same as if one
were to find fault with the existence of evil, which God has not been able to
prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found
from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin.
For as those whose business it is to defend the doctrine of providence do so by
means of arguments which are not to be despised,189 so also the subjects of Adam
and his son will be philosophically dealt with by those who are aware that in
the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative
which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the
nature of man in general.190 For "in Adam" (as the Scripture191 says) "all die,"
and were condemned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, the word of God
asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human
race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one
particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to
all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman
is spoken of every woman without exception.192 And the expulsion of the man and
woman from paradise, and their being clothed with tunics of skins (which God,
because of the transgression of men, made for those who had sinned), contain a
certain secret and mystical doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the
souls losing its wings,193 and being borne downwards to earth, until it can lay
hold of some stable resting-place.

Chapter XLI.

After this he continues as follows: "They speak, in the next place, of a deluge,
and of a monstrous194 ark, having within it all things, and of a dove and a
crow195 as messengers, falsifying and recklessly altering196 the story of
Deucalion; not expecting, I suppose, that these things would come to light, but
imagining that they were inventing stories merely for young children." Now in
these remarks observe the hostility-so unbecoming a philosopher-displayed by
this man towards this very ancient Jewish narrative. For, not being able to say
anything against the history of the deluge, and not perceiving what he might
have urged against the ark and its dimensions,-viz., that, according to the
general opinion, which accepted the statements that it was three hundred cubits
in length, and fifty in breadth, and thirty in height, it was impossible to
maintain that it contained (all) the animals that were upon the earth, fourteen
specimens of every clean and four of every unclean beast,-he merely termed it
"monstrous, containing all things within it." Now wherein was its "monstrous"
character, seeing it is related to have been a hundred years in building, and to
have had the three hundred cubits of its length and the fifty of its breadth
contracted, until the thirty cubits of its height terminated in a top one cubit
long and one cubit broad? Why should we not rather admire a structure which
resembled an extensive city, if its measurements be taken to mean what they are
capable of meaning,197 so that it was nine myriads of cubits long in the base,
and two thousand five hundred in breadth?198 And why should we not admire the
design evinced in having it so compactly built, and rendered capable of
sustaining a tempest which caused a deluge? For it was not daubed with pitch, or
any material of that kind, but was securely coated with bitumen. And is it not a
subject of admiration, that by the providential arrangement of God, the elements
of all the races were brought into it, that the earth might receive again the
seeds of all living things, while God made use of a most righteous man to be the
progenitor of those who were to be born after the deluge?

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,"199 as well as from the words, "For they did
not expect, I suppose, that these things would come to light." But how should
they, who gave their Scriptures to the whole nation, not expect that they would
come to light, and who predicted, moreover, that this religion should be
proclaimed to all nations? Jesus declared, "The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; "200 and in
uttering these words to the Jews, what other meaning did He intend to convey
than this, viz., that He Himself should, through his divine power, bring forth
into light the whole of the Jewish Scriptures, which contain the mysteries of
the kingdom of God? If, then, they peruse the Theogonies of the Greeks, and the
stories about the twelve gods, they impart to them an air of dignity, by
investing them with an allegorical signification; but when they wish to throw
contempt upon our biblical narratives, they assert that they are fables,
clumsily invented for infant children!

Chapter XLIII.

"Altogether absurd, and out of season,"201 he continues, "is the (account of
the) begetting of children," where, although he has mentioned no names, it is
evident that he is referring to the history of Abraham and Sarah. Cavilling also
at the "conspiracies of the brothers," he allies either to the story of Cain
plotting against Abel,202 or, in addition, to that of Esau against Jacob;203 and
(speaking) of "a father's sorrow," he probably refers to that of Isaac on
account of the absence of Jacob, and perhaps also to that of Jacob because of
Joseph having been sold into Egypt. And when relating the "crafty procedure of
mothers," I suppose he means the conduct of Rebecca, who contrived that the
blessing of Isaac should descend, not upon Esau, but upon Jacob. Now if we
assert that in all these cases God interposed in a very marked degree,204 what
absurdity do we commit, seeing we are persuaded that He never withdraws His
providence205 from those who devote themselves to Him in an honourable and
vigorous206 life? He ridicules, moreover, the acquisition of property made by
Jacob while living with Laban, not understanding to what these words refer: "And
those which had no spots were Laban's, and those which were spotted were
Jacob's; "207 and he says that "God presented his sons with asses, and sheep,
and camels,"208 and did not see that "all these things happened unto them for
ensamples, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the world are
come."209 The varying customs (prevailing among the different nations) becoming
famous,210 are regulated by the word of God, being given as a possession to him
who is figuratively termed Jacob. For those who become converts to Christ from
among the heathen, are indicated by the history of Laban and Jacob.

Chapter XLIV. And erring widely from the meaning of Scripture, he says that "God
gave wells211 also to the righteous." Now he did not observe that the righteous
do not construct cisterns,212 but dig wells, seeking to discover the inherent
ground and source of potable blessings,213 inasmuch as they receive in a
figurative sense the commandment which enjoins, "Drink waters from your own
vessels, and from your own wells of fresh water. Let not your water be poured
out beyond your own fountain, but let it pass into your own streets. Let it
belong to you alone, and let no alien partake with thee."214 Scripture
frequently makes use of the histories of real events, in order to present to
view more important truths, which are but obscurely intimated; and of this kind
are the narratives relating to the "wells," and to the "marriages," and to the
various acts of "sexual intercourse" recorded of righteous persons, respecting
which, however, it will be more seasonable to offer an explanation in the
exegetical writings referring to those very passages. But that wells were
constructed by righteous men in the land of the Philistines, as related in the
book of Genesis,215 is manifest from the wonderful wells which are shown at
Ascalon, and which are deserving of mention on account of their structure, so
foreign and peculiar compared with that of other wells. Moreover, that both
young women216 and female servants are to be understood metaphorically, is not
our doctrine merely, but one which we have received from the beginning from wise
men, among whom a certain one said, when exhorting his hearers to investigate
the figurative meaning: "Tell me, ye that read the law, do ye not hear the law?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond maid, the other
by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh; but
he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are
the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,
which is Agar."217 And a little after, "But Jerusalem which is above is free,
which is the mother of us all." And any one who will take up the Epistle to the
Galatians may learn how the passages relating to the "marriages," and the
intercourse with "the maid-servants," have been allegorized; the Scripture
desiring us to imitate not the literal acts of those who did these things, but
(as the apostles of Jesus are accustomed to call them) the spiritual.

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,218 and thus been led to accept the other and more
marvellous accounts as true, he has done the reverse, and has characterized the
story of Lot and his daughters (without examining either its literal or its
figurative meaning) as "worse than the crimes of Thyestes." The figurative
signification of that passage of history it is not necessary at present to
explain, nor what is meant by Sodom, and by the words of the angels to him who
was escaping thence, when they said: "Look not behind thee, neither stay thou in
all the surrounding district; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed;
"219 nor what is intended by Lot and his wife, who became a pillar of salt
because she turned back; nor by his daughters intoxicating their father, that
they might become mothers by him. But let us in a few words soften down the
repulsive features of the history. The nature of actions-good, bad, and
indifferent-has been investigated by the Greeks; and the more successful of such
investigators220 lay down the principle that intention alone gives to actions
the character of good or bad, and that all things which are done without a
purpose are, strictly speaking, indifferent; that when the intention is directed
to a becoming end, it is praiseworthy; when the reverse, it is censurable. They
have said, accordingly, in the section relating to" things indifferent," that,
strictly speaking, for a man to have sexual intercourse with his daughters is a
thing indifferent, although such a thing ought not to take place in established
communities. And for the sake of hypothesis, in order to show that such an act
belongs to the class of things indifferent, they have assumed the case of a wise
man being left with an only daughter, the entire human race besides having
perished; and they put the question whether the father can fitly have
intercourse with his daughter, in order, agreeably to the supposition, to
prevent the extermination of mankind. Is this to be accounted sound reasoning
among the Greeks, and to be commended by the influential221 sect of the Stoics;
but when young maidens, who had heard of the burning of the world, though
without comprehending (its full meaning), saw fire devastating their city and
country, and supposing that the only means left of rekindling the flame222 of
human life lay in their father and themselves, should, on such a supposition,
conceive the desire that the world should continue, shall their conduct be
deemed worse than that of the wise man who, according to the hypothesis of the
Stoics, acts becomingly in having intercourse with his daughter in the case
already supposed, of all men having been destroyed? I am not unaware, however,
that some have taken offence at the desire223 of Lot's daughters, and have
regarded their conduct as very wicked; and have said that two accursed
nations-Moab and Ammon-have sprung from that unhallowed intercourse. And yet
truly sacred Scripture is nowhere found distinctly approving of their conduct as
good, nor yet passing sentence upon it as blameworthy. Nevertheless, whatever be
the real state of the case, it admits not only of a figurative meaning, but also
of being defended on its own merits.224

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- as when Joseph
would not gratify the lust of his mistress, refusing alike her allurements and
her threats-he does not even mention the circumstance! He should see, indeed,
that the conduct of Joseph was far superior to what is related of
Bellerophon,225 since the former chose rather to be shut up in prison than do
violence to his virtue. For although he might have offered a just defence
against his accuser, he magnanimously remained silent, entrusting his cause to
God.

Chapter XLVII.

Celsus next, for form's sake,226 and with great want of precision, speaks of
"the dreams of the chief butler and chief baker, and of Pharaoh, and of the
explanation of them, in consequence of which Joseph was taken out of prison in
order to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the second place in Egypt." What
absurdity, then, did the history contain, looked at even in itself, that it
should be adduced as matter of accusation by this Celsus, who gave the title of
True Discourse to a treatise not containing doctrines, but full of charges
against Jews and Christians? He adds: "He who had been sold behaved kindly to
his brethren (who had sold him), when they were suffering from hunger, and had
been sent with their asses to purchase (provisions); "although he has not
related these occurrences (in his treatise). But he does mention the
circumstance of Joseph making himself known to his brethren, although I know not
with what view, or what absurdity he can point out in such an occurrence; since
it is impossible for Momus himself, we might say, to find any reasonable fault
with events which, apart from their figurative meaning, present so much that is
attractive. He relates, further, that "Joseph, who had been sold as a slave, was
restored to liberty, and went up with a solemn procession to his father's
funeral," and thinks that the narrative furnishes matter of accusation against
us, as he makes the following remark: "By whom (Joseph, namely) the illustrious
and divine nation of the Jews, after growing up in Egypt to be a multitude of
people, was commanded to sojourn somewhere beyond the limits of the kingdom, and
to pasture their flocks in districts of no repute." Now the words, "that they
were commanded to pasture their flocks in districts of no repute," are an
addition, proceeding from his own feelings of hatred; for he has not shown that
Goshen, the district of Egypt, is a place of no repute. The exodus of the people
from Egypt he calls a flight, not at all remembering what is written in the book
of Exodus regarding the departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt. We have
enumerated these instances to show that what, literally considered, might appear
to furnish ground of accusation, Celsus has not succeeded in proving to be
either objectionable or foolish, having utterly failed to establish the evil
character, as he regards it, of our Scriptures.

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,227 of what
histories can this be said more truly than of the Grecian? In these histories,
gods who are sons castrate the gods who are their fathers, and gods who are
parents devour their own children, and a goddess-mother gives to the "father of
gods and men" a stone to swallow instead of his own son, and a father has
intercourse with his daughter, and a wife binds her own husband, having as her
allies in the work the brother of the fettered god and his own daughter! But why
should I enumerate these absurd stories of the Greeks regarding their gods,
which are most shameful in themselves, even though invested with an allegorical
meaning? (Take the instance) where Chrysippus of Soli, who is considered to be
an ornament of the Stoic sect, on account of his numerous and learned treatises,
explains a picture at Samos, in which Juno was represented as committing
unspeakable abominations with Jupiter. This reverend philosopher says in his
treatises, that matter receives the spermatic words228 of the god, and retains
them within herself, in order to ornament the universe. For in the picture at
Samos Juno represents matter, and Jupiter god. Now it is on account of these,
and of countless other similar fables, that we would not even in word call the
God of all things Jupiter, or the sun Apollo, or the moon Diana. But we offer to
the Creator a worship which is pure, and speak with religious respect of His
noble works of creation, not contaminating even in word the things of God;
approving of the language of Plato in the Philebus, who would not admit that
pleasure was a goddess, "so great is my reverence, Protarchus," he says, "for
the very names of the gods." We verily entertain such reverence for the name of
God, and for His noble works of creation, that we would not, even under pretext
of an allegorical meaning, admit any fable which might do injury to the young.

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?229
And we shall adduce a few instances out of very many to show that Celsus brings
an empty charge against the Scriptures, when he says "that they are incapable of
admitting an allegorical meaning." Paul, the apostle of Jesus, says: "It is
written in the law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out
the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith He it altogether for our sakes?
For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plougheth should plough
in hope, and he that thresheth in hope of partaking."230 And in another passage
the same Paul says: "For it is written, For this cause shall a man leave his
father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the
Church."231 And again, in another place: "We know that all our fathers were
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto
Moses in the cloud, and in the sea."232 Then, explaining the history relating to
the manna, and that referring to the miraculous issue of the water from the
rock, he continues as follows: "And they did all eat the same spiritual meat,
and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ."233 Asaph, moreover, who, in
showing the histories in Exodus and Numbers to be full of difficulties and
parables,234 begins in the following manner, as recorded in the book of Psalms,
where he is about to make mention of these things: "Give ear, O my people, to my
law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in
parables; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and
our fathers have told us."235

Chapter L

Moreover, if the law of Moses had contained nothing which was to be understood
as hating 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;
"236 whereas he knew that there was a veil of ignorance lying upon the heart of
those who read but do not understand the figurative meaning, which veil is taken
away by the gift of God, when He hears him who has done all that he can,237 and
who by reason of habit has his senses exercised to distinguish between good and
evil, and who continually utters the prayer, "Open Thou mine eyes, and I will
behold wondrous things out of Thy law." And who is there that, on reading of the
dragon that lives in the Egyptian river,238 and of the fishes which lurk in his
scales, or of the excrement of Pharaoh which fills the mountains of Egypt,239 is
not led at once to inquire who he is that fills the Egyptian mountains with his
stinking excrement, and what the Egyptian mountains are; and what the rivers in
Egypt are, of which the aforesaid Pharaoh boastfully says, "The rivers are mine,
and I have made them; "240 and who the dragon is, and the fishes in its
scales,-and this so as to harmonize with the interpretation to be given of the
rivers? But why establish at greater length what needs no demonstration? For to
these things applies the saying: "Who is wise, and he shall understand these
things? or who is prudent, and he shall know them? "241 Now I have gone at some
length into the subject, because I wished to show the unsoundness of the
assertion of Celsus, that "the more modest among the Jews and Christians
endeavour somehow to give these stories an allegorical signification, although
some of them do not admit of this, but on the contrary are exceedingly silly
inventions." Much rather are the stories of the Greeks not only very silly, but
very impious inventions. For our narratives keep expressly in view the multitude
of simpler believers, which was not done by those who invented the Grecian
fables. And therefore not without propriety does Plato expel from his state all
fables and poems of such a nature as those of which we have been speaking.

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.242 But we are not elated on account of this
instance, though we express our approval of Numenius, rather than of Celsus and
other Greeks, because he was willing to investigate our histories from a desire
to acquire knowledge, and was (duly) affected by them as narratives which were
to be allegorically understood, and which did not belong to the category of
foolish compositions.

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,243 such as might contribute, indeed, to
strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not adapted
to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues: "Of such a nature do I
know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason, which
is fitted to excite pity and hatred instead of laughter. It is not my purpose,
however, to confute the statements contained in such works; for their fallacy is
manifest to all, especially if any one will have the patience to read the books
themselves. Rather do I wish to show that Nature teaches this, that God made
nothing that is mortal, but that His works, whatever they are, are immortal, and
theirs mortal. And the soul244 is the work of God, while the nature of the body
is different. And 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 matter245 is the
same, and their corruptible part is alike." Nevertheless I could wish that every
one who heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled
Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ was fitted to excite not
laughter, but hatred, could fake the work into his hands, and patiently listen
to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite hatred, he might condemn
Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be impartially perused, it will be
found that there is nothing to excite even laughter in a work in which a
Christian is described as conversing with a Jew on the subject of the Jewish
Scriptures, and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to
Jesus; although the other disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble
style, and in a manner not unbecoming the character of a Jew.

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
consciences and disposition of mind; for he will discover that they are men who
strenuously contend for what they uphold, and that some of them show that the
history which they narrate is one which they have both seen and experienced,246
which was miraculous, and worthy of being recorded for the advantage of their
future hearers. Will any one indeed venture to say that it is not the source and
fountain of all blessing247 (to men) to believe in the God of all things, and to
perform all our actions with the view of pleasing Him in everything whatever,
and not to entertain even a thought unpleasing to Him, seeing that not only our
words and deeds, but our very thoughts, will be the subject of future judgment?
And what other arguments would more effectually lead human nature to adopt a
virtuous life, than the belief or opinion that the supreme God beholds all
things, not only what is said and done, but even what is thought by us? And let
any one who likes compare any other system which at the same time converts and
ameliorates, not merely one or two individuals, but, as far as in it lies,
countless numbers, that by the comparison of both methods he may form a correct
idea of the arguments which dispose to a virtuous life.

Chapter LIV. But as in the words which I quoted from Celsus, which are a
paraphrase from the Timaeus, 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,248 and which have been created for the by no means despicable249 use of
man in general, and of the animals which minister to man, whatever other reasons
may be adduced for their existence,250 not only to have stated his opinion, but
also to have shown us that it was no perfect intelligence which impressed these
qualities upon the matter of plants. And when he had once represented (various)
divinities as the creators of all the bodies, the soul alone being the work of
God, why did not he, who separated these great acts of creation, and apportioned
them among a plurality of creators, next demonstrate by some convincing reason
the existence of these diversities among divinities, some of which construct the
bodies of men, and others-those, say, of beasts of burden, and others-those of
wild animals? And he who saw that some divinities were the creators of dragons,
and of asps, and of basilisks, and others of each plant and herb according to
its species, ought to have explained the causes of these diversities. For
probably, had he given himself carefully to the investigation of each particular
point, he would either have observed that it was one God who was the creator of
all, and who made each thing with a certain object and for a certain reason; or
if he had failed to observe this, he would have discovered the answer which he
ought to return to those who assert that corruptibility is a thing indifferent
in its nature; and that there was no absurdity in a world which consists of
diverse materials, being formed by one architect, who constructed the different
kinds of things so as to secure the good of the whole. Or, finally, he ought to
have expressed no opinion at all on so important a doctrine, since he did not
intend to prove what he professed to demonstrate; unless, indeed, he who
censures others for professing a simple faith, would have us to believe his mere
assertions, although he gave out that he would not merely assert, but would
prove his assertions.

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 every
creeping thing upon the earth after its kind; and last of all to man. The
expression "made," however, is not applied to other things; but it is deemed
sufficient to say regarding light, "And it was light; "and regarding the one
gathering together of all the waters that are under the whole heaven, "It was
so." And in like manner also, with regard to what grew upon the earth, where it
is said, "The earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind
and after its likeness, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in
itself, after its kind, upon the earth." He would have inquired, moreover,
whether the recorded commands of God respecting the coming into existence of
each part of the world were addressed to one thing or to several;251 and he
would not lightly have charged with being unintelligible, and as having no
secret meaning, the accounts related in these books, either by Moses, or, as we
would say, by the Divine Spirit speaking in Moses, from whom also he derived the
power of prophesying; since he "knew both the present, and the future, and the
past," in a higher degree than those priests who are alleged by the poets to
have possessed a knowledge of these things.

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.252
For the same matter, underlying all bodies, is, properly speaking, without
qualities and without form, and derives its qualities from some (other) source,
I know not whence, since Celsus will have it that nothing corruptible can be the
work of God. Now the corruptible part of everything whatever, being produced
from the same underlying matter, must necessarily be the same, by Celsus' own
showing; unless, indeed, finding himself here hard pressed, he should desert
Plato, who makes the soul arise from a certain bowl,253 and take refuge with
Aristotle and the Peripatetics, who maintain that the ether is immaterial,254
and consists of a fifth nature, separate from the other four elements,255
against which view both the Platonists and the Stoics have nobly protested. And
we too, who are despised by Celsus, will contravene it, seeing we are required
to explain and maintain the following statement of the prophet: The heavens
shall perish, but Thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as a garment; and
as a vesture shall Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art
the same."256 These remarks, however, are sufficient in reply to Celsus, when he
asserts that "the soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is
different; "for from his argument it follows that there is no difference between
the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a heavenly257 being.

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."258 And therefore, as those who expect the resurrection
of the dead, we assert that the qualities which are in bodies undergo change:
since some bodies, which are sown in corruption, are raised in incorruption; and
others, sown in dishonour, are raised in glory; and others, again, sown in
weakness, are raised in power; and those which are sown natural bodies, are
raised as spiritual.259 That the matter which underlies bodies is capable of
receiving those qualities which the Creator pleases to bestow, is a point which
all of us who accept the doctrine of providence firmly hold; so that, if God so
willed, one quality is at the present time implanted in this portion of matter,
and afterwards another of a different and better kind. But since there are, from
the beginning of the world, laws260 established for the purpose of regulating
the changes of bodies, and which will continue while the world lasts, I do not
know whether, when a new and different order of things has succeeded261 after
the destruction of the world, and what our Scriptures call the end262 (of the
ages), it is not wonderful that at the present time a snake should be formed out
of a dead man, growing, as the multitude affirm, out of the marrow of the
back,263 and that a bee should spring from an ox, and a wasp from a horse, and a
beetle from an ass, and, generally, worms from the most of bodies, Celsus,
indeed, thinks that this can be shown to be the consequence of none of these
bodies being the work of God, and that qualities (I know not whence it was so
arranged that one should spring out of another) are not the work of a divine
intelligence, producing the changes which occur in the qualities of matter.

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;264 while bodies should not differ from bodies, according
as they are inhabited by rational or irrational beings, and according as these
rational beings are the most virtuous or most worthless of mankind. Such a
principle of distinction, indeed, has led some to deify the bodies of
distinguished men,265 as having received a virtuous soul, and to reject and
treat with dishonour those of very wicked individuals. I do not maintain that
such a principle has been always soundly exercised, but that it had its origin
in a correct idea. Would a wise man, indeed, after the death of Anytus and
Socrates, think of burying the bodies of both with like honours? And would he
raise the same mound or tomb to the memory of both? These instances we have
adduced because of the language of Celsus, that "none of these is the work of
God" (where the words "of these" refer to the body of a man or to the snakes
which come out of the body and to that of an ox, or of the bees which come from
the body of an ox; and to that of a horse or of an ass, and to the wasps which
come from a horse, and the beetles which proceed from an ass); for which reason
we have been obliged to return to the consideration of his statement, that "the
soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is different."

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."266 In answer to this it is evident from what has been already said
that not only does a common nature pervade those bodies which have been
previously enumerated, but the heavenly bodies as well. And if this is the case,
it is clear also that, according to Celsus (although I do not know whether it is
according to truth), it is one nature which goes and returns the same through
all bodies amid recurring changes. It is evident also that this is the case in
the opinion of those who hold that the world is to perish; while those also who
hold the opposite view will endeavour to show, with out the assumption of a
fifth substance,267 that in their judgment too it is one nature "which goes and
returns the same through all bodies amid recurring changes." And thus, even that
which is perishable remains in order to undergo a change;268 for the matter
which underlies (all things), while its properties perish, stir abides according
to the opinion of those who hold it to be uncreated. If, however, it can be
shown by any arguments not to be uncreated, but to have been created for certain
purposes, it is clear that it will not have the same nature of permanency which
it would possess on the hypothesis of being uncreated. But it is not our object
at present, in answering the charges of Celsus, to discuss these questions of
natural philosophy.

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.269 And after making
these assertions he adds: "On this point these remarks are sufficient; and if
any one is capable of hearing and examining further, he will come to know (the
truth)." Let us, then, who in his opinion are unintelligent individuals, see
what will result from our being able to listen to him for a little, and so
continue our investigation.

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 Theaetetus, 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 truth270 in this
one treatise, and giving to his own book against us the title of A True
Discourse. For the language in the Timaeus, where it is said, "When the gods
purify the earth with water," shows that the earth, when purified with water,
contains less evil than it did before its purification. And this assertion, that
there at one time were fewer evils in the world, is one which we make, in
harmony with the opinion of Plato, because of the language in the Theaetetus,
where he says that "evils cannot disappear from among men."271

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 indefinite272
nature of evil, and asserting that evil, even in its own nature,273 is infinite.
Now it appears to follow from the position, that there never have been, nor are
now, nor ever will be, more or fewer evils in the world; that as, according to
the view of those who hold the indestructibility of the world, the equipoise of
the elements is maintained by a Providence (which does not permit one to gain
the preponderance over the others, in order to prevent the destruction of the
world), so a kind of Providence presides, as it were, over evils (the number of
which is fixed),274 to prevent their being either increased or diminished! In
other ways, too, are the arguments of Celsus concerning evil confuted, by those
philosophers who have investigated the subjects of good and evil, and who have
proved also from history that in former times it was without the city, and with
their faces concealed by masks, that loose women hired themselves to those who
wanted them; that subsequently, becoming more impudent, they laid aside their
masks, though not being permitted by the laws to enter the cities, they (still)
remained without them, until, as the dissoluteness of manners daily increased,
they dared even to enter the cities. Such accounts are given by Chrysippus in
the introduction to his work on Good and Evil. From this also it may be seen
that evils both increase and decrease, viz., that those individuals who were
called "Ambiguous"275 used formerly to present themselves openly to view,
suffering and committing all shameful things, while subserving the passions of
those who frequented their society; but recently they have been expelled by the
authorities.276 And of countless evils which, owing to the spread of wickedness,
have made their appearance in human life, we may say that formerly they did not
exist. For the most ancient histories, which bring innumerable other accusations
against sinful men, know nothing of the perpetrators of abominable277 crimes.

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.278 For
although the nature of a certain individual is one and the same, yet his mind,
and his reason, and his actions, are not always alike:279 there being a time
when he had not yet attained to reason; and another, when, with the possession
of reason, he had become stained with wickedness, and when this increased to a
greater or less degree; and again, a time when he devoted himself to virtue, and
made greater or less progress therein, attaining sometimes the very summit of
perfection, through longer or shorter periods of contemplation.280 In like
manner, we may make the same assertion in a higher degree of the nature of the
universe,281 that although it is one and the same in kind, yet neither do
exactly the same things, nor yet things that are similar, occur in it; for we
neither have invariably productive nor unproductive seasons, nor yet periods of
continuous rain or of drought. And so in the same way, with regard to virtuous
souls, there are neither appointed periods of fertility nor of barrenness; and
the same is the case with the greater or less spread of evil. And those who
desire to investigate all things to the best of their ability, must keep in view
this estimate of evils, that their amount is not always the same, owing to the
working of a Providence which either preserves earthly things, or purges them by
means of floods and conflagrations; and effects this, perhaps, not merely with
reference to things on earth, but also to the whole universe of things282 I
which stands in need of purification, when the wickedness that is in it has
become great.

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 course283 of mortal things being
the same from beginning to end, the same things must always, agreeably to the
appointed cycles,284 recur in the past, present, and future." Celsus here
observes that it is not easy for one who is not a philosopher to ascertain the
origin of evils, as if it were an easy matter for a philosopher to gain this
knowledge, while for one who is not a philosopher it was difficult, though still
possible, for such an one, although with great labour, to attain it. Now, to
this we say, that the origin of evils is a subject which is not easy even for a
philosopher to master, and that perhaps it is impossible even for such to attain
a clear understanding of it, unless it be revealed to them by divine
inspiration, both what evils are, and how they originated, and how they shall be
made to disappear. But although ignorance of God is an evil, and one of the
greatest of these is not to know how God is to be served and worshipped, yet, as
even Celsus would admit, there are undoubtedly some philosophers who have been
ignorant of this, as is evident from the views of the different philosophical
sects; whereas, according to our judgment, no one is capable of ascertaining the
origin of evils who does not know that it is wicked to suppose that piety is
preserved uninjured amid the laws that are established in different states, in
conformity with the generally prevailing ideas of government.285 No one,
moreover, who has not heard what is related of him who is called "devil," and of
his "angels," and what he was before he became a devil, and how he became such,
and what was the cause of the simultaneous apostasy of those who are termed his
angels, will be able to ascertain the origin of evils. But he who would attain
to this knowledge must learn more accurately the nature of demons, and know that
they are not the work of God so far as respects their demoniacal nature, but
only in so far as they are possessed of reason; and also what their origin was,
so that they became beings of such a nature, that while converted into demons,
the powers of their mind286 remain. And if there be any topic of human
investigation which is difficult for our nature to grasp, certainly the origin
of evils may be considered to be such.

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."287 But to maintain that matter, dwelling among mortal things, is the
cause of evils, is in our opinion not true. For it is the mind of each
individual which is the cause of the evil which arises in him, and this is evil
(in the abstract);288 while the actions which proceed from it are wicked, and
there is, to speak with accuracy, nothing else in our view that is evil. I am
aware, however, that this topic requires very elaborate treatment, which (by the
grace of Cod enlightening the mind) may be successfully attempted by him who is
deemed by God worthy to attain the necessary knowledge on this subject.

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.289 For if, in the revolution of
mortal things, the same events must perpetually occur in the past, present, and
future, according to the appointed cycles, it is clear that, of necessity,
Socrates will always be. a philosopher, and be condemned for introducing strange
gods and for corrupting the youth. And Anytus and Melitus must always be his
accusers, and the council of the Areopagus must ever condemn him to death by
hemlock. And in the same way, according to the appointed cycles, Phalaris must
always play the tyrant, and Alexander of Pherae commit the same acts of cruelty,
and those condemned to the bull of Phalaris continually pour forth their
wailings from it. But if these things be granted, I do not see how our free-will
can be preserved, or how praise or blame can be administered with propriety. We
may say further to Celsus, in answer to such a view, that "if the course of
moral things be always the same from beginning to end, and if, according to the
appointed cycles, the same events must always occur in the past, present, and
future," then, according to the appointed cycles, Moses must again come forth
from Egypt with the Jewish people, and Jesus again come to dwell in human life,
and perform the same actions which (according to this view) he has done not
once, but countless times, as the periodshave revolved. Nay, Christians too will
be the same in the appointed cycles; and Celsus will again write this treatise
of his, which he has done innumerable times before.

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,290
which has taken place countless times in the past, and will happen countless
times in the future, there has been, and will be, the same arrangement of all
things from the beginning to the end. The Stoics, indeed, in endeavouring to
parry, I don't know how, the objections raised to their views, allege that as
cycle after cycle returns, all men will be altogether unchanged291 from those
who lived in former cycles; so that Socrates will not live again, but one
altogether like to Socrates, who will marry a wife exactly like Xanthippe, and
will be accused by men exactly like Anytus and Melitus. I do not understand,
however, how the world is to be always the same, and one individual not
different from another, and yet the things in it not the same, though exactly
alike. But the main argument in answer to the statements of Celsus and of the
Stoics will be more appropriately investigated elsewhere, since on the present
occasion it is not consistent with the purpose we have in view to expatiate on
these points.

Chapter LXIX.

He continues to say that "neither have visible things292 been given to man (by
God), but each individual thing comes into existence and perishes for the sake
of the safety of the whole passing agreeably to the change, which I have already
mentioned, from one thing to another." It is unnecessary, however, to linger
over the refutation of these statements, which have been already refuted to the
best of my ability. And the following, too, has been answered, viz., that "there
will neither be more nor less good and evil among mortals." This point also has
been referred to, viz., that "God does not need to amend His work afresh."293
But it is not as a man who has imperfectly designed some piece of workmanship,
and executed it unskilfully, that God administers correction to the world, in
purifying it by a flood or by a conflagration, but in order to prevent the tide
of evil from rising to a greater height; and, moreover, I am of opinion that it
is at periods which are precisely determined beforehand that He sweeps
wickedness away, so as to contribute to the good of the whole world.294 If,
however, he should assert that, after the disappearance of evil, it again comes
into existence, such questions will have to be examined in a special
treatise.295 It is, then, always in order to repair what has become faulty296
that God desires to amend His work afresh. For although, in the creation of the
world, all things had been arranged by Him in the most beautiful and stable
manner, He nevertheless needed to exercise some healing power upon those who
were labouring under the disease of wickedness, and upon a whole world, which
was polluted as it were thereby. But nothing has been neglected by God, or will
be neglected by Him; for He does at each particular juncture what it becomes Him
to do in a perverted and changed world. And as a husbandman performs different
acts of husbandry upon the soil and its productions, according to the varying
seasons of the year, so God administers entire ages of time, as if they were, so
to speak, so many individual years, performing during each one of them what is
requisite with a reasonable regard to the care of the world; and this, as it is
truly understood by God alone, so also is it accomplished by Him.

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;297 and it hints that the nature of evil is not wholly wicked, because
that which may be considered so in individual cases, may contain something which
is of advantage to the whole community. However, lest any one should mistake my
words, and find a pretence of wrongdoing, as if his wickedness were profitable
to the world, or at least might be so, we have to say, that although God, who
preserves the free-will of each individual, may make use of the evil of the
wicked for the administration of the world, so disposing them as to conduce to
the benefit of the whole; yet, notwithstanding, such an individual is deserving
of censure, and as such has been appointed for a use, which is a subject of
loathing to each separate individual, although of advantage to the whole
community.298 It is as if one were to say that in the case of a city, a man who
had committed certain crimes, and on account of these had been condemned to
serve in public works that were useful to the community, did something that was
of advantage to the entire city, while he himself was engaged in an abominable
task,299 in which no one possessed of moderate understanding would wish to be
engaged. Paul also, the apostle of Jesus, teaches us that even the very wicked
will contribute to the good of the whole, while in themselves they will be
amongst the vile, but that the most virtuous men, too, will be of the greatest
advantage to the world, and will therefore on that account occupy the noblest
position. His words are: "But 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. If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour,
sanctified and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work."300
These remarks I have thought it necessary to make in reply to the assertion,
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 either to yourself or to
another," in order that no one may take occasion from what has been said on the
subject to commit sin, on the pretext that he will thus be useful to the world.

Chapter LXXI. But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the
language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of
view,301 ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the
ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as
we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our
own power of eloquence,302 but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our
charge, both say and do those thingS which may appear to us useful for the
correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God
appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and
the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of
its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally, with regard to such a style
of speaking about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: "The
Lord thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of his
son."303 It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the
advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would
not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to
say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of
His own person. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy
Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those
who are called "spiritual," by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to
those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter
understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him
who is capable of comprehending it.

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 asumed 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 Psalms 6, "O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, neither
chasten me in Thy hot displeasure; "304 and also in jeremiah. "O Lord, correct
me, but with judgment: not in Thine anger, lest Thou bring me to nothing."305
Any one, moreover, who reads in the second book of Kings of the "wrath" of God,
inducing David to number the people, and finds from the first book of Chronicles
that it was the devil who suggested this measure, will, on comparing together
the two statements, easily see for what purpose the "wrath" is mentioned, of
which "wrath," as the Apostle Paul declares, all men are children: "We were by
nature children of wrath, even as others."306 Moreover, that "wrath" is no
passion on the part of God, but that each one bringS it upon himself by his
sins, will be clear from the further statement of Paul: "Or despisest thou the
riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that
the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and
impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and
revelation of the righteous judgment of God." How, then, can any one treasure up
for himself "wrath" against a "day of wrath," if "wrath" be understood in the
sense of "passion? "or how can the "passion of wrath" be a help to discipline?
Besides, the Scripture, which tells us not to be angry at all, and which says in
the Psalms 37, "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath,"307 and which commands us
by the mouth of Paul to "put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy,
filthy communication,"308 would not involve God in the same passion from which
it would have us to be altogether free. It is manifest, further, that the
language used regarding the wrath of God is to be understood figuratively from
what is related of His "sleep," from which, as if awaking Him, the prophet says:
"Awake, why sleepest Thou, Lord? "309 and again: "Then the Lord awaked as one
out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine."310 If,
then, "sleep" must mean something else, and not what the first acceptation of
the word conveys, why should not "wrath" also be understood in a similar way?
The "threatenings," again, are intimations of the (punishments) which are to
befall the wicked: for it is as if one were to call the words of a physician
"threats," when he tells his patients, "I will have to use the knife, and apply
cauteries, if you do not obey my prescriptions, and regulate your diet and mode
of life in such a way as I direct you." It is no human passions, then, which we
ascribe to God, nor impious opinions which we entertain of Him; nor do we err
when we present the various narratives concerning Him, drawn from the Scriptures
themselves, after careful comparison one with another. For those who are wise
ambassadors of the "word" have no other object in view than to free as far as
they can their hearers from weak opinions, and to endue them with intelligence.

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.311 I think, too, that as in
cities the superintendents of the goods and market discharge their duties for
the sake of no other than human beings, while dogs and other irrational animals
have the benefit of the superabundance; so Providence provides in a special
manner for rational creatures; while this l also follows, that irrational
creatures likewise enjoy the benefit of what is done for the sake of man. And as
he is in error who alleges that the superintendents of the markets312 make
provision in no greater degree for men than for dogs, because dogs also get
their share of the goods; so in a far greater degree are Celsus and they who
think with him guilty of impiety towards the God who makes provision for
rational beings, in asserting that His arrangements are made in no greater
degree for the sustenance of human beings than for that of plants, and trees,
and herbs, and thorns.

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 herbs, and thorns, grow for the use
of men, why will you maintain that they grow for the use of men rather than for
that of the most savage of irrational animals? "Let Celsus then say distinctly
that the great diversity among the products of the earth is not the work of
Providence, but that a certain fortuitous concurrence of atoms313 gave birth to
qualities so diverse, and that it was owing to chance that so many kinds of
plants, and trees, and herbs resemble one another, and that no disposing reason
gave existence to them,314 and that they do not derive their origin from an
understanding that is beyond all admiration. We Christians, however, who are
devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these things, feel grateful
for them to Him who made them, because not only for us, but also (on our
account) for the animals which are subject to us, He has prepared such a
home,315 seeing "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the
service of man, that He may bring forth food out of the earth, and wine that
maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which
strengtheneth man's heart."316 But that He should have provided food even for
the most savage animals is not matter of surprise, for these very animals are
said by some who have philosophized (upon the subject) to have been created for
the purpose of affording exercise to the rational creature. And one of our own
wise men says somewhere: "Do not say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for
all things have been made for their uses. And do not say, What is this? or
Wherefore is that? for everything shall be sought out in its season."317

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,318 while all things are produced for them without their sowing and
ploughing." He does not observe that God, wishing to exercise the human
understanding in all countries (that it might not remain idle and unacquainted
with the arts), created man a being full of wants,319 in order that by virtue of
his very needy condition he might be compelled to be the inventor of arts, some
of which minister to his subsistence, and others to his protection. For it was
better that those who would not have sought out divine things, nor engaged in
the study of philosophy, should be placed in a condition of want, in order that
they might employ their understanding in the invention of the arts, than that
they should altogether neglect the cultivation of their minds, because their
condition was one of abundance. The want of the necessaries of human life led to
the invention on the one hand of the art of husbandry, on the other to that of
the cultivation of the vine; again, to the art of gardening, and the arts of
carpentry and smithwork, by means of which were formed the tools required for
the arts which minister to the support of life. The want of covering, again,
introduced the art of weaving, which followed that of wool-carding and spinning;
and again, that of house-building: and thus the intelligence of men ascended
even to the art of architecture. The want of necessaries caused the products
also of other places to be conveyed, by means of the arts of sailing and
pilotage,320 to those who were without them; so that even on that account one
might admire the Providence which made the rational being subject to want in a
far higher degree than the irrational animals, and yet all with a view to his
advantage. For the irrational animals have their food provided for them, because
there is not in them even an impulse321 towards the invention of the arts. They
have, besides, a natural covering; for they are provided either with hair, or
wings, or scales, or shells. Let the above, then, be our answer to the
assertions of Celsus, when he says that "we indeed by labour and suffering earn
a scanty and toilsome subsistence, while all things are produced for them
without their sowing and ploughing."

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, '322 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 bodies323 are our servants;
but he also has said this, who, according to some, is the philosopher of the
stage,324 and who was a hearer of the lectures on the philosophy of nature
delivered by Anaxagoras. But this man asserts that all things in the world are
subject to all rational beings,-one rational nature being taken to represent
all, On the principle of a part standing for the whole;325 which, again, clearly
appears from the verse:-

"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 himself326 what is said on behalf of
man, viz., that the irrational animals were created on his account, saying: "If
one were to call us the lords of the animal creation because we hunt the other
animals and live upon their flesh, we would say, Why were not we rather created
on their account, since they hunt and devour us? Nay, we require nets and
weapons, and the assistance of many persons, along with dogs, when engaged in
the chase; while they are immediately and spontaneously provided by nature with
weapons which easily bring us under their power." And here we may observe, that
the gift of understanding has been bestowed upon us as a mighty aid, far
superior to any weapon which wild beasts may seem to possess. We, indeed, who
are far weaker in bodily strength than the beasts, and shorter in stature than
some of them, yet by means of our understanding obtain the mastery, and capture
the huge elephants. We subdue by our gentle treatment those animals whose nature
it is to be tamed, while with those whose nature is different, or which do not
appear likely to be of use to us when tamed, we take such precautionary
measures, that when we desire it, we keep such wild beasts shut up; and when we
need the flesh of their bodies for food, we slaughter them, as we do those
beasts which are not of a savage nature. The Creator, then, has constituted all
things the servants of the rational being and of his natural understanding. For
some purposes we require dogs, say as guardians of our sheep-folds, or of our
cattle-yards, or goat-pastures, or of our dwellings; and for other purposes we
need oxen, as for agriculture; and for others, again, we make use of those which
bear the yoke, or beasts of burden. And so it may be said that the race of
lions, and bears, and leopards, and wild boars, and such like, has been given to
us in order to call into exercise the elements of the manly character that
exists within us.

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 gays, "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 if 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 elements327 of the human race
should at the commencement of its existence be placed under some protection of
the higher powers, so that there might be formed from the beginning a union of
the divine nature with that of men. And the poet of Ascra, perceiving this,
sings:- "For common then were banquets, and common were seats, Alike to immortal
gods and mortal men."328

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.329 For it was probable that in the beginning
of the world's existence human nature would be assisted to a greater degree
(than afterwards), until progress had been made towards the attainment of
understanding and the other virtues, and the invention of the arts, and they
should thus be able to maintain life of themselves, and no longer stand in need
of superintendents, and of those to guide them who do so with a miraculous
manifestation of the means which subserve the will of God. Now it follows from
this, that it is false that "in the beginning men were captured and devoured by
wild beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom caught by men." And from this,
too, it is evident that the following statement of Celsus is untrue, that "in
this way God rather subjected men to wild beasts." For God did not subject men
to wild beasts, but gave wild beasts to be a prey to the understanding of man,
and to the arts, which are directed against them, and which are the product of
the understanding. For it was not without the help of God330 that men desired
for themselves the means of protection against wild beasts, and of securing the
mastery over them.

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,331 this is to say nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees
do the same. Bees, indeed, have a sovereign, who has followers and attendants;
and there occur among them wars and victories, and slaughterings of the
vanquished,332 and cities and suburbs, and a succession of labours, and
judgments passed upon the idle and the wicked; for the drones are driven away
and punished." Now here he did not observe the difference that exists between
what is done after reason and consideration, and what is the result of an
irrational nature, and is purely mechanical. For the origin of these things is
not explained by the existence of any rational principle in those who make them,
because they do not possess any such principle; but the most ancient Being, who
is also the Son of God, and the King of all things that exist, has created an
irrational nature, which, as being irrational, acts as a help to those who are
deemed worthy of reason. Cities, accordingly, were established among men, with
many arts and well-arranged laws; while constitutions, and governments, and
sovereignties among men are either such as are properly so termed, and which
exemplify certain virtuous tendencies and workings, or they are those which are
improperly so called, and which were devised, so far as could be done, in
imitation of the former: for it was by contemplating these that the most
successful legislators established the best constitutions, and governments, and
sovereignties. None of these things, however, can be found among irrational
animals, although Celsus may transfer rational names, and arrangements which
belong to rational beings, as cities and constitutions, and rulers and
sovereignties, even to ants and bees; in respect to which matters, however, ants
and bees merit no approval, because they do not act from reflection. But we
ought to admire the divine nature, which extended even to irrational animals the
capacity, as it were, of imitating rational beings, perhaps with a view of
putting rational beings to shame; so that by looking upon ants, for instance,
they might become more industrious and more thrifty in the management of their
goods; while, by considering the bees, they might place themselves in subjection
to their Ruler, and take their respective parts in those constitutional duties
which are of use in ensuring the safety of cities.

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, both for cure of disordered
bodies, and as a pure article of food. Nor ought we to compare the proceedings
taken by the bees against the drones with the judgments and punishments
inflicted on the idle and wicked in cities. But, as I formerly said, we ought on
the one hand in these things to admire the divine nature, and on the other to
express our admiration of man, who is capable of considering and admiring all
things (as co-operating with Providence), and who executes not merely the works
which are determined by the providence of God, but also those which are the
consequences of his own foresight.

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,333 and so evince his contempt for the
forethought which makes provision for winter, as being nothing higher than the
irrational providence of the ants, as he regards it. it. Now might not some of
the more simple-minded, and such as know not how to look into the nature of all
things, be turned away (so far, at least, as Celsus could accomplish it) from
helping those who are weighed down with the burdens (of life), and from sharing
their toils, when he says of the ants, that "they help one another with their
loads, when they see one of their number toiling under them? "For he who needs
to be disciplined by the word, but who does not at all understand334 its voice,
will say: "Since, then, there is no difference between us and the ants, even
when we help those who are weary with bearing their heavy burdens, why should we
continue to do so to no purpose? "And would not the ants, as being irrational
creature, be greatly puffed up, and think highly of themselves, because their
works were compared to those of men? while men, on the other hand, who by means
of their reason are enabled to hear how their philanthropy335 towards others is
contemned, would be injured, so far as could be effected by Celsus and his
arguments: for he does not perceive that, while he wishes to turn away from
Christianity those who read his treatise, he turns away also the sympathy of
those who are not Christians from those who bear the heaviest burdens (of life).
Whereas, had he been a philosopher, who was capable of perceiving the good which
men may do each other, he ought, in addition to not removing along with
Christianity the blessings which are found amongst men, to have lent his aid to
co-operate (if he had it in his power) with those principles of excellence which
are common to Christianity and the rest of mankind. Moreover, even if the ants
set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that they
may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their food, this
is not to be deemed as evidence of the existence of reason among ants, but as
the work of the universal mother, Nature, which adorned even irrational animals,
so that even the most insignificant is not omitted, but bears traces of the
reason implanted in it by nature. Unless, indeed, by these assertions Celsus
means obscurely to intimate (for in many instances he would like to adopt
Platonic ideas) that all souls are of the same species, and that there is no
difference between that of a man and those of ants and bees, which is the act of
one who would bring down the soul from the vault of heaven, and cause it to
enter not only a human body, but that of an animal. Christians, however, will
not yield their assent to such opinions: for they have been instructed before
now that the human soul was created in the image of God; and they see that it is
impossible for a nature fashioned in the divine image to have its (original)
features altogether obliterated, and to assume others, formed after I know not
what likeness of irrational animals.

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 skill336 which exists among men, and which is capable of
adorning by its reason even the gifts which are bestowed by nature on the
irrational creation. But why do I say "irrational," since Celsus is of opinion
that these animals, which, agreeably to the common ideas of all men, are termed
irrational, are not really so? Nor does he regard the ants as devoid of reason,
who professed to speak of "universal nature," and who boasted of his
truthfulness in the inscription of his book. For, speaking of the ants
conversing with one another, he uses the following language: "And when they meet
one another they enter into conversation, for which reason they never mistake
their way; consequently they possess a full endowment of reason, and some common
ideas on certain general subjects, and a voice by which they express themselves
regarding accidental things."337 Now conversation between one man and another is
carried on by means of a voice, which gives expression to the meaning intended,
and which also gives utterances concerning what are called "accidental things;
"but to say that this was the case with ants would be a most ridiculous
assertion.

Chapter LXXXV.

He is not ashamed, moreover, to say, in addition to these statements (that the
unseemly character338 of his opinions may be manifest to those who will live
after him): "Come now, if one were to look down from heaven upon earth, in what
respect would our actions appear to differ from those of ants and bees? "Now
does he who, according to his own supposition, looks from heaven upon the
proceedings of men and ants, look upon their bodies alone, and not rather have
regard to the controlling reason which is called into action by reflection;339
while, on the other hand, the guiding principle of the latter is irrational, and
set in motion irrationally by impulse and fancy, in conjunction with a certain
natural apparatus?340 But it is absurd to suppose that he who looks from heaven
upon earthly things would desire to look from such a distance upon the bodies of
men and ants, and would not rather consider the nature of the guiding
principles, and the source of impulses, whether that be rational or irrational.
And if he once look upon the source of all impulses, it is manifest that he
would behold also the difference which exists, and the superiority of man, not
only over ants, but even over elephants. For he who looks from heaven will see
among irrational creatures, however large their bodies, no other principle341
than, so to speak, irrationality;342 while amongst rational beings he will
discover reason, the common possession of men, and of divine and heavenly
beings, and perhaps of the Supreme God Himself, on account of which man is said
to have been created in the image of God, for the image of the Supreme God is
his reason.343

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;344 for the term "sorcery" has by usage been assigned to
something else. Perhaps, indeed, he wishes quietly, as an Epicurean, to censure
the entire use of such arts, as resting only on the professions of sorcerers.
However, let it be granted him that men do pride themselves greatly upon the
knowledge of such arts, whether they are sorcerers or not: how can serpents be
in this respect wiser than men, when they make use of the well-known fennel345
to sharpen their power of vision and to produce rapidity of movement, having
obtained this natural power not from the exercise of reflection, but from the
constitution of their body,346 while men do not, like serpents, arrive at such
knowledge merely by nature, but partly by experiment, partly by reason, and
sometimes by reflection and knowledge? So, if eagles, too, in order to preserve
their young in the nest, carry thither the eagle-stone347 when they have
discovered it, how does it appear that they are wise, and more intelligent than
men, who find out by the exercise of their reflective powers and of their
understanding what has been bestowed by nature upon eagles as a gift?

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 (exclusive348 of all others) the sole discovery made by serpents,
and some other thing the sole discovery of the eagle, and so on with the rest of
the animals; but as many discoveries would have been made amongst them as among
men. But now it is manifest from the determinate inclination of the nature of
each animal towards certain kinds of help, that they possess neither wisdom nor
reason, but a natural constitutional tendency implanted by the Logoj349 towards
such things in order to ensure the preservation of the animal. And, indeed, if I
wished to join issue with Celsus in these matters, I might quote the words of
Solomon from the book of Proverbs, which run thus: "There be four things which
are little upon the earth, but these are wiser than the wise: The ants are a
people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; the conies350 are
but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; the locusts have no
king, yet go they forth in order at one command; and the spotted lizard,351
though leaning upon its hands, and being easily captured, dwelleth in kings'
fortresses."352 I do not quote these words, however, as taking them in their
literal signification, but, agreeably to the title of the book (for it is
inscribed "Proverbs"), I investigate them as containing a secret meaning. For it
is the custom of these writers (of Scripture) to distribute into many classes
those writings which express one sense when taken literally,353 but which convey
a different signification as their hidden meaning; and one of these kinds of
writing is "Proverbs." And for this reason, in our Gospels too, is our Saviour
described as saying: "These things have I spoken to you in proverbs, but the
time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs."354 It is not,
then, the visible ants which are "wiser even than the wise," but they who are
indicated as such under the "proverbial" style of expression. And such must be
our conclusion regarding the rest of the animal creation, although Celsus
regards the books of the Jews and Christians as exceedingly simple and
commonplace,355 and imagines that those who give them an allegorical
interpretation do violence to the meaning of the writers. By what we have said,
then, let it appear that Celsus calumniates us in vain, and let his assertions
that serpents and eagles are wiser than men also receive their refutation.

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
divination356 that the animals receive their impulses to action-the birds to
flights and sounds of different kinds, and the other animals to movements of one
sort or another. Others, again, believe that their souls are more divine in
their nature, and fitted to operations of that kind, which is a most incredible
supposition.

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.357 For Celsus,
although a man, and "being in honour,"358 does not possess understanding, and
therefore he did not compare himself with the birds and the other irrational
animals, which he regards as capable of divining; but yielding to them the
foremost place, he lowered himself, and as far as he could the whole human race
with him (as entertaining lower and inferior views of God than the irrational
animals), beneath the Egyptians, who worship irrational animals as divinities.
Let the principal point of investigation, however, be this: whether there
actually is or not an art of divination, by means of birds and other living
things believed to have such power. For the arguments which tend to establish
either view are not to be despised. On the one hand, it is pressed upon us not
to admit such an art, lest the rational being should abandon the divine oracles,
and betake himself to birds; and on the other, there is the energetic testimony
of many, that numerous individuals have been saved from the greatest dangers by
putting their trust in divination by birds. For the present, however, let it be
granted that an art of divination does exist, in order that I may in this way
show to those who are prejudiced on the subject, that if this be admitted, the
superiority of man over irrational animals, even over those that are endowed
with power of divination, is great, and beyond all reach of comparison with the
latter. We have then to say, that if there was in them any divine nature capable
of foretelling future events, and so rich (in that knowledge) as out of its
superabundance to make them known to any man who wished to know them, it is
manifest that they would know what concerned themselves far sooner (than what
concerned others); and had they possessed this knowledge, they would have been
upon their guard against flying to any particular place where men had planted
snares and nets to catch them, or where archers took aim and shot at them in
their flight. And especially, were eagles aware beforehand of the designs formed
against their young, either by serpents crawling up to their nests and
destroying them, or by men who take them for their amusement, or for any other
useful purpose or service, they would not have placed their young in a spot
where they were to be attacked; and, in general, not one of these animals would
have been captured by men, because they were more divine and intelligent than
they.

Chapter XCI. But besides, if birds of augury converse with one another,359 as
Celsus maintains they do, the prophetic birds having a divine nature, and the
other rational animals also ideas of the divinity and foreknowledge of future
events; and if they had communicated this knowledge to others, the sparrow
mentioned in Homer would not have built her nest in the spot where a serpent was
to devour her and her young ones, nor would the serpent in the writings of the
same poet have failed to take precautions against being captured by the eagle.
For this wonderful poet says, in his poem regarding the former:- "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."360 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."361 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 meaning362 that Apollo employs
the hawk363 as his messenger, for the hawk364 is called the "swift messenger of
Apollo."365

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,366 which exist in these animals.

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 prophets, these animals are employed as examples of all that is most
wicked; and that a wolf or a fox is never mentioned for a good purpose. Each
species of demon, consequently, would seem to possess a certain affinity with a
certain species of animal. And as among men there are some who are stronger than
others, and this not at all owing to their moral character, so, in the same way,
some demons will be more powerful in things indifferent than others;367 and one
class of them employs one kind of animal for the purpose of deluding men, in
accordance with the will of him who is called in our Scriptures the "prince of
this world," while others predict future events by means of another kind of
animal. Observe, moreover, to what a pitch of wickedness the demons proceed, so
that they even assume the bodies of weasels in order to reveal the future! And
now, consider with yourself whether it is better to accept the belief that it is
the Supreme God and His Son who stir up the birds and the other living creatures
to divination, or that those who stir up these creatures, and not human beings
(although they are present before them), are wicked, and, as they are called by
our Scriptures, unclean demons.

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
omens368 are accepted by men, the souls of those are divine through which the
omens are heard? Accordingly, among such would be ranked the female slave
mentioned in Homer, who ground the corn, when she said regarding the suitors:-
"For the very last time, now, will they sup here."369 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."370

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."371 And Penelope, too, said:- "Perceiv'st thou not that at every word
my son did sneeze? "372

Chapter XCV. The true God, however, neither employs irrational animals, nor any
individuals whom chance may offer,373 to convey a knowledge of the future; but,
on the contrary, the most pure and holy of human souls, whom He inspires and
endows with prophetic power. And therefore, whatever else in the Mosaic writings
may excite our wonder, the following must be considered as fitted to do so: "Ye
shall not practise augury, nor observe the flight of birds; "374 and in another
place: "For the nations whom the Lord thy God will destroy from before thy face,
shall listen to omens and divinations; but as for thee, the Lord thy God has not
suffered thee to do so."375 And he adds: "A prophet shall the Lord your God
raise up unto you from among your brethren."376 On one occasion, moreover, God,
wishing by means of an augur to turn away (His people) from the practice of
divination, caused the spirit that was in the augur to speak as follows: "For
there is no enchantment in Jacob, nor is there divination in Israel. In due time
will it be declared to Jacob and Israel what the Lord will do."377 And now, we
who knew these and similar sayings wish to observe this precept with the
mystical meaning, viz., "Keep thy heart with all diligence,"378 that nothing of
a demoniacal nature may enter into our minds, or any spirit of our adversaries
turn our imagination whither it chooses. But we pray that the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God may shine in our hearts, and that the Spirit of
God may dwell in our imaginations, and lead them to contemplate the things of
God; for "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."379

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 signs380 (of good or bad weather), and the approach of
violent tempests of wind, and atmospheric changes,381 because they gather this
knowledge from experience and observation, although I do not suppose that on
that account any one would term them "gods" if their characters happened to be
bad. The assertion, then, of Celsus is false, when he says: "What could be
called more divine than the power of foreknowing and foretelling the future?
"And so also is this, that "many of the animals claim to have ideas of God; "for
none of the irrational animals possess any idea of God. And wholly false, too,
is his assertion, that "the irrational animals are nearer the society of God
(than men)," when even men who are still in a state of wickedness, however great
their progress in knowledge, are far removed from that society. It is, then,
those alone who are truly wise and sincerely religious who are nearer to God's
society; such persons as were our prophets, and Moses, to the latter of whom, on
account of his exceeding purity, the Scripture said: "Moses alone shall come
near the Lord, but the rest shall not come nigh."382

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 incongruous383 in itself, but full of absurdity. In order
that we may believe, however, that certain individuals do learn from the
indistinct sound of birds that they are about to take their departure, and do
this thing or that, and announce these things beforehand, we would say that this
information is imparted to men by demons by means of signs, with the view of
having men deceived by demons, and having their understanding dragged down from
God and heaven to earth, and to places lower still.

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 affection384 in bringing food to its parents for
their support, we have to say in reply, that this is done by the storks, not
from a regard to what is proper, nor from reflection, but from a natural
instinct; the nature which formed them being desirous to show an instance among
the irrational animals which might put men to shame, in the matter of exhibiting
their gratitude to their parents. And if Celsus had known how great the
difference is between acting in this way from reason, and from an irrational
natural impulse, he would not have said that storks are more pious than human
beings. But further, Celsus, as still contending for the piety of the irrational
creation, quotes the instance of the Arabian bird the phoenix, which after many
years repairs to Egypt, and bears thither its parent, when dead and buried in a
ball of myrrh, and deposits its body in the Temple of the Sun. Now this story is
indeed recorded, and, if it be true,385 it is possible that it may occur in
consequence of some provision of nature; divine providence freely displaying to
human beings, by the differences which exist among living things, the variety of
constitution which prevails in the world, and which extends even to birds, and
in harmony with which He has brought into existence one creature, the only one
of its kind, in order that by it men may be led to admire, not the creature, but
Him who created it.

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.386 And God takes care of the whole, and (His) providence
will never forsake it; and it does not become worse; nor does God after a time
bring it back to himself; nor is He angry on account of men any more than on
account of apes or flies; nor does He threaten these beings, each one of which
has received its appointed lot in its proper place." Let us then briefly reply
to these statements. I think, indeed, that I have shown in the preceding pages
that all things were created for man, and every rational being, and that it was
chiefly for the sake of the rational creature that the creation took place.
Celsus, indeed, may say that this was done not more for man than for lions, or
the other creatures which he mentions; but we maintain that the Creator did not
form these things for lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but all for the sake of the
rational creature, and "in order that this world, as being God's work, might be
perfect and complete in all things." For to this sentiment we must yield our
assent as being well said. And God takes care, not, as Celsus supposes, merely
of the whole, but beyond the whole, in a special degree of every rational being.
Nor will Providence ever abandon the whole; for although it should become more
wicked, owing to the sin of the rational being, which is a portion of the whole,
He makes arrangements to purify it, and after a time to bring back the whole to
Himself. Moreover, He is not angry with apes or flies; but on human beings, as
those who have transgressed the laws of nature, He sends judgments and
chastisements, and threatens them by the mouth of the prophets, and by the
Saviour who came to visit the whole human race, that those who hear the
threatenings may be converted by them, while those who neglect these calls to
conversion may deservedly suffer those punishments which it becomes God, in
conformity with that will of His which acts for the advantage of the whole, to
inflict upon those who need such painful discipline and correction. But as our
fourth book has now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall here terminate our
discourse. And may God grant, through His Son, who is God the Word, and Wisdom,
and Truth, and Righteousness, and everything else which the sacred Scriptures
when speaking of God call Him, that we may make a good beginning of the fifth
book, to the benefit of our readers, and may bring it to a successful
conclusion, with the aid of His word abiding in our soul.

1: Cf. Jer. i. 9, 10.

2: Cf. Gen. xi. 4.

3: Cf. 2 Cor. x. 5.

4: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 9.

5: tou0j a0na/lofon au0rw=| profhtikou\j lo/fouj. .

6: dikaiwth/j .

7: a0kolouqi/aj .

8: Piqano/thtoj .

9: Dikaiwth/sm not Dikasth/j .

10: tou\j karpou=j th=j tou= Qeou basilsi9aj a0podw/sousi tw=| Qew=|, e0n toi=j
e9ka/sthj pra/cewj ou!shj karpou= th=j basilei/aj kairoi=j|. .

11: eu0h/qwj .

12: The word fu/sei which is found in the text seems out of place, and has been
omitted in the translation, agreeably to the emendation of Boherellus.

13: 'Ara fa\r h!qele fantasioume/noij toi=j a0nqrw/poij u9po= Qeou=,
a0peilhfo/toj me\n a/qro/wj th\n kaki/an. emfu/ontoj di\ th\n a0reth\n, th=n
e0panoi/rqwdin gene/sqai ;

14: 'Ara fa\r h!qele fantasioume/noij toi=j a0nqrw/poij u9po= Qeou=,
a0peilhfo/toj me\n a/qro/wj th\n kaki/an. emfu/ontoj di\ th\n a0reth\n, th=n
e0panoi/rqwdin gene/sqai ;

15: oi9 la\r e0pi\ ta\ ne/ltista prokalou/menoi lo/foi, Qeou= au0tou\j
dedwko/toj, ei0si\n e0n a0nqrw/poij. .

16: lennaio/tatoj .

17: Wisd. Solom. i. 7, kai\ to\ sune/xon ta\ pa\nta gnw=sin e!xei fwnh=j. .

18: Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.

19: Cf. Acts xvii. 28.

20: kai\ para\ tou=t' e!latton e!cein dokw=n .

21: kaqa\per oi9 neo/ploutoi tw=n a0nqrw/pwn e0pideiktiw=tej, pollh/n tina kai\
pa/nu qnhth\n filotmi/an tou= Qeou= katamarturou=si .

22: oi0kei/wsin .

23: meta\ tosou=ton ai0w=na .

24: dikaiw=sai .

25: to\ lagiko\n zw=on .

26: e0n th= paradoxh= th=j qeio/thtoj .

27: e0cai/reto/n ti xrh=ma .

28: Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (according to the LXX.).

29: Cf. Ps. ii. 8.

30: Ei0si\ ga/r tinej ei0rmoi\ kai\ a0kolouqi/ai a!fatoi kai\ a0nekdih/fhtoi
peri\ th=j kata\ ta\j a0nqrwti/naj yuxa\: diafo/rou oi0konomi/aj .

31: au0to\j e!fa. .

32: [The word "reliable" is used here. I cannot let it stand, and have supplied
an English word instead].

33: sunqiasw=tai .

34: tw= panti/ .

35: oi/k a0xrh/stouj . On Origen's views respecting rewards and punishments, cf.
Huet's Origeniana , book ii. question xi.

36: ou0k e0pe/sth .

37: di/khn basanistou= pu=r fe/rwn .

38: [Note this testimony to the authorship of Koheleth , and that it is
Scripture.] 39: Cf. Eccles. i. 9.

40: ei0 xph\ e0pisthsanta toi=j xro/noij ei0pei=n .

41: a0ne/tlasan kata\ perio/odou: tauto/thtasj kai\ a0paralla/ktouj toi=j
i0di/oij poioi=j kai toi=j sumbebhko/sin au0toi=j .

42: kaki/an e0ti\ plei=on xeome/nhn .

43: Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.

44: sugkatabai/nein .

45: [On this figure ( anthropopathy ) see vol. ii. p. 363, this series.]

46: geu=sai .

47: Cf. Deut. iv. 24, ix. 3.

48: Cf. Dan. vii. 10.

49: Cf. Mal. iii. 2.

50: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.

51: swmatikw=j .

52: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 13-15.

53: th\n tou= xrusou= (i#n' ou#twj o0noma/sw), fu/sin th=j yux h=j, h@ th=n
a0rgu/rou, dolwsa/ntwn .

54: [See note supra , cap. x. S.] 55: 9O Qeo\j a0gaqo/j e0sti, kai\ kalo\j, kai=
e0dai/mwn, kai\ e0n tw=| kalli/stw. kai\ a0ri/stw| .

56: kata/basin .

57: th= pronoi/a| kai\ th= oikonomi/a| .

58: Ps. cii. 27.

59: Mal. iii. 6.

60: h9gemoniko/n .

61: The reading in the text is, e0pi\ me/rouj gi/netai au0th=j , which is thus
corrected by Guietus: e0pimerh\j gi/netai au0to\j .

62: Cf. Phil. ii. 6, 7.

63: Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 22.

64: Cf. 2 Cor. v. 21.

65: [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.] 66: prohgoume/nhn .

67: a!timon .

68: e0klei=pon .

69: [The transfiguration did not conflict with his mortal nature, nor the
incarnation with his immortality .] 70: ti/ a0kolouqei= .

71: [Such are the accomodations reflected upon by Gieseler. See Book III. cap.
lxxix., supra .] 72: ti/ a!topon .

73: Phil. ii. 5-9.

74: o!mwj d' a0pologhso/meqa, o@ti ou0 fh\j, w\ Ke/lse, w9j e0n farma/kou moi/ra
pote\ di/dotai xrh=sqai tw= plana=n kai\ tw= yeu/desqai .

75: prohgoume/nwj, a0ll' e0k perista/sewj .

76: Cf. Plato in the Timaeus , and book iii., de Legibus .

77: safh/j .

78: 'Epa\n to\ prokei/menon h\ parasth=sai kai/ ta/ th=j kata/ to/n to\pon
isnopi\aj ti/na e!xoi lo/gon, kai\ ta\ th=j pperi\ au0tou= a0nagwgh=j .

79: Otus and Ephialtes. Cf. Smith's Dict. of Myth. and Biog ., s.v.

80: Cf. Hom., Odyss ., xi. 305.

81: [Demonstrated by Justin, vol. i. pp. 277, 278, this series.] 82: a9gistei/aj
.

83: e0peskkoph/qhsan .

84: Qei=o/n ti kai= i9ero\n xrh=ma gego/e/nai to\n 'Ihsou=n .

85: ou0d' a0pokatastafh/sontai . [A very bold and confident assertion this must
have seemed sixteen hundred years ago.] 86: kai\ a9rmo/zontaj th= pantaxou=
kaqestw/sh politei/a .

87: u9po\ oi0kei/wn kai\ omoh/qwn .

88: th\n ou0ra/nion fora/n .

89: e0mpoliteu/etai .

90: e0ceuteli/zontej .

91: eu0tele/si .

92: ou0k e0n sw/mati kri/netai .

93: gu/pej : gru/pej ?

94: kai\ kata\ pa=san a0reth\n pepoi/wtai .

95: The allusion may possibly be to his flight from the field of Chaeronea, 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.

96: a0fopma\j e!xon pro\j a0reth/n .

97: u9potupw/seij .

98: ta\ au0to/qen pa=si profaino/mena do/gmata Xristianw=n kai\ 'Ioudai\wn .

99: fantasi/a d' eu0sebei/aj .

100: h@ kai\ ta\ 9dhmiourgh/mata .

101: li/qwnkai/ cu/lwn .

102: diarkei=n .

103: u9po\ logikw=n piqanoth/twn .

104: th\n ou0ra/nion fora/n .

105: bdelu/ssetai .

106: Cf. Wisd. of Solom. xi. 26, xii. 1, 2.

107: Ps. xxxiii. 5.

108: Ecclus. xviii. 13.

109: Cf. Matt. v. 45.

110: Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 10.

111: Cf. 1 John ii. 2.

112: Cf. Rom. v. 8.

113: Cf. Rom. v. 7.

114: timiw/tera .

115: Cf. Ps. lxxxii. 1.

116: daimo/nia . Cf. Ps. xcvi. 5.

117: Cf. Ps. lxxxii. 1.

118: 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

119: Cf. Matt. xxii. 30.

120: Cf. Luke xx. 36.

121: Cf. 1 John iii. 2.

122: kai\ tou=to/ g'a@n e9rmhneu/oimmi, to\ 123: w#ste kai\ h9 au0th\ a0nqrw/pou
kai\ Qeou= . Cf. Cicero, de Leg ., i.: "Jam vero virtus eadem in homine ac deo
est, neque ullo alio in genio praeterea. 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: Ou0 ga\r, kaqa/per oi9
Stwi>\koi\, a\qe/wj, pa/nu th\n au0th\n a0reth\n a0nqrw/pou le/gomen kai\ Qeou=
. [See vol. ii. p. 549. S.] Cf. Theodoret, Serm ., xi. - Spencer.

124: Cf. Matt. v. 48.

125: Cf. Gen. i. 26.

126: Cf. Gen. i. 27.

127: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

128: Cf. Dan. xii. 3.

129: Cf. Matt. xx. 27.

130: Cf. Eurip., Phoeniss , 546, 547.

131: bwmolo/xoj .

132: kai\ a0meibousi sw/mata .

133: Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 11.

134: Cf. Rom. i. 19.

135: Rom. i. 21-23.

136: ou!t' e0n lo/gw| ou!t' e0n a0riqmw|= au\tou\j pote gegenhme/nouj .

137: e0politeu/eto .

138: [See note on Book III. cap. lxxvi. supra , and to vol. iii. p. 76, this
series.] 139: Cf. Deut. iv. 16-18.

140: Cf. Deut. iv. 19.

141: politei/a .

142: ou0de\ fai/nesqai qhludri/an oi[o/n t' h[n .

143: oi>\ tinej dia\ to\ kaqaro\n h\qoj, kai\ to\ u9pe\r a!nqrwpon .

144: qei/a| moi/ra| .

145: kai/toige pa/nta xa/lwn kinh/santej .

146: a\po\ prw/thj spora=j goh/twn kai: pla/nwn a0nqrw/pwn .

147: parechgou/menoi .

148: [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.]

149: ei>\te kai\ u0to/qen semnu/nousan e0n a0por0r9h/toij tou\j a!ndraj, ei!te
kai\ di' u9ponoiw=n ai0nissme/nhn tina\ mega/la kai\ qauma/sia toi=j qewrh=sai
au0ta\ dunagrafh=sai au0ta\ duname/noij .

150: mustikh=j a0nagrafh=j .

151: e0rou=me/n te: o#ti mh/pote to\ kai\ u9f' u9mw=n paralamba/nesqai ta\
o0no/mata tw=n triw=n tou/twn genarxw=n tou= e!qnouj, th= e0nargei/a|
katalambano/ntwn, ou0k eu0katafro/nhta a0nu/esqai e0k rh=j katepiklh/sewj
au0tw=n, pari/sthsi to\ qei=on tw=n a0ndrw=n . Guietus would expunge the words
th= e0nargei/a| katalambano/ntwn .

152: [See p. 511, supra , on the formula of benediction and exorcism, and
compare Num. vi. 24.] 153: kata\ de\ Kelson, ou0 parista/nta . Libri editi ad
oram w9j parista/nta .

154: gennai/wj .

155: parechgou/menoi .

156: pare/r0r9iye .

157: sugku/yantej .

158: a0mouso/tata .

159: Cf. Plato, de Repub ., book ii. etc.

160: e0pi\ th=j pla/sewj .

161: Cf. Job x. 8 and Ps. cxix. 73.

162: sxh=ma .

163: kakoh/qeian .

164: pla/sewj .

165: Gen. ii. 7; Heb. wyp%/)ab@;

166: e0mfusw/menon .

167: Wisd. of Solom. xii. 1.

168: Cf. Gen. ii. 21, 22.

169: a0nti\ tou= puro/j .

170: xwri\j panto\j lo/gou kai/ tinoj e0pikru/yewj .

171: moxqi/zein .

172: Hesiod, Works and Days , i. 73-114 (Elton's translation [in substance.
S.]).

173: Hesiod, Works and Days , i.125-134 (Elton's translation [in substance.
S.]).

174: " mu=qo/n tina "

175: para/deisoj .

176: Penia, poverty; Porus, abundance.

177: dia\ th\n au\th=j a0pori/an .

178: e\n toi=j e0kei/nhj geneqli/oij .

179: e0n toiau=th| tu/xh| kaqe/sthke .

180: sklhro\j kai\ auxmhro/j .

181: e0ndei/a .

182: su/ntonoj .

183: deino/j .

184: kai\ fronh/sewj kai\ po/rimoj .

185: deino\j go/hj .

186: [Plato, Symposion , xxiii. p. 203. S.]

187: Boherellus, quem Ruaeus sequitur, in notis; "Ante voces": ti/na tro/pon ,
videtur deesse: qauma/sontai , aut quid simile." - Lommatzsch.

188: to\ lego/menon .

189: eu0katafronh/twn .

190: fusiologei= Mwu>\sh=j ta\ peri\ tou= a!qrw/pou fu/sewj .

191: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22 with Rom. v. 14.

192: ou0k e!sti kaq' h[j ou0 le/getai .

193: pteror0r9uou/shj . This is a correction for pterofuou/lhj , the textual
reading in the Benedictine and Spencer's edd.

194: a0llo/koton .

195: korw/nh .

196: paraxara/ttontej kai\ r9a|diourgou=ntej .

197: toi= duna/mei le/gesqai ta\ me/tra .

198: [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.] 199: paraxara/ttontej kai\ r9a|diourgou=ntej .

200: Cf. Matt. xxi. 43.

201: e!cwron .

202: Cf. Gen. iv. 8.

203: Cf. Gen. xxvii. 41.

204: a!gxista de\ toutoij pa=si sumpoliteu/omenon .

205: qeiothta .

206: e0r0r9wme/nwj .

207: Cf. Gen. xxx. 42 (LXX.). "The feebler were Laban's, and the stronger
Jacob's" (Auth. Vers.).

208: Cf. Gen. xxx. 43.

209: Cf. 1 Cor. x. 11.

210: par' oi[j ta\ poiki\la h!qh e0pi/shma geno/mena, tw=| logw\| tou= Qeou=
politeu/etai, doqe/nta kth=sij kaloume/nw| 'Iakw/b : e0pi/shma 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.

211: fre/ata .

212: la/kkouj .

213: th\n e0nupa/rxousan gh=n kai\ a0rxh\n tw=n poti/mwn a0gaqw=n . Boherellus
proposes: th\n e0nupa/rxousan phgh\n kai\ a0rxh\n tw=n poti/mwn u9da/twn .

214: Cf. Prov. v. 15-17.

215: Cf. Gen. xxvi. 15.

216: nu\mfaj .

217: Cf. Gal. iv. 21-24.

218: ta\ a0pemfai/nonta .

219: Gen. xix. 17.

220: oi9 e0pitugxa/nonte/j ge au0tw=n .

221: ou0k eu0katafro/nhtoj au0toi=j .

222: zw/puron .

223: boulh/mati .

224: e!xei de/ tina kai\ kaq' au0to\ a/pologi/an . [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.] 225: Cf. Homer, Iliad , vi. 160.

226: o9si\aj e#neken .

227: lata\ th\n prw/thn e0kdoxh/n .

228: tou\j spermatikou\j lo/gouj .

229: kata\ to\n prohgou/menon noh=n .

230: Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, and Deut. xxv. 4.

231: Cf. Eph. v. 31, 32. Cf. Gen. ii. 24.

232: Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1, 2.

233: Cf. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4.

234: problh/mata kai\ parabolai/ .

235: Cf. Ps. lxxviii. 1-3.

236: Cf. Ps. cxix. 18.

237: e0pa\n e0pakou/sh|tou= par' e9autou= pa/nta poih/santoj .

238: Cf. Ezek. xxix. 3.

239: Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 5, 6.

240: Cf. Ezek. xxix. 3.

241: Cf. Hos. xiv. 9.

242: Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 8. [Note this testimony concerning Numenius.] 243: to\
eu0tele/steron .

244: yuxh/ .

245: u#lh .

246: The reading in the text of Spencer and of the Benedictine ed. is
kataleifqei=san , for which Lommatzsch has adopted the conjecture of Boherellus,
katalhfqei=san .

247: w0felei/aj .

248: u9p' e0nuparxou/shj a0fanta/stou fu/sewj dioikoume/w/ .

249: pro\j xrei/an ou0k eu0katafro/nhton .

250: o#pwj pote\ a!llwj o!ntwn .

251: ti/ni h@ ti/sin .

252: ai0sqhtou= qeou= .

253: Cf. Plato in Timaeo .

254: a!u>\lon .

255: pe/mpthj para\ ta\ te/ssara stouxei=a ei\nai fu/sewj .

256: Cf. Ps. cii. 26, 27.

257: aiqeri/ou .

258: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 41, etc.

259: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 44.

260: odoi/ .

261: kainh=j diadecame/nhj o9dou= kai\ a0lloi/aj , etc. For diadecaue/nhj ,
Boherellus would read a0pokata/stasij . 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 a0pokata/stasij " of Origen. S.] 262: sunte/leia .

263: Cf. Pliny, x. c. 66: "Anguem ex medullâ hominis spinae gigni accepimus a
multis." Cf. also Ovid, Metamorphos ., xv. fab. iv.

264: swma/twn .

265: tw=n diafero/twn .

266: kai\ mi/a ei0j a0moibh\n pali/ntropon i0ou=sa kai\ e0paniou=sa .

267: sw=ma .

268: ou!tw de\ kai\ to\ a0pollu/menon ei0j metabolh\n diame/nei .

269: diele/gxetai ou0k e0pidexo/mena to\ gennai=on kai\ a!a/ti/r0r9hton .

270: o9 th\n a0lh/qeia/ e0kperilamba/nwn .

271: [Cf. Plato, Theaetetus , xxv. p. 176. S.] 272: ao/riston .

273: kai\ tw/ i0di/w| lo/gw| .

274: tosoi=sde tugxa/nousin .

275: 'Amfi/boloi .

276: 'gorano/moi .

277: a0r0[htopoiou=j ou0k i!sasi .

278: ou9 pa/ntwj kai\ h9 tw=n kakw=n ge/nesij a0ei\ h9 au0th/ .

279: ou0k a0ei\ ta\ au0ta/ e0sti peri\ to\ h9gemoniko\n autou=, kai\ to\n lo/gon
au0tou=, kai\ ta\j pra/ceij .

280: qewri/aij .

281: tw=n o_lwn .

282: ta\ e0n o9lw| tw=| ko/smw| .

283: peri/odoj .

284: kata\ ta\j tetagme/aj a0nakuklh/seij .

285: mh\ e0gnwkw\j kako\n ei\nai to\ nomi/zein eu0se/beian sw/zesqai e0n toi=j
kaqesthko/si kata\ ta\j koino/teron nooume/aj politei/aj no/moij .

286: to\ h9emoni/ko/n .

287: Cf. Lam. iii. 38. [In the Authorized Version and in the Vulgate the passage
is interrogative. S.] 288: htij e0sti\ to\ kako/n .

289: to\ e0f' h9mi=n a0nh\|rhtai .

290: tou= panto/j .

291: a0paralla/ktouj .

292: ta\ o9rw/me/a .

293: ou!te tw= Qew=| kainote/raj dei= diorqw/sewj .

294: o9ti kai kai\ pa/nth tetagme/raj au0th\n a0fani/zwn sufero/ntwj tw=| panti/
.

295: [See note supra , p. 524. S.] 296: ta\ sfa/lmata a0nalamba/nein .

297: e!xei ti\ eu0labe/j .

298: kai\ w9j yekto\j katate/taktai ei0j xrei/an a0peuktai/an me\n e9ka/stw|
xrh/simon de\ tw=| panti/ .

299: e0n a0peuktai/w| pragmatl .

300: Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.

301: [See note, p. 502, supra .] 302: ou0 tou= e9autwn e0n tw| le/gein
stoxazo/meqa dunatou= .

303: Cf. Deut. i. 31. Origen appears to have read, not e0trofo/rhsen , the
common reading (Heb. )#&/w 304: Cf. Ps. vi. 1.

305: Cf. Jer. x. 24.

306: Cf. Eph. ii. 3.

307: Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 8.

308: Cf. Col. iii. 8.

309: Ps. xliv. 23.

310: Cf. Ps. lxxviii. 65.

311: kai\ lo/gon me\n e!cei ta\ logika\, a_per e\sti\ prohgou/mena, pai/dwn
gennwme/nwn: ta\ d' a!loga kai\ ta\ a!yuxa xwri/ou sugktizome/nou ta=| paidi/w .

312: a\gorano/moi .

313: suntuxi/a tij a0toxmwn .

314: ou0dei\j lo/goj texniko/j u9pe/sthsen au0ta/ .

315: e/sti/an .

316: Cf. Ps. civ. 14, 15.

317: Cf. Ecclus. xxxix. 21, and 16, 17.

318: mo/lij kai\ e0pipo/nwj .

319: e0pideh= .

320: dia\ nautikh=j kai\ kubernhtikh=j .

321: a0formh/n .

322: Cf. Eurip., Phoeniss ., 546.

323: ta\ e! ou0ranw=| .

324: o9 kata/ tinaj Skhniko\j filo/sofoj . Euripides himself is the person
alluded to. He is called by Athenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus ( Strom ., v.
vol. ii. p. 461), o9 e0pi\ th=j skhnh=j filoxsofoj . - De La Rue.

325: sunekdoxikw=j .

326: e9autw=| a0nqupofe/rei .

327: zw/pura .

328: Cf. Hesiod, Fragmenta Incerta , ed. Goettling, p. 231.

329: [Cf. Wordsworth, Excursion : "He sat and talked," etc., book iv., circa med
.] 330: ou: ga\r a0qeei .

331: h9gemoni/aij .

332: tw=n h9tthme/nwn ai:re:seij . "Nota ai0rj/seij hoc loco sumi pro
internecionibus, caedibus. Haud scio an alibi reperiatur pari signigicatu. Forte
etiam scribendum kaqaire/seij ." - Ruaeus.

333: Paraba/lh| tw=| lo/gw| pro\j touj mu/rmhkaj . "Verba: ta| lo/gw| pro\j rouj
murmhkaj addititia videntur et recidenda." - RUAEUS.

334: e0pai>\/wn .

335: to\ koinwniko/n .

336: e0ntre/xeian .

337: ou0kou=n kai\ lo/gou sumplh/rwsi/j e0sti par' au0toi=j, kai\ koinai\
e!nnoiai kaqolikw=n tinwn, kai\ fwnh\, kai\ twgxa/nonta shmaino/mena .

338: a0sxhmosu/nhn .

339: ou0 katanoei= de\ to\ logiko\n h9gemoniko\n kai\ logismw=| kinou/menon ;

340: meta\ tinoj fusikh=j u9pokataskeuh=j ;

341: a0rxh/n .

342: th\n a0logi/an .

343: lo\goj .

344: fusikh/n tina kata/lhyin .

345: tw=| mara/qrw| .

346: a0ll' e0k kataskeuh=j .

347: [The a0eti/thj . See Pliny, N. H ., x. 4.] 348: apotetagme/nwj .

349: u0po\ tou= Lo/gou gegenhmi/nh .

350: xoirogru/llioi . Heb. Myn%Ip'#$;

351: a0skalabw/thj .

352: Cf. Prov. xxx. 24-28.

353: au0to/en .

354: John xvi. 25.

355: idiwtika/ .

356: qew=n mantikw=n .

357: th\n a0xa/riston yeudodoci/an .

358: Ps. xlix. 12.

359: ei!per oi0wnoi\ oi0wnoi=j ma/xontai . For ma/xontai Ruaeus conjectures
diale/gontai , which is adopted by Lommatzsch.

360: Homer, Iliad , ii. 308 sq. (Pope's translation).

361: Homer, Iliad , xii. 200 sq. (Pope's translation).

362: kata\ de/ ti shmei=on .

363: i9e/rac .

364: ki/rkoj , "the hen-harrier," "Falco," or "Circus pygargus." Cf. Liddell and
Scott, s.v.

365: Cf. Homer, Odyss ., xv. 526.

366: kai\ ou0 kaki/an me\n, oi9onei de\ kaki/an ou\san .

367: e0n me/soij .

368: klhdo/nej .

369: Cf. Homer, Odyss., iv. 685; cf. also xx. 116, 119.

370: Cf. Homer, Odyss., xx. 120.

371: Cf. Homer, Odyss., xvii. 541.

372: Cf. Homer, Odyss., xvii. 545.

373: ou!te toi=j tuxou=si tw=n a0nqrw/pwn .

374: Cf. Lev. xix. 26. The Septuagint here differs from the Masoretic text.

375: Cf. Deut. xviii. 14, cf. 12.

376: Cf. Deut. xviii. 15.

377: Cf. Num. xxiii. 23.

378: Prov. iv. 23.

379: Cf. Rom. viii. 14.

380: ek!oj0,aso/aj .

381: tropa/j .

382: Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.

383: a0pemfai=non .

384: a0ntipelargou=ntoj .

385: [See vol. i. pp. viii., 12, this series. Observe, Origen, in Egypt , doubts
the story.]

386: a0ll' ei0 mh\ pa=n e@rgon . "Gelenius does not recognise these words, and
Guietus regards them as superfluous." They are omitted in the translation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 5
========================================================================

Book V.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L.

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Book V.

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 sin1
-that we now begin the fifth book of our reply to the treatise of Celsus, but
with the endeavour, so far as may be within our power, to leave none of his
statements without examination, and especially those in which it might appear to
some that he had skilfully assailed us and the Jews. If it were possible,
indeed, for me to enter along with my words into the conscience of every one
without exception who peruses this work, and to extract each dart which wounds
him who is not completely protected with the "whole armour" of God, and apply a
rational medicine to cure the wound inflicted by Celsus, which prevents those
who listen to his words from remaining "sound in the faith," I would do so. But
since it is the work of God alone, in conformity with His own Spirit, and along
with that of Christ, to take up His abode invisibly in those persons whom He
judges worthy of being visited; so, on the other hand, is our object to try, by
means of arguments and treatises, to confirm men in their faith, and to earn the
name of "workmen needing not to be ashamed, tightly dividing the word of
truth."2 And there is one thing above all which it appears to us we ought to do,
if we would discharge faithfully the task enjoined upon us by you, and that is
to overturn to the best of our ability the confident assertions of Celsus. Let
us then quote such assertions of his as follow those which we have already
refuted (the reader: must decide whether we have done so successfully or not),
and let us reply to them. And may God grant that we approach not our subject
with our understanding and reason empty and devoid of divine inspiration, that
the faith of those whom we wish to aid may not depend upon human wisdom, but
that, receiving the "mind" of Christ from His Father, who alone can bestow it,
and being strengthened by participating in the word of God, we may pull down
"every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,"3 and the
imagination of Celsus, who exalts himself against us, and against Jesus, and
also against Moses and the prophets, in order that He who "gave the word to
those who published it with great power"4 may supply us also, and bestow upon us
"great power," so that faith in the word and power of God may be implanted in
the minds of all who will peruse our work.

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 of God has come down or will come down," be truly
maintained by Celsus, it is manifest that we have here overthrown the belief in
the existence of gods upon the earth who had descended from heaven either to
predict the future to mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses; and
neither the Pythian Apollo, nor Aesculapius, nor any other among those supposed
to have done so, would be a god descended from heaven. He might, indeed, either
be a god who had obtained as his lot (the obligation) to dwell on earth for
ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it were, from the abode of the gods, or he
might be one who had no power to share in the society of the gods in heaven;5 or
else Apollo, and Aesculapius, and those others who are believed to perform acts
on earth, would not be gods, but only certain demons, much inferior to those
wise men among mankind, who on account of their virtue ascend to the vault6 of
heaven.

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 down7 to mankind," why not
rather carefully ascertain from the statements made regarding Jesus, and the
prophecies uttered concerning Him, who it is that we are to consider as having
come down to the human race as God, and the Son of God?-whether that Jesus who
said and ministered so much, or those who under pretence of oracles and
divinations, do not reform the morals of their worshippers, but who have besides
apostatized from the pure and holy worship and honour due to the Maker of all
things, and who tear away the souls of those who give heed to them from the one
only visible and true God, under a pretence of paying honour to a multitude of
deities?

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; "8 and that they ascend,
bearing the supplications of men, to the purest of the heavenly places in the
universe, or even to supercelestial regions purer still;9 and that they come
down from these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something
enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the recipients
of His benefits. Having thus learned to call these beings "angels" from their
employments, we find that because they are divine they are sometimes termed
"god" in the sacred Scriptures,10 but not so that we are commanded to honour and
worship in place of God those who minister to us, and bear to us His blessings.
For every prayer, and supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be
sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels,
the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and make
intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if we have the
capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse of prayer.11

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 propitious to us,12 and that they do all things on our
behalf, that our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as far as it is
within the power of human nature the example of these holy angels, who again
follow the example of their God; and that the conceptions which we entertain of
His Son, the Word, so far as attainable by us, should not be opposed to the
clearer conceptions of Him which the holy angels possess, but should daily
approach these in clearness and distinctness. But because Celsus has not read
our holy Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if it came from us, saying
that we "assert that the angels who come down from heaven to confer benefits on
mankind are a different race from the gods," and adds that "in all probability
they would be called demons by us: "not observing that the name "demons" is not
a term of indifferent meaning like that of "men," among whom some are good and
some bad, nor yet a term of excellence like that of "the gods," which is applied
not to wicked demons, or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know
divine things) to what is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term "demons" is
always applied to those wicked powers, freed from the encumbrance of a grosser
body, who lead men astray, and fill them with distractions and drag them down
from God and supercelestial thoughts to things here below.

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,13 while those who prophesy so clearly
and strikingly to all men, by means of whom rain, and heat, and clouds, and
thunder (to which they offer worship), and lightnings, and fruits, and all kinds
of productiveness, are brought about,-by means of whom God is revealed to
them,-the most prominent heralds among those beings that are above,-those that
are truly heavenly angels,-are to be regarded as of no account!" In making these
statements, Celsus appears to have fallen into confusion, and to have penned
them from false ideas of things which he did not understand; for it is patent to
all who investigate the practices of the Jews, and compare them with those of
the Christians, that the Jews who follow the law, which, speaking in the person
of God, says, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto
thee an image, nor a likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in
the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth; thou shall not bow
down to them, nor serve them,"14 worship nothing else than the Supreme God, who
made the heavens, and all things besides. Now it is evident that those who live
according to the law, and worship the Maker of heaven, will not worship the
heaven at the same time with God. Moreover, no one who obeys the law of Moses
will bow down to the angels who are in heaven; and, in like manner, as they do
not bow down to sun, moon, and stars, the host of heaven, they refrain from
doing obeisance to heaven and its angels, obeying the law which declares: "Lest
thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon,
and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them,
and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations."15

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 whole16 is God, the Stoics calling it the First God, the followers of Plato
the Second, and some of them the Third. According to these philosophers, then,
seeing the whole Cosmos is God, its parts also are divine; so that not only are
human beings divine, but the whole of the irrational creation, as being
"portions" of the Cosmos; and besides these, the plants also are divine. And if
the rivers, and mountains, and seas are portions of the Cosmos, then, since the
whole Cosmos is God, are the riven and seas also gods? But even this the Greeks
will not assert. Those, however, who preside over rivers and seas (either demons
or gods, as they call them), they would term gods. Now from this it follows that
the general statement of Celsus, even according to the Greeks, who hold the
doctrine of Providence, is false, that if any "whole" be a god, its parts
necessarily are divine. But it follows from the doctrine of Celsus, that if the
Cosmos be God, all that is in it is divine, being parts of the Cosmos. Now,
according to this view, animals, as flies, and gnats, and worms, and every
species of serpent, as well as of birds and fishes, will be divine,-an assertion
which would not be made even by those who maintain that the Cosmos is God. But
the Jews, who live according to the law of Moses, although they may not know how
to receive the secret meaning of the law, which is conveyed in obscure language,
will not maintain that either the heaven or the angels are God.

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.17 The writings of the
Christians, moreover, show, in censuring the sins committed among the Jews, that
when God abandoned that people on account of certain sins, these sins (of
idol-worship) also were committed by them. For it is related in the Acts of the
Apostles regarding the Jews, that "God turned, and gave them up to worship the
host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of
Israel, have ye offered to Me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty
years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star
of your god Remphan, figures which you made to worship them."18 And in the
writings of Paul, who was carefully trained in Jewish customs, and converted
afterwards to Christianity by a miraculous appearance of Jesus, the following
words may be read in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Let no man beguile you of
your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into
those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind; and
not holding the Head, from which all the body by joint and bands having
nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of
God."19 But Celsus, having neither read these verses, nor having learned their
contents from any other source, has represented, I know not how, the Jews as not
transgressing their law in bowing down to the heavens, and to the angels
therein.

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,20 neither seek after wizards,21 to
be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God."22 He ought, therefore, either not
to have at all attributed this practice to the Jews, seeing he has observed that
they keep their law, and has called them "those who live according to their law;
"or if he did attribute it, he ought to have shown that the Jews did this in
violation of their code. But again, as they transgress their law who offer
worship to those who are said to appear to them who are involved in darkness and
blinded by sorcery, and who dream dreams, owing to obscure phantoms presenting
themselves; so also do they transgress the law who offer sacrifice to sun, moon,
and stars.23 And there is thus great inconsistency in the same individual saying
that the Jews are careful to keep their law by not bowing down to sun, and moon,
and stars, while they are not so careful to keep it in the matter of heaven and
the angels.

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" divinities, we shall answer that
the law of Moses knows that these latter have been apportioned by God among all
the nations under the heaven, but not amongst those who were selected by God as
His chosen people above all the nations of the earth. For it is written in the
book of Deuteronomy: "And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when
thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven,
shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath
divided unto all nations unto the whole heaven. But the Lord hath taken us, and
brought as forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto Him a
people of inheritance, as ye are this day."24 The Hebrew people, then, being
called by God a "chosen generation, and a royal priesthood, and a holy nation,
and a purchased people,"25 regarding whom it was foretold to Abraham by the
voice of the Lord addressed to him, "Look now towards heaven, and tell the
stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed
be; "26 and having thus a hope that they would become as the stars of heaven,
were not likely to bow down to those objects which they were to resemble as a
result of their understanding and observing the law of God. For it was said to
them: "The Lord our God hath multiplied us; and, behold, ye are this day as the
stars of heaven for multitude."27 In the book of Daniel, also, the following
prophecies are found relating to those who are to share in the resurrection:
"And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that has been written
in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust28 of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they
that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and (those) of the
many righteous29 as the stars for ever and ever,"30 etc. And hence Paul, too,
when speaking of the resurrection, says: "And there are also celestial bodies,
and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of
the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of
the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another
star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead."31 It was not therefore
consonant to reason that those who had been taught sublimely32 to ascend above
all created things, and to hope for the enjoyment of the most glorious rewards
with God on account of their virtuous lives, and who had heard the words, "Ye
are the light of I the world,"33 and, "Let your light so shine before men, that
they, seeing your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven,"34 and
who possessed through practice this brilliant and unfading wisdom, or who had
secured even the "very reflection of everlasting light,"35 should be so
impressed with the (mere) visible light of sun, and moon, and stars, that, on
account of that sensible light of theirs, they should deem themselves (although
possessed of so great a rational light of knowledge, and of the true light, and
the light of the world, and the light of men) to be somehow inferior to them,
and to bow down to them; seeing they ought to be worshipped, if they are to
receive worship at all, not for the sake of the sensible light which is admired
by the multitude, but because of the rational and true light, if indeed the
stars in heaven are rational and virtuous beings, and have been illuminated with
the light of knowledge by that wisdom which is the "reflection of everlasting
light." For that sensible light of theirs is the work of the Creator of all
things, while that rational light is derived perhaps from the principle of
free-will within them.36

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."37
Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their light is visible
and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth,
because they see the incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed
worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that
God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is "the true light
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and who comprehend also
how He says, "I am the light of the world," would not rationally offer worship
to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison
with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate
these great works of God's creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of
Anaxagoras, "fiery masses,"38 that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars;
but because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God,
and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being
persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God
through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who
themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer
that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than
send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer39 between
God and them.40 And here I may employ this illustration, as beating upon this
point: Our Lord and Saviour, heating Himself on one occasion addressed as "Good
Master,"41 referring him who used it to His own Father, said, "Why callest thou
Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God the Father."42 And since it
was in accordance with sound reason that this should be said by the Son of His
Father's love, as being the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun
say with greater reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me?
"for thou wilt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve; "43 for
it is He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one may
not be so exalted (as the sun), nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word of
God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to the
righteous of former times "sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them
from their destructions."44

Chapter XII.

God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to mankind, not in any local
sense, but through His providence;45 while the Son of God, not only (when on
earth), but at all times, is with His own disciples, fulfilling the promise,
"Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world."46 And if a branch
cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine, it is evident that the disciples
also of the Word, who are the rational branches of the Word's true vine, cannot
produce the fruits of virtue unless they abide in the true vine, the Christ of
God, who is with us locally here below upon the earth, and who is with those who
cleave to Him in all parts of the world, and is also in all places with those
who do not know Him. Another is made manifest by that John who wrote the Gospel,
when, speaking in the person of John the Baptist, he said, "There standeth one
among you whom ye know not; He it is who cometh after me."47 And it is absurd,
when He who fills heaven and earth, and who said, "Do I not fill heaven and
earth? saith the Lord,"48 is with us, and near us (for I believe Him when He
says, "I am a God nigh at hand, and not afar off, saith the Lord"49 to seek to
pray to sun or moon, or one of the stars, whose influence does not reach the
whole of the world.50 But, to use the very words of Celsus, let it be granted
that "the sun, moon, and stars do foretell rain, and heat, and clouds, and
thunders," why, then, if they really do foretell such great things, ought we not
rather to do homage to God, whose servant they are in uttering these
predictions, and show reverence to Him rather than His prophets? Let them
predict, then, the approach of lightnings, and fruits, and all manner of
productions, and let all such things be under their administration; yet we shall
not on that account worship those who themselves offer worship, as we do not
worship even Moses, and those prophets who came from God after him, and who
predicted better things than rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders, and
lightnings, and fruits, and all sorts of productions visible to the senses. Nay,
even if sun, and moon, and stars were able to prophesy better things than rain,
not even then shall we worship them, but the Father of the prophecies which are
in them, and the Word of God, their minister. But grant that they are His
heralds, and truly messengers of heaven, why, even then ought we not to worship
the God whom they only proclaim and announce, rather than those who are the
heralds and messengers?

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."51 But if Celsus had read the innumerable other passages where we
speak of sun, moon, and stars, and especially these,-"Praise Him, all ye stars,
and thou, O light," and, "Praise Him, ye heaven of heavens,"52 -he would not
have said of us that we regard such mighty beings, which "greatly praise" the
Lord God, as of no account. Nor did Celsus know the passage: "For the earnest
expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him
who hath 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."53 And with these words let us terminate our defence against
the charge of not worshipping sun, moon, and stars. And let us now bring forward
those statements of his which follow, that we may, God willing, address to him
in reply such arguments as shall be suggested by the light of truth.

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,54 introduces the fire (which is to
consume the world), all the rest of the human race will be burnt up, while they
alone will remain, not only such of them as are then alive, but also those who
are long since dead, which latter will arise from the earth clothed with the
self-same flesh (as during life); for such a hope is simply one which might be
cherished by worms. For what sort of human soul is that which would still long
for a body that had been subject to corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of
yours is not shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be
exceedingly vile, and loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body is that
which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its original nature, and
to that self-same first condition out of which it fell into dissolution? Being
unable to return any answer, they betake themselves to a most absurd refuge,
viz., that all things are possible to God. And yet God cannot do things that are
disgraceful, nor does He wish to do things that are contrary to His nature; nor,
if (in accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired anything
that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at once that it
will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to satisfy inordinate
desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to govern a nature that is
upright and just.55 For the soul, indeed, He might be able to provide an
everlasting life; while dead bodies, on the contrary, are, as Heraclitus
observes, more worthless than dung. God, however, neither can nor will declare,
contrary to all reason, that the flesh, which is full of those things which it
is not even honourable to mention, is to exist for ever. For He is the reason of
all things that exist, and therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or
contrary to Himself."

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,56 which needs to be consumed by that fire, and which burns and
consumes those who by their actions, words, and thoughts have built up wood, or
hay, or stubble, in that which is figuratively termed a "building."57 And the
holy Scriptures say that the Lord will, like a refiner's fire and fullers'
soap,58 visit each one of those who require purification, because of the
intermingling in them of a flood of wicked matter proceeding from their evil
nature; who need fire, I mean, to refine, as it were, (the dross of) those who
are intermingled with copper, and tin, and lead. And he who likes may learn this
from the prophet Ezekiel.59 But that we say that God brings fire upon the world,
not like a cook, but like a God, who is the benefactor of them who stand in need
of the discipline of fire,60 will be testified by the prophet Isaiah, in whose
writings it is related that a sinful nation was thus addressed: "Because thou
hast coals of fire, sit upon them: they shall be to thee a help."61 Now the
Scripture is appropriately adapted to the multitudes of those who are to peruse
it, because it speaks obscurely of things that are sad and gloomy,62 in order to
terrify those who cannot by any other means be saved from the flood of their
sins, although even then the attentive reader will dearly discover the end that
is to be accomplished by these sad and painful punishments upon those who endure
them. It is sufficient, however, for the present to quote the words of Isaiah:
"For My name's sake will I show Mine anger, and My glory I will bring upon thee,
that I may not destroy thee."63 We have thus been under the necessity of
referring in obscure terms to questions not fitted to the capacity of simple
believers,64 who require a simpler instruction in words, that we might not
appear to leave unrefuted the accusation of Celsus, that "God introduces the
fire (which is to destroy the world), as if He were a cook."

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,"65 -because such
individuals are unable to see distinctly the sense of each particular passage,66
or unwilling to devote the necessary leisure to the investigation of Scripture,
notwithstanding the injunction of Jesus, "Search the Scriptures."67 The
following, moreover, are his ideas regarding the fire which is to be brought
upon the world by God, and the punishments which are to befall sinners. And
perhaps, as it is appropriate to Children that some things should be addressed
to them in a manner befitting their infantile condition, to convert them, as
being of very tender age, to a better course of life; so, to those whom the word
terms "the foolish things of the world," and "the base," and "the despised," the
just and obvious meaning of the passages relating to punishments is suitable,
inasmuch as they cannot receive any other mode of conversion than that which is
by fear and the presentation of punishment, and thus be saved from the many
evils (which would befall them).68 The Scripture accordingly declares that only
those who are unscathed by the fire and the punishments are to remain,-those,
viz., whose opinions, and morals, and mind have been purified to the highest
degree; while, on the other hand, those of a different nature-those, viz., who,
according to their deserts, require the administration of punishment by
fire-will be involved in these sufferings with a view to an end which it is
suitable for God to bring upon those who have been created in His image, but who
have lived in opposition to the will of that nature which is according to His
image. And this is our answer to the statement, "All the rest of the race will
be completely burnt up, but they alone are to remain."

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."69
Now he ought to have noticed what was the meaning of him who uttered these
words, as being one who was by no means dead, who made a distinction between
himself and those like him and the dead, and who said afterwards, "The dead
shall be raised incorruptible," and "we shall be changed." And as a proof that
such was the apostle's meaning in writing those words which I have quoted from
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, I will quote also from the first to the
Thessalonians, in which Paul, as one who is alive and awake, and different from
those who are asleep, speaks as follows: "For this we say unto you by the word
of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall
not prevent them who are asleep; for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God."70
Then, again, after this, knowing that there were others dead in Christ besides
himself and such as he, he subjoins the words, "The dead in Christ shall rise
first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."71

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 problem72 (as in an apologetic work directed against an alien
from the faith, and for the sake of those who are still "children, tossed to and
fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"73 ), state and
establish to the best of our ability a few points expressly intended for our
readers. Neither we, then, nor the holy Scriptures, assert that with the same
bodies, without a change to a higher condition, "shall those who were long dead
arise from the earth and live again; "for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false
charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture treating of
the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may, suffice for the
present to quote the language of Paul from the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
where he says: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what
body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it
die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but
bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a
body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body."74 Now, observe how
in these words he says that there is sown, "not that body that shall be; "but
that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each
seed its own body), there takes place as it were a resurrection: from the seed
that was east into the ground there arising a stalk, e.g., among such plants as
the following, viz., the mustard plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive,75
or one of the fruit-trees.

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."76 And let him
who has the capacity understand the meaning of the words: "As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also
that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly."77 And although the apostle wished to conceal
the secret meaning of the passage, which was not adapted to the simpler class of
believers, and to the understanding of the common people, who are led by their
faith to enter on a better course of life, he was nevertheless obliged
afterwards to say (in order that we might not misapprehend his meaning), after
"Let us bear the image of the heavenly," these words also: "Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth
corruption inherit incorruption."78 Then, knowing that there was a secret and
mystical meaning in the passage, as was becoming in one who was leaving, in his
Epistles, to those who were to come after him words full of significance, he
subjoins the following, "Behold, I show you a mystery; "79 which is his usual
style in introducing matters of a profounder and more mystical nature, and such
as are fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is written in the book of
Tobit: "It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal
the works of God,"80 -in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as
to be to the advantage of the multitude. Our hope, then, is not" the hope of
worms, nor does our soul long for a body that has seen corruption; "for although
it may require a body, for the sake of moving from place to place,81 yet it
understands-as having meditated on the wisdom (that is from above), agreeably to
the declaration, "The mouth of the righteous will speak wisdom"82 -the
difference between the "earthly house," in which is the tabernacle of the
building that is to be dissolved, and that in which the righteous do groan,
being burdened,-not wishing to "put off" the tabernacle, but to be "clothed
therewith," that by being clothed upon, mortality might be swallowed up of life.
For, in virtue of the whole nature of the body being corruptible, the
corruptible tabernacle must put on incorruption; and its other part, being
mortal, and becoming liable to the death which follows sin, must put on
immortality, in order that, when the corruptible shall have put on incorruption,
and the mortal immortality, then shall come to pass what was predicted of old by
the prophets,-the annihilation of the "victory" of death (because it had
conquered and subjected us to his sway), and of its "sting," with which it
stings the imperfectly defended soul, and inflicts upon it the wounds which
result from sin.

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 detail in other parts of our
writings); and as now we must by means of sound reasoning refute the fallacies
of Celsus, who neither understands the meaning of our Scripture, nor has the
capacity of judging that the meaning of our wise men is not to be determined by
those individuals who make no profession of anything more than of a (simple)
faith in the Christian system, let us show that men, not to be lightly esteemed
on account of their reasoning powers and dialectic subtleties, have given
expression to very absurd83 opinions. And if we must sneer84 at them as
contemptible old wives' fables, it is at them rather than at our narrative that
we must sneer. The disciples of the Porch assert, that after a period of years
there will be a conflagration of the world, and after that an arrangement of
things in which everything will be unchanged, as compared with the former
arrangement of the world. Those of them, however, who evinced their respect for
this doctrine have said that there will be a change, although exceedingly
slight, at the end of the cycle, from what prevailed during the preceding.85 And
these men maintain, that in the succeeding cycle the same things will occur, and
Socrates will be again the son of Sophroniscus, and a native of Athens; and
Phaenarete, being married to Sophroniscus, will again become his mother. And
although they do not mention the word "resurrection," they show in reality that
Socrates, who derived his origin from seed, will spring from that of
Sophroniscus, and will be fashioned in the womb of Phaenarete; and being brought
up at Athens, will practise the study of philosophy, as if his former philosophy
had arisen again, and were to be in no respect different from what it was
before. Anytus and Melitus, too, will arise again as accusers of Socrates, and
the Council of Areopagus will condemn him to death! But what is more ridiculous
still, is that Socrates will clothe himself with garments not at all different
from those which he wore during the former cycle, and will live in the same
unchanged state of poverty, and in the same unchanged city of Athens! And
Phalaris will again play the tyrant, and his brazen bull will pour forth its
bellowings from the voices of victims within, unchanged from those who were
condemned in the former cycle! And Alexander of Pherae, too, will again act the
tyrant with a cruelty unaltered from the former time, and will condemn to death
the same "unchanged" individuals as before. But what need is there to go into
detail upon the doctrine held by the Stoic philosophers on such things, and
which escapes the ridicule of Celsus, and is perhaps even venerated by him,
since he regards Zeno as a wiser man than Jesus?

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,86 and who know that
the nature of our free-will admits of the occurrence of contingent events87 (for
it is incapable of receiving the wholly unchangeable character of God), yet do
not appear to say anything worthy of a testing examination.

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 doctrine88 of the Church of Christ and the
grandeur of the divine promise, proving also the possibility of its
accomplishment not by mere assertion, but by arguments; knowing that although
heaven and earth, and the things that are in them, may pass away, yet His words
regarding each individual thing, being, as parts of a whole, or species of a
genus, the utterances of Him who was God the Word, who was in the beginning with
God, shall by no means pass away. For we desire to listen to Him who said:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."89

Chapter XXIII.

We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone corruption
resumes its original nature, any more than the gain of wheat which has decayed
returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that as above the gain of
wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power90 is implanted in the body, which
is not destroyed, and from which the body is raised up in incorruption. The
philosophers of the Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they
hold regarding the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert that
the body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its original
condition, and will again assume that first nature from which it passed into a
state of dissolution, establishing these points, as they think, by irresistible
arguments.91 We, however, do not betake ourselves to a most absurd refuge,
saying that with God all things are possible; for we know how to understand this
word "all" as not referring either to things that are "non-existent" or that are
inconceivable. But we maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what is
disgraceful, since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God; for if He do
anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays it down as
a principle, that "God does not desire what is contrary to nature," we have to
make a distinction, and say that if any one asserts that wickedness is contrary
to nature, while we maintain that "God does not desire what is contrary to
nature,"-either what springs from wickedness or from an irrational
principle,-yet, if such things happen according to the word and will of God, we
must at once necessarily hold that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore
things which are done by God, although they may be, or may appear to some to be
incredible, are not contrary to nature. And if we must press the force of
words,92 we would say that, in comparison with what is generally understood as
"nature," there are certain things which are beyond its power, which God could
at any time do; as, e.g., in raising man above the level of human nature, and
causing him to pass into a better and more divine condition, and preserving him
in the same, so long as he who is the object of His care shows by his actions
that he desires (the continuance of His help).

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,93 God cannot grant it. And now it is from no spirit of contention
that we answer the assertions of Celsus; but it is in the spirit of truth that
we investigate them, as assenting to his view that "He is the God, not of
inordinate desires, nor of error and disorder, but of a nature just and
upright," because He is the source of all that is good. And that He is able to
provide an eternal life for the soul we acknowledge; and that He possesses not
only the "power," but the "will." In view, therefore, of these considerations,
we are not at all distressed by the assertion of Heraclitus, adopted by Celsus,
that "dead bodies are to be cast out as more worthless than dung; "and yet, with
reference even to this, one might say that dung, indeed, ought to be cast out,
while the dead bodies of men, on account of the soul by which they were
inhabited, especially if it had been virtuous, ought not to be cast out. For, in
harmony with those laws which are based upon the principles of equity, bodies
are deemed worthy of sepulture, with the honours accorded on such occasions,
that no insult, so far as can be helped, may be offered to the soul which dwelt
within, by casting forth the body (after the soul has departed) like that of the
animals. Let it not then be held, contrary to reason, that it is the will of God
to declare that the grain of wheat is not immortal, but the stalk which springs
from it, while the body which is sown in corruption is not, but that which is
raised by Him in incorruption. But according to Celsus, God Himself is the
reason of all things, while according to our view it is His Son, of whom we say
in philosophic language, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God; "94 while in our judgment also, God cannot do
anything which is contrary to reason, or contrary to Himself.95

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 people, and enacted
laws in keeping with the customs of their country,96 and maintain them up to the
present time, and observe a mode of worship which, whatever be its nature, is
yet derived from their fathers, they act in these respects like other men,
because each nation retains its ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they
happen to be established among them. And such an arrangement appears to be
advantageous, not only because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to
decide some things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what
has been established 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,97 and were thus distributed among certain
governing powers,98 and in this manner the administration of the world is
carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be rightly
done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the superintending powers),
while it would be an act of impiety to get rid of99 the institutions established
from the beginning in the various places." By these words Celsus shows that the
Jews, who were formerly Egyptians, subsequently became a "peculiar people," and
enacted laws which they carefully preserve. And not to repeat his statements,
which have been already before us, he says that it is advantageous to the Jews
to observe their ancestral worship, as other nations carefully attend to theirs.
And he further states a deeper reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to
cultivate their ancestral customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was
allotted the office of superintending the country which was being legislated
for, enacted the laws of each land in co-operation with its legislators. He
appears, then, to indicate that both the country of the Jews, and the nation
which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether they
were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of the Jews.

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 aim 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 which pronounce a man happy who puts an end to his
life by hanging, or declare that they undergo entire purification who deliver
themselves over to the fire, and who terminate their existence by fire; and how
it is an act of impiety to do away with those laws which, for example, prevail
in the Tauric Chersonese, regarding the offering up of strangers in sacrifice to
Diana, or among certain of the Libyan tribes regarding the sacrifice of children
to Saturn. Moreover, this inference follows from the dictum of Celsus, that it
is an act of impiety on the part of the Jews to do away with those ancestral
laws which forbid the worship of any other deity than the Creator of all things.
And it will follow, according to his view, that piety is not divine by its own
nature, but by a certain (external) arrangement and appointment. For it is an
act of piety among certain tribes to worship a crocodile, and to eat what is an
object of adoration among other tribes; while, again, with others it is a pious
act to worship a calf, and among others, again, to regard the goat as a god.
And, in this way, the same individual will be regarded as acting piously
according to one set of laws, and impiously according to another; and this is
the most absurd result that can be conceived!

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,100 those who were regarded as
divinities among those nations which possessed laws of an opposite kind. Now,
observe here whether these statements do not exhibit the greatest confusion of
mind regarding the nature of what is just, and holy, and religious; since there
is no accurate definition laid down of these things, nor are they described as
having a peculiar character of their own, and stamping as religious those who
act according to their injunctions. If, then, religion, and piety, and
righteousness belong to those things which are so only by comparison, so that
the same act may be both pious and impious, according to different relations and
different laws, see whether it will not follow that temperance101 also is a
thing of comparison, and courage as well, and prudence, and the other virtues,
than which nothing could be more absurd! What we have said, however, is
sufficient for the more general and simple class of answers to the allegations
of Celsus. But as we think it likely that some of those who are accustomed to
deeper investigation will fall in with this treatise, let us venture to lay down
some considerations of a profounder kind, conveying a mystical and secret view
respecting the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among
different superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability,
that our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.

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 upon102 even in Grecian history, when certain of those who are
considered to be gods are introduced as having contended with each other about
the possession of Attica; while in the writings of the Greek poets also, some
who are called gods are represented as acknowledging that certain places here
are preferred by them103 before others. The history of barbarian nations,
moreover, and especially that of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the
division of the so-called Egyptian homes, when it states that Athena, who
obtained Sais by lot, is the same who also has possession of Attica. And the
learned among the Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances of this kind,
although I do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in this
division. And now, so far as testimonies outside the word God bearing on this
point are concerned, enough have been adduced for the present. We say, moreover,
that our prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses, in his song in the book
of Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the portioning out of the earth in
the following terms: "When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed
the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the
angels of God; and the portion was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His
inheritance."104 And regarding the distribution of the nations, the same Moses,
in his work entitled Genesis, thus expresses himself in the style of a
historical narrative: "And the whole earth was of one language and of one
speech; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a
plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there."105 A little further on he
continues: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men had built. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and
they have all one language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will
be restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let Us go down,
and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's
speech. And the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the
earth: and they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore is the name
of it called Confusion;106 because the Lord did there confound the language of
all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of
all the earth."107 In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on "Wisdom," and on the
events at the time of the confusion of languages, when the division of the earth
took place, we find the following regarding Wisdom: "Moreover, the nations in
their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous, and
preserved him blameless unto God, and kept him strong in his tender compassion
towards his son."108 But on these subjects much, and that of a mystical kind,
might be said; in keeping with which is the following: "It is good to keep close
the secret of a king,"109 -in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls
into bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into
another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is holy
given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a procedure would
be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the mysterious declarations of
God's wisdom. of which it has been well said: "Into a malicious soul wisdom
shall not enter, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."110 It is sufficient,
however, to represent in the style of a historic narrative what is intended to
convey a secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity
may work out for themselves all that relates to the subject. (The narrative,
then, may be understood as follows.)

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.111 But when they departed from the east, and
began to entertain sentiments alien to those of the east,112 they found a place
in the land of Shinar (which, when interpreted, means "gnashing of teeth," by
way of indicating symbolically that they had lost the means of their support),
and in it they took up their abode. Then, desiring to gather together material
things,113 and to join to heaven what had no natural affinity for it, that by
means of material things they might conspire against such as were immaterial,
they said, "Come, let us made bricks, and burn them with fire." Accordingly,
when they had hardened and compacted these materials of clay and matter, and had
shown their desire to make brick into stone, and clay into bitumen, and by these
means to build a city and a tower, the head of which was, at least in their
conception, to reach up to the heavens, after the manner of the "high things
which exalt themselves against the I knowledge of God," each one was handed over
(in proportion to the greater or less departure from the east which had taken
place among them, and in proportion to the extent in which bricks had been
converted into stones, and clay into bitumen, and building carried on out of
these materials) to angels of character more or less severe, and of a nature
more or less stern, until they had paid the penalty of their daring deeds; and
they were conducted by those angels, who imprinted on each his native language,
to the different parts of the earth according to their deserts: some, for
example, to a region of burning heat, others to a country which chastises its
inhabitants by its cold; others, again, to a land exceedingly difficult of
cultivation, others to one less so in degree; while a fifth were brought into a
land filled with wild beasts, and a sixth to a country comparatively free of
these.

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
politic114 of those who were assigned to the Lord as His pre-eminent portion,
sins were committed, first of all, such as might be forgiven, and of such a
nature as not to make the sinner worthy of entire desertion while subsequently
they became more numerous though still of a nature to be pardoned. And while
remarking that this state of matters continued for a considerable time, and that
a remedy was always applied, and that after certain intervals these persons
returned to their duty, let him notice that they were given over, in proportion
to their transgressions, to those to whom had been assigned the other quarters
of the earth; and that, after being at first slightly punished, and having made
atonement,115 they returned, as if they had undergone discipline,116 to their
proper habitations. Let him notice also that afterwards they were delivered over
to rulers of a severer character-to Assyrians and Babylonians, as the Scriptures
would call them. In the next place, notwithstanding that means of healing were
being applied, let him observe that they were still multiplying their
transgressions, and that they were on that account dispersed into other regions
by the rulers of the nations that oppressed them. And their own ruler
intentionally overlooked their oppression at the hands of the rulers of the
other nations, in order that he also with good reason, as avenging himself,
having obtained power to tear away from the other nations as many as he can, may
do so, and enact for them laws, and point out a manner of life agreeably to
which they ought to live, that so he may conduct them to the end to which those
of the former people were conducted who did not commit sin.

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,117 and to
separate them from those who received them for the purpose of punishment, and to
bring them under the influence of laws, and of a mode of life which helps to
produce an oblivion of their former transgressions. But, as we have previously
observed, these remarks are to be understood as being made by us with a
concealed meaning, by way of pointing out the mistakes of those who asserted
that "the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning distributed
among different superintending spirits, and being allotted among certain
governing powers, were administered in this way; "from which statement Celsus
took occasion to make the remarks referred to. But since those who wandered away
from the east were delivered over, on account of their sins, to "a reprobate
mind," and to "vile affections," and to "uncleanness through the lusts of their
own hearts,"118 in order that, being sated with sin, they might hate it, we
shall refuse our assent to the assertion of Celsus, that "because of the
superintending spirits distributed among the different parts of the earth, what
is done among each nation is rightly done; "for our desire is to do what is not
agreeable to these spirits.119 For we see that it is a religious act to do away
with the customs originally established in the various places by means of laws
of a better and more divine character, which were enacted by Jesus, as one
possessed of the greatest power, who has rescued us "from the present evil
world," and "from the princes of the world that come to nought; "and that it is
a mark of irreligion not to throw ourselves at the feet of Him who has
manifested Himself to be holier and more powerful than all other rulers, and to
whom God said, as the prophets many generations before predicted: "Ask of Me,
and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts
of the earth for Thy possession."120 For He, too, has become the "expectation"
of us who from among the heathen have believed upon Him, and upon His Father,
who is God over all things.

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
superintendence124 the disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who
inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder,125 we reply that we are
come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to "cut down our hostile and insolent
`wordy'126 swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the
spears formerly employed in war."127 For we no longer take up "sword against
nation," nor do we "learn war any more," having become children of peace, for
the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers
followed, among whom we were "strangers to the covenant," and having received a
law, for which we give thanks to Him that rescued us from the error (of our
ways), saying, "Our fathers honoured lying idols, and there is not among them
one that causeth it to rain."128 Our Superintendent, then, and Teacher, having
come forth from the Jews, regulates the whole world by the word of His teaching.
And having made these remarks by way of anticipation, we have refuted as well as
we could the untrue statements of Celsus, by subjoining the appropriate answer.

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 Mares 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.'129 Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But," continues Celsus,
"Ammon in divine things would not make a worse ambassador than the angels of the
Jews,130 so that there is nothing wrong in each nation observing its established
method of worship. Of a truth, we shall find very great differences prevailing
among the nations, and yet each seems to deem its own by far the best. Those
inhabitants of Ethiopia who dwell in Meroe worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone;
the Arabians, Urania and Bacchus only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the
Saites, Minerva; while the Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their
deities, and the rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from
the flesh of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from that
of cows, while they regard swine's flesh with loathing. The Scythians, indeed,
regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the Indians, too,
there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty in eating their
fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by Herodotus. For the sake
of credibility, I shall again quote his very words, for he writes as follows:
`For if any one were to make this proposal to all men, viz., to bid him select
out of all existing laws the best, each would choose, after examination, those
of his own country. Men each consider their own laws much the best, and
therefore it is not likely than any other than a madman would make these things
a subject of ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding
the laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the
following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before him
those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of them for how
much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers? their answer was, that
for no consideration would they do such a thing. After this, Darius summoned
those Indians who are called Callatians. who are in the habit of eating their
parents, and asked of them in the presence of these Greeks, who learned what
passed through an interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to
burn their deceased fathers with fire? on which they raised a loud shout, and
bade the king say no more.'131 Such is the way, then, in which these matters are
regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying that `law' is the king
of all things."132

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.133 In the same way, then, he who has been led by the Gospel
to worship the God of all things, and, from regard to his country's laws,
lingers here below among images and statues of men, and does not desire to
ascend to the Creator, will resemble those who have indeed learned philosophy,
but who are afraid of things which ought to inspire no terrors, and who regard
it as an act of impiety to eat of those things which have been enumerated.

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.134 Celsus, moreover, says
that no wrong is committed by any one who wishes to observe the religious
worship sanctioned by the laws of his country; and it follows, according to his
view, that the Scythians commit no wrong, when, in conformity with their
country's laws, they eat human beings. And those Indians who eat their own
fathers are considered, according to Celsus, to do a religious, or at least not
a wicked act. He adduces, indeed, a statement of Herodotus which favours the
principle that each one ought, from a sense of what is becoming, to obey his
country's laws; and he appears to approve of the custom of those Indians called
Callatians, who in the time of Darius devoured their parents, since, on Darius
inquiring for how great a sum of money they would be willing to lay aside this
usage, they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.

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 other
being the written law of cities, it is a proper thing, when the written law is
not opposed to that of God, for the citizens not to abandon it under pretext of
foreign customs; but when the law of nature, that is, the law of God, commands
what is opposed to the written law, observe whether reason will not tell us to
bid a long farewell to the written code, and to the desire of its legislators,
and to give ourselves up to the legislator God, and to choose a life agreeable
to His word, although in doing so it may be necessary to encounter dangers, and
countless labours, and even death and dishonour. For when there are some laws in
harmony with the will of God, which are opposed to others which are in force in
cities, and when it is impracticable to please God (and those who administer
laws of the kind referred to), it would be absurd to contemn those acts by means
of which we may please the Creator of all things, and to select those by which
we shall become displeasing to God, though we may satisfy unholy laws, and those
who love them. But since it is reasonable in other matters to prefer the law of
nature, which is the law of God, before the written law, which has been enacted
by men in a spirit of opposition to the law of God, why should we not do this
still more in the case of those laws which relate to God? Neither shall we, like
the Ethiopians who inhabit the parts about Meroe, worship, as is their pleasure,
Jupiter and Bacchus only; nor shall we at all reverence Ethiopian gods in the
Ethiopian manner; nor, like the Arabians, shall we regard Urania and Bacchus
alone as divinities; nor in any degree at all deities in which the difference of
sex has been a ground of distinction (as among the Arabians, who worship Urania
as a female, and Bacchus as a male deity); nor shall we, like all the Egyptians,
regard Osiris and Isis as gods; nor shall we enumerate Athena among these, as
the Saites are pleased to do. And if to the ancient inhabitants of Naucratis it
seemed good to worship other divinities, while their modern descendants have
begun quite recently to pay reverence to Serapis, who never was a god at all, we
shall not on that account assert that a new being who was not formerly a god,
nor at all known to men, is a deity. For the Son of God, "the First-born of all
creation," although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any
means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most
ancient of all the works of creation;135 for it was to Him that God said
regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness."136 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.137 A similar illustration
may be employed in the case of the Arabians, if from any accident they happened
to visit the Ethiopians about Meroe. For, having been taught to worship Urania
and Bacchus alone, they will not worship Jupiter along with the Ethiopians; and
if, adjudged guilty of impiety, they should be led away to death, let Celsus
tell us what it would be reasonable on their part to do. And with regard to the
fables which relate to Osiris and Isis, it is superfluous and out of place at
present to enumerate them. For although an allegorical meaning may be given to
the fables, they will nevertheless teach us to offer divine worship to cold
water, and to the earth, which is subject to men, and all the animal creation.
For in this way, I presume, they refer Osiris to water, and Isis to earth; while
with regard to Serapis the accounts are numerous and conflicting, to the effect
that very recently he appeared in public, agreeably to certain juggling tricks
performed at the desire of Ptolemy, who wished to show to the people of
Alexandria as it were a visible god. And we have read in the writings of
Numenius the Pythagorean regarding his formation, that he partakes of the
essence of all the animals and plants that are under the control of nature, that
he may appear to have been fashioned into a god, not by the makers of images
alone, with the aid of profane mysteries, and juggling tricks employed to invoke
demons, but also by magicians and sorcerers, and those demons who are bewitched
by their incantations.138

Chapter XXXIX.

We must therefore inquire what may be fittingly eaten or not by the rational and
gentle139 animal, which acts always in conformity with reason; and not worship
at random, sheep, or goats, or kine; to abstain from which is an act of
moderation,140 for much advantage is derived by men from these animals. Whereas,
is it not the most foolish of all things to spare crocodiles, and to treat them
as sacred to some fabulous divinity or other? For it is a mark of exceeding
stupidity to spare those animals which do not spare us, and to bestow care on
those which make a prey of human beings. But Celsus approves of those who, in
keeping with the laws of their country, worship and tend crocodiles, and not a
word does he say against them, while the Christians appear deserving of censure,
who have been taught to loath evil, and to turn away from wicked works, and to
reverence and honour virtue as being generated by God, and as being His Son. For
we must not, on account of their feminine name and nature, regard wisdom and
righteousness as females;141 for these things are in our view the Son of God, as
His genuine disciple has shown, when he said of Him, "Who of God is made to us
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."142 And although
we may call Him a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we
mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a
reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things,
which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which
"reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree
far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the
highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute
righteousness.

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.'143 And I think," continues Celsus, "that it makes no difference
whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or
Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappaeus like the Scythians. Nor would they be
deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of
circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor
because they abstain from swine's flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence
not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes
as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that
contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God's favour, or are
loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to
them alone, as if they had had allotted to them `some region of the blessed,
'144 for we see both themselves and the country of which they were deemed
worthy. Let this band,145 then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of
its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and
deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end."

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.146
And for this reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic
representations, nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who sold their
beauty to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and
to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation. And what an advantage was
it to be taught from their tender years to ascend above all visible nature, and
to hold the belief that God was not fixed anywhere within its limits, but to
look for Him on high, and beyond the sphere of all bodily substance!147 And how
great was the advantage which they enjoyed in being instructed almost from their
birth, and as soon as they could speak,148 in the immortality of the soul, and
in the existence of courts of justice under the earth, and in the rewards
provided for those who have lived righteous lives! These truths, indeed, were
proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose views of things
were childish; while to those who were already occupied in investigating the
truth, and desirous of making progress therein, these fables, so to speak, were
transfigured into the truths which were concealed within them. And I consider
that it was in a manner worthy of their name as the "portion of God" that they
despised all kinds of divination, as that which bewitches men to no purpose, and
which proceeds rather from wicked demons than from anything of a better nature;
and sought the knowledge of future events in the souls of those who, owing to
their high degree of purity, received the spirit of the Supreme God.

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 faith149 should not be allowed to continue in slavery more than
six years?150 The Jews, then, cannot be said to preserve their own law in the
same points with the other nations. For it would be censurable in them, and
would involve a charge of insensibility to the superiority of their law, if they
were to believe that they had been legislated for in the same way as the other
nations among the heathen. And although Celsus will not admit it, the Jews
nevertheless are possessed of a wisdom superior not only to that of the
multitude, but also of those who have the appearance of philosophers; because
those who engage in philosophical pursuits, after the utterance of the most
venerable philosophical sentiments, fall away into the worship of idols and
demons, whereas the very lowest Jew directs his look to the Supreme God alone;
and they do well, indeed, so far as this point is concerned, to pride themselves
thereon, and to keep aloof from the society of others as accursed and impious.
And would that they had not sinned, and transgressed the law, and slain the
prophets in former times, and in these latter days conspired against Jesus, that
we might be in possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would
have sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have accomplished as
much as was done by Moses and those who followed him, who nourished a "chosen
generation," and "a holy nation," dedicated to God, with words free from all
superstition.

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 difference between the doctrine regarding "heaven"
and that regarding "God; "and he says that "the Persians, like the Jews, offer
sacrifices to Jupiter upon the tops of the mountains,"-not observing that, as
the Jews were acquainted with one God, so they had only one holy house of
prayer, and one altar of whole burnt-offerings, and one censer for incense, and
one high priest of God. The Jews, then, had nothing in common with the Persians,
who ascend the summits of their mountains, which are many in number, and offer
up sacrifices which have nothing in common with those which are regulated by the
Mosaic code,-in conformity to which the Jewish priests "served unto the example
and shadow of heavenly things," explaining enigmatically the object of the law
regarding the sacrifices, and the things of which these sacrifices were the
symbols. The Persians therefore may call the "whole circle of heaven" Jupiter;
but we maintain that "the heaven" is neither Jupiter nor God, as we indeed know
that certain beings of a class inferior to God have ascended above the heavens
and all visible nature: and in this sense we understand the words, "Praise God,
ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens: let them praise
the name of the Lord."151

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 Pappaeus (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.152 For the languages
which are prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident
to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are
appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according to the
various tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we
have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those names
which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were translated
into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when
uttered in their native tongues. And the same peculiarity is found to apply to
men; for if we were to translate the name of one who was called from his birth
by a certain appellation in the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or
any other tongue, we could not make him do or suffer the same things which he
would have done or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay,
even if we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had
been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the result
which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing had it preserved
the name first conferred upon him. And if these statements are true when spoken
of the names of men, what are we to think of those which are transferred, for
any cause whatever, to the Deity? For example, something is transferred153 from
the name Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that
of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either in an
invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, "the God of
Abraham," and "the God of Isaac," and "the God of Jacob," he would produce
certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers,
since even demons are vanquiShed and become submissive to him who pronounces
these names; whereas if we say, "the god of the chosen father of the echo, and
the god of laughter, and the god of him who strikes with the heel,"154 the
mention of the name is attended with no result, as is the case with other names
possessed of no power. And in the same way, if we translate the word "Israel"
into Greek or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain
it as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled in
these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow some result
from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with the professions of
those who employ such invocations. And we may say the same also of the
pronunciation of "Sabaoth," a word which is frequently employed in incantations;
for if we translate the term into "Lord of hosts," or "Lord of armies," or
"Almighty" (different acceptation of it having been proposed by the
interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing; whereas if we retain the original
pronunciation, we shall, as those who are skilled in such matters maintain,
produce some effect. And the same observation holds good of Adonai. If, then,
neither "Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when rendered into what appears to be their
meaning in the Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the
result among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the highest
being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

Chapter XLVI.

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.155
And although the Egyptians were to hold Ammon before us under threat of death,
we would rather die than address him as God, it being a name used in all
probability in certain Egyptian incantations in which this demon is invoked. And
although the Scythians may call Pappaeus the supreme God, vet we will not yield
our assent to this; granting, indeed, that there is a Supreme Deity, although we
do not give the name Pappaeus to Him as His proper title, but regard it as one
which is agreeable to the demon to whom was allotted the desert of Scythia, with
its people and its language. He, however, who gives God His title in the
Scythian tongue, or in the Egyptian or in any language in which he has been
brought up, will not be guilty of sin.156

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"157
is the same among all the Greeks; but righteousness is shown to be one thing
according to the view of Epicurus; and another according to the Stoics, who deny
the threefold division of the soul; and a different thing again according to the
followers of Plato, who hold that righteousness is the proper business of the
parts of the soul.158 And so also the "courage"159 of Epicures is one thing, who
would undergo some labours in order to escape from a greater number; and a
different thing that of the philosopher of the Porch, who would choose all
virtue for its own sake; and a different thing still that of Plato, who
maintains that virtue itself is the act of the irascible part of the soul, and
who assigns to it a place about the breast.160 And so circumcision will be a
different thing according to the varying opinions of those who undergo it. But
on such a subject it is unnecessary to speak on this occasion in a treatise like
the present; for whoever desires to see what led us to the subject, can read
what we have said upon it in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.

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 Eliezer161 was able to work
against162 Moses, but could do nothing after his son was circumcised. And when
Zipporah had learned this, she took a pebble and circumcised her child, and is
recorded, according to the reading of the common copies, to have said, "The
blood of my child's circumcision is stayed," but according to the Hebrew text,
"A bloody husband art thou to me."163 For she had known the story about a
certain angel having power before the shedding of the blood, but who became
powerless through the blood of circumcision. For which reason the words were
addressed to Moses, "A bloody husband art thou to me." But these things, which
appear rather of a curious nature, and not level to the comprehension of the
multitude, I have ventured to treat at such length; and now I shall only add, as
becomes a Christian, one thing more, and shall then pass on to what follows. I
For this angel might have had power, I think, over those of the people who were
not circumcised, and generally over all who worshipped only the Creator; and
this power lasted so long as Jesus had not assumed a human body. But when He had
done this, and had undergone the rite of circumcision in His own person, all the
power of the angel over those who practise the same worship, but are not
circumcised,164 was abolished; for Jesus reduced it to nought by (the power of)
His unspeakable divinity. And therefore His disciples are forbidden to
circumcise themselves, and are reminded (by the apostle): "If ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing."165

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,"166
"What God hath cleansed, call not thou common." It therefore in no way affects
either the Jews or us that the Egyptian priests abstain not only from the flesh
of swine, but also from that of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fish. But since
it is not that "which entereth into the mouth that defiles a man," and since
"meat does not commend us to God," we do not set great store on refraining from
eating, nor yet are we induced to eat from a gluttonous appetite. And therefore,
so far as we are concerned, the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from all
things that contain life may do as they please; only observe the different
reason for abstaining from things that have life on the part of the Pythagoreans
and our ascetics. For the former abstain on account of the fable about the
transmigration of souls, as the poet says:- "And some one, lifting up his
beloved son, Will slay him after prayer; O how foolish he!"167

We, however, when we do abstain, do so because "we keep under our body, and
bring it into subjection,"168 and desire "to mortify our members that are upon
the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence;
"169 and we use every effort to "mortify the deeds of the flesh."170

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;171 but
although few in number, they continued to enjoy the protection of the divine
power, so that in the reign of Alexander of Macedon they sustained no injury
from him, although they refused, on account of certain covenants and oaths, to
take up arms against Darius. They say that on that occasion the Jewish high
priest, clothed in his sacred robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who
declared that he had beheld an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced
to him in his sleep that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia.172
Accordingly, we Christians maintain that "it was the fortune of that people in a
remarkable degree to enjoy God's favour, and to be loved by Him in a way
different from others; "but that this economy of things and this divine favour
were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed the power which had been
manifested among the Jews to those who had become converts to Him from among the
heathen. And for this reason, although the Romans desired to perpetrate many
atrocities against the Christians, in order to ensure their extermination, they
were unsuccessful; for there was a divine hand which fought on their behalf, and
whose desire it was that the word of God should spread from one comer of the
land of Judea throughout the whole human race.

Chapter LI. 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 tricks173 of Moses (as Celsus imagines), or even of our own
Saviour Jesus; but that for a good end we listen to the God who speaks in Moses,
and have accepted Jesus, whom he testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope
of receiving the best rewards if we regulate our lives according to His word.
And we shall willingly pass over what we have already stated by way of
anticipation on the points, "whence we came and who is our leader, and what law
proceeded from Him." And if Celsus would maintain that there is no difference
between us and the Egyptians, who worship the goat, or the ram, or the
crocodile, or the ox, or the river-horse, or the dog-faced baboon,174 or the
cat, he can ascertain if it be so, and so may any other who thinks alike on the
subject. We, however, have to the best of our ability defended ourselves at
great length in the preceding pages on the subject of the honour which we render
to our Jesus, pointing out that we have found the better part;175 and that in
showing that the truth which is contained in the teaching of Jesus Christ is
pure and unmixed with error, we are not commending ourselves, but our Teacher,
to whom testimony was borne through many witnesses by the Supreme God and the
prophetic writings among the Jews, and by the very clearness of the case itself,
for it is demonstrated that He could not have accomplished such mighty works
without the divine help.

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: "176 for He announced to men the great counsel of the God and Father of
all things regarding them, (saying) of those who yield themselves up to a life
of pure religion, that they ascend by means of their great deeds to God; but of
those who do not adhere to Him, that they place themselves at a distance from
God, and journey on to destruction through their unbelief of Him. He then
continues: "If even the angel came to men, is he the first and only one who
came, or did others come on former occasions? "And he thinks he can meet either
of these dilemmas at great length, although there is not a single real Christian
who asserts that Christ was the only being that visited the human race. For, as
Celsus says, "If they should say the only one," there are others who appeared to
different individuals.

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 be 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 whichbear the name Enoch177 do not at all
circulate in the Churches as divine, although it is from this source that he
might be supposed to have obtained the statement, that "sixty or seventy angels
descended at the same time, who fell into a state of wickedness."

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,"178 we shall nevertheless even on this point persuade those who are
capable of understanding the meaning of the prophet, that even before us there
was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine regarding souls, which
became possessed with a desire for the corporeal life of men, and this in
metaphorical language, he said, was termed "daughters of men." But whatever may
be the meaning of the "sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men," it
will not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited
mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the Saviour and benefactor of all
those who depart from the flood of wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing
whatever he had at any time heard, or had anywhere found written-whether held to
be of divine origin among Christians or not-he adds: "The sixty or seventy who
descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains."
And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following:
"And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,"-a thing
neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God! For no one was ever so
foolish as to materialize into human tears those which were shed by the angels
who had come down from heaven. And if it were right to pass a jest upon what is
advanced against us in a serious spirit by Celsus, we might observe that no one
would ever have said that hot springs, the greater part of which are fresh
water, were the tears of the angels, since tears are saltish in their nature,
unless indeed the angels, in the opinion of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.

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, according to others, one; "having failed to notice, I think, that
Matthew and Mark speak of one, and Luke and John of two, which statements are
not contradictory. For they who mention "one," say that it was he who rolled
away the stone from the sepulchre; while they who mention "two," refer to those
who appeared in shining raiment to the women that repaired to the sepulchre, or
who were seen within sitting in white garments. Each of these occurrences might
now be demonstrated to have actually taken place, and to be indicative of a
figurative meaning existing in these "phenomena," (and intelligible) to those
who were prepared to behold the resurrection of the Word. Such a task, however,
does not belong to our present purpose, but rather to an exposition of the
Gospel.179

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 Chaeronea "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 virtuous180 life,
and their withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by angels
who lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.

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,181 that His
tomb should not be opened, in order that no one might behold the Word alive
after their conspiracy; but the "Angel of God" who came into the world for the
salvation of men, with the help of another angel, proved more powerful than the
conspirators, and rolled away the weighty stone, that those who deemed the Word
to be dead might be convinced that He is not with the "departed," but is alive,
and precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may manifest to them
those truths which come after those which He formerly showed them at the time of
their first entrance (into the school of Christianity), when they were as yet
incapable of receiving deeper instruction. In the next place, I do not
understand what advantage he thinks will accrue to his purpose when he ridicules
the account of "the angel's visit to Joseph regarding the pregnancy of Mary;
"and again, that of the angel to warn the parents "to take up the new-born
Child, whose life was in danger, and to flee with it into Egypt." Concerning
these matters, however, we have in the preceding pages answered his statements.
But what does Celsus mean by saying, that "according to the Scriptures, angels
are recorded to have been sent to Moses, and others as well? "For it appears to
me to contribute nothing to his purpose, and especially because none of them
made any effort to accomplish, as far as in his power, the conversion of the
human race from their sins. Let it be granted, however, that other angels were
sent from God, but that he came to announce something of greater importance
(than any others who preceded him); and when the Jews had fallen into sin, and
corrupted their religion, and had done unholy deeds, transferred the kingdom of
God to other husbandmen, who in all the Churches take special care of
themselves,182 and use every endeavour by means of a holy life, and by a
doctrine conformable thereto, to win over to the God of all things those who
would rush away from the teaching of Jesus.183

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 Church184 admit this, and adopt as true
the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the
Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh; "on which day, as the
Scripture says, God "ceased"185 from His works, retiring into the contemplation
of Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter of
the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God "rested,"186 -a term
which is not found in the record. With respect, however, to the creation of the
world, and the "rest187 which is reserved after it for the people of God," the
subject is extensive, and mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation.
In the next place, as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and
to give it an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements,
such as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: "We give the
same account. as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they
do." However, as regards "the conspiracies of brothers against one another," we
know of none such, save that Cain conspired against Abel, and Esau against
Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob against Esau: for if this had been
the case, Celsus would have been correct in saying that we give the same
accounts as do the Jews of "the conspiracies of brothers against one another."
Let it be granted, however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as
they, and of their return188 thence, which was not a "flight,"189 as Celsus
considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an accusation
against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to cast ridicule upon
us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed their exodus a "flight;
"but when it was his business to investigate the account of the punishments
inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he purposely passed by in silence.

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,"190 because the meaning of the law of Moses has been
concealed from those who have not welcomed191 the way which is by Jesus Christ.
But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for "the Lord is that Spirit"), the
veil being taken away, "he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory
of the Lord" in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression,
and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term "face"
being used figuratively for the "understanding," as one would call it without a
figure, in which is the face of the "inner man," filled with light and glory,
flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.

Chapter LXI.

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."192 And let it be admitted also, that there is a third class
who call certain persons "carnal," and others "spiritual,"-I think he here means
the followers of Valentinus,-yet what does this avail against us, who belong to
the Church, and who make it an accusation against such as hold that certain
natures are saved, and that others perish in consequence of their natural
constitution?193 And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give
themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call
themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of
providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce
monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of
Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and
who boast on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their
lives, like the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law,-and these
are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was
born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other
human beings,-what does that avail by way of charge against such as belong to
the Church, and whom Celsus has styled "those of the multitude? "194 He adds,
also, that certain of the Christians are believers in the Sibyl,195 having
probably misunderstood some who blamed such as believed in the existence of a
prophetic Sibyl, and termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.

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 to be spoken; nor will they
yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a
perfect hatred." Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy
and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects. We, however, who are
followers of the word of Jesus, and have exercised ourselves in thinking, and
saying, and doing what is in harmony with His words, "when reviled, bless; being
persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; "196 and we would not utter
"all manner of things shameful to be spoken" against those who have adopted
different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every exertion to raise them
to a better condition through adherence to the Creator alone, and lead them to
perform every act as those who will (one day) be judged. And if those who hold
different opinions will not be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down
for the treatment of such: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second
admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself."197 Moreover, we who know the maxim, "Blessed are
the peacemakers," and this also, "Blessed are the meek," would not regard with
hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error
Circes and flattering deceivers.198

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; "199 and to have misunderstood also those who employed these
declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of
Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that "certain
among the Christians are called `cauterized in the ears; '"200 and also that
some are termed "enigmas,"201 -a term which we have never met. The expression
"stumbling-block"202 is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings,-an
appellation which we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple
persons, and those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we,
nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are
styled Sirens, who betray and deceive,203 and stop their ears, and change into
swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects to know everything,
uses such language as the following: "You may hear," he says, "all those who
differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most
shameless language, uttering the words, `The world is crucified to me, and I
unto the world.'" And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could
remember out of Paul's writings; and yet why should we not also employ
innumerable other quotations from the Scriptures, such as, "For though we do
walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our
warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of
strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God? "204

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.205 Those, then, who do not
regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his language, and say,
"The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world." And consequently in this
point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood. He continues, moreover, to linger
over the accusations which he brings against the diversity of sects which exist,
but does not appear to me to be accurate in the language which he employs, nor
to have carefully observed or understood how it is that those Christians who
have made progress in their studies say that they are possessed of greater
knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they acknowledge the same Scriptures,
but interpret them differently, or whether they do not recognise these books as
divine. For we find both of these views prevailing among the sects. He then
continues: "Although they have no foundation for the doctrine, let us examine
the system itself; and, in the first place, let us mention the corruptions which
they have made through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of
elementary principles they express their opinions in the most absurd manner on
things which they do not understand, such as the following." And then, to
certain expressions which are continually in the mouths of the believers in
Christianity, he opposes certain others from the writings of the philosophers,
with the object of making it appear that the noble sentiments which Celsus
supposes to be used by Christians have been expressed in better and clearer
language by the philosophers, in order that he might drag away to the study of
philosophy those who are caught by opinions which at once evidence their noble
and religious character. We shall, however, here terminate the fifth book, and
begin the sixth with what follows.

1: Cf. Prov. x. 19.

2: Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15.

3: Cf. 2 Cor. x. 5.

4: Cf. Ps. lxviii. 11.

5: toi=j e0kei= qeoi=j .

6: a9yi=da .

7: kate/rxesqai .

8: Cf. Heb. i. 14.

9: e0n toi=j kaqarwta/toij tou= ko/smou xwri/oij e0pourani/oij, h! kai\ toi=j
toi=j tou/twn kaqarwte/roij u=perourani/oij .

10: Cf. Ps. lxxxvi. 8, xcvi. 4, cxxxvi. 2.

11: e0an dunw/meqa katakou/ein th=j peri\ proseuxh=j kurioleci/aj kai\
kataxrh/sewj .

12: [Comp. Col. iii. 18and cap. viii., infra .]

13: h@ tou\j me\n e0n sko/tw pou e0k gohtei/aj ou0k o0rqh=j tuglw/ttousin, h@
di' a0mudrw=n fasma/twn o0neirw/ttousin e0gxri/mptein legomenouj, eu\ ma/la
qrhskeu/ein .

14: Cf. Ex. xx. 3, 4, 5.

15: Cf. Deut. iv. 19.

16: to\ o#lon o9 ko/smoj .

17: Cf. Jer. vii. 17, 18.

18: Cf. Acts vii. 42, 43.

19: Cf. Col. ii. 18, 19.

20: e0ggastrimu/qoij .

21: e0paoidoi=j .

22: Cf. Lev. xix. 31.

23: The emendations of Ruaeus have been adopted in the translation, the text
being probably corrupt. Cf. Ruaeus, in loc .

24: Cf. Deut. iv. 19, 20.

25: Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9.

26: Cf. Gen. xv. 5.

27: Cf. Deut. i. 10.

28: xw/mati .

29: a0po\ tw=n dikai/wn tw=n pollw=n .

30: Cf. Dan. xii. 1, 2, 3.

31: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 40-42.

32: megalofuw=j .

33: Matt. v. 14.

34: Cf. Matt. v. 16.

35: Cf. Origen, de Principiis , i. c. vii.

36: e0k tou= e0n au0toi=j au0tecousi/ou e0lhluqo/j .

37: Cf. 1 John i. 5.

38: mu/dron dia/puron .

39: th\n eu0ktikh\n du/namin .

40: [See note in Migne's edition of Origen's Works , vol. i. p. 1195; also note
supra , p. 262. S.] 41: Cf. Matt. xix. 17; cf. Mark x. 18.

42: Ibid.

43: Cf. Deut. vi. 13.

44: Cf. Ps. cvii. 20.

45: pronohtikw=j .

46: Matt. xxviii. 20.

47: Cf. John i. 26, 27.

48: Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.

49: Cf. Jer. xxiii. 23.

50: zhtei=n eu!xesqai tw= mh\ fqa/nonti e0pi\ ta\ su/mpanta .

51: Cf. Rom. viii. 19-21.

52: Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 3, 4.

53: Cf. Rom. viii. 19-21.

54: w#sper ma/geiroj .

55: ou0 ga\r th=j plhmmelo=j o0re/cew=, ou0de\ th=j peplanhme/nh= a0kosmi/aj,
a0lla\ th=j o0rqh=j kai\ dikai/aj fu/sewj Qeo/j e0stin a0rxhge0thj .

56: u#lhn .

57: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.

58: Cf. Mal. iii. 2.

59: Cf. Ezek. xxii. 18, 20.

60: po/nou kai\ puro/j .

61: Cf. Isa. xlvii. 14, 15.

62: ta\ skuqrwpa/ .

63: Cf. Isa. xlviii. 9 (Septuagint).

64: [See Robertson's History of the Church , vol. i. p. 156, 157. S.] 65: Cf. 1
Cor. 1. 21.

66: ta\ kata\ tou\j to/pouj .

67: Cf. John v. 39.

68: kai\ tw=n pollw=n kakw=n a0poxh/n .

69: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

70: Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 16.

71: Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.

72: peri\ tou= problh/matoj tou/tou .

73: Cf. Eph. iv. 14.

74: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 35-38.

75: e0n e0lai/aj purhni .

76: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 42-44.

77: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49.

78: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 50.

79: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 51.

80: Cf. Tobit xii. 7.

81: dia\ ta\j topika=j metaba/seij .

82: Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 30.

83: sfo/dr' a0pemfai/nonta .

84: muxqi/zein .

85: [Comp. book iv. capp. lxv.-lxix. pp. 526-528, supra .] 86: kata\ to\
e0ndexo/menon .

87: kai\ th\n tou= e0f' h9mi=n fu/sin gignw/skontej e0ndexome/nou \ e0nde/xetai
.

88: bou/lhna .

89: Cf. Matt. xxiv. 35; cf. Mark xiii. 31.

90: lo/goj .

91: dialektikai=j a0na/gkaij .

92: ei0 de= xrh\ bebiasme/nwj o0noma/sai .

93: bdeluro/n .

94: Cf. John i. 1.

95: [See note infra , bk. vi. cap. xlvii. S.] 96: kai\ kata\ to\ e0pixw/rion
no/mouj qe/menoi .

97: ta\ me/rh th=j gh=j yh=j e0c a0rxh=j a!lloij e0po/ptaij nenemhme/na .

98: kai\ kata/ tinaj e0pikratei/aj dieilhmme/na .

99: paralu/ein .

100: kata1oina=tai .

101: swfrosu/nh .

102: e0fa/ptetai .

103: oi/keiote/rouj .

104: Cf. Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (LXX.).

105: Cf. Gen. xi. 1, 2.

106: su/gxusij .

107: Cf. Gen. xi. 5-9.

108: Cf. Wisd. of Sol. x. 5.

109: Cf. Tobit xii. 7.

110: Cf. Wisd. of Sol. i. 4.

111: e0j o$son ei0si\ ta\ tou= fwto\j kai/ tou= a0po\ fwto\j a0i@di/ou
a0pauga/smatoj fronou=ntej .

112: a0lla/tria a0natolw=n fronou=ntej .

113: ta\ th=j u#lhj .

114: politei/a| .

115: kai\ ti/santaj di/khn .

116: w9sperei/ paideuqe/ntaj .

117: a0po\ th=j pa/ntwn meri/doj .

118: Cf. Rom. i. 24, 26, 28.

119: a0lla\ kai\ boulo/meqa, ou0x o#ph h\ e0kei/noij fi/lon, piei=n ta0
e0kei/nwn .

120: Ps. ii. 8.

124: e0le/gxh .

125: a0rxhge/thn .

126: sugdo/yai ta\j polemida\j h9mw=n logika\j maxai/raj kai\ u0bristika\j ei0j
a!rotra, kai\ ta\j kata\ to\ pro/teron h9mw=n ma/ximon zibu/naj ei0j dre/pana
metaskeuazomen .

127: Cf. Isa. ii. 4.

128: Cf. Jer. xvi. 19 and xiv. 22: w0j yeudh= e0kth/santo oi9pate/rej h9mw=n
ei!dwla, kai\ ou\k e!stin e0n au0toi=j u9etti/zwn .

129: Cf. Herodot., ii. 18.

130: o9 de\ Ammwn ou0de/n ti kaki/wn diapresbeu=sai ta\ daimo/nia, h$ oi9
'Ioudai/wn a!ggeloi .

131: eu0fhmei=n min e0ke/leuon .

132: Cf. Herodot., iii. 38.

133: ge/loioj a@n ei!h filo/sofoj a0filo/sofa pra/ttwn .

134: fusiologi/an .

135: presbu/taton pa/ntwn tw=n dhmiourghma/twn .

136: Cf. Gen. i. 26.

137: This sentence is regarded by Guietus as an interpolation, which should be
struck out of the text.

138: i>\na do/c meta\ tw=n a9tele/stwn teletwsn, kai\ tw=n kalonsw=n dai/monaj
magganeiw=n, ou0x u0po\ a0galmatopoiw=n mo/nwn kataskena/zesqai qeo\j, a0lla0
kai\ u9po\ ma/gwn, kai\ farmakw=n, kai\ tw=n e0pw|dai=j au0tw=n khloume/nwn
daimo/nwn .

139: h9me/rw| .

140: me0trion .

141: ou0 ga\r para\ to\ qhluko\n o!noma, kai\ th=| ou0si/a| qh/leian nomiste/on
ei\nai thn sofi/an, kai\ th\n dikaiosu/nhn .

142: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 30.

143: Cf. Herodot., i. 131.

144: oi[on dh/ tina maka/rwn xw/ran laxou=sin .

145: xoro/j .

146: [Note this eulogy on the law, even though it "made nothing perfect."] 147:
u9pe\r ta\ sw/mata .

148: sumplhrw/sei tou= lo/gou .

149: to\n a0po\ tw=n au0tw=n o9rw/menon dogma/twn .

150: Cf. Ex. xxi. 2 and Jer. xxxiv. 14. [An important comment on Mosaic
servitude.] 151: Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 4, 5.

152: o#ti h9 tw=n o0nma/twn fu/sij ou0 qeme/nwn ei0si\ no/moi .

153: metalamba/netai ga/r ti, fer' ei0pei=n . In the editions of Hoeschel and
Spencer, ti is wanting.

154: o0 qeo\j patro\j e0klektou= th=j h0gou=j, kai\ o9 qeo\j tou= ge/lwtoj, kai\
o9 qeo\j tou= pternistou . Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

155: [Note the bearing of this chapter on the famous controversy concerning the
Chinese renderings of God's name.] 156: [Note the bearing of this chapter on the
famous controversy concerning the Chinese renderings of God's name.] 157:
dikaiosu/nh .

158: i0diopragi/an tw=n merw=n th=j yuxh=j .

159: a0ndrei/a .

160: tou= qumikou= me/rouj th=j yuxh=j fa/skontoj au0to\ ei\nai a0reth\n, kai\
a0pota/ssontoj au0th|= to\n peri\ to\n qw/raka .

161: Cf. Ex. iv. 24, 25. Eliezer was one of the two sons of Moses. Cf. Ex.
xviii. 4.

162: e0nergei=n kata\ Mwu>\se/wj .

163: Cf. Ex. iv. 25, 26.

164: kata\ tw=n e0n th|= qeosebei/a| tan/th| peritemnome/nwn du/amij .
Boherellus inserts mh\ before peritemnome/nwn, , which has been adopted in the
text.

165: Gal. v. 2.

166: Cf. Acts x. 14.

167: kai/ tij fi/lon ui9o/n a0ei/raj, sfa/cei e0peuxo/menoj me/ga nh/pioj . - A
verse of Empedocles, quoted by Plutarch, de Superstitione , c. xii. Spencer. Cf.
note in loc . in Benedictine edition.

168: Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27.

169: Cf. Col. iii. 5.

170: Cf. Rom. viii. 13.

171: kai\ w9j eu0dokimou=nte/j ge o#son ou0k e9gkatlei/ponto . The negative
particle ( ou0k ) is wanting in the editions of Hoeschel and Spencer, but is
found in the Royal, Basil, and Vatican mss. Guietus would delete o#son (which
emendation has been adopted in the translation), while Boherellus would read
o#soi instead. - Ruaeus.

172: [Josephus, Antiquities , b. xi. cap. viii.]

173: gohtei/a .

174: to\n kunoke/falon .

175: o#ti krei=tton eu#romen .

176: Cf. Isa. ix. 6. [according to Sept. See vol. i. pp. 223, 236, this series.]
177: [See p. 380, supra .] 178: [Gen. vi. 2. S.]

179: [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.] 180: to\n e0r0r9wme/non bi/on .

181: kai\ to\ mhde\n tugxa/nonta .

182: e9autw=n . Guietus would read au0tw=n , to agree with tw=n e0kklhsiw=n .

183: Instead of ta\j a0po\ th=j didaskali/aj tou= 'Ihsou= a9forma/j , Boherellus
conjectures tou\j ... a0formw=ntaj , which has been adopted in the translation.

184: tw=n a0po\ mega/lhj e0kklhsi/aj .

185: kate/pausen .

186: a0napausa/menoj .

187: sabbatismou= .

188: th\n e0kei=qen e0pa/nodon .

189: fugh/n .

190: 2 Cor. iii. 15.

191: a0spasame/noij .

192: 2 Tim. i. 3.

193: e0k kataskeuh=j .

194: a0po\ tou= plh/qouj .

195: Sibullista/j .

196: 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.

197: Tit. iii. 10, 11.

198: Ki/rkaj kai\ ku/khqra ai0mu/la .

199: Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

200: a0koh=j dausth/ria . Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

201: ai0ni/gmata . Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

202: skanda/lou .

203: e0corxoume/naj kai\ sofistri/aj .

204: Cf. 2 Cor. x. 3-5.

205: [Irenaeus, vol. i. p. 353.]


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 6
========================================================================

Book VI.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L.

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Chapter LXXI.

Chapter LXXII.

Chapter LXXIII.

Chapter LXXIV.

Chapter LXXV.

Chapter LXXVI.

Chapter LXXVII.

Chapter LXXVIII.

Chapter LXXIX.

Chapter LXXX.

Chapter LXXXI.

Book VI.

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 exaggerations1 and promises on the part
of God, or the Son of God." Now we maintain, that if it is the object of the
ambassadors of the truth to confer benefits upon the greatest possible number,
and, so far as they can, to win over to its side, through their love to men,
every one without exception-intelligent as well as simple-not Greeks only, but
also Barbarians (and great, indeed, is the humanity which should succeed in
converting the rustic and the ignorant2 ), it is manifest that they must adopt a
style of address fitted to do good to all, and to gain over to them men of every
sort. Those, on the other hand, who turn away3 from the ignorant as being mere
slaves,4 and unable to understand the flowing periods of a polished and logical
discourse, and so devote their attention solely to such as have been brought up
amongst literary pursuits,5 confine their views of the public good within very
strait and narrow limits.

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 adopt6 a style of address which
should not merely convey the truth, but which should be fitted to gain over the
multitude, until each one, attracted and led onwards, should ascend as far as he
could towards the comprehension of those mysteries which are contained in these
apparently simple words. For, if I may venture to say so, few have been
benefited (if they have indeed been benefited at all) by the beautiful and
polished style of Plato, and those who have written like him;7 while, on the
contrary, many have received advantage from those who wrote and taught in a
simple and practical manner, and with a view to the wants of the multitude. It
is easy, indeed, to observe that Plato is found only in the hands of those who
profess to be literary men;8 while Epictetus is admired by persons of ordinary
capacity, who have a desire to be benefited, and who perceive the improvement
which may be derived from his writings. Now we make these remarks, not to
disparage Plato (for the great world of men has found even him useful), but to
point out the aim of those who said: "And my speech and my preaching was not
with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of
God."9 For the word of God declares that the preaching (although in itself true
and most worthy of belief) is not sufficient to reach the human heart, unless a
certain power be imparted to the speaker from God, and a grace appear upon his
words; and it is only by the divine agency that this takes place in those who
speak effectually. The prophet says in the Psalms 67, that "the Lord will give a
word with great power to them who preach."10 If, then, it should be granted with
respect to certain points, that the same doctrines are found among the Greeks as
in our own Scriptures, yet they do not possess the same power of attracting and
disposing the souls of men to follow them. And therefore the disciples of Jesus,
men ignorant so far as regards Grecian philosophy, yet traversed many countries
of the world, impressing, agreeably to the desire of the Logos, each one of
their hearers according to his deserts, so that they received a moral
amelioration in proportion to the inclination of their will to accept of that
which is good.

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-looted beasts, and creeping things."11
The truth, then, is verily held (in unrighteousness), as our Scriptures testify,
by those who are of opinion that "the chief good cannot be described in words,"
but who assert that, "after long custom and familiar usage,12 a light becomes
suddenly kindled in the soul, as if by a fire springing forth, and that it now
supports itself alone."

Chapter IV.

Notwithstanding, those who have written in this manner regarding the "chief
good" will go down to the Piraeus 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 Aesculapius!13 And
although they had been enabled to form representations both of the "invisible
things" of God and of the "archetypal forms" of things from the creation of the
world, and from (the contemplation of) sensible things, from which they ascend
to those objects which are comprehended by the understanding alone,-and although
they had no mean glimpses of His "eternal power and Godhead,"14 they
nevertheless became "foolish in their imaginations," and their "foolish heart"
was involved in darkness and ignorance as to the (true) worship of God.
Moreover, we may see those who greatly pride themselves upon their wisdom and
theology worshipping the image of a corruptible man, in honour, they say, of
Him, and sometimes even descending, with the Egyptians, to the worship of birds,
and four-footed beasts, and creeping things! And although some may appear to
have risen above such practices, nevertheless they will be found to have changed
the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and serve the "creature more than
the Creator."15 As the wise and learned among the Greeks, then, commit errors in
the service which they render to God, God "chose the foolish things of the world
to confound the wise; and base things of the world, and things that are weak,
and things which are despised, and things which are nought, to bring to nought
things that are; "and this, truly, "that no flesh should glory in the presence
of God."16 Our wise men, however,-Moses, the most ancient of them all, and the
prophets who followed him,-knowing that the chief good could by no means be
described in words, were the first who wrote that, as God manifests Himself to
the deserving, and to those who are qualified to behold Him,17 He appeared to
Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob. But who He was that appeared, and of what
form, and in what manner, and like to which of mortal beings,18 they have left
to be investigated by those who are able to show that they resemble those
persons to whom God showed Himself: for He was seen not by their bodily eyes,
but by the pure heart. For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, "Blessed
are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."19

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."20 John also, who lived
after him, said, "That which was in the Logos was life, and the life was the
light of men; "21 which "true light lighteneth every man that cometh into the
world" (i.e., the true world, which is perceived by the understanding22 ), and
maketh him a light of the world: "For this light shone in our hearts, to give
the light of the glorious Gospel of God in the face of Christ Jesus."23 And
therefore that very ancient prophet, who prophesied many generations before the
reign of Cyrus (for he was older than he by more than fourteen generations),
expressed himself in these words: "The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom
shall I fear? "24 and, "Thy law is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my
path; "25 and again, "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, was manifested
towards us; "26 and, "In Thy light we shall see light."27 And the Logos,
exhorting us to come to this light, says, in the prophecies of Isaiah:
"Enlighten thyself, enlighten thyself, O Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and
the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee."28 The same prophet also, when
predicting the advent of Jesus, who was to turn away men from the worship of
idols, and of images, and of demons, says, "To those that sat in the land and
shadow of death, upon them hath the light arisen; "29 and again, "The people
that sat in darkness saw a great light."30 Observe now the difference between
the fine phrases of Plato respecting the "chief good," and the declarations of
our prophets regarding the "light" of the blessed; and notice that the truth as
it is contained in Plato concerning this subject did not at all help his readers
to attain to a pure worship of God, nor even himself, who could philosophize so
grandly about the "chief good," whereas the simple language of the holy
Scriptures has led to their honest readers being filled with a divine spirit;31
and this light is nourished within them by the oil, which in a certain parable
is said to have preserved the light of the torches of the five wise virgins.32

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,33 written within and without, in which were contained
"lamentations," and "songs," and "denunciations; "34 but at the command of the
Logos he swallowed the book, in order that its contents might not be written,
and so made known to unworthy persons. John also is recorded to have seen and
done a similar thing.35 Nay, Paul even heard "unspeakable words, which it is not
lawful for a man to utter."36 And it is related of Jesus, who was greater than
all these, that He conversed with His disciples in private, and especially in
their sacred retreats, concerning the Gospel of God; but the words which He
uttered have not been preserved, because it appeared to the evangelists that
they could not be adequately conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech.
And if it were not tiresome to repeat the truth regarding these illustrious
individuals, I would say that they saw better than Plato (by means of the
intelligence which they received by the grace of God), what things were to be
committed to writing, and how this was to be done, and what was by no means to
be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in words, and what was
not to be so conveyed. And once more, John, in teaching us the difference
between what ought to be committed to writing and what not, declares that he
heard seven thunders instructing him on certain matters, and forbidding him to
commit their words to writing.37

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,38 what we have said in reply may suffice. Seeing, however, he produces
another quotation from Plato, in which he asserts that the employment of the
method of question and answer sheds light on the thoughts of those who
philosophize like him, let us show from the holy Scriptures that the word of God
also encourages us to the practice of dialectics: Solomon, e.g., declaring in
one passage, that "instruction unquestioned goes astray; "39 and Jesus the son
of Sirach, who has left us the treatise called "Wisdom," declaring in another,
that "the knowledge of the unwise is as words that will not stand
investigation."40 Our methods of discussion, however, are rather of a gentle
kind; for we have learned that he who presides over the preaching of the word
ought to be able to confute gainsayers. But if some continue indolent, and do
not train themselves so as to attend to the reading of the word, and "to search
the Scriptures," and, agreeably to the command of Jesus, to investigate the
meaning of the sacred writings, and to ask of God concerning them, and to keep
"knocking" at what may be closed within them, the Scripture is not on that
account to be regarded as devoid of wisdom.

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,41 nor shut
the mouth of those who wish to ask him for information on the subject of his
promises; nor does he command them to come at once and believe that a God of a
particular kind exists, and that he has a son of a particular nature, who
descended (to earth) and conversed with me." Now, in answer to this we have to
say, that with regard to Plato, it is Aristander, I think, who has related that
he was not the son of Ariston, but of a phantom, which approached Amphictione in
the guise of Apollo. And there are several other of the followers of Plato who,
in their lives of their master, have made the same statement. What are we to
say, moreover, about Pythagoras, who relates the greatest possible amount of
wonders, and who, in a general assembly of the Greeks, showed his ivory thigh,
and asserted that he recognised the shield which he wore when he was Euphorbus,
and who is said to have appeared on one day in two different cities! He,
moreover, who will declare that what is related of Plato and Socrates belongs to
the marvellous, will quote the story of the swan which was recommended to
Socrates while he was asleep, and of the master saying when he met the young
man, "This, then, was the swan!"42 Nay, the third eye which Plato saw that he
himself possessed, he will refer to the category of prodigies.43 But occasion
for slanderous accusations will never be wanting to those who are ill-disposed,
and who wish to speak evil of what has happened to such as are raised above the
multitude. Such persons will deride as a fiction even the demon of Socrates. We
do not, then, relate marvels when we narrate the history of Jesus, nor have His
genuine disciples recorded any such stories of Him; whereas this Celsus, who
professes universal knowledge, and who quotes many of the sayings of Plato, is,
I think, intentionally silent on the discourse concerning the Son of God which
is related in Plato's Epistle to Hermeas and Coriscus. Plato's words are as
follows: "And calling to witness the God of all things-the ruler both of things
present and things to come, father and lord both of the ruler and cause-whom, if
we are philosophers indeed, we shall all clearly know, so far as it is possible
for happy human beings to attain such knowledge."44

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.'"45 Now, according to this division,
John is introduced before Jesus as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, so
as to correspond with the "name" of Plato; and the second after John, who is
pointed out by him, is Jesus, with whom agrees the statement, "The Word became
flesh; "and that corresponds to the "word" of Plato. Plato terms the third
"image; "but we, who apply the expression "image" to something different, would
say with greater precision, that the mark of the wounds which is made in the
soul by the word is the Christ which is in each one of us and this mark is
impressed by Christ the Word.46 And whether Christ, the wisdom which is in those
of us who are perfect, correspond to the "fourth" element-knowledge-will become
known to him who has the capacity to ascertain it.

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'47 might perhaps be explained in words." But as Celsus adduces
this to prove that we ought not to yield a simple assent, but to furnish a
reason for our belief, we shall quote also the words of Paul, where he says, in
censuring the hasty48 believer, "unless ye have believed inconsiderately."49
Now, through his practice of repeating himself, Celsus, so far as he can, forces
us to be guilty of tautology, reiterating, after the boastful language which has
been quoted, that "Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood, giving out
that he has made some new discovery, or that he has come down from heaven to
announce it, but acknowledges whence these statements are derived." Now, if one
wished to reply to Celsus, one might say in answer to such assertions, that even
Plato is guilty of boasting, when in the Timaeus50 he puts the following
language in the month of Zeus: "Gods of gods, whose creator and father I am,"
and so on. And if any one will defend such language on account of the meaning
which is conveyed under the name of Zeus, thus speaking in the dialogue of
Plato, why should not he who investigates the meaning of the words of the Son of
God, or those of the Creator (51 in the prophets, express a profounder meaning
than any conveyed by the words of Zeus in the Timaeus? For the characteristic of
divinity is the announcement of future events, predicted not by human power, but
shown by the result to be due to a divine spirit in him who made the
announcement. Accordingly, we do not say to each of our hearers, "Believe, first
of all, that He whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God; "but we put the
Gospel before each one, as his character and disposition may fit him to receive
it, inasmuch as we have learned to know "how we ought to answer every man."52
And there are some who are capable of receiving nothing more than an exhortation
to believe, and to these we address that alone; while we approach others, again,
as far as possible, in the way of demonstration, by means of question and
answer. Nor do we at all say, as Celsus scoffingly alleges, "Believe that he
whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God, although he was shamefully bound,
and disgracefully punished, and very recently53 was most contumeliously treated
before the eyes of all men; "neither do we add, "Believe it even the more (on
that account)." For it is our endeavour to state, on each individual point,
arguments more numerous even than we have brought forward in the preceding
pages.

Chapter XI.

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 cry54 of all parties is, `Believe, if thou wilt be saved,
or else begone,' what shall those do who are in earnest about their salvation?
Shall they cast the dice, in order to divine whither they may betake themselves,
and whom they shall join? "Now we shall answer this objection in the following
manner, as the clearness of the case impels us to do. If it had been recorded
that several individuals had appeared in human life as sons of God in the manner
in which Jesus did, and if each of them had drawn a party of adherents to his
side, so that, on account of the similarity of the profession (in the case of
each individual) that he was the Son of God, he to whom his followers bore
testimony to that effect was an object of dispute, there would have been ground
for his saying, "If these bring forward this person, and others a different
individual, while the common and ready cry of all parties is, `Believe, if thou
wilt be saved, or else begone, '" and so on; whereas it has been proclaimed to
the entire world that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who visited the human
race: for those who, like Celsus, have supposed that (the acts of Jesus) were a
series of prodigies,55 and who for that reason wished to perform acts of the
same kind,56 that they, too, might gain a similar mastery over the minds of men,
were convicted of being utter nonentities.57 Such were Simon, the Magus of
Samaria, and Dositheus, who was a native of the same place; since the former
gave out that he was the power of God that is called great,58 and the latter
that he was the Son of God. Now Simonians are found nowhere throughout the
world; and yet, in order to gain over to himself many followers, Simon freed his
disciples from the danger of death, which the Christians were taught to prefer,
by teaching them to regard idolatry as a matter of indifference. But even at the
beginning of their existence the followers of Simon were not exposed to
persecution. For that wicked demon who was conspiring against the doctrine of
Jesus, was well aware that none of his own maxims would be weakened by the
teaching of Simon. The Dositheans, again, even in former times, did not rise to
any eminence, and now they are completely extinguished, so that it is said their
whole number does not amount to thirty. Judas of Galilee also, as Luke relates
in the Acts of the Apostles,59 wished to call himself some great personage, as
did Theudas before him; but as their doctrine was not of God, they were
destroyed, and all who obeyed them were immediately dispersed. We do not, then,
"cast the dice in order to divine whither we shall betake ourselves, and whom we
shall join," as if there were many claimants able to draw us after them by the
profession of their having come down from God to visit the human race. On these
points, however, we have said enough.

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."60 Celsus says that "the reason of this has been stated long ago." And the
reason he imagines to be, "our desire to win over by means of this saying the
ignorant and foolish alone." But, as he himself has intimated, he has said the
same thing before; and we, to the best of our ability, replied to it.
Notwithstanding this, however, he wished to show that this statement was an
invention61 of ours, and borrowed from the Grecian sages, who declare that human
wisdom is of one kind, and divine of another. And he quotes the words of
Heraclitus, where he says in one passage, that "man's method of action is not
regulated by fixed principles, but that of God is; "62 and in another, that "a
foolish man listens to a demon, as a boy does to a man." He quotes, moreover,
the following from the Apology of Socrates, of which Plato was the author: "For
I, O men of Athens, have obtained this name by no other means than by my wisdom.
And of what sort is this wisdom? Such, probably, as is human; for in that
respect I venture to think that I am in reality wise."63 Such are the passages
adduced by Celsus. But I shall subjoin also the following from Plato's letter to
Hermeas, and Erastus, and Coriscus: "To Erastus and Coriscus I say, although I
am an old man, that, in addition to this noble knowledge of 'forms' (which they
possess), they need a wisdom, with regard to the class of wicked and unjust
persons, which may serve as a protective and repelling force against them. For
they are inexperienced, in consequence of having passed a large portion of their
lives with us, who are moderate64 individuals, and not wicked. I have
accordingly said that they need these things, in order that they may not be
compelled to neglect the true wisdom, and to apply themselves in a greater
degree than is proper to that which is necessary and human."

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."65 We maintain, indeed, that "human" wisdom is an exercise for the
soul, but that "divine" wisdom is the "end," being also termed the "strong" meat
of the soul by him who has said that "strong meat belongeth to them that are
perfect,66 even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to
discern both good and evil."67 This opinion, moreover, is truly an ancient one,
its antiquity not being referred back, as Celsus thinks, merely to Heraclitus
and Plato. For before these individuals lived, the prophets distinguished
between the two kinds of wisdom. It is sufficient for the present to quote from
the words of David what he says regarding the man who is wise, according to
divine wisdom, that "he will not see corruption when he beholds wise men
dying."68 Divine wisdom, accordingly, being different from faith, is the "first"
of the so-called "charismata" of God; and the "second" after it-in the
estimation of those who know how to distinguish such things accurately-is what
is called "knowledge; "69 and the "third"-seeing that even the more simple class
of men who adhere to the service of God, so far as they can, must be saved-is
faith. And therefore Paul says: "To one is given by the Spirit the word of
wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by
the same Spirit."70 And therefore it is no ordinary individuals whom you will
find to have participated in the "divine" wisdom, but the more excellent and
distinguished among those who have given in their adherence to Christianity; for
it is not "to the most ignorant, or servile, or most uninstructed of mankind,"
that one would discourse upon the topics relating to the divine wisdom.

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.71 And although some may say that these objects are not gods, but
only imitations and symbols of real divinities, nevertheless these very
individuals, in imagining that the hands of low mechanics72 can frame imitations
of divinity, are "uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant; "for we assert that
the lowest73 among us have been set free from this ignorance and want of
knowledge, while the most intelligent can understand and grasp the divine hope.
We do not maintain, however, that it is impossible for one who has not been
trained in earthly wisdom to receive the "divine," but we do acknowledge that
all human wisdom is "folly" in comparison with the "divine." In the next place,
instead of endeavouring to adduce reasons, as he ought, for his assertions, he
terms us "sorcerers,"74 and asserts that "we flee away with headlong speed75
from the more polished76 class of persons, because they are not suitable
subjects for our impositions, while we seek to decoy77 those who are more
rustic." Now he did not observe that from the very beginning our wise men were
trained in the external branches of learning: Moses, e.g., in all the wisdom of
the Egyptians; Daniel, and Ananias, and Azariah, and Mishael, in all Assyrian
learning, so that they were found to surpass in tenfold degree all the wise men
of that country. At the present time, moreover, the Churches have, in proportion
to the multitudes (of ordinary believers), a few "wise" men, who have come over
to them from that wisdom which is said by us to be "according to the flesh; "78
and they have also some who have advanced from it to that wisdom which is
"divine."

Chapter XV.

Celsus, in the next place, as one who has heard the subject of humility greatly
talked about;79 but who has not been at the pains to understand it,80 would wish
to speak evil of that humility which is practised among us, and imagines that it
is borrowed from some words of Plato imperfectly understood, where he expresses
himself in the Laws as follows: "Now God, according to the ancient account,
having in Himself both the beginning and end and middle of all existing things,
proceeds according to nature, and marches straight on.81 He is constantly
followed by justice, which is the avenger of all breaches of the divine law: he
who is about to become happy follows her closely in humility, and becomingly
adorned."82 He did not observe, however, that in writers much older than Plato
the following words occur in a prayer: "Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine
eyes lofty, neither do I walk in great matters, nor in things too wonderful for
me; if I had not been humble,"83 etc. Now these words show that he who is of
humble mind does not by any means humble himself in an unseemly or inauspicious
manner, falling down upon his knees, or casting himself headlong on the ground,
putting on the dress of the miserable, or sprinkling himself with dust. But he
who is of humble mind in the sense of the prophet, while "walking in great and
wonderful things," which are above his capacity-viz., those doctrines that are
truly great, and those thoughts that are wonderful-"humbles himself under the
mighty hand of God." If there are some, however, who through their stupidity84
have not clearly understood the doctrine of humiliation, and act as they do, it
is not our doctrine which is to be blamed; but we must extend our forgiveness to
the stupidity85 of those who aim at higher things, and owing to their fatuity of
mind86 fail to attain them. He who is "humble and becomingly adorned," is so in
a greater degree than Plato's "humble and becomingly adorned" individual: for he
is becomingly adorned, on the one hand, because "he walks in things great and
wonderful," which are beyond his capacity; and humble, on the other hand,
because, while being in the midst of such, he yet voluntarily humbles himself,
not under any one at random, but under "the mighty hand of God," through Jesus
Christ, the teacher of such instruction, "who did not deem equality with God a
thing to be eagerly clung to, but made Himself of no reputation, and took on Him
the form of a servant, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and
became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."87 And so great is this
doctrine of humiliation, that it has no ordinary individual as its teacher; but
our great Saviour Himself says: "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart,
and ye shall find rest for your souls."88

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,"89 Celsus alleges
that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the
words of the philosopher, which were, that "it was impossible to be
distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches."90 Now who is there
that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs-not merely among
the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind-that would not laugh at
Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and
was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied
literature-not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews-as
the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him,91 had read Plato, and being
pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that "it
was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time,"
had perverted this, and changed it into, "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!" Now,
if Celsus had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had
been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the
point why a camel-that one of animals which, as regards its physical structure,
is crooked-was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich man, and what
signification the "narrow eye of a needle" had for him who saw that "strait and
narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;92 and to this point also, that this
animal. according to the law, is described as "unclean," having one element of
acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz., that it
does not divide the hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel
was adduced as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in
reference to what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logoj
concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the fact
that "the poor" are termed "blessed" byJesus, while "the rich" are designated as
"miserable; "and whether these words refer to the rich and poor who are visible
to the senses, or whether there is any kind of poverty known to the Logoj which
is to be deemed "altogether blessed," and any rich man who is to be wholly
condemned. For even a common individual would not thus indiscriminately have
praised the poor, many of whom lead most wicked byes. But on this point we have
said enough.

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 Phaedrus, 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 Psalms 18, that
"He made darkness His secret place,"93 to signify that those notions which
should be worthily entertained of God are invisible and unknowable, because God
conceals Himself in darkness, as it were, from those who cannot endure the
splendours of His knowledge, or are incapable of looking at them, partly owing
to the pollution of their understanding, which is clothed with the body of
mortal lowliness, and partly owing to its feebler power of comprehending God.
And in order that it may appear that the knowledge of God has rarely been
vouch-safed to men, and has been found in very few individuals, Moses is related
to have entered into the darkness where God was.94 And again, with regard to
Moses it is said: "Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but the rest shall not
come nigh."95 And again, that the prophet may show the depth of the doctrines
which relate to God, and which is unattainable by those who do not possess the
"Spirit which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God," he added: "The
abyss like a garment is His covering."96 Nay, our Lord and Saviour, the Logos of
God, manifesting that the greatness of the knowledge of the Father is
appropriately comprehended and known pre-eminently by Him alone, and in the
second place by those whose minds are enlightened by the Logos Himself and God,
declares: "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the
Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him."97 For no one
can worthily know the "uncreated"98 and first-born of all created nature like
the Father who begat Him, nor any one the Father like the living Logos, and His
Wisdom and Truth.99 By sharing in Him who takes away from the Father what is
called "darkness," which He "made His secret place," and "the abyss," which is
called His "covering," and in this way unveiling the Father, every one knows the
Father who100 is capable of knowing Him.

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."101 I might have mentioned, moreover, what is said of those
beings which are called seraphim by the Hebrews, and described in Isaiah,102 who
cover the face and feet of God, and of those called cherubim, whom Ezekiel103
has described, and the postures of these, and of the manner in which God is said
to be borne upon the cherubim. But since they are mentioned in a very mysterious
manner, on account of the unworthy and the indecent, who are unable to enter
into the great thoughts and venerable nature of theology, I have not deemed it
becoming to discourse of them in this treatise.

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."104 I do not indeed, deny that Plato learned from certain Hebrews the
words quoted from the Phaedrus, or even, as some have recorded, that he quoted
them from a perusal of our prophetic writings, when he said: "No poet here below
has ever sung of the super-celestial place, or ever will sing in a becoming
manner," and so on. And in the same passage is the following: "For the essence,
which is both colourless and formless, and which cannot be touched, which really
exists, is the pilot of the soul, and is beheld by the understanding alone; and
around it the genus of true knowledge holds this place."105 Our Paul, moreover,
educated by these words, and longing after things "supra-mundane" and
"super-celestial," and doing his utmost for their sake to attain them, says in
the second Epistle to the Corinthians: "For our light affliction, which is but
for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not
seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are
unseen are eternal."106

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."107 And therefore we hope, after the troubles and struggles
which we suffer here, to reach the highest heavens,108 and receiving, agreeably
to the teaching of Jesus, the fountains of water that spring up unto eternal
life, and being filled with the rivers of knowledge,109 shall be united with
those waters that are said to be above the heavens, and which praise His name.
And as many of us110 as praise Him shall not be carried about by the revolution
of the heaven, but shall be ever engaged in the contemplation of the invisible
things of God, which are no longer understood by us through the things which He
hath made from the creation of the world, but seeing, as it was expressed by the
true disciple of Jesus in these words, "then face to face; "111 and in these,
"When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done
away."112

Chapter XXI. The Scriptures which are current in the Churches113 of God do not
speak of "seven" heavens, or of any definite number at all,114 but they do
appear to teach the existence of "heavens," whether that means the "spheres" of
those bodies which the Greeks call "planets," or something more mysterious.
Celsus, too, agreeably to the opinion of Plato,115 asserts that souls can make
their way to and from the earth through the planets; while Moses, our most
ancient prophet, says that a divine vision was presented to the view of our
prophet Jacob,116 -a ladder stretching to heaven, and the angels of God
ascending and descending upon it, and the Lord supported117 upon its
top,-obscurely pointing, by this matter of the ladder, either to the same truths
which Plato had in view, or to something greater than these. On this subject
Philo has composed a treatise which deserves the thoughtful and intelligent
investigation of all lovers of truth.

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 fixed118 stars, and of that which take place among the planets, and of the
passage of the soul through these. The representation is of the following
nature: There is a ladder with lofty gates,119 and on the top of it an eighth
gate. The first gate consists of lead, the second of tin, the third of copper,
the fourth of iron, the fifth of a mixture of metals,120 the sixth of silver,
and the seventh of gold. The first gate they assign to Saturn, indicating by the
'lead' the slowness of this star; the second to Venus, comparing her to the
splendour and softness of tin; the third to Jupiter, being firm121 and solid;
the fourth to Mercury, for both Mercury and iron are fit to endure all things,
and are money-making and laborious;122 the fifth to Mars, because, being
composed of a mixture of metals, it is varied and unequal; the sixth, of silver,
to the Moon; the seventh, of gold, to the Sun,-thus imitating the different
colours of the two latter." He next proceeds to examine the reason of the stars
being arranged in this order, which is symbolized by the names of the rest of
matter.123 Musical reasons, moreover, are added or quoted by the Persian
theology; and to these, again, he strives to add a second explanation, connected
also with musical considerations. But it seems to me, that to quote the language
of Celsus upon these matters would be absurd, and similar to what he himself has
done, when, in his accusations against Christians and Jews, he quoted, most
inappropriately, not only the words of Plato; but, dissatisfied even with
these,124 he adduced in addition the mysteries of the Persian Mithras, and the
explanation of them. Now, whatever be the case with regard to these,-whether the
Persians and those who conduct the mysteries of Mithras give false or true
accounts regarding them,-why did he select these for quotation, rather than some
of the other mysteries, with the explanation of them? For the mysteries of
Mithras do not appear to be more famous among the Greeks than those of Eleusis,
or than those in Aegina, where individuals are initiated in the rites of Hecate.
But if he must introduce barbarian mysteries with their explanation, why not
rather those of the Egyptians, which are highly regarded by many,125 or those of
the Cappadocians regarding the Comanian Diana, or those of the Thracians, or
even those of the Romans themselves, who initiate the noblest members of their
senate?126 But if he deemed it inappropriate to institute a comparison with any
of these, because they furnished no aid in the way of accusing Jews or
Christians, why did it not also appear to him inappropriate to adduce the
instance of the mysteries of Mithras?

Chapter XXIII.

If one wished to obtain means for a pro-founder contemplation of the entrance of
souls into divine things, not from the statements of that very insignificant
sect from which he quoted, hut 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,127
which obscurely refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a
better world;128 and let him peruse also, from the Apocalypse of John, what is
related of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and of its foundations and
gates.129 And if he is capable of finding out also the road, which is indicated
by symbols, of those who will march on to divine things, let him read the book
of Moses entitled Numbers, and let him seek the help of one who is capable of
initiating him into the meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of
the children of Israel; viz., of what sort those were which were arranged
towards the east, as was the case with the first; and what those towards the
south-west. and south; and what towards the sea; and what the last were, which
were stationed towards the north. For he will see that there is in the
respective places a meaning130 not to be lightly treated, nor, as Celsus
imagines, such as calls only for silly and servile listeners: but he will
distinguish in the encampments certain things relating to the numbers that are
enumerated, and which are specially adapted to each tribe, of which the present
does not appear to us to be the proper time to speak. Let Celsus know, moreover,
as well as those who read his book, that in no part of the genuine and divinely
accredited Scriptures are "seven" heavens mentioned; neither do our prophets,
nor the apostles of Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which
they borrowed from the Persians or the Cabiri.

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,131 which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he has
partly borrowed what he says about the diagram.132 Now, as we have always been
animated by a love of learning,133 we have fallen in with this diagram, and we
have found in it the representations of men who, as Paul says, "creep into
houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers
lusts; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."134
The diagram was, however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these
easily deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were
ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave their assent
to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any individual, although we have
visited many parts of the earth, and have sought out all those who anywhere made
profession of knowledge, that placed any faith in this diagram.

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."135 This Leviathan, the Jewish Scriptures say,
whatever they mean by the expression, was created by God for a plaything;136 for
we find in the Psalms: "In wisdom hast Thou made all things: the earth is full
of Thy creatures; so is this great and wide sea. There go the ships; small
animals with great; there is this dragon, which Thou hast formed to play
therein."137 Instead of the word "dragon," the term "leviathan" is in the
Hebrew. This impious diagram, then, said of this leviathan, which is so clearly
depreciated by the Psalmist, that it was the soul which had travelled through
all things! We observed, also, in the diagram, the being named "Behemoth,"
placed as it were under the lowest circle. The inventor of this accursed diagram
had inscribed this leviathan at its circumference and centre, thus placing its
name in two separate places. Moreover, Celsus says that the diagram was "divided
by a thick black line, and this line he asserted was called Gehenna, which is
Tartarus." Now as we found that Gehenna was mentioned in the Gospel as a place
of punishment, we searched to see whether it is mentioned anywhere in the
ancient Scriptures, and especially because the Jews too use the word. And we
ascertained that where the valley of the son of Ennom was named in Scripture in
the Hebrew, instead of "valley," with fundamentally the same meaning, it was
termed both the valley of Ennom and also Geenna. And continuing our researches,
we find that what was termed "Geenna," or "the valley of Ennom," was included in
the lot of the tribe of Benjamin, in which Jerusalem also was situated. And
seeking to ascertain what might be the inference from the heavenly Jerusalem
belonging to the lot of Benjamin and the valley of Ennom, we find a certain
confirmation of what is said regarding the place of punishment, intended for the
purification of such souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably to the
saying: "The Lord cometh like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: and He
shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and of gold."138

Chapter XXVI.

It is in the precincts of Jerusalem, then, that punishments will be inflicted
upon those who undergo the process of purification,139 who have received into
the substance of their soul the elements of wickedness, which in a certain
place140 is figuratively termed "lead," and on that account iniquity is
represented in Zechariah as sitting upon a "talent of lead."141 But the remarks
which might be made on this topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be
uttered on the present occasion; for it is not unattended with danger to commit
to writing the explanation of such subjects, seeing the multitude need no
further instruction than that which relates to the punishment of sinners; while
to ascend beyond this is not expedient, for the sake of those who are with
difficulty restrained, even by fear of eternal punishment, from plunging into
any degree of wickedness, and into the flood of evils which result from sin.142
The doctrine of Geenna, then, is unknown both to the diagram and to Celsus: for
had it been otherwise, the framers of the former would not have boasted of their
pictures of animals and diagrams, as if the truth were represented by these; nor
would Celsus, in his treatise against the Christians, have introduced among the
charges directed against them statements which they never uttered instead of
what was spoken by some who perhaps are no longer in existence, but have
altogether disappeared, or been reduced to a very few individuals, and these
easily counted. And as it does not beseem those who profess the doctrines of
Plato to offer a defence of Epicurus and his impious opinions, so neither is it
for us to defend the diagram, or to refute the accusations brought against it by
Celsus. We may therefore allow his charges on these points to pass as
superfluous and useless,143 for we would censure more severely than Celsus any
who should be carried away by such opinions.

Chapter XXVII.

After the matter of the diagram, he brings forward certain monstrous statements,
in the form of question and answer,144 regarding what is called by
ecclesiastical writers the "seal," statements which did not arise from imperfect
information; such as that "he who impresses the seal is called father, and he
who is sealed is called young man and son; "and who answers, "I have been
anointed with white ointment from the tree of life,"-things which we never heard
to have occurred even among the heretics. In the next place, he determines even
the number mentioned by those who deliver over the seal, as that "of seven
angels, who attach themselves to both sides of the soul of the dying body; the
one party being named angels of light, the others `archontics; '"145 and he
asserts that the "ruler of those named `archontics' is termed the `accursed'
god." Then, laying hold of the expression, he assails, not without reason; those
who venture to use such language; and on that account we entertain a similar
feeling of indignation with those who censure such individuals, if indeed there
exist any who call the God of the Jews-who sends rain and thunder, and who is
the Creator of this world, and the God of Moses, and of the cosmogony which he
records-an "accursed" divinity. Celsus, however, appears to have had in view in
employing these expressions, not a rational146 object, but one of a most
irrational kind, arising out of his hatred towards us, which is so unlike a
philosopher. For his aim was, that those who are unacquainted with our customs
should, on perusing his treatise, at once assail us as if we called the noble
Creator of this world an "accursed divinity." He appears to me, indeed, to have
acted like those Jews who, when Christianity began to be first preached,
scattered abroad false reports of the Gospel, such as that "Christians offered
up an infant in sacrifice, and partook of its flesh; "and again, "that the
professors of Christianity, wishing to do the `works of darkness, 'used to
extinguish the lights (in their meetings), and each one to have sexual
intercourse with any woman whom he chanced to meet." These calumnies have long
exercised, although unreasonably, an influence over the minds of very many,
leading those who are aliens to the Gospel to believe that Christians are men of
such a character; and even at the present day they mislead some, and prevent
them from entering even into the simple intercourse of conversation with those
who are Christians.

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,147 he states also the
reason why the God of the Mosaic cosmogony is termed "accursed," asserting that
"such is his character, and worthy of execration in the opinion of those who so
regard him, inasmuch as he pronounced a curse upon the serpent, who introduced
the first human beings to the knowledge of good and evil." Now he ought to have
known that those who have espoused the cause of the serpent, because he gave
good advice to the first human beings, and who go far beyond the Titans and
Giants of fable, and are on this account called Ophites, are so far from being
Christians, that they bring accusations against Jesus to as great a degree as
Celsus himself; and they do not admit any one into their assembly148 until he
has uttered maledictions against Jesus. See, then, how irrational is the
procedure of Celsus, who, in his discourse against the Christians, represents as
such those who will not even listen to the name of Jesus, or omit even that He
was a wise man, or a person of virtuous149 character! What, then, could evince
greater folly or madness, not only on the part of those who wish to derive their
name from the serpent as the author of good,150 but also on the part of Celsus,
who thinks that the accusations with which the Ophites151 are charged, are
chargeable also against the Christians! Long ago, indeed, that Greek philosopher
who preferred a state of poverty,152 and who exhibited the pattern of a happy
life, showing that he was not excluded from happiness although he was possessed
of nothing,153 termed himself a Cynic; while these impious wretches, as not
being human beings, whose enemy the serpent is, but as being serpents, pride
themselves upon being called Ophites from the serpent, which is an animal most
hostile to and greatly dreaded by man, and boast of one Euphrates154 as the
introducer of these unhallowed opinions.

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 senseless155 wisdom? For what blunder has the Jewish
lawgiver committed? and why do you accept, by means, as you say,156 of a certain
allegorical and typical method of interpretation, the cosmogony which he gives,
and the law of the Jews, while it is with unwillingness, O most impious man,
that you give praise to the Creator of the world, who promised to give them all
things; who promised to multiply their race to the ends of the earth, and to
raise them up from the dead with the same flesh and blood, and who gave
inspiration157 to their prophets; and, again, you slander Him! When you feel the
force of such considerations, indeed, you acknowledge that you worship the same
God; but when your teacher Jesus and the Jewish Moses give contradictory
decisions,158 you seek another God, instead of Him, and the Father!" Now, by
such statements, this illustrious philosopher Celsus distinctly slanders the
Christians, asserting that, when the Jews press them hard, they acknowledge the
same God as they do; but that when Jesus legislates differently from Moses, they
seek another god instead of Him. Now, whether we are conversing with the Jews,
or are alone with ourselves, we know of only one and the same God, whom the Jews
also worshipped of old time, and still profess to worship as God, and we are
guilty of no impiety towards Him. We do not assert, however; that God will raise
men from the dead with the same flesh and blood, as has been shown in the
preceding pages; for we do not maintain that the natural159 body, which is sown
in corruption, and in dishonour, and in weakness, will rise again such as it was
sown. On such subjects, however, we have spoken at adequate length in the
foregoing pages.

Chapter XXX.

He next returns to the subject of the Seven ruling Demons,160 whose names are
not found among Christians, but who, I think, are accepted by the Ophites. We
found, indeed, that in the diagram, which on their account we procured a sight
of, the same order was laid down as that which Celsus has given. Celsus says
that "the goat was shaped like a lion," not mentioning the name given him by
those who are truly the most impious of individuals; whereas we discovered that
He who is honoured in holy Scripture as the angel of the Creator is called by
this accursed diagram Michael the Lion-like. Again, Celsus says that the "second
in order is a bull; "whereas the diagram which we possessed made him to be
Suriel, the bull-like. Further, Celsus termed the third "an amphibious sort of
animal, and one that hissed frightfully; "while the diagram described the third
as Raphael, the serpent-like. Moreover, Celsus asserted that the "fourth had the
form of an eagle; "the diagram representing him as Gabriel, the eagle-like.
Again, the "fifth," according to Celsus, "had the countenance of a bear; "and
this, according to the diagram, was Thauthabaoth,161 the bear-like. Celsus
continues his account, that the "sixth was described as having the face of a
dog; "and him the diagram called Erataoth. The "seventh," he adds, "had the
countenance of an ass, and was named Thaphabaoth or Onoel; "whereas we
discovered that in the diagram he is called Onoel, or Thartharaoth, being
somewhat asinine in appearance. We have thought it proper to be exact in stating
these matters, that we might not appear to be ignorant of those things which
Celsus professed to know, but that we Christians, knowing them better than he,
may demonstrate that these are not the words of Christians, but of those who are
altogether alienated from salvation, and who neither acknowledge Jesus as
Saviour, nor God, nor Teacher, nor Son of God.

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,"162 -gates which
are subjected to the world of ruling spirits.163 (The following, then, is the
manner in which they proceed): "I salute the one-formed164 king, the bond of
blindness, complete165 oblivion, the first power, preserved by the spirit of
providence and by wisdom, from whom I am sent forth pure, being already part of
the light of the son and of the father: grace be with me; yea, O father, let it
be with me." They say also that the beginnings of the Ogdoad166 are derived from
this. In the next place, they are taught to say as follows, while passing
through what they call Ialdabaoth: "Thou, O first and seventh, who art born to
command with confidence, thou, O Ialdabaoth, who art the rational ruler of a
pure mind, and a perfect work to son and father, bearing the symbol of life in
the character of a type, and opening to the world the gate which thou didst
close against thy kingdom, I pass again in freedom through thy realm. Let grace
be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me." They say, moreover, that the star
Phaenon167 is in sympathy168 with the lion-like ruler. They next imagine that he
who has passed through Ialdabaoth and arrived at Iao ought thus to speak: "Thou,
O second Iao, who shinest by night169 who art the ruler of the secret mysteries
of son and father, first prince of death, and portion of the innocent, bearing
now mine own beard as symbol, I am ready to pass through thy realm, having
strengthened him who is born of thee by the living word. Grace be with me;
father, let it be with me." They next come to Sabaoth, to whom they think the
following should be addressed: "O governor of the fifth realm, powerful Sabaoth,
defender of the law of thy creatures, who are liberated by thy grace through the
help of a more powerful Pentad,170 admit me, seeing the faultless symbol of
their art, preserved by the stamp of an image, a body liberated by a Pentad. Let
grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me." And after Sabaoth they come
to Astaphaeus, to whom they believe the following prayer should be offered: "O
Astaphaeus, ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first principle of water,
look upon me as one of thine initiated,171 admit me who am purified with the
spirit of a virgin, thou who seest the essence of the world. Let grace be with
me, O father, let grace be with me." After him comes Aloaeus, who is to be thus
addressed: "O Aloaeus, governor of the second gate, let me pass, seeing I bring
to thee the symbol of thy mother, a gracewhich is hidden by the powers of the
realms.172 Let grace be with me, O father, let it be with me." And last of all
they name Horaeus, and think that the following prayer ought to be offered to
him: "Thou who didst fearlessly overleap the rampart of fire, O Horaeus, who
didst obtain the government of the first gate, let me pass, seeing thou
beholdest the symbol of thine own power, sculptured173 on the figure of the tree
of life, and formed after this image, in the likeness of innocence. Let grace be
with me, O father, let grace be with me."

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 matters. For we, too,
desired both to learn and set forth these things, in order that sorcerers might
not, under pretext of knowing more than we, delude those who are easily carried
away by the glitter174 of names. And I could have given many more illustrations
to show that we are acquainted with the opinions of these deluders,175 and that
we disown them, as being alien to ours, and impious, and not in harmony with the
doctrines of true Christians, of which we are ready to make confession even to
the death. It must be noticed, too, that those who have drawn up this array of
fictions, have, from neither understanding magic, nor discriminating the meaning
of holy Scripture, thrown everything into confusion; seeing that they have
borrowed from magic the names of Ialdabaoth, and Astaphaeus, and Horaeus, and
from the Hebrew Scriptures him who is termed in Hebrew Iao or Jah, and Sabaoth,
and Adonaeus, and Eloaeus. Now the names taken from the Scriptures are names of
one and the same God; which, not being understood by the enemies of God, as even
themselves acknowledge, led to their imagining that Iao was a different God, and
Sabaoth another, and Adonaeus, whom the Scriptures term Adonai, a third besides,
and that Eloaeus, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi, was also different.

Chapter XXXIII.

Celsus next relates other fables, to the effect that "certain persons return to
the shapes of the archontics,176 so that some are called lions, others bulls,
others dragons, or eagles, or bears, or dogs." We found also in the diagram
which we possessed, and which Celsus called the "square pattern," the
statements177 made by these unhappy beings concerning the gates of Paradise. The
flaming sword was depicted as the diameter of a flaming circle, and as if
mounting guard over the tree of knowledge and of life. Celsus, however, either
would not or could not repeat the harangues which, according to the fables of
these impious individuals, are represented as spoken at each of the gates by
those who pass through them; but this we have done in order to show to Celsus
and those who read his treatise, that we know the depth of these unhallowed
mysteries,178 and that they are far removed from the worship which Christians
offer up to God.

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
effluents179 from an earthly church, and from circumcision; and a power flowing
from one Prunicos, a virgin and a living soul; and a heaven slain in order to
live, and an earth slaughtered by the sword, and many put to death that they may
live, and death ceasing in the world, when the sin of the world is dead; and,
again, a narrow way, and gates that open spontaneously. And in all their
writings (is mention made) of the tree of life, and a resurrection of the flesh
by means180 of the `tree, 'because, I imagine, their teacher was nailed to a
cross, and was a carpenter by craft; so that if he had chanced to have been cast
from a precipice, or thrust into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, or had been a
leather-cutter, or stone-cutter, or worker in iron, there would have been
(invented) a precipice of life beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or
a cord of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred
leather! Now what old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a
whisper, even when making stories to lull an infant to sleep? "In using such
language as this, Celsus appears to me to confuse together matters which he has
imperfectly heard. For it seems likely that, even supposing that he had heard a
few words traceable to some existing heresy, he did not clearly understand the
meaning intended to be conveyed; but heaping the words together, he wished to
show before those who knew nothing either of our opinions or of those of the
heretics, that he was acquainted with all the doctrines of the Christians. And
this is evident also from the foregoing words.

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."181 The expression, too, "effluents of an earthly church and of
circumcision," was probably taken from the fact that the church on earth was
called by some an effluent from a heavenly church and a better world; and that
the circumcision described in the law was a symbol of the circumcision performed
there, in a certain place set apart for purification. The adherents of
Valentinus, moreover, in keeping with their system of error,182 give the name of
Prunicos to a certain kind of wisdom, of which they would have the woman
afflicted with the twelve years' issue of blood to be the symbol; so that
Celsus, who confuses together all sorts of opinions-Greek, Barbarian, and
Heretical-having heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from
one Prunicos, a virgin. The "living soul," again, is perhaps mysteriously
referred by some of the followers of Valentinus to the being whom they term the
psychic183 creator of the world; or perhaps, in contradistinction to a "dead"
soul, the "living" soul is termed by some, not inelegantly,184 the soul of "him
who is saved." I know nothing, however, of a "heaven which is said to be slain,"
or of an "earth slaughtered by the sword," or of many persons slain in order
that they might live; for it is not unlikely that these were coined by Celsus
out of his own brain.

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."185 And also: "When this corruptible shall
have put on incorruption, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is
written, Death is swallowed up in victory."186 The "strait descent,"187 again,
may perhaps be referred by those who hold the doctrine of transmigration of
souls to that view of things. And it is not incredible that the gates which are
said to open spontaneously are referred obscurely by some to the words, "Open to
me the gates of righteousness, that I may go into them, and praise the Lord;
this gate of the Lord, into it the righteous shall enter; "188 and again, to
what is said in the ninth psalm, "Thou that liftest me up from the gates of
death, that I may show forth all Thy praise in the gates of the daughter of
Zion."189 The Scripture further gives the name of "gates of death" to those sins
which lead to destruction, as it terms, on the contrary, good actions the "gates
of Zion." So also "the gates of righteousness," which is an equivalent
expression to "the gates of virtue," and these are ready to be opened to him who
follows after virtuous pursuits. The subject of the "tree of life" will be more
appropriately explained when we interpret the statements in the book of Genesis
regarding the paradise planted by God. Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the
subject of a resurrection,-a doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the
present occasion, not satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, "And
there is said to be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree; "not
understanding, I think, the symbolical expression, that "through the tree came
death, and through the tree comes life,"190 because death was in Adam, and life
in Christ. He next scoffs at the "tree," assailing it on two grounds, and
saying, "For this reason is the tree introduced, either because our teacher was
nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade; "not observing that
the tree of life is mentioned in the Mosaic writings, and being blind also to
this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches191 is Jesus Himself
ever described as being a carpenter.192

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 once193 the paltry nature of his charge,
in thus calumniating men whom he professed to convert on the ground of their
being deceived? And after these remarks, he goes on to speak in a way quite in
harmony with the tone of those who have invented the fictions of lion-like, and
ass-headed, and serpent-like ruling angels,194 and other similar absurdities,
but which does not affect those who belong to the Church. Of a truth, even a
drunken old woman would be ashamed to chaunt or whisper to an infant, in order
to lull him to sleep, any such fables as those have done who invented the beings
with asses' heads, and the harangues, so to speak, which are delivered at each
of the gates. But Celsus is not acquainted with the doctrines of the members of
the Church, which very few have been able to comprehend, even of those who have
devoted all their lives, in conformity with the command of Jesus, to the
searching of the Scriptures, and have laboured to investigate the meaning of the
sacred books, to a greater degree than Greek philosophers in their efforts to
attain a so-called wisdom.

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."195 Now, in the diagram referred to, we found the greater and the
lesser circle, upon the diameter of which was inscribed "Father and Son; "and
between the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another196
composed of two circles,-the outer one of which was yellow, and the inner
blue,-a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it, a short
circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the inscription "Love;
"and lower down, one touching the same circle, with the word "Life." And on the
second circle, which was intertwined with and included two other circles,
another figure, like a rhomboid, (entitled) "The foresight of wisdom." And
within their point of common section was "The nature of wisdom." And above their
point of common section was a circle, on which was inscribed "Knowledge; "and
lower down another, on which was the inscription, "Understanding." We have
introduced these matters into our reply to Celsus, to show to our readers that
we know better than he, and not by mere report, those things, even although we
also disapprove of them. Moreover, if those who pride themselves upon such
matters profess also a kind of magic and sorcery,-which, in their opinion, is
the summit of wisdom,-we, on the other hand, make no affirmation about it,
seeing we never have discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who
has been already often convicted of false witness and irrational accusations,
see whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has not
extracted and introduced into his treatise, statements taken from the writings
of those who are foreigners and strangers to our Christian faith.

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,197 perform marvels
before those who are ignorant that the names of demons among the Greeks are
different from what they are among the Scythians. He then quotes a passage from
Herodotus, stating that "Apollo is called Gongosyrus by the Scythians; Poseidon,
Thagimasada; Aphrodite, Argimpasan; Hestia, Tabiti."198 Now, he who has the
capacity can inquire whether in these matters Celsus and Herodotus are not both
wrong; for the Scythians do not understand the same thing as the Greeks, in what
relates to those beings which are deemed to be gods. For how is it credible199
that Apollo should be called Gongosyrus by the Scythians? I do not suppose that
Gongosyrus, when transferred into the Greek language, yields the same etymology
as Apollo; or that Apollo, in the dialect of the Scythians, has the
signification of Gongosyrus. Nor has any such assertion hitherto been made
regarding the other names,200 for the Greeks took occasion from different
circumstances and etymologies to give to those who are by them deemed gods the
names which they bear; and the Scythians, again, from another set of
circumstances; and the same also was the case with the Persians, or Indians, or
Ethiopians, or Libyans, or with those who delight to bestow names (from fancy),
and who do not abide by the just and pure idea of the Creator of all things.
Enough, however, has been said by us in the preceding pages, where we wished to
demonstrate that Sabaoth and Zeus were not the same deity, and where also we
made some remarks, derived from the holy Scriptures, regarding the different
dialects. We willingly, then, pass by these points, on which Celsus would make
us repeat ourselves. In the next place, again, mixing up together matters which
belong to magic and sorcery, and referring them perhaps to no one,-because of
the non-existence of any who practise magic under pretence of a worship of this
character,-and yet, perhaps, having in view some who do employ such practices in
the presence of the simple (that they may have the appearance of acting by
divine power), he adds: "What need to number up all those who have taught
methods of purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or
(the making of) images, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of
antidotes against poison (to be found)201 in clothes, or in numbers, or stones,
or plants, or roots, or generally in all kinds of things? "In respect to these
matters, reason does not require us to offer any defence, since we are not
liable in the slightest degree to suspicions of such a nature.

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 faith202 barbarous books, containing the names and marvellous
doings of demons; "asserting further, that "these presbyters of our faith
professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to injure human beings."
Would, indeed, that all that is said by Celsus against the Christians was of
such a nature as to be refuted by the multitude, who have ascertained by
experience that such things are untrue, seeing that most of them have lived as
neighbours with the Christians, and have not even heard of the existence of any
such alleged practices!

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"203 from all evil; and the angels of the little ones in the
Church, who are appointed to watch over them, are said always to behold the face
of their Father who is in heaven,204 whatever be the meaning of "face" or of
"behold."

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,205 and not even proper to be repeated, viz., that the mighty
God, in His desire to confer good upon men, has yet one counterworking Him, and
is helpless. The Son of God, it follows, is vanquished by the devil; and being
punished by him, teaches us also to despise the punishments which he inflicts,
telling us beforehand that Satan, after appearing to men as He Himself had done,
will exhibit great and marvellous works, claiming for himself the glory of God,
but that those who wish to keep him at a distance ought to pay no attention to
these works of Satan, but to place their faith in Him alone. Such statements are
manifestly the words of a deluder, planning and manoeuvring against those who
are opposed to his views, and who rank themselves against them." In the next
place, desiring to point out the "enigmas," our mistakes regarding which lead to
the introduction of our views concerning Satan, he continues: "The ancients
allude obscurely to a certain war among the gods, Heraclitus speaking thus of
it: 'If one must say that there is a general war and discord, and that all
things are done and administered in strife.' Pherecydes, again, who is much
older than Heraclitus, relates a myth of one army drown up in hostile array
against another, and names Kronos as the leader of the one, and Ophioneus of the
other, and recounts their challenges and struggles, and mentions that agreements
were entered into between them, to the end that whichever party should fall into
the ocean206 should be held as vanquished, while those who had expelled and
conquered them should have possession of heaven. The mysteries relating to the
Titans and Giants also had some such (symbolical) meaning, as well as the
Egyptian mysteries of Typhon, and Horus, and Osiris." After having made such
statements, and not having got over the difficulty207 as to the way in which
these accounts contain a higher view of things, while our accounts are erroneous
copies of them, he continues his abuse of us, remarking that "these are not like
the stories which are related of a devil, or demon, or, as he remarks with more
truth, of a man who is an impostor, who wishes to establish an opposite
doctrine." And in the same way he understands Homer, as if he referred obscurely
to matters similar to those mentioned by Heraclitus, and Pherecydes, and the
originators of the mysteries about the Titans and Giants, in those words which
Hephaestus addresses to Hera as follows:- "Once in your cause I felt his
matchless might, Hurled headlong downward from the ethereal height."208 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."209

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;210 and that
by way of chastising the demons who create disorder in it, he hurls them down
headlong to this lower world." These words of Homer, he alleges, were so
understood by Pherecydes, when he said that beneath that region is the region of
Tartarus, which is guarded by the Harpies and Tempest, daughters of Boreas, and
to which Zeus banishes any one of the gods who becomes disorderly. With the same
ideas also are closely connected the peplos of Athena, which is beheld by all in
the procession of the Panathenaea. For it is manifest from this, he continues,
that a motherless and unsullied demon211 has the mastery over the daring of the
Giants. While accepting, moreover, the fictions of the Greeks, he continues to
heap against us such accusations as the following, viz., that "the Son of God is
punished by the devil, and teaches us that we also, when punished by him, ought
to endure it. Now these statements are altogether ridiculous. For it is the
devil, I think, who ought rather to be punished, and those human beings who are
calumniated by him ought not to be threatened with chastisement."

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 serpent212 -from whom the Ophioneus spoken of
by Pherecydes is derived-having become the cause of man's expulsion from the
divine Paradise, obscurely shadows forth something similar, having deceived the
woman213 by a promise of divinity and of greater blessings; and her example is
said to have been followed also by the man. And, further, who else could the
destroying angel mentioned in the Exodus of Moses214 be, than he who was the
author of destruction to them that obeyed him, and did not withstand his wicked
deeds, nor struggle against them? Moreover (the goat), which in the book of
Leviticus215 is sent away (into the wilderness), and which in the Hebrew
language is named Azazel, was none other than this; and it was necessary to send
it away into the desert, and to treat it as an expiatory sacrifice, because on
it the lot fell. For all who belong to the "worse" part, on account of their
wickedness, being opposed to those who are God's heritage, are deserted by
God.216 Nay, with respect to the sons of Belial in the book of Judges,217 whose
sons are they said to be, save his, on account of their wickedness? And besides
all these instances, in the book of Job, which is older even than Moses himself,
the devil is distinctly described as presenting himself before God,218 and
asking for power against Job, that he might involve him in trials219 of the most
painful kind; the first of which consisted in the loss of all his goods and of
his children, and the second in afflicting the whole body of Job with the
so-called disease of elephantiasis.220 I pass by what might be quoted from the
Gospels regarding the devil who tempted the Saviour, that I may not appear to
quote in reply to Celsus from more recent writings on this question. In the last
(chapter)221 also of Job, in which the Lord utters to Job amid tempest and
clouds what is recorded in the book which bears his name there are not a few
things referring to the serpent. I have not yet mentioned the passages in
Ezekiel,222 where he speaks, as it were, of Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the
prince of Tyre; or those in Isaiah,223 where lament is made for the king of
Babylon, from which not a little might be learned concerning evil, as to the
nature of its origin and generation, and as to how it derived its existence from
some who had lost their wings,224 and who had followed him who was the first to
lose his own.

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.225 For it became God, who
knows how to turn to proper account even those who in their wickedness have
apostatized from Him, to place wickedness of this sort in some part of the
universe, and to appoint a training-school of virtue, wherein those must
exercise themselves who would desire to recover in a "lawful manner "226 the
possession (which they had lost); in order that being tested, like gold in the
fire, by the wickedness of these, and having exerted themselves to the utmost to
prevent anything base injuring their rational nature, they may appear deserving
of an ascent to divine things, and may be elevated by the Word to the
blessedness which is above all things, and so to speak, to the very summit of
goodness. Now he who in the Hebrew language is named Satan, and by some
Satanas-as being more in conformity with the genius of the Greek
language-signifies, when translated into Greek, "adversary." But every one who
prefers vice and a vicious life, is (because acting in a manner contrary to
virtue) Satanas, that is, an "adversary" to the Son of God, who is
righteousness, and truth, and wisdom.227 With more propriety, however, is he
called "adversary," who was the first among those that were living a peaceful
and happy life to lose his wings, and to fall from blessedness; he who,
according to Ezekiel, walked faultlessly in all his ways, "until iniquity was
found in him,"228 and who being the "seal of resemblance" and the "crown of
beauty" in the paradise of God, being filled as it were with good things, fell
into destruction, in accordance with the word which said to him in a mystic
sense: "Thou hast fallen into destruction, and shalt not abide for ever."229 We
have ventured somewhat rashly to make these few remarks, although in so doing we
have added nothing of importance to this treatise. If any one, however, who has
leisure for the examination of the sacred writings, should collect together from
all sources and form into one body of doctrine what is recorded concerning the
origin of evil, and the manner of its dissolution, he would see that the views
of Moses and the prophets regarding Satan had not been even dreamed of either by
Celsus or any one of those whose soul had been dragged down, and torn away from
God, and from right views of Him, and from His word, by this wicked demon.

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 Daniel230
nor in the writings of Paul,231 nor what the Saviour in the Gospels232 has
predicted about his coming, we must make a few remarks upon this subject also;
because, "as faces do not resemble faces,"233 so also neither do men's "hearts"
resemble one another. It is certain, then, that there will be diversities
amongst the hearts of men,-those which are inclined to virtue not being all
modelled and shaped towards it in the same or like degree; while others, through
neglect of virtue, rash to the opposite extreme. And amongst the latter are some
in whom evil is deeply engrained, and others in whom it is less deeply rooted.
Where is the absurdity, then, in holding that there exist among men, so to
speak, two extremes,234 -the one of virtue, and the other of its opposite; so
that the perfection of virtue dwells in the man who realizes the ideal given in
Jesus, from whom there flowed to the human race so great a conversion, and
healing, and amelioration, while the opposite extreme is in the man who embodies
the notion of him that is named Antichrist? For God, comprehending all things by
means of His foreknowledge, and foreseeing what consequences would result from
both of these, wished to make these known to mankind by His prophets, that those
who understand their words might be familiarized with the good, and be on their
guard against its opposite. It was proper, moreover, that the one of these
extremes, and the best of the two, should be styled the Son of God, on account
of His pre-eminence; and the other, who is diametrically opposite, be termed the
son of the wicked demon, and of Satan, and of the devil. And, in the next place,
since evil is specially characterized by its diffusion, and attains its greatest
height when it simulates the appearance of the good, for that reason are signs,
and marvels, and lying miracles found to accompany evil, through the
co-operation of its father the devil. For, far surpassing the help which these
demons give to jugglers (who deceive men for the basest of purposes), is the aid
which the devil himself affords in order to deceive the human race. Paul,
indeed, speaks of him who is called Antichrist, describing, though with a
certain reserve,235 both the manner, and time, and cause of his coming to the
human race. And notice whether his language on this subject is not most
becoming, and undeserving of being treated with even the slightest degree of
ridicule.

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."236 To explain each particular here
referred to does not belong to our present purpose. The prophecy also regarding
Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent
and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them
are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the
times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who
chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding Antichrist
be not as follows: "And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are
coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold in countenance, and
understanding riddles. And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy
wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall destroy mighty men, and the
holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his
hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy
many; and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as
eggs in his hand."237 What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where
he says, "so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God,"238 is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: "And on the temple
shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of the time an end shall
be put to the desolation."239 So many, out of a greater number of passages, have
I thought it right to adduce, that the hearer may understand in some slight
degree the meaning of holy Scripture, when it gives us information concerning
the devil and Antichrist; and being satisfied with what we have quoted for this
purpose, let us look at another of the charges of Celsus, and reply to it as we
best may.

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.240
Both the one and other `Son of God, 'then, greatly resembled each other." He is
therefore of opinion that we employed the expression "Son of God," having
perverted241 what is said of the world, as being born of God, and being His
"Son," and "a God." For he was unable so to consider the times of Moses and the
prophets, as to see that the Jewish prophets predicted generally that there was
a "Son of God" long before the Greeks and those men of ancient time of whom
Celsus speaks. Nay, he would not even quote the passage in the letters of Plato,
to which we referred in the preceding pages, concerning Him who so beautifully
arranged this world, as being the Son of God; lest he too should be compelled by
Plato, whom he often mentions with respect, to admit that the architect of this
world is the Son of God, and that His Father is the first God and Sovereign
Ruler over all things.242 Nor is it at all wonderful if we maintain that the
soul of Jesus is made one with so great a Son of God through the highest union
with Him, being no longer in a state of separation from Him For the sacred
language of holy Scripture knows of other things also, which, although "dual" in
their own nature, are considered to be, and really are, "one" in respect to one
another. It is said of husband and wife, "They are no longer twain, but one
flesh; "243 and of the perfect man, and of him who is joined to the true Lord,
Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, that "he who is joined to the Lord is one
spirit."244 And if he who "is joined to the Lord is one spirit," who has been
joined to the Lord, the Very Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, in
a more intimate union, or even in a manner at all approaching to it than the
soul of Jesus? And if this be so, then the soul of Jesus and God the Word-the
first-born of every creature-are no longer two, (but one).

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,245 is not separated from the only-begotten
and first-born of all creation, and is not a different being from Him? But
enough here on this subject.

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."246 Now, if he had produced some credible proofs of its silly
character, we should have endeavoured to answer them; but it does not appear to
me reasonable that I should be called upon to demonstrate, in answer to his mere
assertion, that it is not "silly." If any one, however, wishes to see the
reasons which led us to accept the Mosaic account, and the arguments by which it
may be defended, he may read what we have written upon Genesis, from the
beginning of the book up to the passage, "And this is the book of the generation
of men,"247 where we have tried to show from the holy Scriptures themselves what
the "heaven" was which was created in the beginning; and what the "earth," and
the "invisible part of the earth," and that which was "without form; "248 and
what the "deep" was, and the "darkness" that was upon it; and what the "water"
was, and the "Spirit of God" which was "borne over it; "and what the "light"
which was created, and what the "firmament," as distinct from the "heaven" which
was created in the beginning; and so on with the other subjects that follow.
Celsus has also expressed his opinion that the narrative of the creation of man
is "exceedingly silly," without stating any proofs, or endeavouring to answer
our arguments; for he had no evidence, in my judgment, which was fitted to
overthrow the statement that "man has been made in the image of God."249 He does
not even understand the meaning of the "Paradise" that was planted by God, and
of the life which man first led in it; and of that which resulted from
accident,250 when man was cast forth on account of his sin, and was settled
opposite the Paradise of delight. Now, as he asserts that these are silly
statements, let him turn his attention not merely to each one of them (in
general), but to this in particular, "He placed the cherubim, and the flaming
sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,"251 and say
whether Moses wrote these words with no serious object in view, but in the
spirit of the writers of the old Comedy, who have sportively related that
"Proetus slew Bellerophon," and that "Pegasus came from Arcadia." Now their
object was to create laughter in composing such stories; whereas it is
incredible that he who left behind him laws252 for a whole nation, regarding
which he wished to persuade his subjects that they were given by God, should
have written words so little to the purpose,253 and have said without any
meaning, "He placed the cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way,
to keep the way of the tree of life," or made any other statement regarding the
creation of man, which is the subject of philosophic investigation by the Hebrew
sages.

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."254 If he had shown, now, how it
appeared to him that the holy Scriptures contained "sheer nonsense," we should
have tried to demolish the arguments which appeared to him to establish their
nonsensical character; but on the present occasion, following his own example,
we also sportively give it as our opinion that Celsus, knowing nothing at all
about the nature of the meaning and language of the prophets,255 composed a work
which contained "sheer nonsense," and boastfully gave it the title of a "true
discourse." And since he makes the statements about the "days of creation"
ground of accusation,-as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of
which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, and sun, and moon, and
stars, and some of them after the creation of these,-we shall only make this
observation, that Moses must then have forgotten that he had said a little
before, "that in six days the creation of the world had been finished," and that
in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the
following: "This is the book of the creation of man, in the day when God made
the heaven and the earth!" But it is not in the least credible, that after what
he had said respecting, the six days, Moses should immediately add, without a
special meaning, the words, "in the day that God made the heavens and the earth;
"and if any one thinks that these words may be referred to the statement, "In
the beginning God made the heaven and the earth," let him observe that before
the words, "Let there be light, and there was light," and these, "God called the
light day," it has been stated that "in the beginning God made the heaven and
the earth."

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,256 nor of the
manner in which the different kinds257 of days were allotted to both sorts, nor
to investigate the details which belong to the subject, for we should need whole
treatises for the exposition of the Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had
already performed, to the best of our ability, a considerable time before the
commencement of this answer to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of
capacity as we then possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six
days. We must keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous
through the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come258 when not the sun, but the
Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be their
glory.259 And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which
gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, "Let there be light," as if they
were the expression of a wish260 merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus
made the remark: "The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those
persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours." Misunderstanding,
moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: "If, indeed, there did exist an
accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval,
why did he lend him the light? "So far are we from offering a defence of such
puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly to arraign the
statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to undertake to refute, not those
of their opinions with which we are unacquainted, as Celsus does, but those of
which we have attained an accurate knowledge, derived in part from the
statements of their own adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their
writings.

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,261 as might appear from the
expression, "The Spirit of God moved upon the water; "nor do we assert that
certain wicked devices directed against His Spirit as if by a different creator
from the great God, and which were tolerated by the Supreme Divinity, needed to
be completely frustrated. And, accordingly, I have nothing further to say to
those262 who utter such absurdities; nor to Celsus, who does not refute them
with ability. For he ought either not to have mentioned such matters at all, or
else, in keeping with that character for philanthropy which he assumes, have
carefully set them forth, and then endeavoured to rebut these impious
assertions. Nor have we ever heard that the great God, after giving his spirit
to the creator, demands it back again. Proceeding next foolishly to assail these
impious assertions, he asks: "What god gives anything with the intention of
demanding it back? For it is the mark of a needy person to demand back (what he
has given), whereas God stands in need of nothing." To this he adds, as if
saying something clever against certain parties: "Why, when he lent (his
spirit), was he ignorant that he was lending it to an evil being? "He asks,
further: "Why does he pass without notice263 a wicked creator who was
counter-working his purposes? "

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.264 And, probably, having heard them from some paltry and
ignorant individuals,265 he assails the very arguments which combat them, but
not in a way that Shows much intelligence. Quoting then our arguments against
Marcion, and not observing that it is against Marcion that he is speaking, he
asks: "Why does he send secretly, and destroy the works which he has created?
Why does he secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he
allure those who, as ye assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and carry
them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal away from their
Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim them for himself against
the father's will? Why does he profess to be the father of strange children? "To
these questions he subjoins the following remark, as if by way of expressing his
surprise:266 "Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of
those sinners who are condemned by another (god), and of the needy,267 and, as
themselves say, of the very offscourings268 (of men), and who is unable to
capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him!" After this, as if
addressing us who acknowledge that this world is not the work of a different and
strange god, he continues in the following strain: "If these are his works, how
is it that God created evil? And how is it that he cannot persuade and admonish
(men)? And how is it that he repents on account of the ingratitude and
wickedness of men? He finds fault, moreover, with his own handwork,269 and
hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring? Whither can he transport
them out of this world, which he himself has made? "Now it does not appear to me
that by these remarks he makes clear what "evil" is; and although there have
been among the Greeks many sects who differ as to the nature of good and evil,
he hastily concludes, as if it were a consequence of our maintaining that this
world also is a work of the universal God, that in our judgment God is the
author of evil. Let it be, however, regarding evil as it may-whether created by
God or not-it nevertheless follows only as a result when you compare the
principal design.270 And I am greatly surprised if the inference regarding God's
authorship of evil, which he thinks follows from our maintaining that this world
also is the work of the universal God, does not follow too from his own
statements. For one might say to Celsus: "If these are His works, how is it that
God created evil? and how is it that He cannot persuade and admonish men? "It is
indeed the greatest error in reasoning to accuse those who are of different
opinions of holding unsound doctrines, when the accuser himself is much more
liable to the same charge with regard to his own.

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 Psalms
34, to the following effect: "They that seek the Lord shall not want any good
thing. Come, ye children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the
Lord. What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see
good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from
evil, and do good."271 Now, the injunctions to "depart from evil, and to do
good," do not refer either to corporeal evils or corporeal blessings, as they
are termed by some, nor to external things at all, but to blessings and evils of
a spiritual kind; since he who departs from such evils, and performs such
virtuous actions, will, as one who desires the true life, come to the enjoyment
of it; and as one loving to see "good days," in which the word of righteousness
will be the Sun, he will see them, God taking him away from this "present evil
world,"272 and from those evil days concerning which Paul said: "Redeeming the
time, because the days are evil."273

Chapter LV.

Passages, indeed, might be found where corporeal and external (benefits) are
improperly274 called "good,"-those things, viz., which contribute to the natural
life, while those which do the reverse are termed "evil." It is in this sense
that Job says to his wife: "If we have received good at the hand of the Lord,
shall we not also receive evil!"275 Since, then, there is found in the sacred
Scriptures, in a certain passage, this statement put into the mouth of God, "I
make peace, and create evil; "276 and again another, where it is said of Him
that "evil came down from the Lord to the gate of Jerusalem, the noise of
chariots and horsemen,"277 -passages which have disturbed many readers of
Scripture, who are unable to see what Scripture means by "good" and "evil,"-it
is probable that Celsus, being perplexed thereby, gave utterance to the
question, "How is it that God created evil? "or, perhaps, having heard some one
discussing the matters relating to it in an ignorant manner, he made this
statement which we have noticed. We, on the other hand, maintain that "evil," or
"wickedness," and the actions which proceed from it, were not created by God.
For if God created that which is really evil, how was it possible that the
proclamation regarding (the last) judgment should be confidently announced,278
which informs us that the wicked are to be punished for their evil deeds in
proportion to the amount of their wickedness, while those who have lived a
virtuous life, or performed virtuous actions, will be in the enjoyment of
blessedness, and will receive rewards from God? I am well aware that those who
would daringly assert that these evils were created by God will quote certain
expressions of Scripture (in their support), because we are not able to show one
consistent series279 of passages; for although Scripture (generally) blames the
wicked and approves of the righteous, it nevertheless contains some statements
which, although comparatively280 few in number, seem to disturb the minds of
ignorant readers of holy Scripture. I have not,however, deemed it appropriate to
my present treatise to quote on the present occasion those discordant
statements, which are many in number,281 and their explanations, which would
require a long array of proofs. Evils, then, if those be meant which are
properly so called, were not created by God; but some, although few in
comparison with the order of the whole world, have resulted from His principal
works, as there follow from the chief works of the carpenter such things as
spiral shavings and sawdust,282 or as architects might appear to be the cause of
the rubbish283 which lies around their buildings in the form of the filth which
drops from the stones and the plaster.

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
sufferings284 improperly termed "evils" which are inflicted by fathers, and
instructors, and pedagogues upon those who are under their care, or upon
patients who are operated upon or cauterized by the surgeons in order to effect
a cure, we were to say that a father was ill-treating his son, or pedagogues and
instructors their pupils, or physicians their patients, no blame would be laid
upon the operators or chastisers; so, in the same way, if God is said to bring
upon men such evils for the conversion and cure of those who need this
discipline, there would be no absurdity in the view, nor would "evils come down
from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem,"285 -which evils consist of the
punishments inflicted upon the Israelites by their enemies with a view to their
conversion; nor would one visit "with a rod the transgressions of those who
forsake the law of the Lord, and their iniquities with stripes; "286 nor could
it be said, "Thou hast coals of fire to set upon them; they shall be to thee a
help."287 In the same way also we explain the expressions, "I, who make peace,
and create evil; "288 for He calls into existence "corporeal" or "external"
evils, while purifying and training those who would not be disciplined by the
word and sound doctrine. This, then, is our answer to the question, "How is it
that God created evil? "

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 his289 instructor, which is contrary to the usual meaning
of the word. To the objection, "How is he incapable of persuading? "-which also
might be brought against all who believe in providence,-we have to make the
following remarks. Since the expression "to be persuaded" belongs to those words
which are termed, so to speak, "reciprocal"290 (compare the phrase "to shave a
man," when he makes an effort to submit himself to the barber291 , there is for
this reason needed not merely the effort of him who persuades, but also the
submission, so to speak, which is to be yielded to the persuader, or the
acceptance of what is said by him. And therefore it must not be said that it is
because God is incapable of persuading men that they are not persuaded, but
because they will not accept the faithful words of God. And if one were to apply
this expression to men who are the "artificers of persuasion,"292 he would not
be wrong; for it is possible for a man who has thoroughly learned the principles
of rhetoric, and who employs them properly, to do his utmost to persuade, and
yet appear to fail, because he cannot overcome the will of him who ought to
yield to his persuasive arts. Moreover, that persuasion does not come from God,
although persuasive words may be uttered by him, is distinctly taught by Paul,
when he says: "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you."293 Such also
is the view indicated by these words: "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall
eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, a sword shall devour
you."294 For that one may (really) desire what is addressed to him by one who
admonishes, and may become deserving of those promises of God which he hears, it
is necessary to secure the will of the hearer, and his inclination to what is
addressed to him. And therefore it appears to me, that in the book of
Deuteronomy the following words are uttered with peculiar emphasis: "And now, O
Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy
God, and to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to keep His commandments?
"295

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 grieved296 He had made man upon the earth. And God
meditated in His heart, and said, I will destroy man, whom I have made, from the
face of the earth, both man and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air,
because I am grieved297 that I made them; "298 quoting words which are not
written in Scripture, as if they conveyed the meaning of what was actually
written. For there is no mention in these words of the repentance of God, nor of
His blaming and hating His own handwork. And if there is the appearance of God
threatening the catastrophe of the deluge, and thus destroying His own children
in it, we have to answer that, as the soul of man is immortal, the supposed
threatening has for its object the conversion of the hearers, while the
destruction of men by the flood is a purification of the earth, as certain among
the Greek philosophers of no mean repute have indicated by the expression: "When
the gods purify the earth."299 And with respect to the transference to God of
those anthropopathic phrases, some remarks have been already made by us in the
preceding pages.

Chapter LIX.

Celsus, in the next place, suspecting, or perhaps seeing clearly enough, the
answer which might be returned by those who defend the destruction of men by the
deluge, continues: "But if he does not destroy his own offspring, whither does
he convey them out of this world300 which he himself created? "To this we reply,
that God by no means removes out of the whole world, consisting of heaven and
earth, those who suffered death by the deluge, but removes them from a life in
the flesh, and, having set them free from their bodies, liberates them at the
same time from an existence upon earth, which in many parts of Scripture it is
usual to call the "world." In the Gospel according to John especially, we may
frequently find the regions of earth301 termed "world," as in the passage, "He
was the true Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the `world;
'"302 as also in this, "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good
cheer, I have overcome the world."303 If, then, we understand by "removing out
of the world" a transference from "regions on earth," there is nothing absurd in
the expression. If, on the contrary, the system of things which consists of
heaven and earth be termed "world," then those who perished in the deluge are by
no means removed out of the so-called "world." And yet, indeed, if we have
regard to the words, "Looking not at the things which are seen, but at the
things which are not seen; "304 and also to these, "For the invisible things of
Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made,"305 -we might say that he who dwells amid the "invisible"
things, and what are called generally "things not seen,"is gone out of the
world, the Word having removed him hence, and transported him to the heavenly
regions, in order to behold all beautiful things.

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,306 nor the sun yet revolving,307 how could there be days? "Now,
what difference is there between these words and the following: "Moreover,
taking and looking at these things from the beginning, would it not be absurd in
the first and greatest God to issue the command, Let this (first thing) come
into existence, and this second thing, and this (third); and after accomplishing
so much on the first day, to do so much more again on the second, and third, and
fourth, and fifth, and sixth? "We answered to the best of our ability this
objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be
created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and
all things stood fast; "308 remarking that the immediate309 Creator, and, as it
were, very Maker310 of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father
of the Word, by commanding His own Son-the Word-to create the world, is
primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first
day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the
waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs311 on the third
(the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the
control of nature alone312 , and of the (great) lights and stars upon the
fourth, and of aquatic313 animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man
upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon
Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who,
taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days
was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the
generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day
that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."314

Chapter LXI.

Again, not understanding the meaning of the words, "And God ended315 on the
sixth day His works which He had made, and ceased316 on the seventh day from all
His works which He had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and hollowed it,
because on it He had ceased317 from all His works which He had begun to make;
"318 and imagining the expression," He ceased on the seventh day," to be the
same as this, "He rested319 on the seventh day," he makes the remark: "After
this, indeed, he is weary, like a very bad workman, who stands in need of rest
to refresh himself!" For he knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of
God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts
during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with
God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have
omitted none of their duties,320 will ascend to the contemplation (of celestial
things), and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings. In the next place,
as if either the Scriptures made such a statement, or as if we ourselves so
spoke of God as having rested from fatigue, he continues: "It is not in keeping
with the fitness of things321 that the first God should feel fatigue, or work
with His hands,322 or give forth commands." Celsus says, that" it is not in
keeping with the fitness of things that the first God should feel fatigue. Now
we would say that neither does God the Word feel fatigue, nor any of those
beings who belong to a better and diviner order of things, because the sensation
of fatigue is peculiar to those who are in the body. You can examine whether
this is true of those who possess a body of any kind, or of those who have an
earthly body, or one a little better than this. But "neither is it consistent
with the fitness of things that the first God should work with His own hands."
If you understand the words" work with His own hands" literally, then neither
are they applicable to the second God, nor to any other being partaking of
divinity. But suppose that they are spoken in an improper and figurative sense,
so that we may translate the following expressions, "And the firmament showeth
forth His handywork,"323 and "the heavens are the work of Thy hands,"324 and any
other similar phrases, in a figurative manner, so far as respects the "hands"
and "limbs" of Deity, where is the absurdity in the words, "God thus working
with His own hands? "And as there is no absurdity in God thus working, so
neither is there in His issuing "commands; "so that what is done at His bidding
should be beautiful and praiseworthy, because it was God who commanded it to be
performed.

Chapter LXII.

Celsus, again, having perhaps misunderstood the words, "For the mouth of the
Lord hath spoken it,"325 or perhaps because some ignorant individuals had rashly
ventured upon the explanation of such things, and not understanding, moreover,
on what principles parts called after the names of the bodily members are
assigned to the attributes326 of God, asserts: "He has neither mouth nor voice."
Truly, indeed, God can have no voice, if the voice is a concussion of the air,
or a stroke on the air, or a species of air, or any other definition which may
be given to the voice by those who are skilled in such matters; but what is
called the "voice of God" is said to be seen as "God's voice" by the people in
the passage; "And all the people saw the voice of God; "327 the word "saw" being
taken, agreeably to the custom of Scripture, in a spiritual sense. Moreover, he
alleges that "God possesses nothing else of which we have any knowledge; "but of
what things we have knowledge he gives no indication. If he means "limbs," we
agree with him, understanding the things "of which we have knowledge" to be
those called corporeal, and pretty generally so termed. But if we are to
understand the words "of which we have knowledge" in a universal sense, then
there are many things of which we have knowledge, (and which may be attributed
to God); for He possesses virtue, and blessedness, and divinity. If we, however,
put a higher meaning upon the words, "of which we have knowledge," since all
that we know is less than God, there is no absurdity in our also admitting that
God possesses none of those things" of which we have knowledge." For the
attributes which belong to God are far superior to all things with which not
merely the nature of man is acquainted, but even that of those who have risen
far above it. And if he had read the writings of the prophets, David on the one
hand saying, "But Thou art the same,"328 and Malachi on the other, "I am (the
Lord), and change not,"329 he would have observed that none of us assert that
there is any change in God, either in act or thought. For abiding the same, He
administers mutable things according to their nature, and His word elects to
undertake their administration.

Chapter LXIII.

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,"330 and learning the precept, "Be
ye followers of God,"331 receives into his virtuous soul the traits of God's
image. The body, moreover, of him who possesses such a soul is a temple of God;
and in the soul God dwells, because it has been made after His image.332

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."333 And if certain expressions indicate a kind of motion, as it
were, on His part, such as this, "They heard the voice of the Lord God walking
in the garden in the cool of the day,"334 we must understand them in this way,
that it is by sinners that God is understood as moving, or as we understand the
"sleep" of God, which is taken in a figurative sense, or His "anger," or any
other similar attribute. But "God does not partake even of substance."335 For He
is partaken of (by others) rather than that Himself partakes of them, and He is
partaken of by those who have the Spirit of God. Our Saviour, also, does not
partake of righteousness; but being Himself "righteousness," He is partaken of
by the righteous. A discussion about "substance" would be protracted and
difficult, and especially if it were a question whether that which is permanent
and immaterial be "substance " properly so called, so that it would be found
that God is beyond" substance," communicating of His "substance," by means of
office and power,336 to those to whom He communicates Himself by His Word, as He
does to the Word Himself; or even if He is "substance," yet He is said be in His
nature "invisible," in these words respecting our Saviour, who is said to be
"the image of the invisible God,"337 while from the term "invisible" it is
indicated that He is "immaterial." It is also a question for investigation,
whether the "only-begotten" and "first-born of every creature" is to be called
"substance of substances," and "idea of ideas," and the "principle of all
things," while above all there is His Father and God.338

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;339 while our Paul declares, that
"of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things,"340 showing that He is the
beginning of the substance of all things by the words "of Him," and the bond of
their subsistence by the expression "through Him," and their final end by the
terms "to Him." Of a truth, God is of nothing. But when Celsus adds, that "He is
not to be reached by word,"341 I make a distinction, and say that if he means
the word that is in us-whether the word conceived in the mind, or the word that
is uttered342 -I, too, admit that God is not to be reached by word. If, however,
we attend to the passage, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God,"343 we are of opinion that God is to be reached by
this Word, and is comprehended not by Him only, but by any one whatever to whom
He may reveal the Father; and thus we shall prove the falsity of the assertion
of Celsus, when he says, "Neither is God to be reached by word." The statement,
moreover, that "He cannot be expressed by name," requires to be taken with a
distinction. If he means, indeed, that there is no word or sign344 that can
represent the attributes of God, the statement is true, since there are many
qualities which cannot be indicated by words. Who, for example, could describe
in words the difference betwixt the quality of sweetness in a palm and that in a
fig? And who could distinguish and set forth in words the peculiar qualities of
each individual thing? It is no wonder, then, if in this way God cannot be
described by name. But if you take the phrase to mean that it is possible to
represent by words something of God's attributes, in order to lead the hearer by
the hand,345 as it were, and so enable him to comprehend something of God, so
far as attainable by human nature, then there is no absurdity in saying that "He
can be described by name." And we make a similar distinction with regard to the
expression, "for He has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words."
It is true that the Deity is beyond all suffering. And so much on this point.

Chapter LXVI.

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 affected346 and injured, and so imagine that they are
smitten with blindness." In answer to this, we would say that all those indeed
sit in darkness, and are rooted in it, who fix their gaze upon the evil
handiwork of painters, and moulders and sculptors, and who will not look
upwards, and ascend in thought from all visible and sensible things, to the
Creator of all things, who is light; while, on the other hand, every one is in
light who has followed the radiance of the Word, who has shown in consequence of
what ignorance, and impiety, and want of knowledge of divine things these
objects were worshipped instead of God, and who has conducted the soul of him
who desires to be saved towards the uncreated God, who is over all. For "the
people that sat in darkness-the Gentiles-saw a great light, and to them who sat
in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,"347 -the God Jesus. No
Christian, then, would give Celsus, or any accuser of the divine Word, the
answer, "How shall I know God? "for each one of them knows God according to his
capacity. And no one asks, "How shall I learn the way which leads to Him?
"because he has heard Him who says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the
life,"348 and has tasted, in the course of the journey, the happiness which
results from it. And not a single Christian would say to Celsus, "How will you
show me God? "

Chapter LXVII. 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."349 But we, the eyes of whose soul
have been opened by the Word, and who see the difference between light and
darkness, prefer by all means to take our stand "in the light," and will have
nothing to do with darkness at all. The true light, moreover, being endued with
life, knows to whom his full splendours are to be manifested, and to whom his
light; for he does not display his brilliancy on account of the still existing
weakness in the eyes of the recipient. And if we must speak at all of "sight
being affected and injured," what other eyes shall we say are in this condition,
than his who is involved in ignorance of God, and who is prevented by his
passions from seeing the truth? Christians, however, by no means consider that
they are blinded by the words of Celsus, or any other who is opposed to the
worship of God. But let those who perceive that they are blinded by following
multitudes who are in error, and tribes of those who keep festivals to demons,
draw near to the Word, who can bestow the gift of sight,350 in order that, like
those poor and blind who had thrown themselves down by the wayside, and who were
healed by Jesus because they said to Him, "Son of David, have mercy upon me,"
they too may receive mercy and recover their eyesight,351 fresh and beautiful,
as the Word of God can create it.

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,352 and
announcing Himself as flesh, He calls to Himself those who are flesh, that He
may in the first place cause them to be transformed according to the Word that
was made flesh, and afterwards may lead them upwards to behold Him as He was
before He became flesh; so that they, receiving the benefit, and ascending from
their great introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, "Even if
we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more."353
Therefore He became flesh, and having become flesh, "He tabernacled among
us,"354 not dwelling without us; and after tabernacling and dwelling within us,
He did not continue in the form in which He first presented Himself, but caused
us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His word, and showed us His own glorious
form, and the splendour of His garments; and not His own form alone, but that
also of the spiritual law, which is Moses, seen in glory along with Jesus. He
showed to us, moreover, all prophecy, which did not perish even after His
incarnation, but was received up into heaven, and whose symbol was Elijah. And
he who beheld these things could say, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the
only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."355 Celsus, then, has
exhibited considerable ignorance in the imaginary answer to his question which
he puts into our mouth, "How we think we can know God? and how we know we shall
be saved by Him? "for our answer is what we have just stated.

Chapter LXIX.

Celsus, however, asserts that the answer which we give is based upon a probable
conjecture,356 admitting that he describes our answer in the following terms:
"Since God is great and difficult to see,357 He put His own Spirit into a body
that resembled ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear
Him and become acquainted with Him." But the God and Father of all things is not
the only being that is great in our judgment; for He has imparted (a share) of
Himself and His greatness to His Only-begotten and First-born of every creature,
in order that He, being the image of the invisible God, might preserve, even in
His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible that there could
exist a well-proportioned,358 so to speak, and beautiful image of the invisible
God, which did not at the same time preserve the image of His greatness. God,
moreover, is in our judgment invisible, because He is not a body, while He can
be seen by those who see with the heart that is, the understanding; not indeed
with any kind of heart, but with one which is pure. For it is inconsistent with
the fitness of things that a polluted heart should look upon God; for that must
be itself pure which would worthily behold that which is pure. Let it be
granted, indeed, that God is "difficult to see," yet He is not the only being
who is so; for His Only-begotten also is "difficult to see." For God the Word is
"difficult to see," and so also is His359 wisdom, by which God created all
things. For who is capable of seeing the wisdom which is displayed in each
individual part of the whole system of things, and by which God created every
individual thing? It was not, then, because God was "difficult to see" that He
sent God His Son to be an object "easy to be seen."360 And because Celsus does
not understand this, he has represented us as saying, "Because God was
'difficult to see,' He put His own Spirit in a body resembling ours, and sent it
down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with
Him." Now, as we have stated, the Son also is "difficult to see," because He is
God the Word, through whom all things were made, and who "tabernacled amongst
us."

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,"361 he would not have returned to himself the answer which he represents as
coming from us, that "God put His own Spirit into a body, and sent it down to
us; "for God is perpetually bestowing of His own Spirit to those who are capable
of receiving it, although it is not by way of division and separation that He
dwells in (the hearts of) the deserving. Nor is the Spirit, in our opinion, a
"body," any more than fire is a "body," which God is said to be in the passage,
"Our God is a consuming fire."362 For all these are figurative expressions,
employed to denote the nature of "intelligent beings" by means of familiar and
corporeal terms. In the same way, too, if sins are called "wood, and straw, and
stubble," we shall not maintain that sins are corporeal; and if blessings are
termed "gold, and silver, and precious stones,"363 we shall not maintain that
blessings are "corporeal; "so also, if God be said to be a fire that consumes
wood, and straw, and stubble, and all substance364 of sin, we shall not
understand Him to be a "body," so neither do we understand Him to be a body if
He should be called "fire." In this way, if God be called "spirit,"365 we do not
mean that He is a "body." For it is the custom of Scripture to give to
"intelligent beings" the names of "spirits" and "spiritual things," by way of
distinction from those which are the objects of "sense; "as when Paul says, "But
our sufficiency is of God; who hath also made us able ministers of the New
Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life,"366 where by the "letter" he means that "exposition of
Scripture which is apparent to the senses,"367 while by the "spirit" that which
is the object of the "understanding." It is the same, too, with the expression,
"God is a Spirit." And because the prescriptions of the law were obeyed both by
Samaritans and Jews in a corporeal and literal368 manner, our Saviour said to
the Samaritan woman, "The hour is coming, when neither in Jerusalem, nor in this
mountain, shall ye worship the Father. God is a Spirit; and they that worship
Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."369 And by these words He taught
men that God must be worshipped not in the flesh, and with fleshly sacrifices,
but in the spirit. And He will be understood to be a Spirit in proportion as the
worship rendered to Him is rendered in spirit, and with understanding. It is
not, however, with images370 that we are to worship the Father, but "in truth,"
which "came by Jesus Christ," after the giving of the law by Moses. For when we
turn to the Lord (and the Lord is a Spirit371 ), He takes away the veil which
lies upon the heart when Moses is read.

Chapter LXXI.

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"372 ), weaves together (such a web) as pleases himself,373
imagining that we, in calling God a Spirit, differ in no respect in this
particular from the Stoics among the Greeks, who maintain that "God is a Spirit,
diffused through all things, and containing all things within Himself." Now the
superintendence and providence of God does extend through all things, but not in
the way that spirit does, according to the Stoics. Providence indeed contains
all things that are its objects, and comprehends them all, but not as a
containing body includes its contents, because they also are "body,"374 but as a
divine power does it comprehend what it contains. According to the philosophers
of the Porch, indeed, who assert that principles are "corporeal," and who on
that account make all things perishable, and who venture even to make the God of
all things capable of perishing, the very Word of God, who descends even to the
lowest of mankind, would be-did it not appear to them to be too gross an
incongruity375 -nothing else than a "corporeal" spirit; whereas, in our
opinion,-who endeavour to demonstrate that the rational soul is superior to all
"corporeal" nature, and that it is an invisible substance, and incorporeal,-God
the Word, by whom all things were made, who came, in order that all things might
be made by the Word, not to men only, but to what are deemed the very lowest of
things, under the dominion of nature alone, would be no body. The Stoics, then,
may consign all things to destruction by fire; we, however, know of no
incorporeal substance that is destructible by fire, nor (do we believe) that the
soul of man, or the substance of "angels," or of "thrones," or dominions," or
"principalities," or "powers," can be dissolved by fire.

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;376 and in this way He would not have been received with incredulity,
if He had derived His existence immediately from above." He had made these
remarks, because he knows not the pure and virgin birth, unaccompanied by any
corruption, of that body which was to minister to the salvation of men. For,
quoting the sayings of the Stoics,377 and affecting not to know the doctrine
about "things indifferent," he thinks that the divine nature was cast amid
pollution, and was stained either by being in the body of a woman, until a body
was formed around it, or by assuming a body. And in this he acts like those who
imagine that the sun's rays are polluted by dung and by foul-smelling bodies,
and do not remain pure amid such things. If, however, according to the view of
Celsus, the body of Jesus had been fashioned without generation, those who
beheld the body would at once have believed that it had not been formed by
generation; and yet an object, when seen, does not at the same time indicate the
nature of that from which it has derived its origin. For example, suppose that
there were some honey (placed before one) which had not been manufactured by
bees, no one could tell from the taste or sight that it was not their
workmanship, because the honey which comes from bees does not make known its
origin by the senses,378 but experience alone can tell that it does not proceed
from them. In the same way, too, experience teaches that wine comes from the
vine, for taste does not enable us to distinguish (the wine) which comes from
the vine. In the same manner, therefore, the visible379 body does not make known
the manner of its existence. And you will be induced to accept this view,380 by
(regarding) the heavenly bodies, whose existence and splendour we perceive as we
gaze at them; and yet, I presume, their appearance does not suggest to us
whether they are created or uncreated; and accordingly different opinions have
existed on these points. And yet those who say that they are created are not
agreed as to the manner of their creation, for their appearance does not suggest
it, although the force of reason381 may have discovered that they are created,
and how their creation was effected.

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,382 and the other the
son of Marcion's God; and he portrays their single combats, saying that the
Theomachies of the Fathers are like the battles between quails;383 or that the
Fathers, becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage384 do not
meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it out." The
remark which he made formerly we will turn against himself: "What old woman
would not be ashamed to lull a child to sleep with such stories as he has
inserted in the work which he entitles A True Discourse? For when he ought
seriously385 to apply himself to argument, he leaves serious argument aside, and
betakes himself to jesting and buffoonery, imagining that he is writing mimes or
scoffing verses; not observing that such a method of procedure defeats his
purpose, which is to make us abandon Christianity and give in our adherence to
his opinions, which, perhaps, had they been stated with some degree of
gravity,386 would have appeared more likely to convince, whereas since he
continues to ridicule, and scoff, and play the buffoon, we answer that it is
because he has no argument of weight387 (for such he neither had, nor could
understand) that he has betaken himself to such drivelling."388

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,389 or persuasiveness. For it is impossible that He, to whom
was imparted some divine quality beyond other beings, should not differ from
others; whereas this person did not differ in any respect from another, but was,
as they report, little, and ill-favoured, and ignoble."390 Now it is evident by
these words, that when Celsus wishes to bring a charge against Jesus, he adduces
the sacred writings, as one who believed them to be writings apparently fitted
to afford a handle for a charge against Him; but wherever, in the same writings,
statements would appear to be made opposed to those charges which are adduced,
he pretends not even to know them! There are, indeed, admitted to be recorded
some statements respecting the body of Jesus having been "ill-favoured; "not,
however, "ignoble," as has been stated, nor is there any certain evidence that
he was "little." The language of Isaiah runs as follows, who prophesied
regarding Him that He would come and visit the multitude, not in comeliness of
form, nor in any surpassing beauty: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to
whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? He made announcement before Him, as a
child, as a root in a thirsty ground. He has no form nor glory, and we beheld
Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was without honour, and
inferior to that of the sons of men."391 These passages, then, Celsus listened
to, because he thought they were of use to him in bringing a charge against
Jesus; but he paid no attention to the words of the Psalms 45, and why it is
then said, "Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy comeliness
and beauty; and continue, and prosper, and reign."392

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? "393
or when the prophet says, "We beheld Him, and He had no form nor beauty," etc.?
and Celsus accepts this prophecy as referring to Jesus, being blinded in so
accepting it, ! and not seeing that it is a great proof that the Jesus who
appeared to be "without form" was the Son of God, that His very appearance
should have been made the subject of prophecy many years before His birth. But
if another prophet speak of His comeliness and beauty, he will no longer accept
the prophecy as referring to Christ And if it were to be clearly ascertained
from the Gospels that "He had no form nor beauty, but that His appearance was
without honour, and inferior to that of the sons of men," it might be said that
it was not with reference to the prophetic writings, but to the Gospels, that
Celsus made his remarks. But now, as neither the Gospels nor the apostolic
writings indicate that "He had no form nor beauty," it is evident that we must
accept the declaration of the prophets as true of Christ, and this will prevent
the charge against Jesus from being advanced.394

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,395 and who are not at all inferior to "sons of thunder."
But how can Celsus and the enemies of the divine Word, and those who have not
examined the doctrines of Christianity in the spirit of truth, know the meaning
of the different appearances of Jesus? And I refer also to the different stages
of His life, and to any actions performed by Him before His sufferings, and
after His resurrection from the dead.

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 Lacedaemonians; 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,396 and do not My prophets any harm."397 For
as we have heard that Antichrist cometh, and yet have learned that there are
many antichrists in the world, in the same way, knowing that Christ has come, we
see that, owing to Him, there are many christs in the world, who, like Him, have
loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and therefore God, the God of Christ,
anointed them also with the "oil of gladness." But inasmuch as He loved
righteousness and hated iniquity above those who were His partners,398 He also
obtained the first-fruits of His anointing, and, if we must so term it, the
entire unction of the oil of gladness; while they who were His partners shared
also in His unction, in proportion to their individual capacity. Therefore,
since Christ is the Head of the Church, so that Christ and the Church form one
body, the ointment descended from the head to the beard of Aaron,-the symbols of
the perfect man,-and this ointment in its descent reached to the very skirt of
his garment. This is my answer to the irreverent language of Celsus when he
says, "He ought to have breathed (His Spirit) alike into many bodies, and have
sent it forth into all the world." The comic poet, indeed, to cause laughter,
has represented Jupiter asleep and awaking from slumber, and despatching Mercury
to the Greeks; but the Word, knowing that the nature of God is unaffected by
sleep, may teach us that God administers in due season, and as right reason
demands, the affairs of the world. It is not, however, a matter of surprise
that, owing to the greatness and incomprehensibility399 of the divine judgments,
ignorant persons should make mistakes, and Celsus among them. There is therefore
nothing ridiculous in the Son of God having been sent to the Jews, amongst whom
the prophets had appeared, in order that, making a commencement among them in a
bodily shape, He might arise with might and power upon a world of souls, which
no longer desired to remain deserted by God.

Chapter LXXX.

After this, it seemed proper to Celsus to term the Chaldeans a most
divinely-inspired nation from the very earliest times,400 from whom the delusive
system of astrology401 has spread abroad among men. Nay, he ranks the Magi also
in the same category, from whom the art of magic derived its name and has been
transmitted to other nations, to the corruption and destruction of those who
employ it. In the preceding part of this work, (we mentioned) that, in the
opinion even of Celsus, the Egyptians also were guilty of error, because they
had indeed solemn enclosures around what they considered their temples, while
within them there was nothing save apes, or crocodiles, or goats, or asps, or
some other animal; but on the present occasion it pleases him to speak of the
Egyptian people too as most divinely inspired, and that, too, from the earliest
times,-perhaps because they made war upon the Jews from an early date. The
Persians, moreover, who marry their own mothers,402 and have intercourse with
their own daughters, are, in the opinion of Celsus, an inspired race; nay, even.
the Indians are so, some of whom, in the preceding, he mentioned as eaters of
human flesh. To the Jews, however, especially those of ancient times, who employ
none of these practices, he did not merely refuse the name of inspired, but
declared that they would immediately perish. And this prediction he uttered
respecting them, as being doubtless endued with prophetic power, not observing
that the whole history of the Jews, and their ancient and venerable polity, were
administered by God; and that it is by their fall that salvation has come to the
Gentiles, and that "their fall is the riches of the world, and the diminishing
of them the riches of the Gentiles,"403 until the fulness of the Gentiles come,
that after that the whole of Israel, whom Celsus does not know, may be saved.

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.

1: a0nata/sewj .

2: polu\ de\ to\ h#meron e0a\n . . . oi[oj te/ tij te/ tij ge/nhtai
e0pistre/fein .

3: polla\ xai/rein fra/santej .

4: a0ndrapo/doij .

5: kai\ mh\ oi[oi/ te katakou/ein th=j e0n fra/sei lo/gwn kai\ ta/cei
a0paggellome/nwn a0kolouqi/aj, m o/nwn e0fro/ntisan tw=n a0natrafe/entwn en
lo/goij kai\ maqh/uasin .

6: e0nei=don .

7: [See Dr. Burton's Bampton Lectures On the Heresies of the Apostolic Age , pp.
198, 529. S.]

8: filolo/gwn .

9: 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.

10: 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. Ps.
lxviii. 11. S.] 11: Cf. Rom. i. 18-23.

12: e0k pollh=j sunousi/aj ginome/nhj peri\ to\ pra=gma au0to\, kai\ tou= suzh=n
.

13: Cf. Plato, Phaedo [lxvi. p. 118. S.]

14: kai\ ta\ a0o/rata to= Qeou=, kai\ ta\j i/de=aj fantasqe/ntej a0po\ th=j
kti/sewj tou= ko/smou, kai\ tw=n ai0sqhtw=n, a0y' w[n a0nabai/nousin e0pi\ ta\
noou/mena: th\n te a0i>\/dion au0tou= du/naminn kai\ qeio/thta ou0k a0gennw=j
i0do/ntej , etc.

15: Rom. i. 25.

16: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28, 29.

17: e0pithdei/oij .

18: kai\ ti/ni tw=n e0n h9mi=n . Boherellus understands o#moioj , which has been
adopted in the translation.

19: Cf. Matt. v. 8.

20: Hos. x. 12.: fwti/sate e9autoi=j fw=j gnw/sewj (LXX.). The Masoretic text
is, t(wE; rynI Mkel/ w@dynI 21: Cf. John i. 3, 4.

22: to/n )xlhqin/n u#&ir#&/)i/ Nohto#$n 23: Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 6.

24: Ps. xxxvii. 1 (attributed to David).

25: Ps. cxix. 105.

26: Ps. iv. 6 (Heb. "Lift up upon us," etc.) 27: Ps. xxxvi. 9.

28: Cf. Isa. lx. 1.

29: Cf. Isa. ix. 2.

30: Cf. Isa. ix. 2.

31: e0nqousia[n .

32: Cf. Matt. xxv. 4.

33: kefali/da bibli/ou .

34: ou0ai/ : cf. Ezek. ii. 9, 10.

35: Cf. Rev. x. 9.

36: 2 Cor. xii. 4.

37: Cf. Rev. x. 4.

38: polla/kij de\ h!dh o9 Ke/llsoj qrullh/saj w9j a0ciou/menon eu0qe/wj
pisteu/ein, w0j kaino/n ti para\ ta\ pro/teron ei0rhme/na . Guietus thus amends
the passage: pollaxkij de\ h!dh o9 Ke/lsoj a0cio/menoj eu0qe/wj pisteu/ein, w9j
kaino/n ti para\ ta\ para\ ta\ pro/teron ei0rhme/na qrullh/saj , etc. Boherellus
would change a0ciou/menon into a0ciou=men .

39: paidei/a a0nece/legktoj plana=tai : cf. Prov. x. 17 (Sept.).

40: gnw=sij a0sune/tou a0diece/tastoi lo/goi : cf. Ecclus. xxi. 18.

41: ou0 terateu/etai .

42: 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.

43: "Alicubi forsan occurrit: me vero uspiam legisse non memini. Credo Platonem
per tertium oculum suam poluma/qeian et scientiam, quâ ceteris anteibat,
denotare voluisse." - Spencer.

44: Plato, Epist ., vi.

45: w[n e$n me\n o!noma: deu/teron de\ lo/goj: to\ de\ tri/ton ei!dwlon: to\
te/tarton de\ d0pisth/mh .

46: trano/teron fh/somen e0n th= yuxh= gino/menon meta\ to\n lo/gon tw=n
trauma/twn tu/pon, tou=ton ei\nai to\n e0n e9ka/stw| Xristo\n, a0po Xristou=
Lo/gou.

47: to\ mhde/n .

48: ei0kh= pisteu/onti .

49: 1 Cor. xv. 2.

50: [p. 41. S.] 51: tou= dhmiourgou= .

52: Cf. Col. iv. 6.

53: xqe\j kai\ prw/hn .

54: koino\n de\ pa/ntwn h@ kai\ pro/xeiron . For h! , Boherellus reads h\ .

55: oi9 ga\r o9moi/wj Kelsw= u9polabo/ntej teterateu=sqai . The word o\moi/wj
formerly stood, in the text of Spencer and Ruaeus, before teterate=sqai , but is
properly expunged, as arising from the preceding o9moi/wj . Boherellus remarks:
"Forte aliud quid exciderit, verbi gratiâ, Forte aliud quid exciderit, verbi
gratia, ta\ tou= Ihsou= ."

56: terateu/sasqai .

57: to\ ou0de/n .

58: Cf. Acts viii. 10 [and vol. i. p. 187, this series].

59: Cf. Acts v. 36, 37.

60: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19.

61: peplasme/non h9mi=n .

62: h\qoj ga\g a0nqrw/peion me\n ou0k ou0k e!xei gnw/maj, qei=on de\ e!xei .

63: Cf. Plato's Apolog ., v.

64: metri/wn o!ntwn .

65: Cf. Wisd. of Sol. ix. 6.

66: te/leioi .

67: Heb. v. 14.

68: Ps. xlix. 9, 10. (LXX.).

69: gnw=sij .

70: 1 Cor. xii. 8, 9. [See Gieseler's Church History , on "The Alexandrian
Theology," vol. i. p. 212. S.]

71: tou\j mh\ ai0sxunome/nouj e0n tw= toi=j a0yu/xoij proslalei=n, kai\ peri\
me\n u0lei/aj to\ a0sqene\j e0pikaloume/nouj, peri\ de\ zwh=j to\ nekro\n
a0ciou=ntaj, peri\ de\ e0pikouri/aj to\ a0porw/taton i9keteuontaj .

72: banau/swn .

73: tou\j e0sxa/touj .

74: go/htaj .

75: protropa/dhn .

76: tou\j xarieste/rouj .

77: paleu/omen . [See note supra , p. 482. S.] 78: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26.

79: w0j perihxhqei\j taj peri\ tapeinofrosu/nhj .

80: mh\ e0pimelw=j au0th\n noh/saj .

81: eu0qei/a perai/nei kata\ fu/sin paraporeuo/menoj .

82: Plato, de s1.v4.a4.w5.b6.fLegibus , iv. p. 716.

83: Ps. cxxxi. 1, 2 (LXX.). The clause, "If I had not been humble," seems to
belong to the following verse.

84: th= i0diwtei/a| .

85: th= i0diwtei/a| .

86: dia\ to\n i0diwtismo/n .

87: Cf. Phil. ii. 6, 8.

88: Cf. Matt. xi. 20.

89: Cf. Matt. xix. 24.

90: Cf. Plato, de Legibus , v. p. 473.

91: Cf. Matt. xiii. 54, Mark vi. 2, and John vii. 15.

92: Cf. Matt. vii. 14.

93: Cf. Ps. xviii. 11.

94: Cf. Ex. xx. 21.

95: Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.

96: Cf. Ps. civ. 6.

97: Cf. Matt. xi. 27.

98: a0ge/nhton . Locus diligenter notandus, ubi Filius e creaturarum numero
diserte eximitur, dum a0ge/nhtoj dicitur. At non dissimulandum in unico Cod.
Anglicano secundo legi: to\n gennhto/n : cf. Origenianorum , lib. ii. Quaestio
2, num. 23. - Ruaeus.

99: [Bishop Bull, in the Defensio Fidei Nicenoe , 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.] 100: o! ti pot' a@n xwrh=
gignw/skein . Boherellus proposes o#stij pot: a@n xwrh= , etc.

101: Cf. Plato, Epist ., ii., ad Dionys.

102: Cf. Isa. vi. 2.

103: Cf. Ezek. i. and x.

104: Ps. cxlviii. 4.

105: Cf. Plato in Phiedro , p. 247.

106: Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.

107: Cf. John xiv. 3.

108: pro\j a!kroij toi=j ou0ranoi=j .

109: potamou\j tw=n qewrh/matwwn .

110: For o#son ge Boherellus proposes o@soi ge , which is adopted in the
translation.

111: Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

112: Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 10.

113: [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," ai\
e0kklhsi/ai . S.] 114: [But see 2 Cor. xii. 2, and also Irenaeus, vol. i. p.
405.] 115: Cf. Plato in Timaeo , p. 42.

116: Cf. Gen. xxviii. 12, 13.

117: e0pesthrigme/non .

118: th=j te a0planou=j .

119: kli/mac i9i/puloj . Boherellus conjectures e9pta/puloj .

120: kerastou= nomi/smatoj .

121: th/n xalkoba/thn kai\ ster0r9a/n .

122: tlh/mona ga\r e!rgwn a9pa/ntwn, kai\ xrhmatisth/n, kai\ polu/kmnton ei\nai,
to/n te si/dhron kai\ to\n 'Ermh=n .

123: th=j loiph=j u#lhj . For u#lhj , another reading is pu/lhj .

124: For w9j e0kei/noij a0rkei=sqai , Spencer introduced into his text, ou0d'
e0kei/noij a0rkei=sqai , which has been adopted in the translation.

125: e0n oi[j polloi\ semnu/nontai .

126: a0po\ th=j sugklh/tou boulh=j .

127: Cf. Ezek. xlviii.

128: e0pi\ ta\ krei/ttona .

129: Cf. Rev. xxi.

130: qewrh/mata .

131: [Vol. i. p. 354, this series.]

132: "Utinam exstaret! Multum enim lucis procul dubio antiquissimorum Patrum
libris, priscae ecclesiae temporibus, et quibusdam sacrae Scripturae locis,
accederet." - Spencer.

133: kata\ to\ filomaqe\j h\mw=n .

134: Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 6, 7.

135: Cf. note in Spencer's edition.

136: pai/gnion .

137: Cf. Ps. civ. 24-26.

138: Cf. Mal. iii. 2, 3.

139: xwneuome/nwn .

140: pou= .

141: Cf. Zech. v. 7 142: [See Dean Plumptre's The Spirits in Prison , on "The
Universalism of Origen," p. 137, et seqq. S.] 143: ma/thn e0kkei/mena .

144: a0llo/kota kai\ a0moibai/aj fwna/j .

145: a0rxontikw=n .

146: ou0k eu!gnwmon a0lla/ . . . pa/nu a0gnwmone/staton .

147: fu/rwn de\ ta\ pra/gmata .

148: sune/drion .

149: me/trioj ta\ h!qh .

150: a0rxhgou= tw=n kalw=n .

151: 'Ofia=noi : cf. Irenaeus, vol. i. pp. 354-358.

152: th\n eu0te/leian a0gaph/saj .

153: a0po\ th=j pantelou=j a0kthmosu/nhj .

154: "Euphraten hujus haeresis auctorem solus Origenes tradit." - Spencer; cf.
note in Spencer's edition.

155: a0naisqh/tou .

156: Boherellus proposes fh=j for the textual reading fhsi/ .

157: kai\ toi=j profh/taij e0mpne/onta .

158: o#tan de\ ta\ e0nanti/a o\ do\j dida/skaloj 'Ihsou=j, kai\ o9 'Ioudai/wn
Mwu>\sh=j, nomoqeth= .

159: yuxiko/n .

160: Cf. Spencer's note, as quoted in Benedictine edition.

161: "Nescio, an haeresium Scriptores hujus Thauthabaoth, Erataoth, Thaphabaoth,
Onoeles, et Thartharaoth, usquam meminerint. Hujus generis vocabula innumera
invenies apud Epiphan., Haer ., 31, quae est Valentinianorum, pp. 165-171." -
Spencer.

162: fragmo\n kaki/aj .

163: pu/laj a0rxo/ntwn ai0w=ni dedeme/naj .

164: mono/tropon .

165: lh/qhn a0peri/skepron .

166: 'Ogdoa/doj . Cf. Tertullian, de Praescript. adv. Haereticos , cap. xxxiii.
(vol. iii. p. 259), and other references in Benedictine ed.

167: Fai/nwn . "Ea, quae Saturni stella dicitur, Gai/nwn que a Graecis dicitur."
- Cicero, de Nat. Deorum , book ii. c. 20.

168: sumpaqei=n .

169: nuktofah/j .

170: penta/di dunatwte/ra| .

171: mu/sthn .

172: xa/pin kruptome/nhn duna/mesin e0cousiw=n .

173: For dataluqi\n Boherellus conjectures kataylufqe/n , which has been adopted
in the translation.

174: fantasi/aj .

175: a0patew/nwn .

176: ei0j ta\j a0rxontika\j morfa/j .

177: Guietus thinks that some word has been omitted here, as ci/foj , which
seems very probable.

178: to\ th=j a0tele/stou teleth=j pe/raj .

179: a0por0r9oi/aj .

180: a0po\ cu/lou .

181: Eccles. i. 6. (literally rendered). [Modern science demonstrates this
physical truth.] 182: kata\ th\n peplanhue/nhn e9autwn sofi/an .

183: yuxiko\n dhmiwurgo/n .

184: ou0k akgennw=j .

185: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26.

186: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 54; cf. Hos. xiii. 14.

187: ka/qodon stunh/n .

188: Cf. Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.

189: Cf. Ps. ix. 13, 14.

190: Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22.

191: [See note supra , p. 582. S.]

192: Cf., however, Mark vi. 3. [Some mss., though not of much value, have the
reading here (Mark vi. 3), "Is not this the carpenter's son, the son of Mary?"
Origen seems to have so read the evangelist. See Alford, in loc . S.] 193:
au0to/qen .

194: a!rxontaj .

195: a!lla te, kai\ du/o a!tta, mei=zon te kai\ mikro/teron ui9ou= kai\ patpo/j
.

196: For a!llouj , the textual reading, Gelenius, with the approval of
Boherellus, proposes kai\ a!llou sugkeime/nou , which has been followed in the
translation.

197: e0pi\ toi=j au0toi=j u9pokeime/noij .

198: Cf. Herodot., iv. 59.

199: poi/a ga\r piqano/thj .

200: For the textual reading, ou!pw de\ ou0de\ peri\ twn loipw=n tau0to/n ti
e0rei= , Boherellus conjectures ei!rhtai , which has been adopted in the
translation.

201: For ai0sqhtw=n , Lommatzsch adopts the conjecture of Boherellus, approved
by Ruaeus, e0sqh/twn .

202: dx/chj .

203: Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 7.

204: Cf. Matt. xviii. 10.

205: qnhta/ . Instead of this reading, Guietus conjectures pthkta0 , which is
approved of by Ruaeus.

206: 'Wghno/n , i.e., in Oceanum, Hesych.; 'Wgh/n, w0keano/j , Suid.

207: kai\ mh\ paramuqhsa/menoj .

208: Cf. Iliad , i. 590 (Pope's translation).

209: Cf. Iliad , xv. 18-24 (Pope's translation).

210: a0nalogi/aij tisi\ sune/dhse kai\ e0ko/smhsen o9 Qeo/j .

211: a0mh/twr tij kai\ a!xrantoj dai/mwn .

212: Cf. Gen. iii.

213: to\ qhlu/teron ge/noj .

214: Cf. Ex. xii. 23.

215: Cf. Lev. xvi. 8.

216: e0nanti/oi o!ntej toi=j a9po\ tou= klh/rou tou= Qeou=, e!rhmoi/ ei0si Qeou=
.

217: [Judg. xix. 22. S.] 218: Cf. Job i. 11.

219: perista/sesi .

220: a0gri/w| e0le/fanti .

221: Cf. Job xl. 20.

222: Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 1-28.

223: Isa. xiv. 4 sqq.

224: pteror0r9uhsa/twn . Cf. supra , bk. iv.cap. xl. p. 516.

225: Cf. Prov. xxiii. 5. [See Neander's History of the Church , vol. ii. p. 299,
with Rose's note. S.] 226: Cf. 2Tim. ii. 5.

227: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 30.

228: Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 15.

229: Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 19.

230: Cf. Dan. viii. 23.

231: Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

232: Cf. Matt. xxiv. 4, 5.

233: Cf. Prov. xxvii. 19.

234: a0kro/thtaj .

235: meta/ tinoj e0pikru/yewj . Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 9.

236: 2 Thess. ii. 1-12.

237: Cf. Dan. viii. 23-25 (LXX.).

238: Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4.

239: Cf. Dan. ix. 27 (LXX.).

240: pai=da/ te au0tou= kai\ h0i/qeon .

241: parapoih/santaj .

242: [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.] 243: Cf. Gen. ii. 24.

244: Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17.

245: a9pacaplw=j .

246: ma/la eu0hqikh/ .

247: Cf. Gen. v. 1.

248: a0kataskeu/aston .

249: Cf. Gen. i. 26.

250: th\n e0k perissta/sewj genome/nhn .

251: Gen. iii. 24.

252: grafa/j .

253: a0pro/sloga .

254: sunqei=nai lh=ron baqu/n .

255: o#ti ti/j pote/ e0stin h9 fu/sij tou= nou=, kai\ tou= e0n toi=j profh/taij
lo/gou .

256: peri\ nohtw=n kai\ ai0sqhtw=n .

257: ai9 fu/seij tw=n h9merw=n .

258: e0n katasta/sei e!sesqai h9me/raj .

259: Cf. Isa. lx. 19.

260: eu0ktikw=j .

261: w9j e0n a0llotri/oij toi=j th=de .

262: makra\n xaire/twsan .

263: periora=| .

264: Cf. bk. v. cap. liv.

265: The textual reading is, a0po/ tinwn eu0telw=j kai\ i0diwtikw=j , for which
Ruaeus reads, a0po/ tinwn eu0telw=n kai\ i0diwtikw=n , which emendation has been
adopted in the translation.

266: oi9onei\ qaumastikw=j .

267: a0klh/rwn .

268: skuba/lwn .

269: te/xnhn .

270: e0k parakolouqh/sewj gege/nhtai th=j pro\j ta\ prohgou/mena .

271: Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 10-14.

272: Cf. Gal. i. 4.

273: Cf. Eph. v. 16.

274: kataxrhstikw/teron .

275: Cf. Job ii. 10.

276: Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.

277: Cf. Mic. i. 12, 13. The rendering of the Heb. in the first clause of the
thirteenth verse is different from that of the LXX.

278: par0r9hssi/an e!xein .

279: u#foj .

280: o0li/ga must be taken comparatively , on account of the polla/j that
follows afterwards.

281: polla/j . See note 11.

282: ta\ e9likoeidh= ce0smata kai\ pri/smata .

283: ta\ parakei/mena .

284: po/nouj .

285: Cf. Mic. i. 12.

286: Cf. Ps. lxxxix. 32.

287: Cf. Isa. xlvii. 14, 15 (LXX.).

288: Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.

289: to\ kai\ e0pitugxa/nein e0n tw=| nouqetoume/nw| kai\ a0kou/ein to\n tou=
dida/skontoj lo/gon .

290: w9sperei\ tw=n kaloume/nwn a0ntipeponqo/twn e0sti/n .

291: a0na/logon tw= kei/resqai a!nqrwpon, e0nergou=nta to\ pare/xein e9auto\n
tw=| kei/ronti .

292: perqou=j dhmiourgw=n .

293: Cf. Gal. v. 8.

294: Cf. Isa. i. 19, 20.

295: Cf. Deut. x. 12, 13.

296: e0nequmh/qh , in all probability a corruption for e0qumw/qh , which
Hoeschel places in the text, and Spencer in the margin of his ed.: Heb.
Mheg%w@Iw 297: e0nequmh/qhn . Cf. remark in note 2.

298: Cf. Gen. vi. 5-7.

299: Cf. Plato in Timoeo .

300: ko/smoj .

301: to\n peri/geion to/pon .

302: Cf. John i. 9.

303: Cf. John xvi. 33.

304: Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 18.

305: Cf. Rom. i. 20.

306: e0rhreisme/nhj .

307: th=de ferome/nou .

308: Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 9.

309: ton prosexw=j dhmiourgo/n .

310: au0tourgo/n .

311: sunagwga/j .

312: ta\ u9po\ mo/nhj fu/sewj dioikou/mena .

313: ta\ nhkta/ .

314: Cf. Gen. ii. 4.

315: [ sunete/lesen , complevit . S.] 316: kate/pausen .

317: kate/pausen .

318: Cf. Gen. ii. 2, 3.

319: a0nepau/sato .

320: tw=n e0piballo/ntwn .

321: ou0 qe/mij .

322: xeirourgei=n .

323: Cf. Ps. xix. 1.

324: Cf. Ps. cii. 25.

325: Cf. Isa. i. 20.

326: e0pi\ tw=n guna/mewn .

327: Cf. Ex. xx. 18 (LXX.). The Masoretic text is different.

328: Cf. Ps. cii. 27.

329: Cf. Mal. iii. 6.

330: Lev. xi. 44.

331: Cf. Eph. v. 1 ( mimhtai/ ).

332: The words as they stand in the text are probably corrupt: we have adopted
in the translation the emendation of Guietus: e@ti kai nao/j e0sti tou= Qeou= to
sw=ma tou= toiau/thn e@xontoj yuxh\n, kai\ e0n th= yuxh= dia\ to\ kat' ei0ko/na,
to\n Qeo/n .

333: Deut. v. 31.

334: Cf. Gen. iii. 8.

335: ou0si/a .

336: presbei/a kai\ duna/mei .

337: Cf. Col. i. 15.

338: ["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 peri\
a0rxw=n (if Rufinus may be trusted), for Origen's denouncement of the still more
characteristic Arianism of the h0n o$te ou0k h\n and the e0c ou0k o!nten ." -
Newman's The Arians of the Fourth Century , p. 97. See also Hagenbach's History
of Doctrines , vol. i. pp. 130-133. S.]

339: For au0tou= Boherellus conjectures au9tou= , and translates, " Propria ipse
principia , quae sunt Epicuri, subruens ."

340: Rom. xi. 36.

341: ou0de\ logw=| e0fikto/j .

342: ei!te e0ndiaqe/tw| ei!te kai\ proforikw=| .

343: John i. 1.

344: ou0de\n tw=n e0n le/cesi kai\ shmainome/noij .

345: xeiragwgh=sai .

346: kola/zesqai .

347: Cf. Matt. iv. 16. and Isa. ix. 2.

348: John xiv. 6.

349: Cf. Isa. v. 20.

350: o0fqalmou/j .

351: o0fqalmou/j .

352: swmatikw=j .

353: [2 Cor. v. 16. S.] 354: Cf. John i. 14.

355: Cf. John i. 14.

356: ei0ko/ti stoxasmw=| .

357: dusqew/rhtoj .

358: su/mmetron .

359: For ou9twsi/ we have adopted the conjecture of Guietus, tou/tou .

360: w9j eu0qew/rhton .

361: Rom. viii. 14.

362: Cf. Heb. xii. 29.

363: Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.

364: pa=san ou0si/an .

365: pneu=ma . There is an allusion to the two meanings of pneu=ma , "wind" and
"spirit."

366: 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.

367: th\n ai0sqhthn e0kdoxh/n .

368: tupikw=j here evidently must have the above meaning.

369: Cf. John iv. 21, 24.

370: e0n tu/poij .

371: Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 17.

372: Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 14.

373: e9autw=| suna/ptei .

374: ou0x@ w9j sw=ma de\ perie/xon perie/xei, o#ti kai\ sw=ma/ e0sti to\
periexo/menon .

375: pa/nu a0pemfai=non .

376: ei0j tosou=ton mi/asma .

377: Cf. book iv. capp. xiv. and lxviii.

378: th= ai0sqh/sei th\n a0rxh\n .

379: to\ ai0sqhto\n sw=ma .

380: prossaxqh/sh de\ tw= legome/nw| .

381: da$n biasa/menoj o9 lo/gj eu#rh| .

382: tou= dhmiourgou= .

383: ortu/gwn .

384: lhrou=ntaj .

385: pragmatikw=j .

386: e0semnolo/gei .

387: semnw=n lo/gwn .

388: tosau/thn fluari/an .

389: kata/plhcin .

390: a0gene/j .

391: Cf. Isa. liii. 1-3 (LXX.). [See Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed ,
Art. II., note. S.] 392: Cf. Ps. xlv. 3, 4 (LXX.).

393: [Luke ix. 31. S.] 394: probai=nein .

395: kai\ ei! tine/j ei0sin e=k lo/gwn thn ge/nesin laxo/ntej megalogwnwn .

396: tw=n xristw=n mou .

397: Cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 22 and Ps. cv. 15.

398: tou\j meto/xouj kri/seij .

399: dusdihgh/touj ta\j kri/seij .

400: e0c a0rxh=j .

401: geneqlialogi/a .

402: [On the manners of heathen nations, note this. See 1 Cor. v. 1.] 403: Cf.
Rom. xi. 11, 12.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 7
========================================================================

Book VII.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI.

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX.

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L.

Chapter LI.

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Book VII.

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."1 For it is
evidently the words and reasonings opposed to the truth that God destroys by His
truth; so that when these are destroyed, all who are delivered from deception
may go on with the prophet to say, "I will freely sacrifice unto Thee,"2 and may
offer to the Most High a reasonable and smokeless sacrifice.

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 Branchidae, 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 Phoenicia 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, from following the path of virtue, and from returning to God in
sincere piety. It is said of the Pythian priestess, whose oracle seems to have
been the most celebrated, that when she sat down at the mouth of the Castalian
cave, the prophetic Spirit of Apollo entered her private parts; and when she was
filled with it, she gave utterance to responses which are regarded with awe as
divine truths. Judge by this whether that spirit does not show its profane and
impure nature, by choosing to enter the soul of the prophetess not through the
more becoming medium of the bodily pores which are both open and invisible, but
by means of what no modest man would ever see or speak of. And this occurs not
once or twice, which would be more permissible, but as often as she was believed
to receive inspiration from Apollo. Moreover, it is not the part of a divine
spirit to drive the prophetess into such a state of ecstasy and madness that she
loses control of herself. For he who is under the influence of the Divine Spirit
ought to be the first to receive the beneficial effects; and these ought not to
be first enjoyed by the persons who consult the oracle about the concerns of
natural or civil life, or for purposes of temporal gain or interest; and,
moreover, that should be the time of clearest perception, when a person is in
close intercourse with the Deity.

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.3

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 all, worthy of the divine possession, as they call it.
And among women he did not choose a virgin, or one recommended by her wisdom, or
by her attainments in philosophy; but he selects a common woman. Perhaps the
better class of men were too good to become the subjects of the inspiration.
Besides, if he were a god, he should have employed his prophetic power as a
bait, so to speak, with which he might draw men to a change of life, and to the
practice of virtue. But history nowhere makes mention of anything of the kind.
For if the oracle did call Socrates the wisest of all men, it takes from the
value of that eulogy by what is said in regard to Euripides and Sophocles. The
words are:- "Sophocles is wise, and Euripides is wiser, But wiser than all men
is Socrates."4

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,"5 has rejected the male sex, and, as Celsus observes, employs
the women of Dodona for the prophetic office. Granting that there are oracles
similar to these, as that at Clarus, another in Branchidae, another in the
temple of Jupiter Ammon, or anywhere else; yet how shall it be proved that these
are gods, and not demons?

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: "6 for they looked always
to God and to His blessings, which, being invisible, and not to be perceived by
the senses, are eternal. We have the history of the life of each of the
prophets; but it will be enough at present to direct attention to the life of
Moses, whose prophecies are contained in the law; to that of Jeremiah, as it is
given in the book which bears his name; to that of Isaiah, who with unexampled
austerity walked naked and barefooted for the space of three years.7 Read and
consider the severe life of those children, Daniel and his companions, how they
abstained from flesh, and lived on water and pulse.8 Or if you will go back to
more remote times, think of the life of Noah, who prophesied;9 and of Isaac, who
gave his son a prophetic blessing; or of Jacob, who addressed each of his twelve
sons, beginning with "Come, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the
last days."10 These, and a multitude of others, prophesying on behalf of God,
foretold events relating to Jesus Christ. We therefore for this reason set at
nought the oracles of the Pythian priestess, or those delivered at Dodona, at
Clarus, at Branchidae, at the temple of Jupiter Ammon, or by a multitude of
other so-called prophets; whilst we regard with reverent awe the Jewish
prophets: for we see that the noble, earnest, and devout lives of these men were
worthy of the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, whose wonderful effects were
widely different from the divination of demons.

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 Phoenicia 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."11

Chapter IX. But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which
prophecies are delivered in Phoenicia 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 arc several kinds of
prophecies, but he does not specify what they arc; 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 endeavours after truth and virtue might
search into their meaning, and having found it, might apply it as reason
requires. But Celsus, ever vigorous in his denunciations, as though he were
angry at his inability to understand the language of the prophets, scoffs at
them thus: "To these grand 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 so as to suit his own purposes." This statement of
Celsus seems ingeniously designed to dissuade readers from attempting any
inquiry or careful search into their meaning. And in this he is not unlike
certain persons, who said to a man whom a prophet had visited to announce future
events, "Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee? "12

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."13 And if God give us
grace in the time that He appoints for us, to advance in the knowledge of His
word, we shall continue our investigation into the parts which remain, or into
such at least as we are able to make plain. And other persons of intelligence
who wish to study Scripture may also find out its meaning for themselves; for
although there are many places in which the meaning is not obvious, yet there
are none where, as Celsus affirms, "there is no sense at all." Neither is it
true that "any fool or impostor can explain the passages so as to make them suit
his own purposes." For it belongs only to those who are wise in the truth of
Christ (and to all them it does belong) to unfold the connection and meaning of
even the obscure parts of prophecy, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual,"
and interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers. And
Celsus is not to be believed when he says that he has heard such men prophesy;
for no prophets bearing any resemblance to the ancient prophets have appeared in
the time of Celsus. If there had been any, those who heard and admired them
would have followed the example of the ancients, and have recorded the
prophecies in writing. And it seems quite clear that Celsus is speaking falsely,
when he says that "those prophets whom he had heard, on being pressed by him,
confessed their true motives, and acknowledged that the ambiguous words they
used really meant nothing." He ought to have given the names of those whom he
says he had heard, if he had any to give, so that those who were competent to
judge might decide whether his allegations were true or false.

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,"14 and have
learnt "to be ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh us a
reason for the hope that is in us."15 And they are not satisfied with affirming
that such and such things have been predicted; but they endeavour to remove any
apparent inconsistencies, and to show that, so far from there being anything
evil, shameful, or impure in these predictions, everything is worthy of being
received by those who understand the sacred Scriptures. But Celsus ought to have
adduced from the prophets examples of what he thought bad, or shameful, or
impure, if he saw any such passages; for then his argument would have had much
more force, and would have furthered his purpose much better. He gives no
instances, however, but contents himself with loudly asserting the false charge
that these things are to be found in Scripture. There is no reason, then, for us
to defend ourselves against groundless charges, which are but empty sounds, or
to take the trouble of showing that in the writings of the prophets there is
nothing evil, shameful, impure, or abominable.

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 his readers. The prophets, indeed, foretold what Christ should suffer,
and set forth the reason why He should suffer. God therefore also knew what
Christ would suffer; but where has he learnt that those things which the Christ
of God should suffer were most base and dishonourable? He goes on to explain
what those most shameful and degrading things were which Christ suffered, in
these words: "For what better was it for God to eat the flesh of sheep, or to
drink vinegar and gall, than to feed on filth? "But God, according to us, did
not eat the flesh of sheep; and while it may seem that Jesus ate, He did so only
as possessing a body. But in regard to the vinegar and gall mentioned in the
prophecy, "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me
vinegar to drink,"16 we have already referred17 to this point; and as Celsus
compels us to recur to it again, we would only say further, that those who
resist the word of truth do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of
their own wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He
tastes of it, yet He will not drink it.

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,"18 to prove that the major premiss is false, which in the case
before us is this, "that the prophets have foretold that the great God should
become a slave, suffer sickness, or die." We conclude, then, that the prophets
never foretold such things; and the argument is formally expressed as follows:
1st, Of two things, if the first is true, the second is true; 2d, if the first
is19 true, the second is not true, therefore the first is not true. The concrete
example which the Stoics give to illustrate this form of argument is the
following: 1st, If you know that you are dead, you are dead; 2d, if you know
that you are dead, you are not dead. And the conclusion is-"you do not know that
you are dead." These propositions are worked out as follows: If you know that
you are dead, that which you know is certain; therefore you are dead. Again, if
you know that you are dead, your death is an object of knowledge; but as the
dead know nothing, your knowing this proves that you are not dead. Accordingly,
by joining the two arguments together, you arrive at the conclusion-"you do not
know that you are dead." Now the hypothesis of Celsus which we have given above
is much of the same kind.

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."20 Observe, then, how distinctly they say
that it was a man who should endure these human sufferings. And Jesus Himself,
who knew perfectly that one who was to die must be a man, said to His accusers:
"But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath spoken unto you the truth which I
heard of God."21 And if in that man as He appeared among men there was something
divine, namely the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation, one
who said of Himself, "I am the truth," "I am the life," "I am the door," "I am
the way," "I am the living bread which came down from heaven," of this Being and
His nature we must judge and reason in a way quite different from that in which
we judge of the man who was seen in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, you will find no
Christian, however simple he may be, and however little versed in critical
studies, who would say that He who died was "the truth," "the life," "the way,"
"the living bread which came down from heaven," "the resurrection; "for it was
He who appeared to us in the form of the man Jesus, who taught us, saying, "I am
the resurrection." There is no one amongst us, I say, so extravagant as to
affirm "the Life died," "the Resurrection died." The supposition of Celsus would
have some foundation if we were to say that it had been foretold by the prophets
that death would befall God the Word, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, or
any other name which is assumed by the Son of God.

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.22 For we have signs and pledges of the destruction of his
empire, in those who through the coming of Christ are everywhere escaping from
the power of demons, and who, after their deliverance from this bondage in which
they were held, consecrate themselves to God, and earnestly devote themselves
day by day to advancement in a life of piety.

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 opposed to these, declaring that no one
can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not
to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less
concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them
one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who
teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which
he had given to Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send
forth a messenger with counter instructions? "Celsus, with all his boasts of
universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in
supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than
that afforded by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see how
manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised to those who
lead upright lives, when it is a matter of common observation that the best of
men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed, the prophets themselves, who for the
purity of their lives received the Divine Spirit, "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."23 For, as the Psalmist,
says, "many are the afflictions of the righteous."24 If Celsus had read the
writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have supposed that when it is said to
him who kept the law, "Thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt
not borrow,"25 the promise is made to the just man, that his temporal riches
should be so abundant, that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not
only to two or three nations, but "to many nations." What, then, must have been
the wealth which the just man received according to the law for his
righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose also,
in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would never borrow
anything? For it is written, "and thou shalt thyself borrow nothing." Did then
that nation remain for so long a period attached to the religion which was
taught by Moses, whilst, according to the supposition of Celsus, they saw
themselves so grievously deceived by that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of
any one that he was so rich as to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed
that they would have fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises had
proved glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which Celsus gives
to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are recorded to have been
committed by the people are a proof that they despised the law, doubtless from
the feeling that they had been deceived by it, we may reply that we have only to
read the history of the times in order to find it shown that the whole people,
after having done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, returned
afterwards to their duty, and to the religion prescribed by the law.

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."26 Judge, then, from the words and spirit of the speaker,
whether it is conceivable that, after having in the preceding part of the Psalm,
as any one may read for himself, uttered the noblest thoughts and purposes, he
should in the sequel, according to the literal rendering of his words, say that
in the morning, and at no other period of the day, he would destroy all sinners
from the earth, and leave none of them alive, and that he would slay every one
in Jerusalem who did iniquity. And there are many similar expressions to be
found in the law, as this, for example: "We left not anything alive."27

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, -the one literal, the other
spiritual,-as has been shown by some before us. Of the first or literal sense it
is said, not by us, but by God, speaking in one of the prophets, that "the
statutes are not good, and the judgments not good; "28 whereas, taken in a
spiritual sense, the same prophet makes God say that "His statutes are good, and
His judgments good." Yet evidently the prophet is not saying things which are
contradictory of each other. Paul in like manner says, that "the letter killeth,
and the spirit giveth life,"29 meaning by "the letter" the literal sense, and by
"the spirit" the spiritual sense of Scripture. We may therefore find in Paul, as
well as in the prophet, apparent contradictions. Indeed, if Ezekiel says in one
place, "I gave them commandments which were not good, and judgments whereby they
should not live," and in another, "I gave them good commandments and judgments,
which if a man shall do, he shall live by them,"30 Paul in like manner, when he
wishes to disparage the law taken literally, says, "If the ministration of
death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of
Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
countenance, which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of
the Spirit be rather glorious? "31 But when in another place he wishes to praise
and recommend the law, he calls it "spiritual," and says, "We know that the law
is spiritual; "and, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and
just, and good."32

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."33 For, as Solomon says, "riches" are the
true good, which "are the ransom of the life of a man; "but the poverty which is
the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it "the poor cannot bear
rebuke."34 And what has been said of riches applies to dominion, in regard to
which it is said, "The just man shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand
to flight."35 Now if riches are to be taken in the sense we have just explained,
consider if it is not according to God's promise that he who is rich in all
utterance, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of
these treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many nations.
It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited, "carrying the
Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum."36 And as the
divine knowledge was given to him by revelation, and his mind was illumined by
the Divine Word, he himself therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required
not the ministry to any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been
written, "Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have
dominion over thee," he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the
teaching Of Jesus Christ; and he never "gave place by subjection to men, no, not
for an hour,37 as being himself mightier than they. And thus also he "filled the
earth."

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 Psalms 137: "O daughter of Babylon, who
art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served
us: happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones."38 For "the little ones" of Babylon (which signifies confusion) are
those troublesome sinful thoughts which arise in the soul and he who subdues
them by striking, as it were, their heads against the firm and solid strength of
reason and truth, is the man who "dasheth the little ones against the stones;
"and he is therefore truly blessed. God may therefore have commanded men to
destroy all their vices utterly, even at their birth, without having enjoined
anything contrary to the teaching of Christ; and He may Himself have destroyed
before the eyes of those who were "Jews inwardly"39 all the offspring of evil as
His enemies. And, in like manner, those who disobey the law and word of God may
well be compared to His enemies led astray by sin; and they may well be said to
suffer the same fate as they deserve who have proved traitors to the truth of
God.

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; "40 whether we take the word "rich" in its simplest sense, as referring to
the man whose mind is distracted by his wealth, and, as it were, entangled with
thorns, so that he brings forth no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who
is rich in the sense of abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the
Proverbs, "Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is
false."41 Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus to suppose
that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: "Whoever of you will be the
chiefest, shall be servant of all; "42 "The princes of the Gentiles exercise
dominion over them,"43 and "they that exercise authority upon them are called
benefactors."44 But there is nothing here inconsistent with the promise, "Thou
shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee," especially
after the explanation which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in
an expression in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the
teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would ask in
what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is wise in "the
wisdom of this world," as it is called, "which is foolishness with God,"45 then
we would agree with him in saying that access to the Father is denied to one who
is wise in that sense. But if by wisdom any one means Christ, who is "the power
and wisdom of God," far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father,
we hold that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is called
"the word of wisdom," far excels all those who have not received the same grace.

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 an high."46 And these precepts of our Lord, "Take no thought what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air, or behold the
ravens: for they sow not, neither do they reap; yet your heavenly Father feedeth
them. How much better are ye than they! And why take ye thought for raiment?
Consider the lilies of the field; "47 -these precepts, and those which follow,
are not inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that
the just "shall eat their bread to the full;48 nor with that saying of Solomon,
"The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked
shall want."49 For we must consider the food promised in the law as the food of
the soul, which is to satisfy not both parts of man's nature, but the soul only.
And the words of the Gospel, although probably containing a deeper meaning, may
yet be taken in their more simple and obvious sense. as teaching us not to be
disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living in
plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the providence
of God.

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 tooth; "50 and on the other, we have read, "I say unto you, Whoever
shall smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also."51 But as there
is reason to believe that Celsus produces the objections which he has heard from
those who wish to make a difference between the God of the Gospel and the God of
the law, we must say in reply, that this precept, "Whosoever shall strike thee
on the one cheek, turn to him the other," is not unknown in the older
Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, it is said, "It is good
for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth
silence, because he hath borne it upon him. He giveth his cheek to him that
smiteth him; he is filled full with reproach."52 There is no discrepancy, then,
between the God of the Gospel and the God of the law, even when we take
literally the precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we infer that
neither "Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely." The Father in sending Jesus did
not "forget the commands which He had given to Moses: "He did not "change His
mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger counter instructions."

Chapter XXVI.

However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the constitution
which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians,
under the direction of Christ's teaching, wish now to establish, we would
observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken
literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their
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 sought; 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; "53 and the
First-born of all creation is called "the image of the invisible God,"54 which
is the same as if it were said that He is incorporeal. However, we have already
said something on the nature of God while examining into the meaning of the
words, "God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and
in truth."

Chapter XXVIII.

After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes on to ask
of us "where we hope to go after death; "and he makes our answer to be, "to
another land better than this." On this he comments as follows: "The divine men
of a former age have spoken of a happy life reserved for the souls of the
blessed. Some designated it `the isles of the blest, 'and others `the Elysian
plain, 'so called because they were there to be delivered from their present
evils. Thus Homer says: `But the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on
the borders of the earth, where they lead a most quiet life.'55 Plato also, who
believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the name `land' to the
place where it is sent. `The extent of it,'56 says he, `is immense, and we only
occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where
we dwell along the shores of the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh.
But there are many other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there
are in different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude,
into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies in
the pure region of heaven.'" Celsus therefore supposes that what we say of a
land which is much better and more excellent than this, has been borrowed from
certain ancient writers whom he styles "divine," and chiefly from Plato, who in
his Phaedon discourses on the pure land lying in a pure heaven. But he does not
see that Moses, who is much older than the Greek literature, introduces God as
promising to those who lived according to His law the holy land, which is "a
good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey; "57 which promise is
not to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth which
we call Judea; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of the earth,
which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam. For these words,
"Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with
labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life,"58 were
spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died in Adam eats
with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all the earth has been
cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who
in Adam were driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats
bread until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. For the full
exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be said; but we
have confined ourselves to these few words at present, which are intended to
remove the idea, that what is said of the good land promised by God to the
righteous, refers to the land of Judea.

Chapter XXIX.

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."59 And in order to be
assured that our explanation of "the good and large land" of Moses is not
contrary to the intention of the Divine Spirit, we have only to read in all the
prophets what they say of those who, after having left Jerusalem, and wandered
astray from it, should afterwards return and be settled in the place which is
called the habitation and city of God, as in the words, "His dwelling is in the
holy place; "60 and, "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city
of our God, in the mountain of His holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy of
the whole earth."61 It is enough at present to quote the words of the Psalms 37,
which speaks thus of the land of the righteous, "Those that wait upon the Lord
they shall inherit the earth; "and a little after, "But the meek shall inherit
the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace; "and again,
"Those who bless Him shall inherit the earth; "and, "The righteous shall inherit
the land, and dwell therein for ever."62 And consider whether it is not evident
to intelligent readers that the following words from this same Psalm refer to
the pure land in the pure heaven: "Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He
shall exalt thee to inherit the land."

Chapter XXX.

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 precious stones; "63 and, "I will lay thy foundations with
sapphires." Those who hold in greatest reverence the teaching of Plato, explain
this myth of his as an allegory. And the prophecies from which, as we
conjecture, Plato has borrowed, will be explained by those who, leading a godly
life like that of the prophets, devote all their time to the study of the sacred
Scriptures, to those who are qualified to learn by purity of life, and their
desire to advance in divine knowledge. For our part, our purpose has been simply
to say that what we affirm of that sacred land has not been taken from Plato or
any of the Greeks, but that they rather-living as they did not only after Moses,
who was the oldest, but even after most of the prophets-borrowed from them, and
in so doing either misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects, or
else endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate those
portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai expressly makes
a distinction between the earth and the dry land, meaning by the latter the land
in which we live. He says: "Yet once, and I will shake the heavens, and the
earth, and the dry land, and the sea."64

Chapter XXXI.

Referring to the passage in the Phaedon 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 Psalms 46 and Psalms 48. The writings of Moses
and the prophets-the most ancient of all books-teach us that all things here on
earth which are in common use among men, have other things corresponding to them
in name which are alone real. Thus, for instance, there is the true light, and
another heaven beyond the firmament, and a Sun of righteousness other than the
sun we see. In a word, to distinguish those things from the objects of sense,
which have no true reality, they say of God that "His works are truth; "65 thus
making a distinction between the works of God and the works of God's hands,
which latter are of an inferior sort. Accordingly, God in Isaiah complains of
men, that "they regard not the works of the Lord, nor consider the operation of
His hands."66 But enough on this point.

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."67 Celsus ridicules this doctrine because he does not understand it, and
because he has learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on
any reasonable grounds. It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition to
what we have said above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching on the
subject of the resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived from anything
that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul,
which is immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place,
without having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one
time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer
adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another
time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better
covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the
world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and
before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Then,
again, as there is "a tabernacle" and "an earthly house" which is in some sort
necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that "the earthly house of
this tabernacle shall be dissolved," but that the tabernacle shall "be clothed
upon with a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."68 The men of God
say also that "the corruptible shall put on incorruption,"69 which is a
different thing from "the incorruptible; "and "the mortal shall put on
immortality," which is different from "the immortal." Indeed, what "wisdom" is
to "the wise," and "justice" to "the just," and "peace" to "the peaceable," the
same relation does "incorruption" hold to "the incorruptible," and "immortality"
to "the immortal." Behold, then, to what a prospect Scripture encourages us to
look, when it speaks to us of being clothed with incorruption and immortality,
which are, as it were, vestments which will not suffer those who are covered
with them to come to corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of
referring to this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of the
resurrection without understanding it, and who, simply because he knew nothing
about it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.

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,70 and which God has in His providence rendered capable of that
knowledge. To see God belongs to the pure heart, out of which no longer proceed
"evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies, the evil eye,"71 or any other evil thing. Wherefore it is said,
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."72 But as the strength
of our will is not sufficient to procure the perfectly pure heart, and as we
need that God should create it, he therefore who prays as he ought, offers this
petition to God, "Create in me a clean heart, O God."73

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 shall walk after
the Lord thy God,"74 does not command a bodily approach to God; neither does the
prophet refer to physical nearness to God, when he says in his prayer, "My soul
followeth hard after Thee."75 Celsus therefore misrepresents us, when he says
that we expect to see God with our bodily eyes, to hear Him with our ears, and
to touch Him sensibly with our hands. We know that the holy Scriptures make
mention of eyes, of ears, and of hands, which have nothing but the name in
common with the bodily organs; and what is more wonderful, they speak of a
diviner sense, which is very different from the senses as commonly spoken of.
For when the prophet says, "Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous
things out of thy law,"76 or, "the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening
the eyes,"77 or, "Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,"78 no one
is so foolish as to suppose that the eyes of the body behold the wonders of the
divine law, or that the law of the Lord gives light to the bodily eyes, or that
the sleep of death falls on the eyes of the body. When our Saviour says, "He
that hath ears to hear, let him hear,"79 any one will understand that the ears
spoken of are of a diviner kind. When it is said that the word of the Lord was
"in the hand" of Jeremiah or of some other prophet; or when the expression is
used, "the law by the hand of Moses," or, "I sought the Lord with my hands, and
was not deceived,80 -no one is so foolish as not to see that the word "hands" is
taken figuratively, as when John says, "Our hands have handled the Word of
life."81 And if you wish further to learn from the sacred writings that there is
a diviner sense than the senses of the body, you have only to hear what Solomon
says, "Thou shalt find a divine sense."82

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 who desire it." From this remark,
it would seem that Celsus supposes that the appearance of Christ to His
disciples after His resurrection was like that of a spectre flitting before
their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls them, in human shape always present
themselves to those who desire it. But how is it possible that a phantom which,
as he describes it, flew past to deceive the beholders, could produce such
effects after it had passed away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead
them to regulate their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being
hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and show
other indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one place, like these
so-called gods in human form, but making its divine power felt through the whole
world, in drawing and congregating together all who are found disposed to lead a
good and noble life?

Chapter XXXVI.

After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to answer as we could,
he goes on to say, speaking of us: "Again they will ask, `How can we know God,
unless by the perception of the senses? for how otherwise than through the
senses are we able to gain any knowledge? '" To this he replies: "This is 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,83 can say, as if to justify his faith in a resurrection, "How can they
know God, except by the perception of the senses? "or, "How otherwise than
through the senses can they gain any knowledge? "For it is not in any secret
writings, perused only by a few wise men, but in such as are most widely
diffused and most commonly known among the people, that these words are written:
"The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made."84 From whence it is to be
inferred, that though men who live upon the earth have to begin with the use of
the senses upon sensible objects, in order to go on from them to a knowledge of
the nature of things intellectual, yet their knowledge must not stop short with
the objects of sense. And thus, while Christians would not say that it is
impossible to have a knowledge of intellectual objects without the senses, but
rather that the senses supply the first means of obtaining knowledge, they might
well ask the question, "Who can gain any knowledge without the senses? "without
deserving the abuse of Celsus, when he adds, "This is not the language of a man;
it comes not from the soul, but from the flesh."

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."85 And if we use
the expression "face to face," let no one pervert its meaning; but let it be
explained by this passage, "Beholding with open face the glory of the Lord, we
are changed into the same image, from glory to glory," which shows that we do
not use the word in this connection to mean the visible face, but take it
figuratively, in the same way as we have shown that the eyes, the ears, and the
other parts of the body are employed. And it is certain that a man-I mean a soul
using a body, otherwise called "the inner man," or simply "the soul"-would
answer, not as Celsus makes us answer, but as the man of God himself teaches. It
is certain also that a Christian will not make use of "the language of the
flesh," having learnt as he has "to mortify the deeds of the body"86 by the
spirit, and "to bear about in his body the dying of Jesus; "87 and "mortify your
members which are on the earth,"88 and with a true knowledge of these words, "My
spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh,"89 and
again, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God,"90 he strives in every way
to live no longer according to the flesh, but only according to the Spirit.

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,"91 and although we are
so ready to lay down our lives for the cause of religion, that no philosopher
could lay aside his robes more readily. He then addresses to us these words:
"If, instead of exercising your 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 you will be able to see God." He is not aware that this reference to the
two eyes, the eye of the body and the eye of the mind, which he has borrowed
from the Greeks, was in use among our own writers; for Moses, in his account of
the creation of the world, introduces man before his transgression as both
seeing and not seeing: seeing, when it is said of the woman, "The woman saw that
the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to
be desired to make one wise; "92 and again not seeing, as when he introduces the
serpent saying to the woman, as if she and her husband had been blind, "God
knows that on the day that ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened; "93 and
also when it is said, "They did eat, and the eyes of both of them were
opened."94 The eyes of sense were then opened, which they had done well to keep
shut, that they might not be distracted, and hindered from seeing with the eyes
of the mind; and it was those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin, as I
imagine, were then closed, with which they had up to that time enjoyed the
delight of beholding God and His paradise. This twofold kind of vision in us was
familiar to our Saviour, who says," For judgment I am come into this world, that
they which see not, might see, and that they which see might be made blind,"95
-meaning, by the eyes that see not; the eyes of the mind, which are enlightened
by His teaching; and the eyes which see are the eyes of sense, which His words
do render blind, in order that the soul may look without distraction upon proper
objects. All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and
the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in which his
better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees and knows the
Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so forth.

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,96 have utterly
renounced Jesus, and perhaps some others of similar opinions who are "the
impostors and jugglers, leading men away to idols and phantoms; "and it is they
who with miserable pains learn off the names of the heavenly doorkeepers. These
words are therefore quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians: "If you seek
one to be your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers,
who will introduce you to phantoms." And, as though quite unaware that these
impostors entirely agree with him, and are not behind him in speaking ill of
Jesus and His religion, he thus continues, confounding us with them: "otherwise
you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst you pronounce
imprecations upon those other recognised 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 himself." That
he is ignorant of the wide difference between our opinions and those of the
inventors of these fables, and that he imagines the charges which he makes
against them applicable to us, is evident from the following passage: "For the
sake of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful advisers,
and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to the amphibious
creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to others, for the sake of
those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory with such pains, in
such a cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and perish at the stake."
Surely, then, he is unaware that none of those who regard beings in the form of
an ass a lion, or an amphibious animal, as the doorkeepers or guides on the way
to heaven, ever expose themselves to death in defence of that which they think
the truth. That excess of zeal, if it may be so called, which leads us for the
sake of religion to submit to every kind of death, and to perish at the stake,
is ascribed by Celsus to those who endure no such sufferings; and he reproaches
us who suffer crucifixion for our faith, with believing in fabulous creatures-in
the lion, the amphibious animal, and other such monsters. If we reject all these
fables, it is not out of deference to Celsus, for we have never at any time held
any such fancies; but it is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus that we
oppose all such notions, and will not allow to Michael, or to any others that
have been referred to, a form and figure of that sort.

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 the following passage from the Timaeus: "It is a hard matter
to find out the Maker and Father of this universe; and after having found Him,
it is impossible to make Him known to all." To which he himself adds this
remark: "You perceive, then, how divine men seek after the way of truth, and how
well Plato knew that it was impossible for all men to walk in it. But as wise
men have found it for the express purpose of being able to convey to us some
notion of Him who is the first, the unspeakable Being,-a notion, namely; which
may represent Him to us through the medium of other objects,-they endeavour
either by synthesis, which is the combining of various qualities, or by
analysis, which is the separation and setting aside of some qualities, or
finally by analogy;-in these ways, I say, they endeavour to set before us that
which it is impossible to express in words. I should therefore be surprised if
you could follow in that course, since you are so completely wedded to the flesh
as to be incapable of seeing ought but what is impure." These words of Plato are
noble and admirable; but see if Scripture does not give us an example of a
regard for mankind still greater in God the Word, who was "in the beginning with
God," and "who was made flesh," in order that He might reveal to all men truths
which, according to Plato, it would be impossible to make known to all men, even
after he had found them himself. Plato may say that "it is a hard thing to find
out the Creator and Father of this universe; "by which language he implies that
it is not wholly beyond the power of human nature to attain to such a knowledge
as is either worthy of God, or if not, is far beyond that which is commonly
attained (although if it were true that Plato or any other of the Greeks had
found God. they would never have given homage and worship, or ascribed the name
of God, to any other than to Him: they would have abandoned all others, and
would not have associated with this great God objects which can have nothing in
common with Him).97 For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no way
able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him without the help
of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those who, after doing all that
their powers will allow, confess that they need help from Him, who discovers
Himself to those whom He approves, in so far as it is possible for man and the
soul still dwelling in the body to know God.

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,"98 where the word
"heard" is used in the sense of "understood; "as in the passage, "He who hath
ears to hear, let him hear." We also hold that it is a hard matter to see the
Creator and Father of the universe; but it is possible to see Him in the way
thus referred to, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; "99
and not only so, but also in the sense of the words of Him "who is the image of
the invisible God; "He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father who sent Me."100 No
sensible person could suppose that these last words were spoken in reference to
His bodily presence, which was open to the view of all; otherwise all those who
said, "Crucify him, crucify him," and Pilate, who had power over the humanity of
Jesus, were among those who saw God the Father, which is absurd. Moreover, that
these words, "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father who sent Me," are not
to be taken in their grosser sense, is plain from the answer which He gave to
Philip, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet dost thou not know Me,
Philip? "after Philip had asked, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." He,
then, who perceives how these words, "The Word was made flesh," are to be
understood of the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation, will
also understand how, in seeing the image of the invisible God, we see "the
Creator and Father of the universe."

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, and he to whomsoever the
Son will reveal Him,"101 He declares that no one can know God but by the help of
divine grace coming from above, with a certain divine inspiration. Indeed, it is
reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of God is beyond the reach of human
nature, and hence the many errors into which men have fallen in their views of
God. It is, then, through the goodness and love of God to mankind, and by a
marvellous exercise of divine grace to those whom He saw in His foreknowledge,
and knew that they would walk worthy of Him who had made Himself known to them,
and that they would never swerve from a faithful attachment to His service,
although they were condemned to death or held up to ridicule by those who, in
ignorance of what true religion is, give that name to what deserves to be called
anything rather than religion. God doubtless saw the pride and arrogance of
those who, with contempt for all others, boast of their knowledge of God, and of
their profound acquaintance with divine things obtained from philosophy, but who
still, not less even than the most ignorant, run after their images, and
temples, and famous mysteries; and seeing this, He "has chosen the foolish
things of this world"102 -the simplest of Christians, who lead, however, a life
of greater moderation and purity than many philosophers-"to confound the wise,"
who are not ashamed to address inanimate things as gods or images of the gods.
For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has
learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the
gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines
that by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol
to that which is spiritual and immaterial.103 But a Christian, even of the
common people, is assured that every place forms part of the universe, and that
the whole universe is God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he
prays; but he rises above the universe, "shutting the eyes of sense, and raising
upwards the eyes of the soul." And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but
passing in thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God,
and having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers
to God. But he prays for no trivial blessings, for he has learnt from Jesus to
seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects, but to ask only for
what is great and truly divine; and these things God grants to us, to lead us to
l that blessedness which is found only with Him through His Son, the Word, who
is God.

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."104 He says also that we look
upon nothing that is pure, although our endeavour is to keep even our thoughts
free from all defilement of sin, and although in prayer we say, "Create in me a
clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,"105 so that we may
behold Him with that "pure heart" to which alone is granted the privilege of
seeing Him. This, then, is what he proposes for our instruction: "Things are
either intelligible, which we call substance-being; or visible, which we call
becoming:106 with the former is truth; from the latter arises error. Truth is
the object of knowledge; truth and error form opinion. Intelligible objects are
known by the reason, visible objects by the eyes; the action of the reason is
called intelligent perception, that of the eyes vision. As, then, among visible
things the sun is neither the eye nor vision, but that which enables the eye to
see, and renders vision possible, and in consequence of it visible things are
seen, all sensible things exist and itself is rendered visible; so among things
intelligible, that which is neither reason, nor intelligent perception, nor
knowledge, is yet the cause which enables the reason to know, which renders
intelligent perception possible; and in consequence of it knowledge arises, all
things intelligible, truth itself and substance have their existence; and
itself, which is above all these things, becomes in some ineffable way
intelligible. These things are offered to the consideration of the intelligent;
and if even you can understand any of them, it is well. And if you think that a
Divine Spirit has descended from God to announce divine things to men, it is
doubtless this same Spirit that reveals these truths, and it was under the same
influence that men of old made known many important truths. But if you cannot
comprehend these things, then keep silence; do not expose your own ignorance,
and do not accuse of blindness those who see, or of lameness those who run,
while you yourselves are utterly lamed and mutilated in mind, and lead a merely
animal life-the life of the body, which is the dead part of our nature."

Chapter XLVI.

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 live107 in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh; for the weapons
of our warfare are not fleshly, but mighty through God." It is for those who
throw out such vile accusations against men' who desire to be God's servants, to
beware lest, by the calumnies which they cast upon others who strive to live
well, they "lame" their own souls, and "mutilate" the inner man, by severing
from it that justice and moderation of mind which the Creator has planted in the
nature of all His rational creatures. As for those, however, who, along with
other lessons given by the Divine Word, have learned and practised this, "when
reviled to bless, when persecuted to endure, when defamed to entreat,"108 they
may be said to be walking in spirit in the ways of uprightness, to be purifying
and setting in order the whole soul. They distinguish-and to them the
distinction is not one of words merely-between "substance," or that which is,
and that which is "becoming; "between things apprehended by reason, and things
apprehended by sense; and they connect truth with the one, and avoid the errors
arising out of the other; looking, as they have been taught, not at the things
"becoming" or phenomenal, which are seen, and therefore temporary, but at better
things than these, whether we call them "substance," or "spiritual" things, as
being apprehended by reason, or "invisible," because they lie out of the reach
of the senses. The disciples of Jesus regard these phenomenal things only that
they may use them as steps to ascend to the knowledge of the things of reason.
For "the invisible things of God," that is, the objects of the reason, "from the
creation of the world are clearly seen" by the reason, "being understood by the
things that are made." And when they have risen from the created things of this
world to the invisible things of God, they do not stay there; but after they
have sufficiently exercised their minds upon these, and have understood their
nature, they ascend to "the eternal power of God," in a word, to His divinity.
For they know that God, in His love to men, has "manifested" His truth, and
"that which is known of Him," not only to those who devote themselves to His
service, but also to some who are far removed from the purity of worship and
service which He requires; and that some of those who by the providence of God
had attained a knowledge of them truths, were yet doing things unworthy of, that
knowledge, and "holding the truth in unrighteousness," and who are unable to
find any excuse before God after the knowledge of such great truths which He has
given them.

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."109 Thus we
may see how those who accounted themselves wise gave proofs of great folly,
when, alter such grand arguments delivered in the schools on God and on things
apprehended by the reason, they "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."110 As, then, they lived in a way unworthy of the knowledge
which they had received from God, His providence leaving them to themselves,
they were given "up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts to
dishonour their own bodies,"111 in shamelessness and licentiousness, because
they "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator."

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 confidence in his power to restrain his passions
within the limits he, prescribed for himself, determined to check them at their
seat by the application of hemlock; and thus he was accounted pure, and fit for
the celebration of religious worship among the Athenians. But among Christians
may be found men who have no need of hemlock to fit them for the pure service of
God, and for whom the Word in place of hemlock is able to drive all evil desires
from their thoughts, so that they may present their prayers to the Divine Being.
And attached to the other so-called gods are a select number of virgins, who are
guarded by men, or it may be not guarded (for that is not the point in question
at present), and who are supposed to live in purity for the honour of the god
they serve. But among Christians, those who maintain a perpetual virginity do so
for no human honours, for no fee or reward, from no motive of vainglory;112 but
"as they choose to retain God in their knowledge,"113 they are preserved by God
in a spirit well-pleasing to Him, and in the discharge of every duty, being
filled with all righteousness and goodness.

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."114 But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency or
knowledge or want of inclination, or from not having Jesus to lead them to a
rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions, we find that
they believe in the Most High God, and in His Only-begotten Son, the Word and
God, and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of
purity, and integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these
virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, "men with
men working that which is unseemly."115

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.116 They say, "I was shapen in iniquity, and
in sin did my mother conceive me; "117 also, "They are estranged from the womb;
"which is followed by the singular expression, "They go astray as soon as they
are born, speaking lies."118 Besides, our wise men have such a contempt for all
sensible objects, that sometimes they speak of all material things as vanity:
thus, "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason
of him that subjected the same in hope; "119 at other times as vanity of
vanities, "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity."120 Who has
given so severe an estimate of the life of the human soul here on earth, as he
who says: "Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity? "121 He
does not hesitate at all as to the difference between the present life of the
soul and that which it is to lead hereafter. He does not say, "Who knows if to
die is not to live, and if to live is not death"122 But he boldly proclaims the
truth, and says, "Our soul is bowed down to the dust; "123 and, "Thou hast
brought me into the dust of death; "124 and similarly, "Who will deliver me from
the body of this death? "125 also, "Who will change the body of our
humiliation."126 It is a prophet also who says, "Thou hast brought us down in a
place of affliction; "127 meaning by the "place of affliction" this earthly
region, to which Adam, that is to say, man, came after he was driven out of
paradise for sin. Observe also how well the different life of the soul here and
hereafter has been recognised by him who says, "Now we see in a glass,
obscurely, but then face to face; "128 and, "Whilst we are in our home in the
body, we are away from our home in the Lord; "wherefore "we are well content to
go from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord."129

Chapter LI. But what need is there to quote any more passages against Celsus, in
order to prove that his words contain nothing which was not said long before
among themselves, since that has been sufficiently established by what we have
said? It seems that what follows has some reference to this: "If you think that
a Divine Spirit has descended from God to announce divine things to men, it is
doubtless this same Spirit that reveals these truths; and it was under the same
influence that men of old made known many important truths." But he does not
know how great is the difference between those things and the clear and certain
teaching of those who say to us, "Thine incorruptible spirit is in all things,
wherefore God chasteneth them by little and little that offend; "130 and of
those who, among their other instructions, teach us that words, "Receive ye the
Holy Ghost,"131 refer to a degree of spiritual influence higher than that in the
passage, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."132 But
it is a difficult matter, even after much careful consideration, to perceive the
difference between those who have received a knowledge of the truth and a notion
of God at different intervals and for short periods of time, and those who are
more fully inspired by God, who have constant communion with Him, and are always
led by His Spirit. Had Celsus set himself to understand this, he would not have
reproached as with ignorance, or forbidden us to characterize as "blind" those
who believe that religion shows itself in such products of man's mechanical art
as images. For every one who sees with eyes of his soul serves the Divine Being
in no other way than in that which leads him ever to have regard to the Creator
of all, to address his prayers to Him alone, and to do all things as in the
sight of God, who sees us altogether, even to our thoughts. Our earnest desire
then is both to see for ourselves, and to be leaders of the blind, to bring them
to the Word of God, that He may take away from their minds the blindness of
ignorance. And if our actions are worthy of Him who taught His disciples, "Ye
are the light of the world,"133 and of the Word, who says, "The light shineth in
darkness,"134 then we shall be light to those who are in darkness we shall give
wisdom to those who are without it, and we shall instruct the ignorant.

Chapter LII. And let not Celsus be angry if we describe as Fame 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."135 And each of us runs "not as
uncertain," and he so fights with evil "not as one beating the air,"136 but as
against those who are subject to "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that now worketh in the children of disobedience."137 Celsus may indeed say of
us that we "live with the body which is a dead thing; "but we have learnt, "If
ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye by the Spirit do mortify the
deeds of the body, ye shall live; "138 and, "If we live in the Spirit, let us
also walk in the Spirit."139 Would that we might convince him by our actions
that he did us wrong, when he said that we "live with the body which is dead!"

Chapter LIII.

After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he goes on
to address us thus: "Seeing you are so eager for some novelty, how much better
it would have been if you had chosen as the object of your zealous homage some
one of those who died a glorious death, and whose divinity might have received
the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not
satisfied with Hercules or Aesculapius, 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,140 and set up as a god one who ended a most
infamous life by a most miserable death. How much more suitable than he would
have been Jonah in the whale's belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts,
or any of a still more portentous kind!"

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
Aesculapius 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."141 The prayer which seems to be contained in these
words for the removal of what He calls "the cup" bears a sense which we have
elsewhere examined and set forth at large. But taking it in its more obvious
sense, consider if it be not a prayer offered to God with all piety. For no man
naturally regards anything which may befall him as necessary and inevitable;
though he may submit to what is not inevitable, if occasion requires. Besides,
these words, "nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt," are not the
language of one who yielded to necessity, but of one who was contented with what
was befalling Him, and who submitted with reverence to the arrangements of
Providence.

Chapter LVI.

Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of calling Jesus the
Son of God, we had better have given that honour to the Sibyl, in whose books he
maintains we have interpolated many impious statements, though he does not
mention what those interpolations are.142 He might have proved his assertion by
producing some older copies which are free from the interpolations which he
attributes to us; but he does not do so even to justify his statement that these
passages are of an impious character. Moreover, he again speaks of the life of
Jesus as "a most infamous life," as he has done before, not once or twice, but
many times, although he does not stay to specify any of the actions of His life
which he thinks most infamous. He seems to think that he may in this way make
assertions without proving them, and rail against one of whom he knows nothing.
Had he set himself to show what sort of infamy he found in the actions of Jesus,
we should have repelled the several charges brought against Him. Jesus did
indeed meet with a most sad death; but the same might be said of Socrates, and
of Anaxarchus, whom he had just mentioned, and a multitude of others. If the
death of Jesus was a miserable one, was not that of the others so too? And if
their death was not miserable, can it be said that the death of Jesus was? You
see from this, then, that the object of Celsus is to vilify the character of
Jesus; and I can only suppose that he is driven to it by some spirit akin to
those whose power has been broken and vanquished by Jesus, and which now finds
itself deprived of the smoke and blood on which it lived, whilst deceiving those
who sought for God here upon earth in images, instead of looking up to the true
God, the Governor of all things.

Chapter LVII.

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."143 Finally, having no other names to offer
us, he adds, "and others of a still more monstrous kind," thus casting a slight
upon both Jonah and Daniel, for the spirit which is in Celsus cannot speak well
of the righteous.

Chapter LVIII.

Let us now consider what follows. "They have also," says he, "a precept to this
effect, that we ought not to avenge 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.'144 Such are the sentiments of Plato, and indeed they were held by divine
men before his time. But let this suffice as one example of the way in which
this and other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes can
easily by searching find more of them."

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 were required to show that the same doctrines have been better expressed
among the Jewish prophets or in Christian writings, however paradoxical it may
seem, we are prepared to prove this by an illustration taken from different
kinds of food, and from the different modes of preparing them. Suppose that a
kind of food which is wholesome and nutritious has been prepared and seasoned in
such a way as to be fit, not for the simple tastes of peasants and poor
labourers, but for those only who are rich and dainty in their tastes. Suppose,
again, that that same food is prepared not to suit the tastes of the more
delicate, but for the peasants, the poor labourers, and the common people
generally, in short, so that myriads of persons might eat of it. Now if,
according to the supposition, the food prepared in the one way promotes the
health of those only who are styled the better classes, while none of the others
could taste it, whereas when prepared in the other way it promoted the health of
great multitudes of men, which shall we esteem as most contributing to the
public welfare,-those who prepare food for persons of mark, or those who prepare
it for the multitudes?-taking for granted that in both cases the food is equally
wholesome and nourishing; while it is evident that the welfare of mankind and
the common good are promoted better by that physician who attends to the health
of the many, than by one who confines his attention to a few.

Chapter LX.

Now, after understanding this illustration, we have to apply it to the qualities
of spiritual food with which the rational part of man is nourished. See, then,
if Plato and the wise men among the Greeks, in the beautiful things they say,
are not like those physicians who confine their attentions to what are called
the better classes of society, and despise the multitude; whereas the prophets
among the Jews, and the disciples of Jesus, who despise mere elegances of style,
and what is called in Scripture "the wisdom of men," "the wisdom according to
the flesh," which delights in what is obscure, resemble those who study to
provide the most wholesome food for the largest number of persons. For this
purpose they adapt their 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,"145 He expressed Himself in such a way as to
make the precept have more practical effect than the words of Plato in the
Crito; for the latter is so far from being intelligible to ordinary persons,
that even those have a difficulty in understanding him, who have been brought up
in the schools of learning, and have been initiated into the famous philosophy
of Greece. It may also be observed, that the precept enjoining patience under
injuries is in no way corrupted or degraded by the plain and simple language
which our Lord employs, but that in this, as in other cases, it is a mere
calumny against our religion which he utters when he says: "But let this suffice
as one example of the way in which this and other truths have been borrowed and
corrupted. Any one who wishes can easily by searching find more of them."

Chapter LXII.

Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to another point. They
cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images.146 In this they are like the
Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no god, and some
other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world. That the Persians
hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these words: `I know that among
the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect images, altars, or temples; but
they charge those with folly who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not,
like the Greeks, suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.'147 Heraclitus
also says in one place: `Persons who address prayers to these images act like
those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.'
And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly
plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to
images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of
Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception all
images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been
wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their
wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these
for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or
images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as representing the
Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as the Persians concur with
them in saying, then let them take care that they do not contradict themselves;
for they say that God made man His own image, and that He gave him a form like
to Himself. However, they will admit that these images, whether they are like or
not, are made and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold
that the beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a
worshipper of God ought not to worship demons."

Chapter LXIII. To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes
of Libya, the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those other most
barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the Persians even cannot bear
the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not follow because we cannot
suffer them any more than they, that the grounds on which we object to them are
the same as theirs. We must inquire into the principles on which the objection
to temples and images is rounded, 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 arc afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship
of material things wrought by the hands of men.148 Neither do they object to
them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether
because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some
other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue
their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But
Christians and Jews have regard to this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy
God, and serve Him alone; "149 and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods
before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them; "150 and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt
thou serve."151 It is in consideration of these and many other such commands,
that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer
death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the
conception which they have of the Most High God.

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."152 We believe, therefore, that
things "under the bondage of corruption," and "subject to vanity," which remain
in this condition "in hope" of a better state, ought not in our worship to hold
the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His Son, the First-born of all
creation. Let this suffice, in addition to what we have already said of the
Persians, who abhor altars and images, but who serve the creature instead of the
Creator. As to the passage quoted by Celsus from Heraclitus, the purport of
which he represents as being, "that it is childish folly for one to offer
prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are," we may
reply that it is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and
those whom God has honoured with the title of God, and who partake of His divine
nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are demons;
but it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to
images.153

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.154
But as Celsus supposes that we fall into a contradiction, whilst on the one hand
we say that God has not a human form, and on the other we profess to believe
that God made man the image of Himself, and created man the image of God; our
answer is the same as has been given already, that we hold the resemblance to
God to be preserved in the reasonable soul, which is formed to virtue, although
Celsus, who does not see the difference between "being the image of God," and
"being created after the image of God," pretends that we said, "God made man His
own image, and gave him a form like to His own." But this also has been examined
before.

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 that the beings to whom they are dedicated
are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not to worship
demons." If he had been acquainted with the nature of demons, and with their
several operations, whether led on to them by the conjurations of those who are
skilled in the art, or urged on by their own inclination to act according to
their power and inclination; if, I say, he had thoroughly understood this
subject, which is both wide in extent and difficult for human comprehension, he
would not have condemned us for saying that those who worship the Supreme Being
should not serve demons. For ourselves, so far are we from wishing to serve
demons, that by the use of prayers and other means which we learn from
Scripture, we drive them out of the souls of men, out of places where they have
established themselves, and even sometimes from the bodies of animals; for even
these creatures often suffer from injuries inflicted upon them by demons.

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? 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 rusty 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."155 The same thing also appears from the fact that the
dedication of the most famous of the so-called sacred places, whether temples or
statues, was accompanied by curious magical incantations, which were performed
by those who zealously served the demons with magical arts. Hence we are
determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death; and we
hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks to be rendered to gods
at the altars, and images, and temples, is in reality offered to 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 creel 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; "156 and other similar passages, as, "Behold, I have given you
authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power. of the
enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you; "157 and again, "Thou shall
tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall thou trample
under feet."158 But of these things Celsus knew nothing, or he would not have
made use of language like this: "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
to them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it
not just, therefore, that he who serves God should serve those also to whom God
has assigned such power? "To which he adds, "It is impossible, they say, for a
man to serve many masters." This last point we must postpone to the next book;
for this, which is the seventh book which we have written in answer to the
treatise of Celsus, is already of sufficient length.

1: Ps. liv. 5.

2: Ps. liv. 6.

3: [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.] 4: Suidas in Sofo/j .

5: Homer, Iliad , xvi. 234, etc.

6: Heb. xi. 37, 38.

7: [Isa. xx. 3. S.] 8: [Dan. i. 16. S.] 9: [Gen. ix. 25-27. S.] 10: [Gen. xlix.
1. S.] 11: Wisd. of Sol. i. 5.

12: 2 Kings ix. 11.

13: [See note supra , p. 612. S.] 14: Ecclus. xxi. 18.

15: 1 Pet. iii. 15.

16: Ps. lxix. 21.

17: Book ii. cap. xxxvii.

18: dia\ du/o tropikw=n qewrh/ma .

19: We follow Bouhèreau and Valesius, who expunge the negative particle in this
clause.

20: Isa. liii. 2, 3.

21: John viii. 40.

22: [John xii. 31 and xvi. 11.] 23: Heb. xi. 37, 38.

24: Ps. xxiv. 19.

25: Deut. xxviii. 12.

26: Ps. ci. 8.

27: Deut. ii. 34.

28: Ezek. xx. 25.

29: 2 Cor. iii. 6.

30: [Ezek. xx. 21, 25. S.] 31: 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.

32: Rom. vii. 12, 14.

33: 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.

34: Prov. xiii. 8.

35: Deut. xxxii. 30.

36: Rom. xv. 19.

37: Gal. ii. 5.

38: Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9. [An instance of Origen's characteristic spiritualizing.]
39: Rom. ii. 29.

40: Matt. xix. 23.

41: Prov. xxviii. 6.

42: Mark x. 44.

43: Matt. xx. 25.

44: Luke xxii. 25.

45: 1 Cor. iii. 19.

46: Ps. vii. 3-5. Origen follows the reading ei0j xou=n (LXX.) instead of ei0j
xnou=n , "make my glory abide in the dust ."

47: Matt. vi. 25-28.

48: Lev. xxvi. 5.

49: Prov. xiii. 25.

50: Ex. xxi. 24.

51: Matt. v. 39.

52: Lam. iii. 27, 28, 30.

53: John i. 18.

54: Col. i. 15.

55: Odyss ., iv. 563.

56: Phoedo , lviii. p. 109.

57: Ex. iii. 8.

58: Gen. iii. 17.

59: Heb. xii. 22.

60: Ps. lxxvi. 2; English version, "In Salem is His tabernacle."

61: Ps. xlviii. 1, 2.

62: Ps. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34.

63: Isa. liv. 12, 11.

64: Hagg. ii. 6.

65: Dan. iv. 37.

66: Isa. v. 12.

67: 2 Cor. v. 1, 4.

68: 2 Cor. v. 1.

69: 1 Cor. xv. 53.

70: Bouhèreau follows the reading, "the mind which sees what is made in the
image of the Creator."

71: Matt. xv. 19 and vi. 23.

72: Matt. v. 8.

73: Ps. li. 10.

74: Deut. xiii. 4.

75: Ps. lxiii. 8.

76: Ps. cxix. 18.

77: Ps. xix. 8.

78: Ps. xiii. 3.

79: Matt. xiii. 9.

80: Ps. lxxvii. 2, according to the LXX.

81: 1 John i. 1.

82: Prov. ii. 5, Eng. Vers. and LXX., "Thou shalt find the knowledge of God."

83: nohta/ , falling under the province of nou=j , the reason. For convenience,
we translate it elsewhere "intellectual."

84: Rom. i. 20.

85: 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

86: Rom. viii. 13.

87: 2 Cor. iv. 10.

88: Col. iii. 5.

89: Gen. vi. 3.

90: Rom. viii. 8.

91: 2 Cor. v. 16.

92: Gen. iii. 6.

93: Gen. iii. 5.

94: Gen. iii. 7.

95: John ix. 39.

96: See book vi. cap. xxx., etc.

97: [See note supra , p. 573. S.] 98: 2 Cor. xii. 4.

99: Matt. v. 8.

100: John xiv. 9.

101: Matt. xi. 27.

102: 1 Cor. i. 27.

103: [Vol. ii. p. 186, this series.] 104: Rom. viii. 9.

105: Ps. li. 10.

106: ge/nesij . For the distinction between ou0si/a and ge/nesij , see Plato's
Sophista , p. 246.

107: 2 Cor. x. 3, 4. The received text has "walk" instead of "live."

108: 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.

109: Rom. i. 21.

110: Rom. i. 23.

111: Rom. i. 24, 25.

112: [See Robertson's History of the Church , vol. i. p. 145. S.] 113: Rom. i.
28.

114: Ps. xxxvii. 30, 31.

115: Rom. i. 27.

116: [The noteworthy testimony of the Alexandrian school to the doctrine of
birth-sin.

117: Ps. li. 5.

118: Ps. lviii. 3.

119: Rom. viii. 20.

120: Eccles. i. 2.

121: Ps. xxxix. 5.

122: Euripides. [See De la Rue's note ad loc . in his edition of Origen's Works
. S.] 123: Ps. xliv. 25.

124: Ps. xxii. 15.

125: Rom. vii. 24.

126: Phil. iii. 21.

127: Ps. xliii. 20 (LXX.).

128: 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

129: 2 Cor. v. 6, 8.

130: Wisd. xii. 1, 2.

131: John xx. 22.

132: Acts i. 5.

133: Matt. v. 14.

134: John i. 5.

135: 2 Tim. iv. 7.

136: 1 Cor. ix. 26.

137: Eph. ii. 2.

138: Rom. viii. 13.

139: Gal. v. 25.

140: [See vol. i. p. 169, note 9, and cap. lvi. infra .] 141: Matt. xxvi. 39.

142: [Vol. i. pp. 280, 288, 289; vol. ii. pp. 192, 194, 346, and 622.] 143: Luke
x. 19.

144: Plato's Crito , p. 49.

145: Matt. v. 39, 40.

146: [The temples here meant are such as enshrined images.] 147: Herod., i. 131.

148: [Note this wholesome fear of early Christians.] 149: Deut. vi. 13.

150: Ex. xx. 3, 4.

151: Matt. iv. 10.

152: Rom. viii. 19-21.

153: [Let this be noted; and see book viii. 20, infra .] 154: [Vol. ii. p. 186,
note 1.] 155: Ps. xcv. 5 (LXX.); xcvi. 5 (Heb.) 156: John x. 8-10.

157: Luke x. 19.

158: Ps. xci. 13.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: AGAINST CELSUS - BOOK 8
========================================================================

Book VIII.

Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Chapter VII.

Chapter VIII.

Chapter IX.

Chapter X.

Chapter XI.

Chapter XII.

Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIV.

Chapter XV.

Chapter XVI

Chapter XVII.

Chapter XVIII.

Chapter XIX.

Chapter XX.

Chapter XXI.

Chapter XXII.

Chapter XXIII.

Chapter XXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXVI.

Chapter XXVII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Chapter XXIX.

Chapter XXX.

Chapter XXXI.

Chapter XXXII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIV.

Chapter XXV.

Chapter XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXIX,

Chapter XL.

Chapter XLI.

Chapter XLII.

Chapter XLIII.

Chapter XLIV.

Chapter XLV.

Chapter XLVI.

Chapter XLVII.

Chapter XLVIII.

Chapter XLIX.

Chapter L.

Chapter LI

Chapter LII.

Chapter LIII.

Chapter LIV.

Chapter LV.

Chapter LVI.

Chapter LVII.

Chapter LVIII.

Chapter LIX.

Chapter LX.

Chapter LXI.

Chapter LXII.

Chapter LXIII.

Chapter LXIV.

Chapter LXV.

Chapter LXVI.

Chapter LXVII.

Chapter LXVIII.

Chapter LXIX.

Chapter LXX.

Chapter LXXI.

Chapter LXXII.

Chapter LXXIII.

Chapter LXXIV.

Chapter LXXV.

Chapter LXXVI.

Book VIII.

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,"1 so would we in the same spirit
and language earnestly desire to be ambassadors for Christ to men, even as the
Word of God beseeches them to the love of Himself, seeking to win over to
righteousness truth, and the other virtues, those who, until they receive the
doctrines of Jesus Christ, live in darkness about God and in ignorance of their
Creator. Again, then, I would say, may God bestow upon us His pure and true
Word, even "the Lord strong and mighty in battle"2 against sin. We must now
proceed to state the next objection of Celsus, and afterwards to answer it.

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."3 The defence of this passage will lead us to a deeper and more
searching inquiry into the meaning and application of the words "gods" and
"lords." Divine Scripture teaches us that there is "a great Lord above all
gods."4 And by this name "gods" we are not to understand the objects of heathen
worship (for we know that "all the gods of the heathen are demons"5 ), but the
gods mentioned by the prophets as forming an assembly, whom God "judges," and to
each of whom He assigns his proper work. For "God standeth in the assembly of
the gods: He judgeth among the gods."6 For "God is Lord of gods," who by His Son
"hath called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof."7
We are also commanded to "give thanks to the God of gods."8 Moreover, we are
taught that "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."9 Nor are these
the only passages to this effect; but there are very many others.

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."10 But as the God of gods calls whom He
pleases through Jesus to his inheritance, "from the east and from the west," and
the Christ of God thus shows His superiority to all rulers by entering into
their several provinces, and summoning men out of them to be subject to Himself,
Paul therefore, with this in view, goes on to say, "But to us there is but one
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by Him; "adding, as if with a deep sense of the marvellous
and mysterious nature of the doctrine, "Howbeit there is not in every man that
knowledge." When he says, "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are
all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," by "us" he means
himself and all those who have risen up to the supreme God of gods and to the
supreme Lord of lords. Now he has risen to the supreme God who gives Him an
entire and undivided worship through His Son-the word and wisdom of God made
manifest in Jesus. For it is the Son alone who leads to God those who are
striving, by the purity of their thoughts, words, and deeds, to come near to God
the Creator of the universe. I think, therefore, that the prince of this world,
who "transforms himself into an angel of light,"11 was referring to this and
such like statements in the words, "Him follows a host of gods and demons,
arranged in eleven bands."12 Speaking of himself and the philosophers, he says,
"We are of the party of Jupiter; others belong to other demons."

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,"13
-such a one cannot be induced to combine with the service of God the service of
any other, or to serve two masters. There is therefore nothing seditious or
factious in the language of those who hold these views, and who refuse to serve
more masters than one. To them Jesus Christ is an all-sufficient Lord, who
Himself instructs them, in order that when fully instructed He may form them
into a kingdom worthy of God, and present them to God the Father. But indeed
they do in a sense separate themselves and stand aloof from those who are aliens
from the commonwealth of God and strangers to His covenants, in order that they
may live as citizens of heaven, "coming to the living God, and to the city of
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the
general assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven."14

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, and are imbued with that excellent
spirit of adoption which in the sons of the heavenly Father cries, not with
words, but with deep effect in the inmost heart, "Abba, Father." The
Lacedaemonian ambassadors, when brought before the king of Persia, refused to
prostrate themselves before him, when the attendants endeavoured to compel them
to do so, out of respect for that which alone had authority and lordship over
them, namely, the law of Lycurgus.15 But they who have a much greater and
diviner embassy in "being ambassadors for Christ" should not worship any ruler
among Persians, or Greeks or Egyptians, or of any nation whatever, even although
their officers and ministers, demons and angels of the devil, should seek to
compel them to do so, and should urge them to set at nought a law which is
mightier than all the laws upon earth. For the Lord of those who are
"ambassadors for Christ" is Christ Himself, whose ambassadors they are, and who
is "the Word, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God."16

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."17 For all the prophecies which preceded
His birth were preparations for His worship. And the wonders which He
wrought-through no magical art, as Celsus supposes, but by a divine power, which
was foretold by the prophets-have served as a testimony from God in behalf of
the worship of Christ. He who honours the Son, who is the Word and Reason, acts
in nowise contrary to reason, and gains for himself great good; he who honours
Him, who is the Truth, becomes better by honouring truth: and this we may say of
honouring wisdom, righteousness, and all the other names by which the sacred
Scriptures are wont to designate the Son of God.

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? "18 and also, "Of how much sorer
punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot
the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? "19
For if he who transgresses the law dishonours God by his transgression, and he
who treads under foot the word treads under foot the Son of God, it is evident
that he who keeps the law honours God, and that the worshipper of God is he
whose life is regulated by the principles and precepts of the divine word. Had
Celsus known who they are who are God's people, and that they alone are
wise,-and who they are who are strangers to God, and that these are all the
wicked who have no desire to give themselves to virtue, he would have considered
before he gave expression to the words, "How can he who honours any of those
whom God acknowledges as His own be displeasing to God, to whom they all belong?
"

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,"20 and
the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one,21 he would
not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God.
"For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him."22 And if any should from
these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the
Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,"23 that he
may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one." We worship
one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our
argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not
"reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not
exist before;24 for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I
am."25 Again He says, "I am the truth; "26 and surely none of us is so simple as
to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared.27 We
worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and
these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in
unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one,
that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the
express image of His person,"28 has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God
Himself.

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,"29 and our High Priest, to offer our
desires, and sacrifices, and prayers, to the Most High. Our faith, therefore, is
directed to God through His Son, who strengthens it in us; anti Celsus can never
show that the Son of God is the cause of any sedition or disloyalty in the
kingdom of God. We honour the Father when we admire His Son, the Word, and
Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and all that He who is the Son of so great
a Father is said in Scripture to be. So much on this point.

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."30 We know,
therefore, that He is the Son of God, and that God is His father. And there is
nothing extravagant or unbecoming the character of God in the doctrine that He
should have begotten such an only Son; and no one will persuade us that such a
one is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father. If Celsus has heard something
of certain persons holding that the Son of God is not the Son of the Creator of
the universe, that is a matter which lies between him and the supporters of such
an opinion. Jesus is, then, not the leader of any seditious movement, but the
promoter of peace. For He said to His disciples, "Peace I leave with you, My
peace I give unto you; "and as He knew that it would be men of the world, and
not men of God, who would wage war against us, he added, "Not as the world
giveth peace, do I give peace unto you."31 And even although we are oppressed in
the world, we have confidence in Him who said, "In the world ye shall have
tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." And it is He whom
we call Son of God-Son of that God, namely, whom, to quote the words of Celsus,
"we most highly reverence; "and He is the Son who has been most highly exalted
by the Father. Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of
believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert
that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but
rather believe Him when He says, "The Father who sent Me is greater than I."32
We would not therefore make Him whom we call Father inferior-as Celsus accuses
us of doing-to the Son of God.

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, and the Son of man is Lord over Him, who else than
the Son can be Lord over that God who is the ruler over all things? How comes
it, that while so many go about the well, no one goes down into it? Why art thou
afraid when thou hast gone so far on the way? Answer: Thou art mistaken, for I
lack neither courage nor weapons.' Is it not evident, then, that their views are
precisely such as I have described them to be? They suppose that another God,
who is above the heavens, is the Father of him whom with one accord they honour,
that they may honour this Son of man alone, whom they exalt under the form and
name of the great God, and whom they assert to be stronger than God, who rules
the world, and that he rules over Him. And hence that maxim of theirs, `It is
impossible to serve two masters, 'is maintained for the purpose of keeping up
the party who are on the side of this Lord." Here, again, Celsus quotes opinions
from some most obscure sect of heretics, and ascribes them to all Christians. I
call it "a most obscure sect; "for although we have often contended with
heretics, yet we are unable to discover from what set of opinions he has taken
this passage, if indeed he has quoted it from any author, and has not rather
concocted it himself, or added it as an inference of his own. For we who say
that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do
thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to
Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, "The Father who
sent Me is greater than I." And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the
Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Saviour as God the Word, and
Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion
over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that
His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.33 Besides,
as the Word rules over none against their will, there are still wicked
beings-not only men, but also angels, and all demons-over whom we say that in a
sense He does not rule, since they do not yield Him a willing obedience; but, in
another sense of the word, He rules even over them, in the same way as we say
that man rules over the irrational animals,-not by persuasion, but as one who
tames and subdues lions and beasts of burden. Nevertheless, he leaves no means
untried to persuade even those who are still disobedient to submit to His
authority. So far as we are concerned, therefore, we deny the truth of that
which Celsus quotes as one of our sayings, "Who else than He can be Lord over
Him who is God over all? "

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; "34 and by the Psalmist, "Let my prayer come
up before Thee as incense."35 And the statues and gifts which are fit offerings
to God are the work of no common mechanics, but are wrought and fashioned in us
by the Word of God, to wit, the virtues in which we imitate "the First-born of
all creation," who has set us an example of justice, of temperance, of courage,
of wisdom, of piety, and of the other virtues. In all those, then, who plant and
cultivate within their souls, according to the divine word, temperance, justice,
wisdom, piety, and other virtues, these excellences are their statues they
raise, in which we are persuaded that it is becoming for us to honour the model
and prototype of all statues: "the image of the invisible God," God the
Only-begotten. And again, they who "put off the old man with his deeds, and put
on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that hath
created him," in taking upon them the image of Him who hath created them, do
raise within themselves a statue like to what the Most High God Himself desires.
And as among statuaries there are some who are marvellously perfect in their
art, as for example Pheidias and Polycleitus, and among painters, Zeuxis and
Apelles, whilst others make inferior statues, and others, again, are inferior to
the second-rate artists,-so that, taking all together, there is a wide
difference in the execution of statues and pictures,-in the same way there are
some who form images of the Most High in a better manner and with a more perfect
skill; so that there is no comparison even between the Olympian Jupiter of
Pheidias and the man who has been fashioned according to the image of God the
Creator. But by far the most excellent of all these throughout the whole
creation is that image in our Saviour who said, "My Father is in Me."

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."36 And
the Saviour says, "If any man hear My words, and do them, I and My Father will
come to him, and make Our abode with him."37 Let any one, therefore, who chooses
compare the altars which I have described with those spoken of by Celsus, and
the images in the souls of those who worship the Most High God with the statues
of Pheidias, Polycleitus, and such like, and he will clearly perceive, that
while the latter are lifeless things, and subject to the ravages of time, the
former abide in the immortal spirit as long as the reasonable soul wishes to
preserve them.

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."38 And in other parts of holy
Scripture where it speaks of the mystery of the resurrection to those whose ears
are divinely opened, it says that the temple which has been destroyed shall be
built up again of living and most precious stones, thereby giving us to
understand that each of those who are led by the word of God to strive together
in the duties of piety, will be a precious stone in the one great temple of God.
Accordingly, Peter says, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God
by Jesus Christ; "39 and Paul also says, "Being built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ our Lord being the chief cornerstone."40 And
there is a similar hidden allusion in this passage in Isaiah, which is addressed
to Jerusalem: "Behold, I will lay thy stones with carbuncles, and lay thy
foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy battlements of jasper, and thy
gates of crystal, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children
shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In
righteousness shall thou be established."41

Chapter XX.

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; "42 and that man truly celebrates a feast who does his duty and
prays always, offering up continually bloodless sacrifices in prayer to God.
That therefore seems to me a most noble saying of Paul, "Ye observe days, and
months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you
labour in vain."43

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, he gives himself to supplication and prayer, that he may
become worthy of receiving "the mighty wind rushing from heaven," which is
powerful to destroy sin and its fruits among men, and worthy of having some
share of the tongue of fire which God sends.

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; "44 and by these words he indicates that a life
in accordance with the divine word consists not "in a part of the feast," but in
one entire and never ceasing festival.45 Again, compare the festivals, observed
among us as these have been described above, with the public feasts of Celsus
and the heathen, and say if the former are not much more sacred observances than
those feasts in which the lust of the flesh runs riot, and leads to drunkenness
and debauchery. It would be too long for us at present to show why we are
required by the law of God to keep its festivals by eating "the bread of
affliction,"46 or "unleavened with bitter herbs,"47 or why it says, "Humble your
souls,"48 and such like. For it is impossible for man, who is a compound being,
in which "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh,"49 to keep the feast with his whole nature; for either he keeps the feast
with his spirit and afflicts the body, which through the lust of the flesh is
unfit to keep it along with the spirit, or else he keeps it with the body, and
the spirit is unable to share in it. But we have for the present said enough on
the subject of feasts.

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.50
The apostle draws from the fact that "an idol is nothing in the world," the
consequence that it is injurious to use things offered to idols; and he shows to
those who have ears to hear on such subjects, that he who partakes of things
offered to idols is worse than a murderer, for he destroys his own brethren, for
whom Christ died. And further, he maintains that the sacrifices are made to
demons; and from that he proceeds to show that those who join the table of
demons become associated with the demons; and he concludes that a man cannot
both be a partaker of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. But
since it would require a whole treatise to set forth fully all that is contained
on this subject in the Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall content ourselves
with this brief statement of the argument; for it will be evident to any one who
carefully considers what has been said, that even if idols are nothing,
nevertheless it is an awful thing to join in idol festivals. And even supposing
that there are such beings as demons to whom the sacrifices are offered, it it
has been clearly shown that we are forbidden to take part in these festivals,
when we know the difference between the table of the Lord and the table of
demons. And knowing this, we endeavour as much as we can to be always partakers
of the Lord's table, and beware to the utmost of joining at any time the table
of demons.

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 distinction, for all are said to be wicked. We do not
therefore hesitate to say that Celsus is false when he says, "If they are
demons, it is evident that they must also belong to God." He must either show
that this distinction of good and bad among angels and men has no foundation, or
else that a similar distinction may be shown to hold among demons. If that is
impossible, it is plain that demons do not belong to God; for their prince is
not God, but, as holy Scripture says, "Beelzebub."

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.51
And as we would have no desire to enjoy the favour of those men who wish us to
follow their wicked lives, and who give us their favour only on condition that
we choose nothing opposed to their wishes, because their favour would make us
enemies of God, who cannot be pleased with those who have such men for their
friends,-in the same way those who are acquainted with the nature, the purposes,
and the wickedness of demons, can never wish to obtain their favour.

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,"52 being well contented with
the favour of God through Christ Jesus, may say with confidence that he has
nothing to suffer from the whole host of demons. "The Lord is my light and my
salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall
I be afraid? Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not
fear."53 So much, then, in reply to those statements of Celsus: "If they are
demons, they too evidently belong to God, and they are to be believed, to be
sacrificed to according to the laws, and prayers are to be offered to them that
they may be propitious."

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; "54 and again, "Destroy not
him with thy meat, for whom Christ died; "55 and again, "If meat make my brother
to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother
to offend."56

Chapter XXIX. 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."57 Paul also says, "Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if
we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse."58
Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter, without some
explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders
assembled together at Antioch,59 and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy
Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake
of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely,
"things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood."60

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,61 which is known to most Christians: "The eating of
animals," says he, "is a matter of indifference; but to abstain from them is
more agreeable to reason." It is not, therefore, simply an account of some
traditions of our fathers that we refrain from eating victims offered to those
called gods or heroes or demons, but for other reasons, some of which I have
here mentioned. it is not to be supposed, however, that we are to abstain from
the flesh of animals in the same way as we are bound to abstain from all race
and wickedness: we are indeed to abstain not only from the flesh of animals, but
from all other kinds of food, if we cannot partake of them without incurring
evil, and the consequences of evil. For we are to avoid eating for gluttony, or
for the mere gratification of the appetite, without regard to the health and
sustenance of the body. We do not believe that souls pass from one body to
another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of the brutes.
If we abstain at times from eating the flesh of animals, it is evidently,
therefore, not for the same reason as Pythagoras; for it is the reasonable soul
alone that we honour, and we commit its bodily organs with due honours to the
grave. For it is not right that the dwelling-place of the rational soul should
be cast aside anywhere without honour, like the carcases of brute beasts; and so
much the more when we believe that the respect paid to the body redounds to the
honour of the person who received from God a soul which has nobly employed the
organs of the body in which it resided. In regard to the question, "How are the
dead raised up, and with what body do they come? "62 we have already answered it
briefly, as our purpose required.

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 regard not
only to the fruits of the earth, but to every flowing stream and every breath of
air that the ground brings forth those things which are said to grow up
naturally,-that the water springs in fountains, and refreshes the earth with
running streams,-that the air is kept pure, and supports the life of those who
breathe it, only in consequence of the agency and control of certain beings whom
we may call invisible husbandmen and guardians; but we deny that those invisible
agents are demons. And if we might speak boldly, we would say that if demons
have any share at all in these things, to them belong famine, blasting of the
vine and fruit trees, pestilence among men and beasts: all these are the proper
occupations of demons, who in the capacity of public executioners receive power
at certain times to carry out the divine judgments, for the restoration of those
who have plunged headlong into wickedness, or for the trial and discipline of
the souls of the wise. For those who through all their afflictions preserve
their piety pure and unimpaired, show their true character to all spectators,
whether visible or invisible, who behold them; while those who are otherwise
minded, yet conceal their wickedness, when they have their true character
exposed by misfortunes, become manifest to themselves as well as to those whom
we may also call spectators.

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."63 Whether
demons ever go beyond this when they are suffered to do what they are ever
ready, though through the restraint put upon them they are not always able to
do, is a question to be solved by that man who can conceive, in so far as human
nature will allow, how it accords with the divine justice, that such multitudes
of human souls are separated from the body while walking in the paths which lead
to certain death. "For the judgments of God are so great," that a soul which is
still clothed with a mortal body cannot comprehend them; "and they cannot be
expressed: therefore by unnurtured souls"64 they are not in any measure to be
understood. And hence, too, rash spirits, by their ignorance in these matters,
and by recklessly setting themselves against the Divine Being, multiply impious
objections against providence. It is not from demons, then, that men receive any
of those things which meet the necessities of life, and least of all ourselves,
who have been taught to make a proper use of these things. And they who partake
of corn and wine, and the fruits of trees, of water and of air, do not feed with
demons, but rather do they feast with divine angels, who are appointed for this
purpose, and who are as it were invited to the table of the pious man, who
hearkens to the precept of the word, which says, "Whether ye eat or drink, or
whatever y.e do, do all to the glory of God."65 And again, in another place it
is written, "Do all things in the name of God."66 When, therefore, we eat and
drink and breathe to the glory of God, and act in all things according to what
is right, we feast with no demons, but with divine angels: "For every creature
is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it
is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."67 But it could not be good, and it
could not be sanctified, if these things were, as Celsus supposes, entrusted to
the charge of demons.

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, and, along with thanksgiving
and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented
to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those
who sincerely partake of it.

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."68 And to Him to whom we offer first-fruits we also send up our
prayers, "having a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the
Son of God," and "we hold fast this profession"69 as long as we live; for we
find God and His only-begotten Son, manifested to us in Jesus; to be gracious
and kind to us. And if we would wish to have besides a great number of beings
who shall ever prove friendly to us, we are taught that "thousand thousands
stood before Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand ministered unto Him."70
And these, regarding all as their relations and friends who imitate their piety
towards God, and in prayer call upon Him with sincerity, work along with them
for their salvation, appear unto them, deem it their office and duty to attend
to them, and as if by common agreement they visit with all manner of kindness
and deliverance those who pray to God, to whom they themselves also pray: "For
they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be
heirs of salvation."71 Let the learned Greeks say that the human soul at its
birth is placed under the charge of demons: Jesus has taught us not to despise
even the little ones in His Church, saying, "Their angels do always behold the
face of My Father which is in heaven."72 And the prophet says, "The angel of the
Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them."73 We do
not, then, deny that there are many demons upon earth, but we maintain that they
exist and exercise power among the wicked, as a punishment of their wickedness.
But they have no power over those who "have put on the whole armour of God," who
have received strength to "withstand the wiles of the devil,"74 and who are ever
engaged in contests with them, knowing that "we wrestle not against flesh and
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."75

Chapter XXV.

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 Lacedaemonians, 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."76 And in
the prophetical writings the righteous man says, "O Lord my God, if I have done
this; if there be iniquity in my hands; if I have returned evil to those who
have done evil to me, let me fall helpless under mine enemies: let my enemy
persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the
earth."77

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 it if they are under the demons of that place, while
those who are not under them, and have not submitted to their power, are free
from all harm, and bid defiance to such spirits; although if, in ignorance of
certain things, they have come under the power of other demons, they may suffer
punishment from them. But the Christian-the true Christian, I mean-who has
submitted to God alone and His Word, will suffer nothing from demons, for He is
mightier than demons. And the Christian will suffer nothing, for "the angel of
the Lord will encamp about them that fear Him, and will deliver them,"78 and his
"angel," who "always beholds the face of his Father in heaven,"79 offers up his
prayers through the one High Priest to the God of all, and also joins his own
prayers with those of the man who is committed to his keeping. Let not, then,
Celsus try to scare us with threats of mischief from demons, for we despise
them. And the demons, when despised, can do no harm to those who are under the
protection of Him who can alone help all who deserve His aid; and He does no
less than set His own angels over His devout servants, so that none of the
hostile angels, nor even he who is called "the prince of this world,"80 can
effect anything against those who have given themselves to God.

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.81 For the Most High is not as one of
those who select one language, Barbarian or Greek, knowing nothing of any other,
and caring nothing for those who speak in other tongues.

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,"82 and this is intended to prevent the
formation of the habit of reviling any one whatever; for we have been taught,
"Bless, and curse not,"83 and it is said that "revilers shall not inherit the
kingdom of God."84 And who amongst us is so foolish as to speak in the way
Celsus describes, and to fail to see that such contemptuous language can be of
no avail for removing prevailing notions about the gods? For it is matter of
observation that there are men who utterly deny the existence of a God or of an
overruling providence, and who by their impious and destructive teaching have
founded sects among those who are called philosophers, and yet neither they
themselves, nor those who have embraced their opinions, have suffered any of
those things which mankind generally account evils: they are both strong in body
and rich in possessions. And yet if we ask what loss they have sustained, we
shall find that they have suffered the most certain injury. For what greater
injury can befall a man than that he should be unable amidst the order of the
world to see Him who has made it? and what sorer affliction can come to any one
than that blindness of mind which prevents him from seeing the Creator and
Father of every soul?

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 he would have no
right to call the Son of God a demon. For as we hold that all demons are evil,
He who turns so many men to God is in our view no demon, but God the Word, and
the Son of God. And I know not how Celsus has so far forgotten himself as to
call Jesus Christ a demon, when he nowhere alludes to the existence of any evil
demons. And finally, as to the punishments threatened against the ungodly, these
will come upon them after they have refused all remedies, and have been, as we
may say, visited with an incurable malady of sinfulness.

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."85 Another describes punishment
as reaching "to children's children, and to those who came after them."86 How
much better are those words of Scripture: "The fathers shall not be put to death
for the children, nor the children for the fathers. Every man shall be put to
death for his own sin."87 And again, "Every man that eateth the sour grape, his
teeth shall be set on edge."88 And, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness
of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be
upon him."89 If any shall say that the response, "To children's children, and to
those who come after them," corresponds with that passage, "Who visits the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate Me,"90 let him learn from Ezekiel that this language is not to
be taken literally; for he reproves those who say, "Our fathers have eaten sour
grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge,"91 and then he adds, "As I
live, saith the Lord, every one shall die for his own sin." As to the proper
meaning of the figurative language about sins being visited unto the third and
fourth generation, we cannot at present stay to explain.

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."92 And we read, "Bless them that curse you;
bless, and curse not; "also, "Being reviled, we bless." And even although the
abuse which we pour upon another may seem to have some excuse in the wrong which
we have received from him, yet such abuse is not allowed by the word of God. And
how much more ought we to abstain from reviling others, when we consider what a
great folly it is! And it is equally foolish to apply abusive language to stone
or gold or silver, turned into what is supposed to be the form of God by those
who have no knowledge of God. Accordingly, we throw ridicule not upon lifeless
images, but upon those only who worship them. Moreover, if certain demons reside
in certain images, and one of them passes for Bacchus, another for Hercules, we
do not vilify them: for, on the one hand, it would be useless; and, on the
other, it does not become one who is meek, and peaceful, and gentle in spirit,
and who has learnt that no one among men or demons is to be reviled, however
wicked he may be.

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 any one
who will to explain; as also those other questions, "Why he is sometimes
present, and sometimes absent? "and, "What is the business which takes demons
away from place to place? "Again, when he says, "Those who crucified your God
himself, suffered no harm for doing so," he supposes that it is the body of
Jesus extended on the cross and slain, and not His divine nature, that we call
God; and that it was as God that Jesus was crucified and slain. As we have
already dwelt at length on the sufferings which Jesus suffered as a man, we
shall. purposely say no more here, that we may not repeat what we have said
already. But when he goes on to say that "those who inflicted death upon Jesus
suffered nothing afterwards through so long a time," we must inform him, as well
as all who are disposed to learn the truth, that the city in which the Jewish
people called for the crucifixion of Jesus with shouts of" Crucify him, crucify
him,"93 preferring to have the robber set free, who had been cast into prison
for sedition and murder and Jesus, who had been delivered through envy, to be
crucified,-that this city not long afterwards was attacked, and, after a long
siege, was utterly overthrown and laid waste; for God judged the inhabitants of
that place unworthy of living together the life of citizens. And yet, though it
may seem an incredible thing to say, God spared this people in delivering them
to their enemies; for He saw that they were incurably averse to any amendment,
and were daily sinking deeper and deeper into evil. And all this befell them,
because the blood of Jesus was shed at their instigation and on their land; and
the land was no longer able to bear those who were guilty of so fearful a crime
against Jesus.

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.94 The sufferings
and death which Jesus endured with such fortitude and meekness, show the cruelty
and injustice of those who inflicted them, but they did not destroy the
announcement of the purposes of God; indeed, if we may so say, they served
rather to make them known. For Jesus Himself taught us this when He said,
"Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth by itself
alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."95 Jesus, then, who is this
grain of wheat, died, and brought forth much fruit. And the Father is ever
looking forward for the results of the death of the grain of wheat, both those
which are arising now, and those which shall arise hereafter. The Father of
Jesus is therefore a tender and loving Father, though "He spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up" as His lamb "for us all,"96 that so "the Lamb of
God," by dying for all men, might "take away the sin of the world." It was not
by compulsion, therefore, but willingly, that He bore the reproaches of those
who reviled Him. Then Celsus, returning to those who apply abusive language to
images, says: "Of those whom you load with insults, you may in like manner say
that they voluntarily submit to such treatment, and therefore they bear insults
with patience; for it is best to deal equally with both sides. Yet these
severely punish the scorner, so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be
taken and perish." It is not, then, because Christians cast insults upon demons
that they incur their revenge, but because they drive them away out of the
images, and from the bodies and souls of men. And here, although Celsus
perceives it not, he has on this subject spoken something like the truth; for it
is true that the souls of those who condemn Christians, and betray them, and
rejoice in persecuting them, are filled with wicked demons.

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 imagine that at times they feel a deep interest in Christians when on
their trial, and keenly strive to gain them over to their side, feeling as they
do that their confession is torture to them, and their denial is a relief and
encouragement to them. And traces of the same feeling may be seen in the
demeanour of the judges; for they are greatly distressed at seeing those who
bear outrage and torture with patience, but are greatly elated when a Christian
gives way under it. Yet it is from no feeling of humanity that this arises. They
see well, that, while "the tongues" of those who are overpowered by the tortures
"may take the oath, the mind has not sworn.",97 And this may serve as an answer
to the remark of Celsus: "But they severely punish one who reviles them, so that
he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish." If a Christian
ever flees away, it is not from fear, but in obedience to the command of his
Master, that so he may preserve himself, and employ his strength for the benefit
of others.

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 wall 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."98
And in the fourth book of Kings we read that the prophet Elisha made known to a
woman who had received him hospitably, that by the grace of God she should have
a son; and through the prayers of Elisha she became a mother.99 The maimed were
cured by Jesus in great numbers. And the books of the Maccabees relate what
punishments were inflicted upon those who dared to profane the Jewish service in
the temple at Jerusalem.

Chapter XLVII. 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 fife 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.100 But Christians, who have in so wonderful a manner formed themselves
into a community, appear at first to have been more induced by miracles than by
exhortations to forsake the institutions of their fathers, and to adopt others
which were quite strange to them. And indeed, if we were to reason from what is
probable as to the first formation of the Christian society, we should say that
it is incredible that the apostles of Jesus Christ, who were unlettered men of
humble life, could have been emboldened to preach Christian truth to men by
anything else than the power which was conferred upon them, and the grace which
accompanied their words and rendered them effective; and those who heard them
would not have renounced the old-established usages of their fathers, and been
induced to adopt notions so different from those in which they had been brought
up, unless they had been moved by some extraordinary power, and by the force of
miraculous events.

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 intelligent
spirit, holy and blessed, or a living soul, or the heavenly and indestructible
offspring of a divine and incorporeal nature, or by whatever name they designate
the spiritual nature of man. And they are rightly persuaded that those who live
well shall be blessed, and the unrighteous shall all suffer everlasting
punishments. And from this doctrine neither they nor any other should ever
swerve." Now, as he has often already reproached us for our opinions on the
resurrection, and as we have on these occasions defended our opinions in what
seemed to us a reasonable way, we do not intend, at each repetition of the one
objection, to go into a repetition of our defence. Celsus makes an unfounded
charge against us when he ascribes to us the opinion that "there is nothing in
our complex nature better or more precious than the body; "for we hold that far
beyond all bodies is the soul, and especially the reasonable soul; for it is the
soul, and not the body, which bears the likeness of the Creator. For, according
to us, God is not corporeal, unless we fall into the absurd errors of the
followers of Zeno and Chrysippus.

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."101 Moreover, Celsus thinks that he ought
not to reason with those who hope for the good of the body, as they are
unreasonably intent upon an object which can never satisfy their expectations.
He also calls them gross and impure men, bent upon creating needless
dissensions. But surely he ought, as one of superior humanity, to assist even
the rude and depraved. For society does not exclude from its pale the coarse and
uncultivated, as it does the irrational animals, but our Creator made us on the
same common level with all mankind. It is not an undignified thing, therefore,
to reason even with the coarse and unrefined, and to try to bring them as far as
possible to a higher state of refinement-to bring the impure to the highest
practicable degree of purity-to bring the unreasoning multitude to reason, and
the diseased in mind to spiritual health.

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 argument, he
should have proceeded to prove and enforce by further reasons the truth that the
unjust shall surely suffer eternal punishment, and those who lead a good life
shall be blessed.

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.102 And let all men know that the good shall be advanced to a higher state,
and that the wicked shall be delivered over to sufferings and torments, in
punishment of their licentiousness and depravity, their cowardice, timidity, and
all their follies.

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 what the Stoics call"
apprehensive perception,"103 or by any other methods used by different sects of
philosophers as criteria of truth.

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,"104 when
eager in the pursuit of virtue, are even in this life delivered from the bondage
of evil; for Jesus declared this, as was foretold long before His advent by the
prophet Isaiah, when he said that "the prisoners would go forth, and they that
were in darkness would show themselves."105 And Jesus Himself, as Isaiah also
foretold of Him, arose as "a light to them that sat in darkness and in the
shadow of death,"106 so that we may therefore say, "Let us break their bands
asunder, and cast their cords from us."107 If Celsus, and those who like him are
opposed to us, had been able to sound the depths of the Gospel narratives, they
would not have counselled us to put our confidence in those beings whom they
call "the keepers of the prison-house." It is written in the Gospel that a woman
was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus beheld
her, and perceived from what cause she was bowed together, he said, "Ought not
this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years, to be
loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? "108 And how many others are still
bowed down and bound by Satan, who hinders them from looking up at all, and who
would have us to look down also! And no one can raise them up, except the Word,
that came by Jesus Christ, and that aforetime inspired the prophets: And Jesus
came to release those who were under the dominion of the devil; and, speaking of
him, He said with that depth of meaning which characterized His words, "Now is
the prince of this world judged." We are, then, indulging in no baseless
calumnies against demons, but are condemning their agency upon earth as
destructive to mankind, and show that, under cover of oracles and bodily cures,
and such other means, they are seeking to separate from God the soul which has
descended to this "body of humiliation; "and those who feel this humiliation
exclaim, "0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this
death? "109 It is not in vain, therefore, that we expose our bodies to be beaten
and tortured; for surely it is not in vain for a man to submit to such
sufferings, if by that means he may avoid bestowing the name of gods on those
earthly spirits that unite with their worshippers to bring him to destruction.
Indeed, we think it both reasonable in itself and well-pleasing to God, to
suffer pain for the sake of virtue, to undergo torture for the sake of piety,
and even to suffer death for the sake of holiness; for "precious in the sight of
God is the death of His saints; "110 and we maintain that to overcome the love
of life is to enjoy a great good. But when Celsus compares us to notorious
criminals, who justly suffer punishment for their crimes, and does not shrink
from placing so laudable a purpose as that which we set before us upon the same
level with the obstinacy of criminals, he makes himself the brother and
companion of those who accounted Jesus among criminals, fulfilling the
Scripture, which saith, "He was numbered with transgressors."111

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 any of the offspring given us by His
providence. And this does not conflict with our purpose not to obey the demons
that are on the earth; for, "being armed with the whole armour of God, we
stand"112 as athletes of piety against the race of demons that plot against us.

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."113 For "no one will
be crowned," unless here upon earth, with this body of humiliation, "he strive
lawfully."114 Further, we do not pay honours supposed to be due to those whom
Celsus speaks of as being set over the affairs of the world. For we worship the
Lord our God, and Him only do we serve, and desire to be followers of Christ,
who, when the devil said to Him, "All these things will I give thee if thou wilt
fall down and worship me," answered him by the words, "Thou shall worship the
Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve."115 Wherefore we do not render the
honour supposed to be due to those who. according to Celsus, are set over the
affairs of this world; for "no man can serve two masters," and we "cannot serve
God and mammon," whether this name be applied to one or more. Moreover, if any
one "by transgressing the law dishonours the lawgiver," it seems clear to us
that if the two laws, the law of God and the law of mammon, are completely
opposed to each other, it is better for us by transgressing the law of mammon to
dishonour mammon, that we may honour God by keeping His law, than by
transgressing the law of God to dishonour God, that by obeying the law of mammon
we may honour mammon.

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 rather be in health than be sick, rather have
prosperity than adversity, and be freed as much as possible from all plagues and
troubles? "In this way, Celsus seeks to degrade our souls to the worship of
demons, under the assumption that they have possession of our bodies, and that
each one has power over a separate member. And he wishes us on this ground to
put confidence in these demons of which he speaks, and to serve them, in order
that we may be in health rather than be sick, have prosperity rather than
adversity, and may as far as possible escape all plagues and troubles. The
honour of the Most High God, which cannot be divided or shared with another, is
so lightly esteemed by him, that he cannot believe in the ability of God, if
called upon and highly honoured, to give to those who serve Him a power by which
they may be defended from the assaults directed by demons against the righteous.
For he has never beheld the efficacy of those words, "in the name of Jesus,"
when uttered by the truly faithful, to deliver not a few from demons and
demoniacal possessions and other plagues.

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."116 But although they may
ridicule such a statement, yet they will receive much more convincing arguments
in support of it than Celsus brings in behalf of Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat,
Sicat, and the rest of the Egyptian catalogue, whom he mentions as being called
upon, and as healing the diseases of different pans of the human body. And
observe how, while seeking to turn us away from our faith in the God of all
through Jesus Christ, he exhorts us for the welfare of our bodies to faith in
six-and-thirty barbarous demons, whom the Egyptian magi alone call upon in some
unknown way, and promise us in return great benefits. According to Celsus, then,
it would be better for us now to give ourselves up to magic and sorcery than to
embrace Christianity, and to put our faith in an innumerable multitude of demons
than in the almighty, living, self-revealing God, who has manifested Himself by
Him who by His great power has spread the true principles of holiness among all
men throughout the world; yea, I may add without exaggeration, He has given this
knowledge to all beings everywhere possessed of reason, and needing deliverance
from the plague and corruption of sin.

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,117 and strange sounds, and other sensual things! For even,
by the confession of Celsus, they can do nothing more than cure the body. But,
indeed, I would say that it is not clear that these demons, however much they
are reverenced, can even cure the body. But in seeking recovery from disease, a
man must either follow the inure ordinary and simple method, and have recourse
to medical art; or if he would go beyond the common methods adopted by men, he
must rise to the higher and better way of seeking the blessing of Him who is God
over all, through piety and prayers.

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 symbolically or otherwise to
their traditional shapes? It is plain even to the least intelligent, that the
disposition of the man who is simpleminded and not given to curious inquiries,
but in all things devoted to the divine will, will be most pleasing to God, and
to all those who are like God; but that of the man who, for the sake of bodily
health, of bodily enjoyment, and outward prosperity, busies himself about the
names of demons, and inquires by what incantations he shall appease them, will
be condemned by God as bad and impious, and more agreeable to the nature of
demons than of men, and will be given over to be torn and otherwise tormented by
demons. For it is probable that they, as being wicked creatures, and, as Celsus
confesses, addicted to blood, sacrificial odours, sweet sounds, and such like,
will not keep their most solemn promises to those who supply them with these
things. For if others invoke their aid against the persons who have already
called upon them, and purchase their favour with a larger supply of blood, and
odours, and such offerings as they require, they will take part against those
who yesterday sacrificed and presented pleasant offerings to them.

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 tritest 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 seek the favour of kings and princes, of whom, as the
world and all history are full of them. I do not consider it necessary to quote
examples.

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 "heating," and delivering "all who were oppressed by
the devil."118

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."119 These words
we have in our exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, to the best of our
ability, explained at length, and with various applications; but for the present
we have taken them in their more obvious and generally received acceptation, to
meet the saying of Celsus, that "it is not without the power of demons that
kings have been raised to their regal dignity." Here much might be said on the
constitution of kings and rulers, for the subject is a wide one, embracing such
rulers as reign cruelly and tyrannically, and such as make the kingly office the
means of indulging in luxury and sinful pleasures. We shall therefore, for the
present, passover the full consideration of this subject. We will, however,
never swear by "the fortune of the king," nor by ought else that is considered
equivalent to God. For if the word "fortune" is nothing but an expression for
the uncertain course of events, as some say, although they seem not to be
agreed, we do not swear by that as God which has no existence, as though it did
really exist and was able to do something, lest we should bind ourselves by an
oath to things which have no existence. If, on the other hand (as is thought by
others, who say that to swear by the fortune of the king of the Romans is to
swear by his demon), what is called the fortune of the king is in the power of
demons, then in that case we must die sooner than swear by a wicked and
treacherous demon, that ofttimes sins along with the man of whom it gains
possession, and sins even more than he.

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 taught to speak
well not only of those creatures that are obedient to the will of God, but even
of our enemies. We therefore praise the sun as the glorious workmanship of God,
which obeys His laws and hearkens to the call, "Praise the Lord, sun and
moon,"120 and with all your powers show forth the praises of the Father and
Creator of all. Minerva, however, whom Celsus classes with the sun, is the
subject of various Grecian myths, whether these contain any hidden meaning or
not. They say that Minerva sprang fully armed from the brain of Jupiter; that
when she was pursued by Vulcan, she fled from him to preserve her honour; and
that from the seed which fell to the ground in the heat of Vulcan's passion,
there grew a child whom Minerva brought up and called Erichthonius, "That owed
his nurture to the blue-eyed maid, But from the teeming furrow took his birth,
The mighty offspring of the foodful earth."121

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.122 For these all form a divine chorus, and unite with
the just among men in celebrating the praises of the Most High God and His
Only-begotten. We have already said that we must not swear by a human king, or
by what is called "the fortune of the king." It is therefore unnecessary for us
again to refute these statements: "If you are commanded to swear by a human
king, there is nothing wrong in that. For to him has been given whatever there
is upon earth; and whatever you receive in this life, you receive from him." We
deny, however, that all things which are on the earth have been given to the
king, or that whatever we receive in this life we receive from him. For whatever
we receive rightly and honourably we receive from God, and by His providence, as
ripe fruits, and "corn which strengtheneth man's heart, and the pleasant vine,
and wine which rejoiceth the heart of man."123 And moreover, the fruit of the
olive-tree, to make his face to shine, we have from the providence of God.

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; '"124 and adds:
"If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for it at the hands of
the king. For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to
prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the
earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and
then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or
of the true wisdom." If, then, "there shall be one lord, one king," he must be,
not the man "whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed," but the man to whom He
gave the power, who "removeth kings and setteth up kings,"125 and who "raiseth
up the useful man in time of need upon earth."126 For kings are not appointed by
that son of Saturn, who, according to Grecian fable, hurled his father from his
throne, and sent him down to Tartarus (whatever interpretation may be given to
this allegory), but by God, who governs all things, and who wisely arranges
whatever belongs to the appointment of kings. We therefore do set aside the
maxim contained in the line,

"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 kingdom, and observing the precept
to honour the king! In these circumstances the king will not "be left in utter
solitude and desertion," neither will "the affairs of the world fall into the
hands of the most impious and wild barbarians." For if, in the words of Celsus,"
they do as I do," then it is evident that even the barbarians, when they yield
obedience to the word of God, will become most obedient to the law, and most
humane; and every form of worship will be destroyed except the religion of
Christ, which will alone prevail. And indeed it will one day triumph, as its
principles take possession of the minds of men more and more every day.

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; "127 for God rejoices in the agreement
of rational beings, and turns away from discord. And what are we to expect, if
not only a very few agree, as at present, but the whole of the empire of Rome?
For they will pray to the Word, who of old said to the Hebrews, when they were
pursued by the Egyptians, "The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your
peace; "128 and if they all unite in prayer with one accord, they will be able
to put to flight far more enemies than those who were discomfited by the prayer
of Moses when he cried to the Lord, and of those who prayed with him. Now, if
what God promised to those who keep His law has not come to pass, the reason of
its nonfulfilment is not to be ascribed to the unfaithfulness of God. But He had
made the fulfilment of His promises to depend on certain conditions,-namely,
that they should observe and live according to His law; and if the Jews bare not
a plot of ground nor a habitation left to them, although they had received these
conditional promises, the entire blame is to be laid upon their crimes, and
especially upon their guilt in the treatment of Jesus.

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;129 and society is held together as long as the salt is uncorrupted: for
"if the salt have lost its savour, it is neither fit for the land nor for the
dunghill; but it shall be cast out, and trodden under foot of men. He that hath
ears, let him hear"130 the meaning of these words, When God gives to the tempter
permission to persecute us, then we suffer persecution; and when God wishes us
to be free from suffering, even in the midst of a world that hates us, we enjoy
a wonderful peace, trusting in the protection of Him who said, "Be of good
cheer, I have overcome the world."131 And truly He has overcome the world.
Wherefore the world prevails only so long as it is the pleasure of Him who
received from the Father power to overcome the world; and from His victory we
take courage. Should He even wish us again to contend and struggle for our
religion, let the enemy come against us, and we will say to them, "I can do all
things, through Christ Jesus our Lord, which strengtheneth me."132 For of "two
sparrows which are sold for a farthing," as the Scripture says, "not one of them
falls on the ground without our Father in heaven."133 And so completely does the
Divine Providence embrace all things, that not even the hairs of our head fail
to be numbered by Him.

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
the enemy, you will still be able to persuade those who rule after them; and
after these have been taken you will persuade their successors and so on, until
at length, when all who have yielded to your persuasion have been taken some
prudent ruler shall arise, with a foresight of what is impending, and he will
destroy you all utterly before he himself perishes." There is no need of any
answer to these allegations: for none of us says of our present rulers, that if
they embrace our opinions, and are taken by the enemy, we shall be able to
persuade their successors; and when these are taken, those who come after them,
and so on in succession. But on what does he ground the assertion, that when a
succession of those who have yielded to our persuasion have been taken because
they did not drive back the enemy, some prudent ruler shall arise, with a
foresight of what is impending, who shall utterly destroy us? But here he seems
to me to delight in inventing and uttering the wildest nonsense.

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."134 I leave it to those who are able, after a careful study of the whole
subject, to unfold the meaning of this prophecy, and especially to inquire into
the signification of the words, "When the whole earth is destroyed, there will
be turned upon the peoples a language according to their race,"135 as things
were before the confusion of tongues. Let them also carefully consider the
promise, that all shall call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him with one
consent; also that all contemptuous reproach shall be taken away, and there
shall be no longer any injustice, or vain speech, or a deceitful tongue. And
thus much it seemed needful for me to say briefly, and without entering into
elaborate details, in answer to the remark of Celsus, that he considered any
agreement between the inhabitants of Asia, Europe, and Libya, as well Greeks as
Barbarians, was impossible. And perhaps such a result would indeed be impossible
to those who are still in the body, but not to those who are released from it.

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, give help to kings,
and that, so to say, a divine help, "putting on the whole armour of God."136 And
this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, "I exhort, therefore,
that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks,
be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; "137 and the
more any one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings,
even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of
the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear
arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: "Do not those who are
priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods, as you account
them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and
free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when
war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a
laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle,
these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands
pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a
righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is
opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!" And as we by our prayers
vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and
disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those
who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public
affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and
meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by
them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight
under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special
army-an army of piety-by offering our prayers to God.

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,"138 where "God standeth in the assembly of the gods, and
judgeth the gods in the midst; "and He reckons thee among them, if thou no more
"die as a man, or fall as one of the princes."139

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 founded
by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless
life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we
constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a
public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under
the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of
God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers
of the divine nation-that is, the Church-rule well, they rule in accordance with
the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly
policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians
decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and
more necessary service in the Church of God-for the salvation of men. And this
service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all-of those that
are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are
without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and
that, while thus worshipping God truly, and training up as many as they can in
the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and
thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and
Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in
all things to the law of God.

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 the true God, of piety towards Him, and of that truth which
leads men by sound doctrines to the noblest life. You must know, however, that
Celsus had promised another treatise as a sequel to this one, in which he
engaged to supply practical rules of living to those who felt disposed to
embrace his opinions. If, then, he has not fulfilled his promise of writing a
second book, we may well be contented with these eight books which we have
written in answer to his discourse. But if he has begun and finished that second
book, pray obtain it and send it to us, that we may answer it as the Father of
truth may give us ability, and either overthrow the false teaching that may be
in it, or, laying aside all jealousy, we may testify our approval of whatever
truth it may contain.Glory Be to Thee, Our God; Glory Be to Thee.

1: 2 Cor. v. 20.

2: Ps. xxiv. 8.

3: Matt. vi. 24.

4: Ps. xcvii. 9.

5: Ps. xcvi. 5.

6: Ps. lxxxii. 1.

7: Ps. l. 1.

8: Ps. cxxxvi. 2.

9: Matt. xxii. 32.

10: 1 Cor. viii. 5, etc.

11: 2 Cor. xi. 14.

12: Plato, Phaedrus , p. 246.

13: Rom. viii. 19, 20.

14: Heb. xii. 22, 23.

15: Herod., vii. 136.

16: John i. 1.

17: John v. 23.

18: Rom. ii. 23.

19: Heb. x. 29.

20: John x. 30.

21: John xvii. 22.

22: John xiv. 11, and xvii. 21.

23: Acts iv. 32.

24: [See note infra , cap. xxvi. S.] 25: John viii. 58.

26: John xiv. 6.

27: [ !h9 th=j a0lhqei/aj ou0si/a : see Neander's History of the Church , vol.
ii. pp. 282, 283; also note supra , book vi. cap. lxiv. p. 603. S.]

28: Heb. i. 3.

29: 1 John ii. 2.

30: Wisd. vii. 25, 26.

31: John xiv. 27.

32: John xiv. 28.

33: [See note, book ii. cap. ix. p. 433. S.]

34: Rev. v. 8.

35: Ps. cxli. 2.

36: 2 Cor. vi. 16.

37: John xiv. 23.

38: John ii. 19, 21.

39: 1 Pet. ii. 5.

40: Eph. ii. 20.

41: Isa. liv. 11-14.

42: Thucyd., book i. sect. lxx.

43: Gal. iv. 10, 11.

44: Col. ii. 16. The whole passage in the English version is, "Let no man judge
you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday " ( e0n me/rei e\orth=j ).
Origen's interpretation is not followed by any modern expositors. It is adopted
by Chrysostom and Theodoret.

45: [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.] 46: Deut. xvi. 3.

47: Ex. xii. 8.

48: Lev. xvi. 29.

49: Gal. v. 17.

50: 1 Cor. viii. 4, 11.

51: [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.] 52: Isa. ix. 6 (LXX.).

53: Ps. xxvii. 1, 3.

54: Rom. xiv. 21.

55: Rom. xiv. 15.

56: 1 Cor. viii. 13.

57: Matt. xv. 11, 17-19.

58: 1 Cor. viii. 8.

59: Acts xv. 28, 29. It was at Jerusalem.

60: Acts xv. 28, 29. It was at Jerusalem.

61: [Sextus, or Xystus. See note of Spencer in Migne. S.] 62: [1 Cor. xv. 35.
S.] 63: Ps. lxxviii. 49.

64: Wisdom of Sol. xvii. 1.

65: 1 Cor. x. 31.

66: Col. iii. 17.

67: 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.

68: Gen. i. 11.

69: Heb. iv. 14.

70: Dan. vii. 10.

71: Heb. i. 14.

72: Matt. xviii. 10.

73: Ps. xxxiv. 7.

74: Eph. vi. 11.

75: Eph. vi. 12.

76: Matt. v. 44, 45.

77: Ps. vii. 3-5.

78: Ps. xxxiv. 7.

79: Matt. xviii. 10.

80: John xviii. 30.

81: [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.] 82: Ex. xxii. 28 [ qeou\j ou0 kakologh/seij , Sept. S.].

83: Rom. xii. 14.

84: 1 Cor. vi. 10.

85: "The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind to powder" (Plutarch): [
De Sera Numinis Vindicta , sect. iii. S.] 86: Hom. Il ., xx. 308.

87: Deut. xxiv. 16.

88: Jer. xxxi. 30.

89: Ezek. xviii. 20.

90: Ex. xx. 5.

91: Ezek. xviii. 2-4.

92: 1 Cor. vi. 10.

93: Luke xxiii. 21, 25.

94: a0ggelma/twn . Spencer reads a0galma/twn in this and the following
sentences.

95: John xii. 24.

96: Rom. viii. 32.

97: Euripides, Hippolytus , 612.

98: Isa. xxxviii. 19 (according to the LXX.).

99: [2 Kings iv. 17, 4 Kings, Sept. and Vulg. S.] 100: filo/sofon .

101: Ecclus. x. 19. In the LXX. the last clause is, "What is a dishonourable
seed? They that transgress the commandments."

102: [Eccles. viii. 11. See cap. xl., supra. De Maistre has admirably annotated
Plutarch's Delay of the Divine Judgment .] 103: katalhptikh\ fantasi/a .

104: Lam. iii. 34.

105: Isa. xlix. 9.

106: Isa. ix. 2.

107: Ps. ii. 3.

108: Luke xiii. 11, 16.

109: Rom. vii. 24.

110: Ps. cxvi. 15.

111: Isa. liii. 12.

112: Eph. vi. 11.

113: Ps. xxvi. 2.

114: 2 Tim. ii. 5.

115: Matt. iv. 9, 10.

116: Phil. ii. 10, 11.

117: [Observe this traditional objection to incense. Comp. vol. ii. p. 532.]
118: Acts x. 38.

119: Rom. xiii. 1, 2.

120: Ps. cxlviii. 3.

121: Homer's Iliad , ii. 547, 548.

122: ["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.] 123: Ps. civ. 15.

124: Homer's Iliad , ii. 205.

125: Dan. ii. 21.

126: Ecclus. x. 4. (LXX.).

127: Matt. xviii. 19.

128: Ex. xiv. 14.

129: [Comp. Cowper, Task, book vi., sub finem .] 130: Luke xiv. 34, 35; Matt. v.
13.

131: John xvi. 33.

132: Phil. iv. 13.

133: Matt. x. 29, 30.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 1
========================================================================

Book I 1. How Christians are the Spiritual Israel.

2. The 144, 000 Sealed in the Apocalypse are Converts to Christ from the Gentile
World.

3. In the Spiritual Israel the High-Priests are Those Who Devote Themselves to
the Study of Scripture.

4. The Study of the Gospels is the First Fruits Offered by These Priests of
Christianity.

5. All Scripture is Gospel; But the Gospels are Distinguished Above Other
Scriptures.

6. The Fourfold Gospel. John's the First Fruits of the Four. Qualifications
Necessary for Interpreting It.

7. What Good Things are Announced in the Gospels.

8. How the Gospels Cause the Other Books of Scripture Also to Be Gospel.

9. The Somatic and the Spiritual Gospel.

10. How Jesus Himself is the Gospel.

11. Jesus is All Good Things; Hence the Gospel is Manifold.

12. The Gospel Contains the ILL Deeds Also Which Were Done to Jesus.

13. The Angels Also are Evangelists.

14. The Old Testament, Typified by John, is the Beginning of the Gospel.

15. The Gospel is in the Old Testament, and Indeed in the Whole Universe. Prayer
for Aid to Understand the Mystical Sense of the Work in Hand.

16. Meaning of "Beginning." (1) in Space.

17. (2) in Time. The Beginning of Creation.

18. (3) of Substance.

19. (4) of Type and Copy.

20. (5) of Elements and What is Formed from Them.

21. (6) of Design and Execution.

22. The Word Was in the Beginning, I.e., in Wisdom, Which Contained All Things
in Idea, Before They Existed. Christ's Character as Wisdom is Prior to His Other
Characters.

23. The Title "Word" Is to Be Interpreted by the Same Method as the Other Titles
of Christ. The Word of God is Not a Mere Attribute of God, But a Separate
Person. What is Meant When He is Called the Word.

24. Christ as Light; How He, and How His Disciples are the Light of the World.

25. Christ as the Resurrection.

26. Christ as the Way.

27. Christ as the Truth.

28. Christ as Life.

29. Christ as the Door and as the Shepherd.

30. Christ as Anointed (Christ) and as King.

31. Christ as Teacher and Master.

32. Christ as Son.

33. Christ the True Vine, and as Bread.

34. Christ as the First and the Last; He is Also What Lies Between These.

35. Christ as the Living and the Dead.

36. Christ as a Sword.

37. Christ as a Servant, as the Lamb of God, and as the Man Whom John Did Not
Know.

38. Christ as Paraclete, as Propitiation, and as the Power of God.

39. Christ as Wisdom and Sanctification and Redemption.

40. Christ as Righteousness; As the Demiurge, the Agent of the Good God, and as
High-Priest.

41. Christ as the Rod, the Flower, the Stone.

42. Of the Various Ways in Which Christ is the Logos.

Book I 1. How Christians are the Spiritual Israel. That people which was called
of old the people of God was divided into twelve tribes, and over and above the
other tribes it had the levitical order, which itself again carried on the
service of God in various priestly and levitical suborders. In the same manner,
it appears to me that the whole people of Christ, when we regard it in the
aspect of the hidden man of the heart,1 that people which is called "Jew
inwardly," and is circumcised in the spirit, has in a more mystic way the
characteristics of the tribes. This may be more plainly gathered from John in
his Apocalyse, though the other prophets also do not by any means conceal the
state of matters from those who have the faculty of hearing them. John speaks as
follows:2 "And I saw another angel ascending from the sunrising, having the seal
of the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it
was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, Hurt not either the earth, or
the sea, or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God on their
foreheads. And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and
forty-four thousand who were sealed, out of every tribe of the children of
lsrael; of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand, of the tribe of Roubem
twelve thousand." And he mentioned each of the tribes singly, with the exception
of Dan. Then, some way further on,3 he continues: "And I saw, and behold the
Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him a hundred and forty-four thousand,
having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I
heard a voice from heaven as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a
great thunder. And the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping
with their harps; and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four
beasts and the elders, and no one could learn the song but the hundred and
forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are they which
were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are they who follow the
Lamb whithersover He goeth. These were purchased from among men, a first fruits
to God and to the Lamb; and in their mouth was found no lie, for they are
without blemish." Now this is said in John with reference to those who have
believed in Christ, for they also, even if their bodily descent cannot be traced
to the seed of the Patriarchs, are yet gathered out of the tribes. That this is
so we may conclude from what is further said about them: "Hurt not," he says,
"the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our
God on their foreheads. And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a
hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed from every tribe of the children of
Israel."

2. The 144, 000 Sealed in the Apocalypse are Converts to Christ from the Gentile
World.

These, then, who are sealed on their foreheads4 from every tribe of the children
of Israel, are a hundred and forty-four thousand in number; and these hundred
and forty-four thousand are afterwards said in John to have the name of the Lamb
and of His Father written on their foreheads, and to be virgins, not having
defiled themselves with women. What else could the seal be which is on their
foreheads but the name of the Lamb and the name of His Father? In both passages
their foreheads are said to have the seal; In one the seal is spoken of, in the
other it appears to contain the letters forming the name of the Lamb, and the
name of His Father. Now these taken from the tribes are, as we showed before,
the same persons as the virgins. But the number of believers is small who belong
to Israel according to the flesh; one might venture to assert that they would
not nearly make up the number of a hundred and forty-four thousand. It is clear,
therefore, that the hundred and forty-four thousand who have not defiled
themselves with women must be made up of those who have come to the divine word
out of the Gentile world. In this way the truth of the statement may be upheld
that the first fruits of each tribe are its virgins. For the passage goes on:
"These were brought from among men to be a first fruits to God and to the Lamb;
and in their mouth was found no guile, for they are without blemish." The
statement about the hundred and forty-four thousand no doubt admits of mystical
interpretation; But it is unnecessary at this point, and would divert us from
our purpose, to compare with it those passages of the prophets in which the same
lesson is taught regarding those who are called from among the Gentiles.

3. In the Spiritual Israel the High-Priests are Those Who Devote Themselves to
the Study of Scripture. But what is the bearing of all this for us? So you will
ask when you read these words, Ambrosius, thou who art truly a man of God, a
mall in Christ. and who seekest to be not a man only, but a spiritual man.5 The
bearing is this. Those of the tribes offer to God, through the levites and
priests, tithes and first fruits; not everything which they possess do they
regard as tithe or first fruit. The levites and priests, on the other hand, have
no possessions but tithes and first fruits; yet they also in turn offer tithes
to God through the high-priests, and, I believe, first fruits too. The same is
the case with those who approach Christian studies. Most of us devote most of
our time to the things of this life, and dedicate to God only a few special
acts, thus resembling those members of the tribes who had but few transactions
with the priest, and discharged their religious duties with no great expense of
time. But those who devote themselves to the divine word and have no other
employment but the service of God may not unnaturally, allowing for the
difference of occupation in the two cases, be called our levites and priests.
And those who fulfil a more distinguished office than their kinsmen6 will
perhaps be high-priests, according to the order of Aaron, not that of
Melchisedek. Here some one may object that it is somewhat too bold to apply the
name of high-priests to men, when Jesus Himself is spoken of in many a prophetic
passage as the one great priest, as7 "We have a great high-priest who has passed
through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." But to this we reply that the
Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about
the Christ, "Thou8 art a priest for ever, according to the order of
Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that
men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the
order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.

4. The Study of the Gospels is the First Fruits Offered by These Priests of
Christianity.

Now our whole activity is devoted to God, and our whole life, since we are bent
on progress in divine things. If, then, it be our desire to have the whole of
those first fruits spoken of above which are made up of the many first fruits,
if we are not mistaken in this view, in what must our first fruits consist,
after the bodily separation we have undergone from each other, but in the study
of the Gospel? For we may venture to say that the Gospel is the first fruits of
all the Scriptures. Where, then, could be the first fruits of our activity,
since the time when we came to Alexandria, but in the first fruits of the
Scriptures? It must not he forgotten, however, that the first fruits are not the
same as the first growth. For the first fruits9 are offered after all the fruits
(are ripe), but the first growth10 before them all. Now of the Scriptures which
are current and are believed to be divine in all the churches, one would not be
wrong in saying that the first growth is the law of Moses, but the first fruits
the Gospel. For it was after all the fruits of the prophets who prophesied till
the Lord Jesus, that the perfect word shot forth.

5. All Scripture is Gospel; But the Gospels are Distinguished Above Other
Scriptures.

Here, however, some one may object, appealing to the notion just put forward of
the unfolding of the first fruits last, and may say that the Acts and the
letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels, and that this destroys our
argument to the effect that the Gospel is the first fruits of all Scripture. To
this we must reply that it is the conviction of men who are wise in Christ, who
have profited by those epistles which are current, and who see them to be
vouched for by the testimonies deposited in the law and the prophets,11 that the
apostolic writings are to be pronounced wise and worthy of belief, and that they
have great authority, but that they are not on the same level with that "Thus
sayeth the Lord Almighty."12 Consider on this point the language of St. Paul.
When he declares that13 "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable,"
does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum,14 "I say,
and not the Lord," and15 "So I ordain in all the churches," and16 "What things I
suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra," and similar things which he writes
in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess the character of
words flowing from divine inspiration. Must we also show that the old Scripture
is not Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells
Him and heralds His coming at a future time; but that all the new Scripture is
the Gospel. It not only says as in the beginning of the Gospel,17 "Behold the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world; "it also contains many
praises of Him, and many of His teachings, on whose account the Gospel is a
Gospel. Again, if God set in the Church18 apostles and prophets and evangelists
(gospellers), pastors and teachers, we must first enquire what was the office of
the evangelist, and mark that it is not only to narrate how the Saviour cured a
man who was blind from his birth,19 or raised up a dead man who was already
stinking,20 or to state what extraordinary works he wrought; and the office of
the evangelist being thus defined, we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such
discourse also as is not narrative but hortatory and intended to strengthen
belief in the mission of Jesus; and thus we shall arrive at the position that
whatever was written by the Apostles is Gospel. As to this second definition, it
might be objected that the Epistles are not entitled "Gospel," and that we are
wrong in applying the name of Gospel to the whole of the New Testament. But to
this we answer that it happens not unfrequently in Scripture when two or more
persons or things are named by the same name, the name attaches itself most
significantly to one of those things or persons. Thus the Saviour says,21 "Call
no man Master upon the earth; "while the Apostle says that Masters22 have been
appointed in the Church. These latter accordingly will not be Masters in the
strict sense of the dictum of the Gospel. In the same way the Gospel in the
Epistles will not extend to every word of them, when it is compared with the
narrative of Jesus' actions and sufferings and discourses. No: the Gospel is the
first fruits of all Scripture, and to these first fruits of the Scriptures we
devote the first fruits of all those actions of ours which we trust to see turn
out as we desire.

6. The Fourfold Gospel. John's the First Fruits of the Four. Qualifications
Necessary for Interpreting It.

Now the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the faith
of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled to God
in Christ is put together; as Paul says,23 "God was in Christ, reconciling the
world to Himself; "of which world Jesus bore the sin; for it is of the world of
the Church that the word is written,24 "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away
the sin of the world." The Gospels then being four, I deem the first fruits of
the Gospels to be that which you25 have enjoined me to search into according to
my powers, the Gospel of John, that which speaks of him whose genealogy had
already been set forth, but which begins to speak of him at a point before he
had any genealogy. For Matthew, writing for the Hebrews who looked for Him who
was to come of the line of Abraham and of David, says:26 "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And Mark,
knowing what he writes, narrates the beginning of the Gospel; we may perhaps
find what he aims at in John; in the beginning the Word, God the Word. But Luke,
though he says at the beginning of Acts, "The former treatise did I make about
all that Jesus began to do and to teach," yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus'
breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus. For none of these
plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, "I am the
light of the world," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the
resurrection, "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd; "and in the Apocalypse,
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the
last." We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits
of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.
No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he have lain on Jesus' breast and
received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also. Such an one must he become who
is to be another John, and to have shown to him, like John, by Jesus Himself
Jesus as He is. For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had
no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, "Woman, behold thy
son,"27 and not "Behold you have this son also," then He virtually said to her,
"Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear." Is it not the case that every one who
is perfect lives himself no longer,28 but Christ lives in him; and if Christ
lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, "Behold thy son Christ." What a
mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work,
though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of
writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by
any one who lends to it his bodily ears? What shall we say of this work? He who
is accurately to apprehend what it contains should be able to say with truth,29
"We have the mind of Christ, that we may know those things which are bestowed on
us by God." It is possible to quote one of Paul's sayings in support of the
contention that the whole of the New Testament is Gospel. He writes in a certain
place:30 "According to my Gospel." Now we have no written work of Paul which is
commonly called a Gospel. But all that he preached and said was the Gospel; and
what he preached and said he was also in the habit of writing, and what he wrote
was therefore Gospel. But if what Paul wrote was Gospel, it follows that what
Peter wrote was also Gospel, and in a word all that was said or written to
perpetuate the knowledge of Christ's sojourn on earth, and to prepare for His
second coming, or to bring it about as a present reality in those souls which
were willing to receive the Word of God as He stood at the door and knocked and
sought to come into them.

7. What Good Things are Announced in the Gospels. But it is time we should
inquire what is the meaning of the designation "Gospel," and why these books
have this title. Now the Gospel is a discourse containing a promise of things
which naturally, and on account of the benefits they bring, rejoice the hearer
as soon as the promise is heard and believed. Nor is such a discourse any the
less a Gospel that we define it with reference to the position of the hearer. A
Gospel is either a word which implies the actual presence to the believer of
something that is good, or a word promising the arrival of a good which is
expected. Now all these definitions apply to those books which are named
Gospels. For each of the Gospels is a collection of announcements which are
useful to him who believes them and does not misinterpret them; it brings him a
benefit and naturally makes him glad because it tells of the sojourn with men,
on account of men, and for their salvation, of the first-born of all creation,31
Christ Jesus. And again each Gospel tells of the sojourn of the good Father in
the Son with those minded to receive Him, as is plain to every believer; and
moreover by these books a good is announced which had been formerly expected, as
is by no means hard to see. For John the Baptist spoke in the name almost of the
whole people when he sent to Jesus and asked,32 "Art thou He that should come or
do we look for another? "For to the people the Messiah was an expected good,
which the prophets had foretold, and they all alike, though under the law and
the prophets, fixed their hopes on Him, as the Samaritan woman bears witness
when she says:33 "I know that the Messiah comes, who is called Christ; when He
comes He will tell us all things." Simon and Cleopas too, when talking to each
other about all that had happened to Jesus Christ Himself, then risen, though
they did not know that He had risen, from the dead, speak thus,34 "Dost thou
sojourn alone in Jerusalem, and knowest not the things which have taken place
there in these days? And when he said what things? they answered, The things
concerning Jesus of Nazareth,35 which was a prophet, mighty in deed and in word
before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers
delivered Him up to be sentenced to death and crucified Him. But we hoped that
it was He which should redeem Israel." Again, Andrew the brother of Simon Peter
found his own brother Simon and said to him,36 "We have found the Messiah, which
is, being interpreted, Christ." And a little further on Philip finds Nathanael
and says to him,37 "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the
prophets, wrote, Jesus the son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

8. How the Gospels Cause the Other Books of Scripture Also to Be Gospel.

Now an objection might be raised to our first definition, because it would
embrace books which are not entitled Gospels. For the law and the prophets also
are to our eyes books containing the promise of things which, from the benefit
they will confer on him, naturally rejoice the hearer as soon as he takes in the
message. To this it may be said that before the sojourn of Christ, the law and
the prophets, since He had not come who interpreted the mysteries they
contained, did not convey such a promise as belongs to our definition of the
Gospel; but the Saviour, when He sojourned with men and caused the Gospel to
appear in bodily form, by the Gospel caused all things to appear as Gospel. Here
I would not think it beside the purpose to quote the example of Him who ... a
few things ... and yet all.38 For when he had taken away the veil which was
present in the law and the prophets, and by His divinity had proved the sons of
men that the Godhead was at work, He opened the way for all those who desired it
to be disciples of His wisdom, and to understand what things were true and real
in the law of Moses, of which things those of old worshipped the type and the
shadow, and what things were real of the things narrated in the histories which
"happened to them in the way of type,"39 but these things "were written for our
sakes, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." With whomsoever, then, Christ
has sojourned, he worships God neither at Jerusalem nor on the mountain of the
Samaritans; he knows that God is a spirit, and worships Him spiritually, in
spirit and in truth; no longer by type does he worship the Father and Maker of
all. Before that Gospel, therefore, which came into being by the sojourning of
Christ, none of the older works was a Gospel. But the Gospel, which is the new
covenant, having delivered us from the oldness of the letter, lights up for us,
by the light of knowledge,40 the newness of the spirit, a thing which never
grows old, which has its home in the New Testament, but is also present in all
the Scriptures. It was fitting, therefore, that that Gospel, which enables us to
find the Gospel present, even in the Old Testament, should itself receive, in a
special sense, the name of Gospel.

9. The Somatic and the Spiritual Gospel.

We must not, however, forget that the sojourning of Christ with men took place
before His bodily sojourn, in an intellectual fashion, to those who were more
perfect and not children, and were not under pedagogues and governors. In their
minds they saw the fulness of the time to be at hand-the patriarchs, and Moses
the servant, and the prophets who beheld the glory of Christ. And as before His
manifest and bodily coming He came to those who were perfect, so also, after His
coming has been announced to all, to those who are still children, since they
are under pedagogues and governors and have not yet arrived at the fulness of
the time, forerunners of Christ have come to sojourn, discourses (logoi) suited
for minds still in their childhood, and rightly, therefore, termed pedagogues.
But the Son Himself, the glorified God, the Word, has not yet come; He waits for
the preparation which must take place on the part of men of God who are to admit
His deity. And this, too, we must bear in mind, that as the law contains a
shadow of good things to come, which are indicated by that law which is
announced according to truth, so the Gospel also teaches a shadow of the
mysteries of Christ, the Gospel which is thought to be capable of being
understood by any one. What John calls the eternal Gospel, and what may properly
be called the spiritual Gospel, presents clearly to those who have the will to
understand, all matters concerning the very Son of God, both the mysteries
presented by His discourses and those matters of which His acts were the
enigmas. In accordance with this we may conclude that, as it is with Him who is
a Jew outwardly and circumcised in the flesh, so it is with the Christian and
with baptism. Paul and Peter were, at an earlier period, Jews outwardly and
circumcised, but later they received from Christ that they should be so in
secret, too; SO that outwardly they were Jews for the sake of the salvation of
many, and by an economy they not only confessed in words that they were Jews,
but showed it by their actions. And the same is to be said about their
Christianity. As Paul could not benefit those who were Jews according to the
flesh, without, when reason shows it to be necessary, circumcising Timothy, and
when it appears the natural course getting himself shaved and making a vow, and,
in a word, being to the Jews a Jew that he might gain the Jews-so also it is not
possible for one who is responsible for the good of many to operate as he should
by means of that Christianity only which is in secret. That will never enable
him to improve those who are following the external Christianity, or to lead
them on to better and higher things. We must, therefore, be Christians both
somatically and spiritually, and where there is a call for the somatic (bodily)
Gospel, in which a man says to those who are carnal that he knows nothing but
Jesus Christ and Him crucified, so we must do. But should we find those who are
perfected in the spirit, and bear fruit in it, and are enamoured of the heavenly
wisdom, these must he made to partake of that Word which, after it was made
flesh, rose again to what it was in the beginning, with God.

10. How Jesus Himself is the Gospel. The foregoing inquiry into the nature of
the Gospel cannot be regarded as useless; it has enabled us to see what
distinction there is between a sensible Gospel and all intellectual and
spiritual one. What we have now to do is to transform the sensible Gospel into a
spiritual one. For what would the narrative of the sensible Gospel amount to if
it were not developed to a spiritual one? It would be of little account or none;
any one can read it and assure himself of the facts it tells-no more. But our
whole energy is now to be directed to the effort to penetrate to the deep things
of the meaning of the Gospel and to search out the truth that is ill it when
divested of types. Now what the Gospels say is to be regarded in the light of
promises of good things; and we must say that the good things the Apostles
announce in this Gospel are simply Jesus. one good thing which they are said to
announce is the resurrection; but the resurrection is in a manner Jesus, for
Jesus says:41 "I am the resurrection." Jesus preaches to the poor those things
which are laid up for the saints, calling them to the divine promises. And the
holy Scriptures bear witness to the Gospel announcements made by the Apostles
and to that made by our Saviour. David says of the Apostles, perhaps also of the
evangelists:42 "The Lord shall give the word to those that preach with great
power; the King of the powers of the beloved; "teaching at the same time that it
is not skilfully composed discourse, nor the mode of delivery, nor well
practised eloquence that produces conviction, but the communication of divine
power. Hence also Paul says:43 "I will know not the word that is puffed up, but
the power; for the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." And in another
passage:44 "And my word and my preaching were not persuasive words of wisdom,
but in demonstration of the spirit and of power." To this power Simon and
Cleophas bear witness when they say:45 "Was not our heart burning within us by
the way, as he opened to us the Scriptures? "And the Apostles, since the
quantity of the power is great which God supplies to the speakers, had great
power, according to the word of David: "The Lord will give the word to the
preachers with great power." Isaiah too says:46 "How beautiful are the feet of
them that proclaim good tidings; "he sees how beautiful and how opportune was
the announcement of the Apostles who walked in Him who said, "I am the way," and
praises the feet of those who walk in the intellectual way of Christ Jesus, and
through that door go in to God. They announce good tidings, those whose feet are
beautiful, namely, Jesus.

11. Jesus is All Good Things; Hence the Gospel is Manifold.

Let no one wonder if we have understood Jesus to be announced in the Gospel
under a plurality of names of good things. If we look at the things by the names
of which the Son of God is called, we shall understand how many good things
Jesus is, whom those preach whose feet are beautiful. One good thing is life;
but Jesus is the life. Another good thing is the light of the world, when it is
true light, and the light of men; and all these things the Son of God is said to
be. And another good thing which one may conceive to be in addition to life or
light is the truth. And a fourth in addition to time is the way which leads to
the truth. And all these things our Saviour teaches that He is, when He says:47
"I am the way and the truth and the life." Ah, is not that good, to shake off
earth and mortality, and to rise again, obtaining this boon from the Lord, since
He is the resurrection, as He says:48 "I am the resurrection." But the door also
is a good, through which one enters into the highest blessedness. Now Christ
says:49 "I am the door." And what need is there to speak of wisdom, which "the
Lord created50 the first principle of His ways, for His works," in whom the
father of her rejoiced. delighting in her manifold intellectual beauty, seen by
the eyes of the mind alone, and provoking him to love who discerns her divine
and heavenly charm? A good indeed is the wisdom of God, proclaimed along with
the other good foresaid by those whose feet are beautiful. And the power of God
is the eighth good we enumerate, which is Christ. Nor must we omit to mention
the Word, who is God after the Father of all. For this also is a good, less than
no other. Happy, then, are those who accept these goods and receive them from
those who announce the good tidings of them, those whose feet are beautiful.
Indeed even one of the Corinthians to whom Paul declared that he knew nothing
but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, should he learn Him who for our sakes became
man, and so receive Him, he would become identified with the beginning of the
good things we have spoken of; by the man Jesus he would be made a man of God,
and by His death he would die to sin. For "Christ,51 in that He died, died unto
sin once." But from His life, since "in that He liveth, He liveth unto God,"
every one who is conformed to His resurrection receives that living to God. But
who will deny that righteousness, essential righteousness, is a good, and
essential sanctification, and essential redemption? And these things those
preach who preach Jesus, saying52 that He is made to be of God righteousness and
sanctification and redemption. Hence we shall have writings about Him without
number, showing that Jesus is a multitude of goods; for from the things which
can scarcely be numbered and which have been written we may make some conjecture
of those things which actually exist in Him in whom53 "it pleased God that the
whole fulness of the Godhead should dwell bodily." and which are not contained
in writings. Why should I say, "are not contained in writings"? For John speaks
of the whole world in this connection, and says:54 "I suppose that not even the
world itself would contain the books which would be written." Now to say that
the Apostles preach the Saviour is to say that they preach these good things.
For this is He who received from the good Father that He Himself should be these
good things, so that each man receiving from Jesus the thing or things he is
capable of receiving may enjoy good things. But the Apostles, whose feet were
beautiful, and those imitators of them who sought to preach the good tidings,
could not have done so had not Jesus Himself first preached the good tidings to
them, as Isaiah says:55 "I myself that speak am here, as the opportunity on the
mountains, as the feet of one preaching tidings of peace, as one preaching good
things; for I will make My salvation to be heard, saying, God shall reign over
thee, O Zion!" For what are the mountains on which the speaker declares that He
Himself is present, but those who are less than none of the highest and the
greatest of the earth? And these must be sought by the able ministers of the New
Covenant, in order that they may observe the injunction which says:56 Go up into
a high mountain, thou that preachest good tidings to Zion; thou that preachest
good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength!" Now it is not
wonderful if to those who are to preach good tidings Jesus Himself preaches good
tidings of good things, which are no other than Himself; for the Son of God
preaches the good tidings of Himself to those who cannot come to know Him
through others. And He who goes up into the mountains and preaches good things
to them, being Himself instructed by His good Father,57 who "makes His sun to
rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust,"
He does not despise those who are poor in soul. To them He preaches good
tidings, as He Himself bears witness to us when He takes Isaiah58 and reads:
"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the Lord hath anointed me to preach good
tidings to the poor, He hath sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
sight to the blind. For closing the book He handed it to the minister and sat
down. And when the eyes of all were fastened upon Him, He said, This day is this
Scripture fulfilled in your ears."

12. The Gospel Contains the ILL Deeds Also Which Were Done to Jesus.

It ought not to be forgotten that in such a Gospel as this there is embraced
every good deed which was done to Jesus; as, for example, the story of the
woman59 who had been a stalker and had repented, and who, having experienced a
genuine recovery from her evil state, had grace to pour her ointment over Jesus
so that every one in the house smelt the sweet savour. Hence, too, the words,
"Wherever this Gospel shall be preached among all the nations, there also this
that she has done shall be spoken of, for a memorial of her." And it is clear
that whatever is done to the disciples of Jesus is done to Him. Pointing to
those of them who met with kind treatment, He says to those who were kind to
them,60 "What ye did to these, ye did to Me." So that every good deed we do to
our neighbours is entered ill the Gospel, that Gospel which is written on the
heavenly tablets and read by all who are worthy of the knowledge of the whole of
things. But on the other side, too, there is a part of the Gospel which is for
the condemnation of the doers of the ill deeds which have been done to Jesus.
The treachery of Judas and the shouts of the wicked crowd when it said,61 "Away
with such a one from the earth," and "Crucify Him, crucify Him," the mockings of
those who crowned Him with thorns, and everything of that kind, is included ill
the Gospels. And as a consequence of this we see that every one who betrays the
disciples of Jesus is reckoned as betraying Jesus Himself. To Saul,62 when still
a persecutor it is said, "Saul Saul, why persecutest thou Me? "and, "I am Jesus
whom thou persecutest." There are those who still have thorns with which they
crown and dishonour Jesus, those, namely, who are choked by the cares, and
riches, and pleasures of life, and though they have received the word of God, do
not bring it to perfection.63 We must beware, therefore, lest we also, as
crowning Jesus with thorns of our own, should be entered in the Gospel and read
of in this character by those who learn the Jesus, who is in all and is present
in all rational and holy lives, learn how He is anointed with ointment, is
entertained, is glorified, or how, on the other side, He is dishonoured, and
mocked, and beaten. All this had to be said; it is part of our demonstration
that our good actions, and also the sins of those who stumble, are embodied in
the Gospel, either to everlasting life or to reproach and everlasting shame.

13. The Angels Also are Evangelists.

Now if there are those among men who are honoured with the ministry of
evangelists, and if Jesus Himself brings tidings of good things, and preaches
the Gospel to the poor, surely those messengers who were made spirits by God,64
those who are a flame of fire, ministers of the Father of all, cannot have been
excluded from being evangelists also. Hence an angel standing over the shepherds
made a bright light to shine round about them, and said:65 "Fear not; behold I
bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all tile people; for
there is born to you, this day, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city
of David." And at a time when there was no knowledge among men of tim mystery of
the Gospel, those who were greater than men and inhabitants of heaven, the army
of God, praised God, saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will among men."66 And having said this, the angels go away from the
shepherds into heaven, leaving us to gather how the joy preached to us through
the birth of Jesus Christ is glory in the highest to God; they humbled
themselves even to the ground, and then returned to their place of rest, to
glorify God in the highest through Jesus Christ. But the angels also wonder at
the peace which is to be brought about on account of Jesus on the earth, that
seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be
warred against and destroyed by Jesus.

14. The Old Testament, Typified by John, is the Beginning of the Gospel. In
addition to what we have said, there is also this to be considered about the
Gospel, that in the first instance it is that of Christ Jesus, the head of the
whole body of the saved; as Mark says,67 "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ." Then also it is the Gospel of the Apostles; whence Paul68 says,
"According to my Gospel." But the beginning of the Gospel-for in respect of its
extent it has a beginning, a continuation, a middle, and an end-is nothing but
the whole Old Testament. John is, in this respect, a type of the Old Testament,
or, if we regard the connection of the New Testament with the Old, John
represents the termination of the Old. For the same Mark says:69 "The beginning
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I
send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one
crying m the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight." And here I must wonder how the dissentients can connect the two
Testaments with two different Gods. These words, were there no others, are
enough to convict them of their error. For how can John be the beginning of the
Gospel if they suppose he belongs to a different God, if he belongs to the
demiurge, and, as they hold, is not acquainted with the new deity? And the
angels are not entrusted with but one evangelical ministry, and that a short
one, not only with that addressed to the shepherds. For at the end an exalted
and flying angel, having the Gospel, will preach it to every nation, for the
good Father has not entirely deserted those who have fallen away from Him. John,
son of Zebedee, says in his Apocalypse: "And I saw an angel flying in the midst
of heaven, having the Eternal Gospel, to preach it to those who dwell upon the
earth, and to every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people, saying, with a
loud voice, Fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment hath come,
and worship Him that made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the
fountains of waters."

15. The Gospel is in the Old Testament, and Indeed in the Whole Universe. Prayer
for Aid to Understand the Mystical Sense of the Work in Hand.

As, then, we have shown that the beginning of the Gospel, according to one
interpretation, is the whole Old Testament, and is signified by the person of
John, we shall add, lest this should be called a mere unsupported assertion,
what is said in the Acts about the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians and
Philip. Philip, it is said, began at the passage of Isaiah: "He was led as a
lamb to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his shearer is dumb," and so
preached to him the Lord Jesus. How can he begin with the prophet and preach
Jesus, if Isaiah was not a part of the beginning of the Gospel? From this we may
derive a proof of the assertion made at the outset, that every divine Scripture
is Gospel. If he who preaches the Gospel preaches good things, and all those who
spoke before the sojourn of Jesus in the flesh preach Christ, who is as we saw
good things, then the words spoken by all of them alike are in a sense a part of
the Gospel. And when the Gospel is said to be declared throughout the whole
world, we infer that it is actually preached in the whole world, not, that is to
say, in this earthly district only, but in the whole system of heaven and earth,
or from heaven and earth. And why should we discuss any further what the Gospel
is? What we have said is enough. Besides the passages we have adduced, passages
by no means inept or unsuited for our purpose,-much to the same effect might be
collected from the Scriptures, so that it is clearly seen what is the glory of
the good things in Jesus Christ shed forth by the Gospel, the Gospel ministered
by men and angels, and, I believe, also by authorities and powers, and thrones
and dominions, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in
the world to come, and indeed even by Christ Himself. Here, then, let us bring
to a close what has to be said before proceeding to read the work itself. And
now let us ask God to assist us through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, so that
we may be able to unfold the mystical sense which is treasured up in the words
before us.

16. Meaning of "Beginning." (1) in Space.

"In the beginning was the Word." It is not only the Greeks who consider the word
"beginning" to have many meanings. Let any one collect the Scripture passages in
which the word occurs, and with a view to an accurate interpretation of it note
what it stands for in each passage, and he will find that the word has many
meanings in sacred discourse also. We speak of a beginning in reference to a
transition. Here it has to do with a road and with length. This appears in the
saying: "The beginning of a good way is to do justice." For since the good way
is long, there have first to be considered in reference to it the question
connected with action, and this side is presented in the words "to do justice;
"the contemplative side comes up for consideration afterwards. In the latter the
end of it comes to rest at last in the so-called restoration of all things,
since no enemy is left them to fight against, if that be true which is said:
"For He must reign until He have placed His enemies under His feet. But the last
enemy to be destroyed is death." For then but one activity will be left for
those who have come to God on account of His word which is with Him, that,
namely, of knowing God, so that, being found by the knowledge of the Father,
they may all be His Son, as now no one but the Son knows the Father. For should
any one enquire carefully at what time those are to know the Father to whom He
who knows the Father reveals Him, and should he consider how a man now sees only
through a glass and in a riddle, never having learned to know as he ought to
know, he would be justified in saying that no one, no apostle even, and no
prophet had known the Father, but when he became one with Him as a son and a
father are one. And if any one says that it is a digression which has led us to
this point, our consideration of that one meaning of the word beginning, we must
show that the digression is necessary and useful for the end we have in view.
For if we speak of a beginning in the case of a transition, and of a way and its
length, and if we are told that the beginning of a good way is to do justice,
then it concerns us to know in what manner every good way has for its beginning
to do justice, and how after such beginning it arrives at contemplation, and in
what manner it thus arrives at contemplation.

17. (2) in Time. The Beginning of Creation.

Again, there is a beginning in a matter of origin, as might appear in the
saying:70 "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." This meaning,
however, appears more plainly in the Book of Job in the passage:71 "This is the
beginning of God's creation, made for His angels to mock at." One would suppose
that the heavens and the earth were made first, of all that was made at the
creation of the world. But the second passage suggests a better view, namely,
that as many beings were framed with a body, the first made of these was the
creature called dragon, but called in another passage72 the great whale
(leviathan) which the Lord tamed. We must ask about this; whether, when the
saints were living a blessed life apart from matter and from any body, the
dragon, falling from the pure life, became fit to be bound in matter and in a
body, so that the Lord could say, speaking through storm and clouds, "This is
the beginning of the creation of God, made for His angels to mock at." It is
possible, however, that the dragon is not positively the beginning of the
creation of the Lord, but that there were many creatures made with a body for
the angels to mock at, and that the dragon was the first of these, while others
could subsist in a body without such reproach. But it is not so. For the soul of
the sun is placed in a body, and the whole creation, of which the Apostle
says:73 "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now,"
and perhaps the following is about the same: "The creation was made subject to
vanity, not willingly, but on account of Him who subjected it for hope; "so that
bodies might be in vanity, and doing the things of the body, as he who is in the
body must.74 ... One who is in the body does the things of the body, though
unwillingly. Wherefore the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but he who does unwillingly the things of the body does what he does for the
sake of hope, as if we should say that Paul desired to remain in the flesh, not
willingly, but on account of hope. For though he thought it better75 to be
dissolved and to be with Christ, it was not unreasonable that he should wish to
remain in the flesh for the sake of the benefit to others and of advancement in
the things hoped for, not only by him, but also by those benefited by him. This
meaning of the term" beginning," as of origin, will serve us also in the passage
in which Wisdom speaks in the Proverbs.76 "God," we read, "created me the
beginning of His ways, for His works." Here the term could be interpreted as in
the first application we spoke of, that of a way: "The Lord," it says, "created
me the beginning of His ways." One might assert, and with reason, that God
Himself is the beginning of all things, and might go on to say, as is plain,
that the Father is the beginning of the Son; and the demiurge the beginning of
the works of the demiurge, and that God in a word is the beginning of all that
exists. This view is supported by our: "In the beginning was the Word." In the
Word one may see the Son, and because He is in the Father He may be said to be
in the beginning.

18. (3) of Substance. In the third place a beginning may be that out of which a
thing comes, the underlying matter from which things are formed. This, however,
is the view of those who hold matter itself to be uncreated, a view which we
believers cannot share, since we believe God to have made the things that are
out of the things which are not, as the mother of the seven martyrs in the
Maccabees teaches,77 and as the angel of repentance in the Shepherd
inculcated.78 19. (4) of Type and Copy. In addition to these meanings there is
that in which we speak of an arche,79 according to form; thus if the first-born
of every creature80 is the image of the invisible God, then the Father is his
arche. In the same way Christ is the arche of those who are made according to
the image of God. For if men are according to the image, but the image according
to the Father; in the first case the Father is the arche of Christ, and in the
other Christ is the arche of men, and men are made, not according to that of
which he is the image, but according to the image. With this example our passage
will agree: "In the arche was the Word."

20. (5) of Elements and What is Formed from Them.

There is also an arche in a matter of learning, as when we say that the letters
are the arche of grammar. The Apostle accordingly says:81 "When by reason of the
time you ought to be teachers, you have need again that some one teach you what
are the elements of the arche of the oracles of God." Now the arche spoken of in
connection with learning is twofold; first in respect of its nature, secondly in
its relation to us; as we might say of Christ, that by nature His arche is
deity, but that in relation to us who cannot, for its very greatness, command
the whole truth about Him, His arche is His manhood, as He is preached to babes,
"Jesus Christ and Him crucified." In this view, then, Christ is the arche of
learning in His own nature, because He is the wisdom and power of God; but for
us, the Word was made flesh, that He might tabernacle among us who could only
thus at first receive Him. And perhaps this is the reason why He is not only the
firstborn of all creation, but is also designated the man, Adam. For Paul says
He is Adam:82 "The last Adam was made a life-giving spirit."

21. (6) of Design and Execution.

Again we speak of the arche of an action, in which there is a design which
appears after the beginning. It may be considered whether wisdom is to be
regarded as the arche of the works of God because it is in this way the
principle of them.

22. The Word Was in the Beginning, I.e., in Wisdom, Which Contained All Things
in Idea, Before They Existed. Christ's Character as Wisdom is Prior to His Other
Characters. So many meanings occur to us at once of the word arche. We have now
to ask which of them we should adopt for our text, "In the beginning was the
Word." It is plain that we may at once dismiss the meaning which connects it
with transition or with a road and its length. Nor, it is pretty plain, will the
meaning connected with an origin serve our purpose. One might, however, think of
the sense in which it points to the author, to that which brings about the
effect, if, as we read,83 "God commanded and they were created." For Christ is,
in a manner, the demiurge, to whom the Father says, "Let there be light," and
"Let there be a firmament." But Christ is demiurge as a beginning (arche),
inasmuch as He is wisdom. It is in virtue of His being wisdom that He is called
arche. For Wisdom says in Solomon:84 "God created me the beginning of His ways,
for His works," so that the Word might be in an arche, namely, in wisdom.
Considered in relation to the structure of contemplation and thoughts about the
whole of things, it is regarded as wisdom; but in relation to that side of the
objects of thought, in which reasonable beings apprehend them, it is considered
as the Word. And there is no wonder, since, as we have said before, the Saviour
is many good things, if He comprises in Himself thoughts of the first order, and
of the second, and of the third. This is what John suggested when he said about
the Word:85 "That which was made was life in Him." Life then came in the Word.
And on the one side the Word is no other than the Christ, the Word, He who was
with the Father, by whom all things were made; while, on the other side, the
Life is no other than the Son of God, who says:86 "I am the way and the truth
and the life." As, then, life came into being in the Word, so the Word in the
arche. Consider, however, if we are at liberty to take this meaning of arche for
our text: "In the beginning was the Word," so as to obtain the meaning that all
things came into being according to wisdom and according to the models of the
system which are present in his thoughts. For I consider that as a house or a
ship is built and fashioned in accordance with the sketches of the builder or
designer, the house or the ship having their beginning (arche) in the sketches
and reckonings in his mind, so all things came into being in accordance with the
designs of what was to be, clearly laid down by God in wisdom. And we should add
that having created, so to speak, ensouled87 wisdom, He left her to hand over,
from the types which were in her, to things existing and to matter, the actual
emergence of them, their moulding and their forms.88 But I consider, if it be
permitted to say this, that the beginning (arche) of real existence was theSon
of God, saying:89 "I am the beginning and the end, the A and the W, the first
and the last." We must, however, remember that He is not the arche in respect of
every name which is applied to Him. For how can He be the beginning in respect
of His being life, when life came in the Word, and the Word is manifestly the
arche of life? It is also tolerably evident that He cannot be the arche in
respect of His being the first-born from the dead. And if we go through all His
titles carefully we find that He is the arche only in respect of His being
wisdom. Not even as the Word is He the arche, for the Word was in the arche. And
so one might venture to say that wisdom is anterior to all the thoughts that are
expressed in the titles of the first-born of every creature. Now God is
altogether one and simple; but our Saviour, for many reasons, since God90 set
Him forth a propitiation and a first fruits of the whole creation, is made many
things, or perhaps all these things; the whole creation, so far as capable of
redemption, stands in need of Him.91 And, hence, He is made the light of men,
because men, being darkened by wickedness, need the light that shines in
darkness, and is not overtaken by the darkness; had not men been in darkness, He
would not have become the light of men. The same thing may be observed in
respect of His being the first-born of the dead. For supposing the woman had not
been deceived, and Adam had not fallen, and man created for incorruption had
obtained it, then He would not have descended into the grave, nor would He have
died, there being no sin, nor would His love of men have required that He should
die, and if He had not died, He could not have been the first-born of the dead.
We may also ask whether He would ever have become a shepherd, had man not been
thrown together with the beasts which are devoid of reason, and made like to
them. For if God saves man and beasts, He saves those beasts which He does save,
by giving them a shepherd, since they cannot have a king. Thus if we collect the
titles of Jesus, the question arises which of them were conferred on Him later,
and would never have assumed such importance if the saints had begun and had
also persevered in blessedness. Perhaps Wisdom would be the only remaining one,
or perhaps the Word would remain too, or perhaps the Life, or perhaps the Truth,
not the others, which He took for our sake. And happy indeed are those who in
their need for the Son of God have yet become such persons as not to need Him in
His character as a physician healing the sick, nor in that of a shepherd, nor in
that of redemption, but only in His characters as wisdom, as the word and
righteousness, or if there be any other title suitable for those who are so
perfect as to receive Him in His fairest characters. So much for the phrase "In
the beginning."

23. The Title "Word" Is to Be Interpreted by the Same Method as the Other Titles
of Christ. The Word of God is Not a Mere Attribute of God, But a Separate
Person. What is Meant When He is Called the Word.

Let us consider, however, a little more carefully what is the Word which is in
the beginning. I am often led to wonder when I consider the things that are said
about Christ, even by those who are in earnest in their belief in Him. Though
there is a countless number of names which can be applied to our Saviour, they
omit the most of them, and if they should remember them, they declare that these
titles are not to be understood in their proper sense, but tropically. But when
they come to the title Logos (Word), and repeat that Christ alone is the Word of
God, they are not consistent, and do not, as in the case of the other titles,
search out what is behind the meaning of the term "Word." I wonder at the
stupidity of the general run of Christians in this matter. I do not mince
matters; it is nothing but stupidity. The Son of God says in one passage, "I am
the light of the world," and in another, "I am the resurrection," and again, "I
am the way and the truth and the life." It is also written, "I am the door," and
we have the saying, "I am the good shepherd," and when the woman of Samaria
says, "We know the Messiah is coming, who is called Christ; when He comes, He
will tell us all things," Jesus answers, "I that speak unto thee am He." Again,
when He washed the disciples' feet, He declared Himself in these words92 to be
their Master and Lord: "You call Me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I
am." He also distinctly announces Himself as the Son of God, when He says,93 "He
whom the Father sanctified and sent unto the world, to Him do you say, Thou
blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? "and94 "Father, the hour is
come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son also may glorify Thee." We also find Him
declaring Himself to be a king, as when He answers Pilate's question,95 "Art
Thou the King of the Jews? "by saying, "My kingdom is not of this world; 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 from hence." We have also read
the words,96 "I am the true vine and My Father is the husbandman," and again, "I
am the vine, ye are the branches." Add to these testimonies also the saying,97
"I am the bread of life, that came down from heaven and giveth life to the
world." These texts will suffice for the present, which we have picked up out of
the storehouse of the Gospels, and in all of which He claims to be the Son of
God. But in the Apocalypse of John, too, He says,98 "I am the first and the
last, and the living One, and I was dead. Behold, I am alive for evermore." And
again,99 "I am the A and the W, and the first and the last, the beginning and
the end." The careful student of the sacred books, moreover, may gather not a
few similar passages from the prophets, as where He calls Himself100 a chosen
shaft, and a servant of God,101 and a light of the Gentiles.102 Isaiah also
says,103 "From my mother's womb hath He called me by my name, and He made my
mouth as a sharp sword, and under the shadow of His hand did He hide me, and He
said to me, Thou art My servant, O Israel, and in thee will I be glorified." And
a little farther on: "And my God shall be my strength, and He said to me, This
is a great thing for thee to be called My servant, to set up the tribes of Jacob
and to turn again the diaspora of Israel. Behold I have set thee for a light of
the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation to the end of the earth." And
in Jeremiah too104 He likens Himself to a lamb, as thus: "I was as a gentle lamb
that is led to the slaughter." These and other similar sayings He applies to
Himself. In addition to these one might collect in the Gospels and the Apostles
and in the prophets a countless number of titles which are applied to the Son of
God, as the writers of the Gospels set forth their own views of what He is, or
the Apostles extol Him out of what they had learned, or the prophets proclaim in
advance His coining advent and announce the things concerning Him under various
names. Thus John calls Him the Lamb of God, saying,105 "Behold the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sins of the world," and in these words he declares Him as
a man,106 "This is He about whom I said, that there cometh after me a man who is
there before me; for He was before me." And in his Catholic Epistle John says
that He is a Paraclete for our souls with the Father, as thus:107 "And if any
one sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," and
he adds that He is a propitiation for our sins, and similarly Paul says He is a
propitiation:108 "Whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His
blood, on account of forgiveness of the forepast sins, in the forbearance of
God." According to Paul, too, He is declared to be the wisdom and the power of
God, as in the Epistle to the Corinthians:109 "Christ the power of God and the
wisdom of God." It is added that He is also sanctification and redemption: "He
was made to us of God," he says, "wisdom and righteousness and sanctification
and redemption." But he also teaches us, writing to the Hebrews, that Christ is
a High-Priest:110 "Having, therefore, a great High-Priest, who has passed
through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." And
the prophets have other names for Him besides these. Jacob in his blessing of
his sons111 says, "Judah, thy brethren shall extol thee; thy hands are on the
necks of thine enemies. A lion's whelp is Judah, from a shoot, my son, art thou
sprung up; thou hast lain down and slept as a lion; who shall awaken him? "We
cannot now linger over these phrases, to show that what is said of Judah applies
to Christ. What may be quoted against this view, viz., "A ruler shall not part
from Judah nor a leader from his loins, until He come for whom it is reserved;
"this can better be cleared up on another occasion . But Isaiah knows Christ to
be spoken of under the names of Jacob and Israel, when he says,112 "Jacob is my
servant, I will help Him; Israel is my elect, my soul hath accepted Him. He
shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry, neither
shall any one hear His voice on the streets. A bruised rod shall He not break.
and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He bring forth judgment from victory,
and in His name shall the nations hope." That it is Christ about whom such
prophecies are made, Matthew shows in his Gospel, where he quotes from memory
and says:113 "That the saying might be fulfilled, He shall not strive nor cry,"
etc. David also is called Christ, as where Ezekiel in his prophecy to the
shepherds adds as from the mouth of God:114 "I will raise up David my servant,
who shall be their shepherd." For it is not the patriarch David who is to rise
and be the shepherd of the saints, but Christ. Isaiah also called Christ the rod
and the flower:115 "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a
flower shall spring out of tits root, and the spirit of God shall rest upon Him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel slid of might, the
spirit of knowledge and of godliness, and He shall be full of the spirit of the
fear of the Lord." And in the Psalms our Lord is called the stone, as
follows:116 "The stone which the builders rejected is made the head of the
comer. It is from the Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes." And the Gospel
shows, as also does Luke in the Acts, that the stone is no other than Christ;
the Gospel as follows:117 "Have ye never read, the stone which the builders
rejected is made the head of the corner. Whosoever falls on this stone shall be
broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust." And Luke
writes in Acts:118 "This is the stone, which was set at naught of you the
builders, which has become the head of the corner." And one of the names applied
to the Saviour is that which He Himself does not utter, but which John
records;-the Word who was in the beginning with God, God the Word. And it is
worth our while to fix our attention for a moment on those scholars who omit
consideration of most of the great names we have mentioned and regard this as
the most important one. As to the former titles, they look for any account of
them that any one may offer, but in the case of this one they proceed
differently and ask, What is the Son of God when called the Word? The passage
they employ most is that in the Psalms,119 "My heart hath produced a good Word;
"and they imagine the Son of God to be the utterance of the Father deposited, as
it were, in syllables, and accordingly they do not allow Him, if we examine them
farther, any independent hypostasis, nor are they clear about His essence. I do
not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence
of His own. For no one can understand how that which is said to be "Word" can be
a Son. And such an animated Word, not being a separate entity from the Father,
and accordingly as it, having no subsistence. is not a Son, or if he is a Son,
let them say that God the Word is a separate being and has an essence of His
own. We insist, therefore, that as in the case of each of the titles spoken of
above we turn from the title to the concept it suggests slid apply it and
demonstrate how the Son of God is suitably described by it, the same course must
be followed when we find Him called the Word. What caprice it is, in all these
cases, not to stand upon the term employed, but to enquire in what sense Christ
is to be understood to be the door, and in what way the vine, and why He is the
way; but in the one case of His being called the Word, to follow a different
course. To add to the authority, therefore, of what we have to say on the
question, how the Son of God is the Word, we must begin with those names of
which we spoke first as being applied to Him. This, we cannot deny, will seem to
some to be superfluous and a digression, but the thoughtful reader will not
think it useless to ask as to the concepts for which the titles are used; to
observe these matters will clear the way for what is coming. And once we have
entered upon the theology concerning the Saviour, as we seek with what diligence
we can and find the various things that are taught about Him, we shall
necessarily understand more about Him not only in His character as the Word, but
in His other characters also.

24. Christ as Light; How He, and How His Disciples are the Light of the World.

He said, then, that He was the light of the world; and we have to examine, along
with this title, those which are parallel to it; and, indeed, are thought by
some to be not merely parallel, but identical with it. He is the true light, and
the light of the Gentiles. In the opening of the Gospel now before us He is the
light of men: "That which was made,"120 it says, "was life in Him, and the life
was the light of men; and the light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not
overtake it." A little further on, in the same passage, He is called the true
light:121 "The true light, which lightens every man, was coming into the world."
In Isaiah, He is the light of the Gentiles, as we said before. "Behold,122 I
have set Thee for a light of the Gentiles, that Thou shouldest be for salvation
to the end of the earth." Now the sensible light of the world is the sun, and
after it comes very worthily the moon, and the same title may be applied to the
stars; but those lights of the world are said in Moses to have come into
existence on the fourth day, and as they shed light on the things on the earth,
they are not the true light. But the Saviour shines on creatures which have
intellect and sovereign reason, that their minds may behold their proper objects
of vision, and so he is the light of the intellectual world, that is to say, of
the reasonable souls which are in the sensible world, and if there be any beings
beyond these in the world from which He declares Himself to be our Saviour. He
is, indeed, the most determining and distinguished part of that world, and, as
we may say, the sun who makes the great day of the Lord. In view of this day He
says to those who partake of His light, "Work123 while it is day; the night
cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the
world." Then He says to His disciples,124 "Ye are the light of the world," and
"Let your light shine before men." Thus we see the Church, the bride, to present
an analogy to the moon and stars, and the disciples have a light, which is their
own or borrowed from the true sun, so that they are able to illuminate those who
have no command of any spring of light in themselves. We may say that Paul and
Peter are the light of the world, and that those of their disciples who are
enlightened themselves, but are not able to enlighten others, are the world of
which the Apostles were the light. But the Saviour, being the light of the
world, illuminates not bodies, but by His incorporeal power the incorporeal
intellect, to the end that each of us, enlightened as by the sun, may be able to
discern the rest of the things of the mind. And as when the sun is shining the
moon and the stars lose their power of giving light, so those who are irradiated
by Christ and receive His beams have no need of the ministering apostles and
prophets-we must have courage to declare this truth-nor of the angels; I will
add that they have no need even of the greater powers when they are disciples of
that first-born light. To those who do not receive the solar beams of Christ.
the ministering saints do afford an illumination much less than the former; this
illumination is as much as those persons can receive, and it completely fills
them. Christ, again, the light of the world, is the true light as distinguished
from the light of sense; nothing that is sensible is true. Yet though the
sensible is other than the true, it does not follow that the sensible is false,
for the sensible may have an analogy with the intellectual, and not everything
that is not true can correctly be called false. Now I ask whether the light of
the world is the same thing with the light of men, and I conceive that a higher
power of light is intended by the former phrase than by the latter, for the
world in one sense is not only men. Paul shows that the world is something more
than men when he writes to the Corinthians in his first Epistle:125 "We are made
a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." In one sense, too, it
may be considered,126 the world is the creation which is being delivered from
the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God,
whose earnest expectation is waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God.
We also draw attention to the comparison which may be drawn between the
statement, "I am the light of the world," and the words addressed to the
disciples, "Ye are the light of the world." Some suppose that the genuine
disciples of Jesus are greater than other creatures, some seeking the reason of
this ill the natural growth of these disciples, others inferring it from their
harder struggle. For those beings which are in flesh and blood have greater
labours and a life more full of dangers than those which are in an ethereal
body, and the lights of heaven might not, if they had put on bodies of earth,
have accomplished this life of ours free from danger and from error. Those who
incline to this argument may appeal to those texts of Scripture which say the
most exalted things about men, and to the fact that the Gospel is addressed
directly to men; not so much is said about the creation, or, as we understand
it, about the world. We read,127 "As I and Thou are one, that they also may be
one in Us," and128 "Where I am, there will also My servant be." These sayings,
plainly, are about men; while about the creation it is said that it is delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of
God. It might be added that not even when it is delivered will it take part in
the glory of the sons of God. Nor will those who hold this view forget that the
first-born of every creature, honouring man above all else, became man, and that
it was not any of the constellations existing in the sky, but one of another
order, appointed for this purpose and in the service of the knowledge of Jesus,
that was made to be the Star of the East, whether it was like the other stars or
perchance better than they, to be the sign of Him who is the most excellent of
all. And if the boasting of the saints is in their tribulations, since129
"tribulation worketh patience, and patience probation, and probation hope, and
hope maketh not ashamed," then the afflicted creation cannot have the like
patience with man, nor the like probation, nor the like hope, but another degree
of these, since130 "the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but
on account of Him who subjected it. for hope." Now he who shrinks from
conferring such great attributes on man will turn to another direction and say
that the creature being subjected to vanity groans and suffers greater
affliction than those who groan in this tabernacle, for has she not suffered for
the utmost extent of time in her service of vanity-nay, many times as long as
man? For why does she do this not willingly, but that it is against her nature
to be subject to vanity, and not to have the best arrangement of her life, that
which she shall receive when she is set free, when the world is destroyed and
released even from the vanity of bodies. Here, however, we may appear to be
stretching too far, and aiming at more than the question now before us requires.
We may return, therefore, to the point from which we set out, and ask for what
reason the Saviour is called the light of the world, the true light, and the
light of men. Now we saw that He is called the true light with reference to the
sensible light of the world, and that the light of the world is the same thing
as the light of men, or that we may at least enquire whether they are the same.
This discussion is not superfluous. Some students do not take anything at all
out of the statement that the Saviour is the Word; and it is important for us to
assure ourselves that we are not chargeable with caprice in fixing our attention
on that notion. If it admits of being taken in a metaphorical sense we ought not
to take it literally.131 When we apply the mystical and allegorical method to
the expression "light of the world" and the many analogous terms mentioned
above, we should surely do so with this expression also.

25. Christ as the Resurrection.

Now He is called the light of men and the true light and the light of the word,
because He brightens and irradiates the higher parts of men, or, in a word, of
all reasonable beings. And similarly it is from and because of the energy with
which He causes the old deadness to be put aside and that which is par
excellence life to be put on, so that those who have truly received Him rise
again from the dead, that He is called the resurrection. And this He does not
only at the moment at which a man says,132 "We are buried with Christ through
baptism and have risen again with Him," but much rather when a man, having laid
off all about him that belongs to death, walks in the newness of life which
belongs to Him, the Son, while here. We always133 "carry about in our body the
dying of the Lord Jesus," and thus we reap the vast advantage, "that the life of
the Lord Jesus might be made manifest in our bodies."

26. Christ as the Way. But that progress too, which is in wisdom and which is
found by those who seek their salvation in it to do for them what they require
both in respect of exposition of truth in the divine word and in respect of
conduct according to true righteousness, it lets us understand how Christ is the
way. In this way we have to take nothing with us,134 neither wallet nor coat; we
must travel without even a stick, nor must we have shoes on our feet. For this
road is itself sufficient for all the supplies of our journey; and every one who
walks on it wants nothing. He is clad with a garment which is fit for one who is
setting out in response to an invitation to a wedding; and on this road he
cannot meet anything that can annoy him. "No one," Solomon says,135 "can find
out the way of a serpent upon a rock." I would add, or that of any other beast.
Hence there is no need of a staff on this road, on which there is no trace of
any hostile creature, and the hardness of which, whence also it is called rock
(petra), makes it incapable of harbouring anything hurtful.

27. Christ as the Truth.

Further, the Only-begotten is the truth, because He embraces in Himself
according to the Father's will the whole reason of all things, and that with
perfect clearness, and being the truth communicates to each creature in
proportion to its worthiness. And should any one enquire whether all that the
Father knows, according to the depth of His riches and His wisdom and His
knowledge, is known to our Saviour also, and should he, imagining that he will
thereby glorify the Father, show that some things known to the Father are
unknown to the Son, although He might have had an equal share of the
apprehensions of the unbegotten God, we must remind him that it is from His
being the truth that He is Saviour, and add that if He is the truth complete,
then there is nothing true which He does not know; truth must not limp for the
want of the things which, according to those persons, are known to the Father
only. Or else let it be shown that some things are known to which the name of
truth does not apply, but which are above the truth.

28. Christ as Life.

It is clear also that the principle of that life which is pure and unmixed with
any other element, resides in Him who is the first-born of all creation, taking
from which those who have a share in Christ live the life which is true life,
while all those who are thought to live apart from this, as they have not the
true light, have not the true life either.

29. Christ as the Door and as the Shepherd. But as one cannot be in the Father
or with the Father except by ascending from below upwards and coming first to
the divinity of the Son, through which one may be led by the hand and brought to
the blessedness of the Father Himself, so the Saviour has the inscription "The
Door." And as He is a lover of men, and approves the impulse of human souls to
better things, even of those who do not hasten to reason (the Logos), but like
sheep have a weakness and gentleness apart from all accuracy and reason, so He
is the Shepherd. For the Lord saves men and beasts,136 and Israel and Juda are
sowed with the seed not of men only but also of beasts.137 30. Christ as
Anointed (Christ) and as King. In addition to these titles we must consider at
the outset of our work that of Christ, and we must also consider that of King,
and compare these two so as to find out the difference between them. Now it is
said in the forty-fourth Psalm,138 "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated
iniquity, whence Thou art anointed (Christ) above Thy fellows." His loving
righteousness and hating iniquity were thus added claims in Him; His anointing
was not contemporary with His being nor inherited by Him from the first.
Anointing is a symbol of entering on the kingship, and sometimes also on the
priesthood; and must we therefore conclude that the kingship of the Son of God
is not inherited nor congenital to Him? But how is it conceivable that the
First-born of all creation was not a king and became a king afterwards because
He loved righteousness, when, moreover, He Himself was righteousness? We cannot
fail to see that it is as a man that He is Christ, in respect of His soul, which
was human and liable to be troubled and sore vexed, but that He is conceived as
king in respect of the divine in Him. I find support for this in the
seventy-first Psalm,139 which says, "Give the king Thy judgment, O God, and Thy
righteousness to the king's Son, to judge Thy people in righteousness and Thy
poor in judgment." This Psalm, though addressed to Solomon, is evidently a
prophecy of Christ, and it is worth while to ask to what king the prophecy
desires judgment to be given by God, and to what king's Son, and what king's
righteousness is spoken of. I conceive, then, that what is called the King is
the leading nature of the First-born of all creation, to which judgment is given
on account of its eminence; and that the man whom He assumed, formed and moulded
by that nature, according to righteousness, is the King's Son. I am the more led
to think that this is so, because the two beings are here brought together in
one sentence, and are spoken of as if they were not two but one. For the Saviour
made both one,140 that is, He made them according to the prototype of the two
which had been made one in Himself before all things. The two I refer to human
nature, since each man's soul is mixed with the Holy Spirit, and each of those
who are saved is thus made spiritual. Now as there are some to whom Christ is a
shepherd, as we said before, because of their meek and composed nature, though
they are less guided by reason; so there are those to whom He is a king, those,
namely, who are led in their approach to religion rather by the reasonable part
of their nature. And among those who are under a king there are differences;
some experience his rule in a more mystic and hidden and more divine way, others
in a less perfect fashion. I should say that those who, led by reason, apart
from all agencies of sense, have beheld incorporeal things, the things which
Paul speaks of as "invisible," or "not seen," that they are ruled by the leading
nature of the Only-begotten, but that those who have only advanced as far as the
reason which is conversant with sensible things, and on account of these glorify
their Maker, that these also are governed by the Word, by Christ. No offence
need be taken at our distinguishing these notions in the Saviour; we draw the
same distinctions in His substance.

31. Christ as Teacher and Master.

It is plain to all how our Lord is a teacher and an interpreter for those who
are striving towards godliness, and on the other hand a master of those servants
who have the spirit of bondage to fear,141 who make progress and hasten towards
wisdom, and are found worthy to possess it. For142 "the servant knoweth not what
the master wills," since he is no longer his master, but has become his friend.
The Lord Himself teaches this, for He says to hearers who were still
servants:143 "You call Me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am," but
in another passage,144 "I call you no longer servants, for the servant knoweth
not what is the will of his master, but I call you friends," because145 "you
have continued with Me in all My temptations." They, then, who live according to
fear, which God exacts from those who are not good servants, as we read in
Malachi,146 "If I am a Master, where is My fear? "are servants of a master who
is called their Saviour.

32. Christ as Son.

None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour's exalted
birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, "Thou art My Son, this day have
I begotten Thee,"147 this is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is to-day,
for there is no evening with God, as I consider, and there is no morning,
nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life.
The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning
of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it.

33. Christ the True Vine, and as Bread. To what we have said must be added how
the Son is the true vine. Those will have no difficulty in apprehending this who
understand, in a manner worthy of the prophetic grace, the saying:148 "Wine
maketh glad the heart of man." For if the heart be the intellectual part, and
what rejoices it is the Word most pleasant of all to drink which takes us off
human things, makes us feel ourselves inspired, and intoxicates us with an
intoxication which is not irrational but divine, that, I conceive, with which
Joseph made his brethren merry,149 then it is very clear how He who brings wine
thus to rejoice the heart of man is the true vine. He is the true vine, because
the grapes He bears are the truth, the disciples are His branches, and they,
also, bring forth the truth as their fruit. It is somewhat difficult to show the
difference between the vine and bread, for He says, not only that He is the
vine, but that He is the bread of life. May it be that as bread nourishes and
makes strong, and is said to strengthen the heart of man, but wine, on the
contrary, pleases and rejoices and melts him, so ethical studies, bringing life
to him who learns them and reduces them to practice, are the bread of life, but
cannot properly be called the fruit of the vine, while secret and mystical
speculations, rejoicing the heart and causing those to feel inspired who take
them in, delighting in the Lord, and who desire not only to be nourished but to
be made happy, are called the juice of the true vine, because they flow from it.

34. Christ as the First and the Last; He is Also What Lies Between These.

Further, we have to ask in what sense He is called in the Apocalypse the First
and the Last, and how, in His character as the First, He is not the same as the
Alpha and the beginning, while in His character as the Last He is not the same
as the Omega and the end. It appears to me, then, that the reasonable beings
which exist are characterized by many forms, and that some of them are the
first, some the second, some the third, and so on to the last. To pronounce
exactly, however, which is the first, what kind of a being the second is, which
may truly be designated third, and to carry this out to the end of the series,
this is not a task for man, but transcends our nature. We shall yet venture,
such as we are, to stand still a little at this point, and to make some
observations on the matter. There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear
in prophecy,150 "Thank ye the God of gods," and151 "The God of gods hath spoken,
and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel,152 "is not the God of
the dead but of the living." Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god.
The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says:153 "As there are gods many
and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. Now
there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others, who are called
thrones, and others called dominions, lordships, also, and powers in addition to
these. The phrase,154 "above every name that is named, not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come," leads us to believe that there are yet
others besides these which are less familiar to us; one kind of these the
Hebrews called Sabai, from which Sabaoth was formed, who is their ruler, and is
none other than God. Add to all these the reasonable being who is mortal, man.
Now the God of all things made first in honour some race of reasonable beings;
this I consider to be those who are called gods, and the second order, let us
say, for the present, are the thrones, and the third, undoubtedly, the
dominions. And thus we come down in order to the last reasonable race, which,
perhaps, cannot be any other than man. The Saviour accordingly became, in a
diviner way than Paul, all things to all, that He might either gain all or
perfect them; it is clear that to men He became a man, and to the angels an
angel. As for His becoming man no believer has any doubt, but as to His becoming
an angel, we shall find reason for believing it was so, if we observe carefully
the appearances and the words of the angels, in some of which the powers of the
angels seem to belong to Him. In several passages angels speak in such a way as
to suggest this, as when155 "the angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire.
And he said. I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob." But Isaiah also
says:156 "His name is called Angel of Great Counsel." The Saviour, then, is the
first and the last, not that He is not what lies between, but the extremities
are named to show that He became all things. Consider, however, whether the last
is man, or the things said to be under the earth, of which are the demons, all
of them or some. We must ask, too, about those things which the Saviour became
which He speaks of through the prophet David,157 "And I became as a man without
any to help him, free among the dead." His birth from the Virgin and His life so
admirably lived showed Him to be more than man, and it was the same among the
dead. He was the only free person there, and His soul was not left in hell.
Thus, then, He is the first and the last. Again, if there be letters of God, as
such there are, by reading which the saints may say they have read what is
written on the tablets of heaven, these letters, by which heavenly things are to
be read, are the notions, divided into small parts, into A and so on to W, the
Son of God. Again, He is the beginning and the end, but He is this not in all
His aspects equally. For He is the beginning, as the Proverbs teach us, inasmuch
as He is wisdom; it is written: "The Lord rounded Me in the beginning of His
ways. for His works." In the respect of His being the Logos He is not the
beginning. "The Word was in the beginning." Thus in His aspects one comes first
and is the beginning, and there is a second after the beginning, and a third,
and so on to the end, as if He had said, I am the beginning. inasmuch as I am
wisdom, and the second, perhaps, inasmuch as I am invisible, and the third in
that I am life, for "what was made was life in Him." One who was qualified to
examine and to discern the sense of Scripture might, no doubt, find many members
of the series; I cannot say if he could find them all. "The beginning and the
end" is a phrase we usually apply to a thing that is a completed unity; the
beginning of a house is its foundation and the end the parapet. We cannot but
think of this figure. since Christ is the stone which is the head of the corner,
to the great unity of the body of the saved. For Christ the only-begotten Son is
all and in all, He is as the beginning in the man He assumed, He is present as
the end in the last of the saints, and He is also in those between, or else He
is present as the beginning in Adam, as the end in His life on earth, according
to the saying: "The last Adam was made a quickening spirit." This saying
harmonizes well with the interpretation we have given of the first and the last.

35. Christ as the Living and the Dead. In what has been said about the first and
the last, and about the beginning and the end, we have referred these words at
one point to the different forms of reasonable beings, at another to the
different conceptions of the Son of God. Thus we have gained a distinction
between the first and the beginning, and between the last and the end, and also
the distinctive meaning of A and W. It is not hard to see why he is called158
"the Living and the Dead," and after being dead He that is alive for evermore.
For since we were not helped by His original life, sunk as we were in sin, He
came down into our deadness in order that, He having died to sin, we,159 bearing
about in our body the dying of Jesus. might then receive that life of His which
is for evermore. For those who always carry about in their body the dying of
Jesus shall obtain the life of Jesus also, manifested in their bodies.

36. Christ as a Sword. The texts of the New Testament, which we have discussed,
are things said by Himself about Himself. Isaiah, however, He said160 that His
mouth had been set by His Father as a sharp sword, and that He was hidden under
the shadow of His hand, made like to a chosen shaft and kept close in the
Father's quiver, called His servant by the God of all things, and Israel, and
Light of the Gentiles. The mouth of the Son of God is a sharp sword, for161 "The
word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and
piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and
quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." And indeed He came not
to bring peace on the earth, that is, to corporeal and sensible things, but a
sword, and to cut through, if I may say so, the disastrous friendship of soul
and body, so that the soul, committing herself to the spirit which was against
the flesh, may enter into friendship with God. Hence, according to the prophetic
word, He made His mouth as a sword, as a sharp sword. Can any one behold so many
wounded by the divine love, like her in the Song of Songs, who complained that
she was wounded:162 "I am wounded with love," and find the dart that wounded so
many souls for the love of God, in any but Him who said, "He hath made Me as a
chosen shaft."

37. Christ as a Servant, as the Lamb of God, and as the Man Whom John Did Not
Know.

Again, let any one consider how Jesus was to His disciples, not as He who sits
at meat, but as He who serves, and how though the Son of God He took on Him the
form of a servant for the sake of the freedom of those who were enslaved in sin,
and he will be at no loss to account for the Father's saying to Him:163 "Thou
art My servant," and a little further on: "It is a great thing that thou
shouldst be called My servant." For we do not hesitate to say that the goodness
of Christ appears in a greater and more divine light, and more according to the
image of the Father, because164 "He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross," than if He had judged it a thing to be
grasped to be equal with God, and had shrunk from becoming a servant for the
salvation of the world. Hence He says,165 desiring to teach us that in accepting
this state of servitude He had received a great gift from His Father: "And My
God shall be My strength. And He said to Me, It is a great thing for Thee to be
called My servant." For if He had not become a servant, He would not have raised
up the tribes of Jacob, nor have turned the heart of the diaspora of Israel, and
neither would He have become a light of the Gentiles to be for salvation to the
ends of the earth. And it is no great thing for Him to become a servant, even if
it is called a great thing by His Father, for this is in comparison with His
being called with an innocent sheep and with a lamb. For the Lamb of God became
like an innocent sheep being led to the slaughter, that He may take away the sin
of the world. He who supplies reason (logoj to all is made like a lamb which is
dumb before her shearer, that we might be purified by His death, which is given
as a sort of medicine against the opposing power, and also against the sin of
those who open their minds to the truth. For the death of Christ reduced to
impotence those powers which war against the human race, and it set free from
sin by a power beyond our words the life of each believer. Since, then, He takes
away sin until every enemy shall be destroyed and death last of all, in order
that the whole world may be free from sin, therefore John points to Him and
says:166 "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." It is
not said that He will take it away in the future, nor that He is at present
taking it, nor that He has taken it, but is not taking it away now. His taking
away sin is still going on, He is taking it away from every individual in the
world, till sin be taken away from the whole world, and the Saviour deliver the
kingdom prepared and completed to the Father, a kingdom in which no sin is left
at all, and which, therefore, is ready to accept the Father as its king, and
which on the other hand is waiting to receive all God has to bestow, fully, and
in every part, at that time when the saying167 is fulfilled, "That God may be
all in all." Further, we hear of a man who is said to be coming after John, who
was made before him and was before him. This is to teach us that the man also of
the Son of God, the man who was mixed with His divinity, was older than His
birth from Mary. John says he does not know this man, but must he not have known
Him when he leapt for joy when yet a babe unborn in Elisabeth's womb, as soon as
the voice of Mary's salutation sounded in the ears of the wife of Zacharias?
Consider, therefore, if the words "I know Him not" may have reference to the
period before the bodily existence. Though he did not know Him before He assumed
His body, yet he knew Him when yet in his mother's womb, and perhaps he is here
learning something new about Him beyond what was known to him before, namely,
that on whomsoever the Holy Spirit shall descend and abide on him, that is he
who is to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. He knew him from his
mother's womb, but not all about Him. He did not know perhaps that this is He
who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire, when he saw the Spirit
descending and abiding on Him. Yet that He was indeed a man, and the first man,
John did not know.

38. Christ as Paraclete, as Propitiation, and as the Power of God. But none of
the names we have mentioned expresses His representation of us with the Father,
as He pleads for human nature, and makes atonement for it; the Paraclete, and
the propitiation, and the atonement. He has the name Paraclete in the Epistle of
John:168 "If any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous." And He is said in the same epistle to be the atonement169 for our
sins. Similarly, in the Epistle to the Romans, He is called a propitiation:170
"Whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith." Of this proportion
there was a type in the inmost part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, namely,
the golden mercy-seat placed upon the two cherubim. But how could He ever be the
Paraclete, and the atonement, and the propitiation without the power of God,
which makes an end of our weakness, flows over the souls of believers, and is
administered by Jesus, who indeed is prior to it and Himself the power of God,
who enables a man to say:171 "I can do all things through Jesus Christ who
strengtheneth me." Whence we know that Simon Magus, who gave himself the title
of "The power of God, which is called great," was consigned to perdition and
destruction, he and his money with him. We, on the contrary, who confess Christ
as the true power of God, believe that we share with Him, inasmuch as He is that
power, all things in which any energy resides.

39. Christ as Wisdom and Sanctification and Redemption.

We must not, however, pass over in silence that He is of right the wisdom of
God, and hence is called by that name. For the wisdom of the God and Father of
all things does not apprehend His substance in mere visions, like the phantasms
of human thoughts. Whoever is able to conceive a bodiless existence of manifold
speculations which extend to the rationale of existing things, living and, as it
were, ensouled, he will see how well the Wisdom of God which is above every
creature speaks of herself, when she says:172 "God created me the beginning of
His ways, for His works." By this creating act the whole creation was enabled to
exist, not being unreceptive of that divine wisdom according to which it was
brought into being; for God, according to the prophet David,173 made all things
in wisdom. But many things came into being by the help of wisdom, which do not
lay hold of that by which they were created: and few things indeed there are
which lay hold not only of that wisdom which concerns themselves, but of that
which has to do with many things besides, namely, of Christ who is the whole of
wisdom. But each of the sages, in proportion as he embraces wisdom, partakes to
that extent of Christ, in that He is wisdom; just as every one who is greatly
gifted with power, in proportion as he has power, in that proportion also has a
share in Christ, inasmuch as He is power. The same is to be thought about
sanctification and redemption; for Jesus Himself is made sanctification to us
and redemption. Each of us is sanctified with that sanctification, and redeemed
with that redemption. Consider, moreover, if the words "to us," added by the
Apostle, have any special force. Christ, he says, "was made to us of God,
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." In other
passages, he speaks about Christ as being wisdom, without any such
qualification, and of His being power, saying that Christ is the power of God
and the wisdom of God, though we might have conceived that He was not the wisdom
of God or the power of God, absolutely, but only for us. Now, in respect of
wisdom and power, we have both forms of the statement, the relative and the
absolute; but in respect of sanctification and redemption, this is not the case.
Consider, therefore, since174 "He that sanctifies and they that are sanctified
are all of one," whether the Father is the sanctification of Him who is our
sanctification, as, Christ being our head, God is His head. But Christ is our
redemption because we had become prisoners and needed ransoming. I do not
enquire as to His own redemption, for though He was tempted in all things as we
are, He was without sin, and His enemies never reduced Him to captivity.

40. Christ as Righteousness; As the Demiurge, the Agent of the Good God, and as
High-Priest.

Having expiscated the "to us" and the "absolutely"-santification and redemption
being "to us" and not absolute, wisdom and redemption both to us and absolute-we
must not omit to enquire into the position of righteousness in the same passage.
That Christ is righteousness relatively to us appears clearly from the words:
"Who was made to us of God wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and
redemption." And if we do not find Him to be righteousness absolutely as He is
the wisdom and the power of God absolutely, then we must enquire whether to
Christ Himself, as the Father is santification, so the Father is also
righteousness. There is, we know, no unrighteousness with God;175 He is a
righteous and holy Lord,176 and His judgments are in righteousness, and being
righteous, He orders all things righteously. The heretics drew a distinction for
purposes of their own between the just and the good. They did not make the
matter very clear, but they considered that the demiurge was just, while the
Father of Christ was good. That distinction may, I think, if carefully examined,
be applied to the Father and the Son; the Son being righteousness, and having
received power177 to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man and will
judge the world in righteousness, but the Father doing good to those who have
been disciplined by the righteousness of the Son. This is after the kingdom of
the Son; then the Father will manifest in His works His name the Good, when God
becomes all in all. And perhaps by His righteousness the Saviour prepares
everything at the fit times, and by His word, by His ordering, by His
chastisements, and, if I may use such an expression, by His spiritual healing
aids, disposes all things to receive at the end the goodness of the Father. It
was from His sense of that goodness that He answered him who addressed the
Only-begotten with the words "Good Master,"178 and said, "Why callest thou Me
good? None is good but one, God, the Father." This we have treated of elsewhere,
especially in dealing with the question of the greater than the demiurge; Christ
we have taken to be the demiurge, and the Father the greater than He. Such great
things, then, He is, the Paraclete, the atonement, the propitiation, the
sympathizer with our weaknesses, who was tempted in all human things, as we are,
without sin; and in consequence He is a great High-Priest, having offered
Himself as the sacrifice which is offered once for all, and not for men only but
for every rational creature. For without179 God He tasted death for every one.
In some copies of the Epistle to the Hebrews the words are "by the grace of
God." Now, whether He tasted death for every one without God. He died not for
men only but for all other intellectual beings too, or whether He tasted death
for every one by the grace of God, He died for all without God, for by the grace
of God He tasted death for every one. It would surely be absurd to say that He
tasted death for human sins and not for any other being besides man which had
fallen into sin, as for example for the stars. For not even the stars are clean
in the eyes of God, as we read in Job,180 "The stars are not clean in His
sight," unless this is to be regarded as a hyperbole. Hence he is a great
High-Priest, since He restores all things to His Father's kingdom, and arranges
that whatever defects exist in each part of creation shall be filled up so as to
be full of the glory of the Father. This High-Priest is called, from some other
notion of him than those we have noticed, Judas, that those who are Jews
secretly181 may take the name of Jew not froth Judah, son of Jacob, but from
Him, since they are His brethren, and praise Him for the freedom they have
attained. For it is He who sets them free, saving them from their enemies on
whose backs He lays His hand to subdue them. When He has put under His feet the
opposing power, and is alone in presence of His Father, then He is Jacob and
Israel; and thus as we are made light by Him, since He is the light of the
world, so we are made Jacob since He is called Jacob, and Israel since He is
called Israel.

41. Christ as the Rod, the Flower, the Stone.

Now He receives the kingdom from the king whom the children of Israel appointed,
beginning the monarchy not at the divine command and without even consulting
God. He therefore fights the battles of the Lord and so prepares peace for His
Son, His people, and this perhaps is the reason why He is called David. Then He
is called a rod;182 such He is to those who need a harder and severer
discipline, and have not submitted to the love and gentleness of God. On this
account, if He is a rod, He has to "go forth; "He does not remain in Himself,
but appears to go beyond His earlier state. Going forth, then, and becoming a
rod, He does not remain a rod, but after the rod He becomes a flower that rises
up, and after being a rod He is made known as a flower to those who, by His
being a rod, have met with visitation. For "God will visit their iniquities with
a red,"183 that is, Christ. But "His mercy He will not take from him," for He
will have mercy on him, for on whom the Son has mercy the Father has mercy also.
An interpretation may be given which makes Him a rod and a flower in respect of
different persons, a rod to those who have need of chastisement, a flower to
those who are being saved; but I prefer the account of the matter given above.
We must add here, however, that, perhaps, looking to the end, if Christ is a rod
to any man He is also a flower to him, while it is not the case that he who
receives Him as a flower must also know Him as a rod. And yet as one flower is
more perfect than another and plants are said to flower, even though they bring
forth no perfect fruit, so the perfect receive that of Christ which transcends
the flower. Those, on the other hand, who have known Him as a rod will partake
along with it, not in His perfection, but in the flower which comes before the
fruit. Last of all, before we come to the word Logos, Christ was a stone,184 set
at naught by the builders but placed on the head of the corner, for the living
stones are built up as on a foundation on the other stones of the Apostles and
prophets, Christ Jesus Himself our Lord being the chief corner-stone, because He
is a part of the building made of living stones in the land of the living;
therefore He is called a stone. All this we have said to show how capricious and
baseless is the procedure of those who, when so many names are given to Christ,
take the mere appellation "the Word," without enquiring, as in the case of His
other titles, in what sense it is used; surely they ought to ask what is meant
when it is said of the Son of God that He was the Word, and God, and that He was
in the beginning with the Father, and that all things were made by Him.

42. Of the Various Ways in Which Christ is the Logos.

As, then, from His activity in enlightening the world whose light He is, Christ
is named the Light of the World, and as from His making those who sincerely
attach themselves to Him put away their deadness and rise again and put on
newness of life, He is called the Resurrection, so from an activity of another
kind He is called Shepherd and Teacher, King and Chosen Shaft, and Servant, and
in addition to these Paraclete and Atonement and Propitiation. And after the
same fashion He is also called the Logos,185 because He takes away from us all
that is irrational, and makes us truly reasonable, so that we do all things,
even to eating and drinking, to the glory of God, and discharge by the Logos to
the glory of God both the commoner functions of life and those which belong to a
more advanced stage. For if, by having part in Him, we are raised up and
enlightened, herded also it may be and ruled over, then it is clear that we
become in a divine manner reasonable, when He drives away from us what in us is
irrational and dead, since He is the Logos (reason) and the
Resurrection.Consider, however, whether all men have in some way part in Him in
His character as Logos. On this point tile Apostle teaches us that He is to be
sought not outside the seeker, and that those find Him in themselves who set
their heart on doing so; "Say not186 in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?
That is to bring Christ down; or, Who shall descend into the abyss? That is to
bring Christ up from the dead. But what saith the Scripture? The Word is very
nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart," as if Christ Himself were the same
thing as the Word said to be sought after. But when the Lord Himself says187 "If
I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no
cloak for their sin," the only sense we can find in His words is that the Logos
Himself says that those are not chargeable with sin to whom He (reason) has not
fully come, but that those, if they sin, are guilty who, having had part in Him,
act contrary to the ideas by which He declares His full presence in us. Only
when thus read is the saying true: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they
had not had sin." Should the words be applied, as many are of opinion that they
should, to the visible Christ, then how is it true that those had no sin to whom
He did not come? In that case all who lived before the advent of the Saviour
will be free from sin, since Jesus, as seen in flesh, had not yet come. And
more-all those to whom He has never been preached will have no sin, and if they
have no sin, then it is clear they are not liable to judgment. But the Logos in
man, in which we have said that our whole race had part, is spoken of in two
senses; first, in that of the filling up of ideas which takes place, prodigies
excepted, in every one who passes beyond the age of boyhood, but secondly, in
that of the consummation, which takes place only in the perfect. The words,
therefore, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin,
but now they have no cloak for their sin," are to be understood in the former
sense; but the words,188 "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers,
and the sheep did not hear them," in the latter. For before the consummation of
reason comes, there is nothing in man but what is blameworthy; all is imperfect
and defective, and can by no means command the obedience of those irrational
elements in us which are tropically spoken of as sheep. And perhaps the former
meaning is to be recognized in the words "The Logos was made flesh," but the
second in "The Logos was God." We must accordingly look at what there is to be
seen in human affairs between the saying, "The Word (reason) was made flesh" and
"The Word was God." When the Word was made flesh can we say that it was to some
extent broken up and thinned out, and can we say that it recovered from that
point onward till it became again what it was at first, God the Word, the Word
with the Father; the Word whose glory John saw, the verily only-begotten, as
from the Father. But the Son may also be the Logos (Word), because He reports
the secret things of His Father who is intellect in the same way as the Son who
is called the Word. For as with us the word is a messenger of those things which
tile mind perceives, so the Word of God, knowing the Father, since no created
being can approach Him without a guide, reveals the Father whom He knows. For no
one knows the Father save the Son,189 and he to whomsoever the Son reveals Him,
and inasmuch as He is the Word He is the Messenger of Great Counsel,190 who has
the government upon His shoulders; for He entered on His kingdom by enduring the
cross. In the Apocalypse,191 moreover, the Faithful and True (the Word), is said
to sit on a white horse, the epithets indicating, I consider, the clearness of
the voice with which the Word of truth speaks to us when He sojourns among us.
This is scarcely the place to show how the word "horse" is often used in
passages spoken for our encouragement in sacred learning. I only cite two of
these: "A horse is deceitful for safety,"192 and "Some trust in chariots and
some in horses, but we will rejoice in the name of the Lord our God."193 Nor
must we leave unnoticed a passage in the forty-fourth Psalm,194 frequently
quoted by many writers as if they understood it: "My heart hath belched forth a
good word, I speak my works to the King." Suppose it is God the Father who
speaks thus; what is His heart, that the good word should appear in accordance
with His heart? If, as these writers suppose, the Word (Logos) needs no
interpretation, then the heart is to be taken in the natural sense too. But it
is quite absurd to suppose God's heart to be a part of Him as ours is of our
body. We must remind such writers that as when the hand of God is spoken of, and
His arm and His finger, we do not read the words literally but enquire in what
sound sense we may take them so as to be worthy of God, so His heart is to be
understood of His rational power, by which He disposes all things, and His word
of that which announces what is in this heart of His. But who is it that
announces the counsel of the Father to those of His creatures who are worthy and
who have risen above themselves, who but the Saviour? That "belched forth" is
not, perhaps, without significance; a hundred other terms might have been
employed; "My heart has produced a good word," it might have been said, or "My
heart has spoken a good word." But in belching, some wind that was hidden makes
its way out to the world, and so it may be that the Father gives out views of
truth not continuously, but as it were after the fashion of belching, and the
word has the character of the things thus produced, and is called, therefore,
the image of the invisible God. We may enter our agreement, therefore, with the
ordinary acceptation of these words, and take them to be spoken by the Father.
It is not, however, a matter of course, that it is God Himself who announces
these things. Why should it not be a prophet? Filled with the Spirit and unable
to contain himself, he brings forth a word about his prophecy concerning Christ:
"My heart hath belched forth a good word, I speak my works to the King, my pen
is the tongue of a ready writer. Excellent in beauty is He beyond the sons of
men." Then to the Christ Himself: "Grace is poured out on Thy lips." If the
Father were the speaker, how could He go on after the words, "Grace is poured
out on thy lips," to say, "Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever," and a
little further on, "Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows." Some of those who wish to make the Father the
speaker may appeal to the words, "Hear, O daughter, and behold and incline thine
ear, and forget thy people and thy father." The prophet, it may be said, could
not address the Church in the words, "Hear, O daughter." It is not difficult,
however, to show that changes of person occur frequently in the Psalms, so that
these words, "Hear, O daughter," might be from the Father, in this passage,
though the Psalm as a whole is not. To our discussion of the Word we may here
add the passage,195 "By the word of the Lord were the heavens rounded, and all
the power of them by the breath of His mouth." Some refer this to the Saviour
and the Holy Spirit. The passage, however, does not necessarily imply any more
than that the heavens were founded by the reason (logos) of God, as when we say
that a house is built by the plan (logos) of the architect, or a ship by the
plan (logos) of the shipbuilder. In the same way the heavens were founded (made
solid) by the Word of God, for they are196 of a more divine substance, which on
this account is called solid;197 it has little fluidity for the most part, nor
is it easily melted like other parts of the world, and specially the lower
parts. On account of this difference the heavens are said in a special manner to
be constituted by the Word of God. The saying then stands, first, "In the
beginning was the Logos; "we are to place that full in our view; but the
testimonies we cited from the Proverbs led us to place wisdom first, and to
think of wisdom as preceding the Word which announces her. We must observe,
then, that the Logos is in the beginning, that is, in wisdom, always. Its being
in wisdom, which is called the beginning, does not prevent it from being with
God and from being God, and it is not simply with God, but is in the beginning,
in wisdom, with God. For he goes on: "He was in the beginning with God." He
might have said, "He was with God; "but as He was in the beginning, so He was
with God in the beginning, and "All things were made by Him," being in the
beginning, for God made nil things, as David tells us, in wisdom. And to let us
understand that the Word has His own definite place and sphere as one who has
life in Himself (and is a distinct person), we must also speak about powers, not
about power. "Thus saith the Lord of powers, (A.V. hosts)" we frequently read;
there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers: anti
of these Christ was the highest and best. and is called not only the wisdom of
God but also His power. As, then, there are several powers of God, each of them
in its own form, and the Saviour is different from these, so also Christ, even
if that which is Logos in us is not in respect of form outside of us, will be
understood from our discussion up to this point to be the Logos, who has His
being in the beginning, in wisdom. This for the present may suffice, on the
word: "In the beginning was the Logos."

1: Rom. ii. 29.

2: Apoc. vii. 2-5.

3: Apoc. xiv. 1-5.

4: Apoc. vii. 3, 4.

5: 1Cor. ii. 14.

6: Reading with Neander and Lommatzsch (note) diaferon ti for diaferontej .

7: Heb. iv. 14.

8: Ps. cx. 4; Heb v. 6. Cf. vii. 11.

9: aparxh , Exod. xxii. 29.

10: prwtogennhma , Exod. xxiii. 16.

11: This passage is difficult and disputed.

12: 2 Cor. vi. 18.

13: 2 Tim. iii. 16.

14: 1 Cor. vii. 12.

15: 1 Cor. vii. 17.

16: 2 Tim. iii. 11.

17: John i. 29.

18: Ephes. iv. 11.

19: John ix. 1.

20: John xi. 39.

21: Matt. xxiii. 8,9.

22: oxekakeus, Ephes. iv. 11.

23: 2 Cor. v. 19.

24: John i. 29.

25: Ambrosius.

26: Matt. i. 1.

27: John xix. 26.

28: Gal ii. 20.

29: 1 Cor. ii. 12, 16.

30: Rom. ii. 16

31: Col. i. 15.

32: Matt. xi. 3.

33: John iv. 25.

34: Luke xxiv. 18-21.

35: Nazarhnou .

36: John i. 42.

37: John i. 46.

38: Text defective here. The words as they stand would yield the sense, "the
formula, little and yet all."

39: 1 Cor. x. 11.

40: guwsij .

41: John xi. 25.

42: Ps. lxvii. 11,12.

43: 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20 (with a peculiar reading).

44: 1 Cor. ii. 4.

45: Luke xxiv. 32.

46: Isa. iii. 7; Rom. x. 15.

47: John xiv. 6.

48: John xi. 25

49: John x. 9.

50: Prov. viii 22 51: Rom. vi. 10.

52: 1 Cor. i. 30.

53: Col i. 19; ii. 9.

54: John xxi. 25.

55: Isa. lii. 6.

56: Isa. xl. 9.

57: Matt. v. 45.

58: Luke iv. 18 sq.

59: Matt. xxvi. 6-13, combined with Luke vii. 36-50.

60: Matt. xxv. 40.

61: John xix. 6, 15.

62: Acts ix. 4, 5.

63: Luke viii, 14.

64: Ps. civ. 4.

65: Luke ii. 10, 11.

66: Origen, however, appears also to have read eudokiaj as: "among men of good
will."

67: Mark i. 1.

68: Rom. ii. 16.

69: i. 2,3.

70: Gen. i. 1.

71: Job xi. 19.

72: Job iii. 8.

73: Rom. viii. 22, 20 74: The text is defective here.

75: Phil. i. 23.

76: viii. 22.

77: 2 Macc. vii, 28.

78: Herm. Sim. viii.

79: We must here reproduce the Greek word, as Origen passes to meanings of it
which the English "beginning" does not cover.

80: Coloss. i. 15.

81: Heb. v. 12.

82: 1 Cor. xv. 45.

83: Ps. cxlviii. 5.

84: Prov. viii. 22.

85: John i. 3, 4.

86: John xiv. 6.

87: Opp. to embodied.

88: Mr. Brooke, T. & S. I. iv. p. 15, discusses this corrupt passage and
suggests an improved text which would yield the sense, that wisdom was to give
to things and matter, " it might be rash to say bluntly their essences, but
their moulding and their forms."

89: Apoc. xxii. 13.

90: Rom. iii. 25.

91: Passage obscure and probably corrupt.

92: John xiii. 13.

93: John x. 36.

94: John xvii, 1.

95: John xviii. 33, 36.

96: John xv. 1, 5.

97: John vi. 35, 41, 33.

98: Apoc. i. 18.

99: Apoc. xxii. 13.

100: Isa. xlix. 2.

101: Isa. xlii. 1, etc.

102: Isa. xlix. 6.

103: Isa. xlix. 1, 2, 3.

104: Jerem. xi. 19.

105: John i. 29.

106: John i. 30, 31.

107: 1 John ii. 1, ilasmoj 108: Rom. iii. 25, 26, ilasthrion 109: 1 Cor, i. 24,
30.

110: Heb. iv. 14.

111: Gen. xlix. 10.

112: Isa. xlii. 1-4.

113: Matt. xii. 17, 19.

114: Ezek. xxxiv. 23.

115: Isa. xi. 1-3.

116: Ps, cxviii. 22, 23.

117: Matt. xxi. 42, 44.

118: Acts iv. 11.

119: Ps. xlv. 1.

120: John i. 3-5.

121: John i, 9.

122: Isa. xlix. 6.

123: John ix. 4, 5.

124: Matt. v. 14, 16.

125: 1 Cor. iv. 9.

126: Rom viii. 24, 19.

127: John xvii. 21.

128: John xii. 26.

129: Rom. v. 3-5.

130: Rom. viii, 20.

131: Text corrupt. The above seems to be the meaning. Cf. chap. 23 init. p. 306.

132: Rom. vi. 4.

133: 2 Cor. iv. 10.

134: Matt. x. 10.

135: Prov. xxx. 19.

136: Ps. xxxvi. 6.

137: Jer. xxxi. 27.

138: Ps. xlv. 8.

139: Ps. lxxii. 1, 2.

140: Ephes. ii 14.

141: Rom. viii. 15.

142: John xv. 15; qelei for potei .

143: John xiii. 13.

144: John xv. 15.

145: Luke xxii. 28.

146: i. 6.

147: Mark i. 11; Ps. ii. 7; Heb. i. 5.

148: Ps. civ. 15.

149: Gen. xliii. 34.

150: Ps. cxxxvi. 2.

151: Ps. l. 1.

152: Matt. xx. 2.

153: 1 Cor. viii. 5.

154: Ephes. i. 21.

155: Exod. iii. 2, 6.

156: Isa. ix. 6.

157: Ps. lxxxviii. 4, 5.

158: Apoc. i. 17, 18.

159: 2 Cor. iv. 10.

160: Isa. xlix. 3.

161: Heb. iv. 12.

162: Song ii. 5.

163: Isa. xlix. 3,6.

164: Philipp. ii. 6,8.

165: Isa. xlix. 5, 6.

166: John i. 29.

167: 1 Cor. v. 28.

168: John 2:1, 2.

169: ilasmoj .

170: ilasthrion , Rom. iii. 25.

171: Philipp. iv. 13.

172: Prov. viii. 22.

173: Ps. civ. 24.

174: Heb. ii. 11.

175: John vii. 18.

176: Apoc. xvi. 5, 7.

177: John v. 27.

178: Heb. ii. 9.

179: xwrij for xariti , a widely diffused early variant.

180: Job xxv. 5.

181: Rom. ii. 29.

182: Isa. xi. 1.

183: Ps. lxxxix. 32, 33.

184: Ps. cxviii. 22.

185: It is impossible to render by any one English word the Greek logoj as used
by Origen in the following discussion. We shall therefore in many passages leave
it untranslated.

186: Rom. x. 6 8.

187: John xv. 22.

188: John x. 8.

189: Matt. xi. 27.

190: Isa. ix. 5, 6.

191: xix. 11.

192: Ps. xxxiii. 17.

193: Ps. xx. 7.

194: Ps. xlv. 1.

195: Ps. xxxiii. 6.

196: Reading tugxanomtaj .

197: stereoj , of which the sterewma , firmament, is made.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 10
========================================================================

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X 1. Jesus Comes to Capernaum. Statements of the Four
Evangelists Regarding This.

"After this [John 2:12-25] He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His
brothers and His disciples; and there they abode not many days. And the passover
of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and He found in the
temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money
sitting, and He made a sort of scourge of cords, and cast them all out of the
temple, and the sheep and the oxen, and He poured out the small money of the
changers and overthrew their tables, and to those that sold the doves He said,
Take these things hence; make not My Father's house a house of merchandize. Then
His disciples remembered that it was written, that the zeal of your house shall
eat me up. The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, What sign showest Thou
unto us, that You do such things? Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore answered,
Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three
days? But He spoke of the temple of His body. When therefore He rose from the
dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the
Scripture and the word which Jesus said. Now when He was at Jerusalem at the
passover at the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He
did. But Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them, for that He knew all men,
and because He had no need that any should bear witness concerning man. For He
Himself knew what was in man." The numbers which are recorded in the book of
that name obtained a place in Scripture in accordance with some principle which
determines their proportion to each thing. We ought therefore to enquire whether
the book of Moses which is called Numbers teaches us, should we be able to trace
it out, in some special way, the principle with regard to this matter. This
remark I make to you at the outset of my tenth book, for in many passages of
Scripture I have observed the number ten to have a peculiar privilege, and you
may consider carefully whether the hope is justified that this volume will bring
you from God some special benefit. That this may prove to be the case, we will
seek to yield ourselves as fully as we can to God, who loves to bestow His
choicest gifts. The book begins at the words: "After this He went down to
Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples, and there they
abode not many days." The other three Evangelists say that the Lord, after His
conflict with the devil, departed into Galilee. Matthew and Luke represent that
he was first at Nazara, and then left them and came and dwelt in Capernaum.
Matthew and Mark also state a certain reason why He departed there, namely, that
He had heard that John was cast into prison. The words are as follows: Matthew
says, "Then the devil leaves Him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto
Him. But when He heard that John was delivered up, He departed into Galilee, and
leaving Nazareth He came and dwelt at Capernaum on the seashore in the borders
of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah
the prophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali;" and after
the quotation from Isaiah: "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say,
Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mark has the following: "And
He was in the desert forty days and forty nights tempted by Satan, and He was
with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto Him. But after John was
delivered up Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, that the time
is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe in the
Gospel." Then after the narrative about Andrew and Peter and James and John,
Mark writes: "And He entered into Capernaum, and straightway on the Sabbath He
was teaching in the synagogue." Luke has, "And having finished the temptation
the devil departed from Him for a season. And Jesus returned in the power of the
Spirit into Galilee, and a fame went out concerning Him into all the region
round about, and He taught in their synagogues being glorified of all. And He
came to Nazara, where He had been brought up, and He entered as His custom was
into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." Then Luke gives what He said at Nazara,
and how those in the synagogue were enraged at Him and cast Him out of the city
and brought Him to the brow of the hill on which their cities were built, to
cast Him down headlong, and how going through the midst of them the Lord went
His way; and with this he connects the statement, "And He came down to
Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath day."

2. The Discrepancy Between John and the First Three Gospels at This Part of the
Narrative, Literally Read, the Narratives Cannot Be Harmonized: They Must Be
Interpreted Spiritually. The truth of these matters must lie in that which is
seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must
give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit,
or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong
to these works. Those who accept the four Gospels, and who do not consider that
their apparent discrepancy is to be solved anagogically (by mystical
interpretation), will have to clear up the difficulty, raised above, about the
forty days of the temptation, a period for which no room can be found in any way
in John's narrative; and they will also have to tell us when it was that the
Lord came to Capernaum. If it was after the six days of the period of His
baptism, the sixth being that of the marriage at Cana of Galilee, then it is
clear that the temptation never took place, and that He never was at Nazara, and
that John was not yet delivered up. Now, after Capernaum, where He abode not
many days, the passover of the Jews was at hand, and He went up to Jerusalem,
where He cast the sheep and oxen out of the temple, and poured out the small
change of the bankers. In Jerusalem, too, it appears that Nicodemus, the ruler
and Pharisee, first came to Him by night, and heard what we may read in the
Gospel. "After these things, [John 3:23-26] Jesus came, and His disciples, into
the land of Judæa, and there He tarried with them and baptized, at the same time
at which John also was baptizing in Ænon near Salim, because there were many
waters there, and they came and were baptized; for John was not yet cast into
prison." On this occasion, too, there was a questioning on the part of John's
disciples with the Jews about purification, and they came to John, saying of the
Saviour, "Behold, He baptizes, and all come to Him." They had heard words from
the Baptist, the exact tenor of which it is better to take from Scripture
itself. Now, if we ask when Christ was first in Capernaum, our respondents, if
they follow the words of Matthew, and of the other two, will say, After the
temptation, when, "leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea."
But how can they show both the statements to be true, that of Matthew and Mark,
that it was because He heard that John was delivered up that He departed into
Galilee, and that of John, found there, after a number of other transactions,
subsequent to His stay at Capernaum, after His going to Jerusalem, and His
journey from there to Judæa, that John was not yet cast into prison, but was
baptizing in Ænon near Salim? There are many other points on which the careful
student of the Gospels will find that their narratives do not agree; and these
we shall place before the reader, according to our power, as they occur. The
student, staggered at the consideration of these things, will either renounce
the attempt to find all the Gospels true, and not venturing to conclude that all
our information about our Lord is untrustworthy, will choose at random one of
them to be his guide; or he will accept the four, and will consider that their
truth is not to be sought for in the outward and material letter.

3. What We are to Think of the Discrepancies Between the Different Gospels.

We must, however, try to obtain some notion of the intention of the Evangelists
in such matters, and we direct ourselves to this. Suppose there are several men
who, by the spirit, see God, and know His words addressed to His saints, and His
presence which He vouchsafes to them, appearing to them at chosen times for
their advancement. There are several such men, and they are in different places,
and the benefits they receive from above vary in shape and character. And let
these men report, each of them separately, what he sees in spirit about God and
His words, and His appearances to His saints, so that one of them speaks of
God's appearances and words and acts to one righteous man in such a place, and
another about other oracles and great works of the Lord, and a third of
something else than what the former two have dealt with. And let there be a
fourth, doing with regard to some particular matter something of the same kind
as these three. And let the four agree with each other about something the
Spirit has suggested to them all, and let them also make brief reports of other
matters besides that one; then their narratives will fall out something on this
wise: God appeared to such a one at such a time and in such a place, and did to
him thus and thus; as if He had appeared to him in such a form, and had led him
by the hand to such a place, and then done to him thus and thus. The second will
report that God appeared at the very time of the foresaid occurrences, in a
certain town, to a person who is named, a second person, and in a place far
removed from that of the former account, and he will report a different set of
words spoken at the same time to this second person. And let the same be
supposed to be the case with the third and with the fourth. And let them, as we
said, agree, these witnesses who report true things about God, and about His
benefits conferred on certain men, let them agree with each other in some of the
narratives they report. He, then, who takes the writings of these men for
history, or for a representation of real things by a historical image, and who
supposes God to be within certain limits in space, and to be unable to present
to several persons in different places several visions of Himself at the same
time, or to be making several speeches at the same moment, he will deem it
impossible that our four writers are all speaking truth. To him it is impossible
that God, who is in certain limits in space, could at the same set time be
saying one thing to one man and another to another, and that He should be doing
a thing and the opposite thing as well, and, to put it bluntly, that He should
be both sitting and standing, should one of the writers represent Him as
standing at the time, and making a certain speech in such a place to such a man,
while a second writer speaks of Him as sitting.

4. Scripture Contains Many Contradictions, and Many Statements Which are Not
Literally True, But Must Be Read Spiritually and Mystically. In the case I have
supposed where the historians desire to teach us by an image what they have seen
in their mind, their meaning would be found, if the four were wise, to exhibit
no disagreement; and we must understand that with the four Evangelists it is not
otherwise. They made full use for their purpose of things done by Jesus in the
exercise of His wonderful and extraordinary power; they use in the same way His
sayings, and in some places they tack on to their writing, with language
apparently implying things of sense, things made manifest to them in a purely
intellectual way. I do not condemn them if they even sometimes dealt freely with
things which to the eye of history happened differently, and changed them so as
to subserve the mystical aims they had in view; so as to speak of a thing which
happened in a certain place, as if it had happened in another, or of what took
place at a certain time, as if it had taken place at another time, and to
introduce into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own. They
proposed to speak the truth where it was possible both materially and
spiritually, and where this was not possible it was their intention to prefer
the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth was often preserved, as one
might say, in the material falsehood. As, for example, we might judge of the
story of Jacob and Esau. [Genesis xxvii] Jacob says to Isaac, "I am Esau your
firstborn son," and spiritually he spoke the truth, for he already partook of
the rights of the first-born, which were perishing in his brother, and clothing
himself with the goatskins he assumed the outward semblance of Esau, and was
Esau all but the voice praising God, so that Esau might afterward find a place
to receive a blessing. For if Jacob had not been blessed as Esau, neither would
Esau perhaps have been able to receive a blessing of his own. And Jesus too is
many things, according to the conceptions of Him, of which it is quite likely
that the Evangelists took up different notions; while yet they were in agreement
with each other in the different things they wrote. Statements which are
verbally contrary to each other, are made about our Lord, namely, that He was
descended from David and that He was not descended from David. The statement is
true, "He was descended from David," as the Apostle says, [Romans 1:3] "born of
the seed of David according to the flesh," if we apply this to the bodily part
of Him; but the self-same statement is untrue if we understand His being born of
the seed of David of His diviner power; for He was declared to be the Son of God
with power. And for this reason too, perhaps, the sacred prophecies speak of Him
now as a servant, and now as a Son. They call Him a servant on account of the
form of a servant which he wore, and because He was of the seed of David, but
they call Him the Son of God according to His character as first-born. Thus it
is true to call Him man and to call Him not man; man, because He was capable of
death; not man, on account of His being diviner than man. Marcion, I suppose,
took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary, and
declared that as to His divine nature He was not born of Mary, and hence made
bold to delete from the Gospel the passages which have this effect. And a like
fate seems to have overtaken those who make away with His humanity and receive
His deity alone; and also those opposites of these who cancel His deity and
confess Him as a man to be a holy man, and the most righteous of all men. And
those who hold the doctrine of Dokesis, not remembering that He humbled Himself
even unto death [Philippians 2:8] and became obedient even to the cross, but
only imagining in Him the absence of suffering, the superiority to all such
accidents, they do what they can to deprive us of the man who is more just than
all men, and are left with a figure which cannot save them, for as by one man
came death, so also by one man is the justification of life. We could not have
received such benefit as we have from the Logos had He not assumed the man, had
He remained such as He was from the beginning with God the Father, and had He
not taken up man, the first man of all, the man more precious than all others,
purer than all others and capable of receiving Him. But after that man we also
shall be able to receive Him, to receive Him so great and of such nature as He
was, if we prepare a place in proportion to Him in our soul. So much I have said
of the apparent discrepancies in the Gospels, and of my desire to have them
treated in the way of spiritual interpretation.

5. Paul Also Makes Contradictory Statements About Himself, and Acts in Opposite
Ways at Different Times. On the same passage one may also make use of such an
example as that of Paul, who at one place [Romans 7:14] says that he is carnal,
sold under sin, and thus was not able to judge anything, while in another place
he is the spiritual man who is able to judge all things and himself to be judged
by no man. Of the carnal one are the words, "Not what I would that do I
practise, but what I hate that do I." And he too who was caught up to the third
heaven and heard unspeakable words is a different Paul from him who says, Of
such an one I will glory, but of myself I will not glory. If he becomes [1
Corinthians 9:20-22] to the Jews as a Jew that he may gain the Jews, and to
those under the law as under the law that he may gain those under the law, and
to them that are without law as without law, not being without law to God, but
under law to Christ, that he may gain those without law, and if to the weak he
becomes weak that he may gain the weak, it is clear that these statements must
be examined each by itself, that he becomes a Jew, and that sometimes he is
under the law and at another time without law, and that sometimes he is weak.
Where, for example, he says something by way of permission [1 Corinthians 7:6]
and not by commandment, there we may recognize that he is weak; for who, he
says, [2 Corinthians 11:29] is weak, and I am not weak? When he shaves his head
and makes an offering, or when he circumcises Timothy, [Acts 16:3] he is a Jew;
but when he says to the Athenians, [Acts 17:23] "I found an altar with the
inscription, To the unknown God. That, then, which you worship not knowing it,
that declare I unto you," and, "As also some of your own poets have said, For we
also are His offspring," then he becomes to those without the law as without the
law, adjuring the least religious of men to espouse religion, and turning to his
own purpose the saying of the poet, "From Love do we begin; his race are we."
And instances might perhaps be found where, to men not Jews and yet under the
law, he is under the law.

6. Different Accounts of the Call of Peter, and of the Imprisonment of the
Baptist. The Meaning of "Capernaum."

These examples may be serviceable to illustrate statements not only about the
Saviour, but about the disciples too, for here also there is some discrepancy of
statement. For there is a difference in thought perhaps between Simon who is
found by his own brother Andrew, and who is addressed "You shall be called
Cephas," [John 1:41] and him who is seen by Jesus when walking by the sea of
Galilee, along with his brother, and addressed conjointly with that brother,
"Come after Me, and I will make you fishers of men." There was some fitness in
the fact that the writer who goes more to the root of the matter and tells of
the Word becoming flesh, and hence does not record the human generation of the
Word who was in the beginning with God, should not tell us of Simon's being
found at the seashore and called away from there, but of his being found by his
brother who had been staying with Jesus at the tenth hour, and of his receiving
the name Cephas in connection with his being thus found out. If he was seen by
Jesus when walking by the sea of Galilee, it would scarcely be on a later
occasion that he was addressed, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build
My church." With John again the Pharisees know Jesus to be baptizing with His
disciples, adding this to His other great activities; but the Jesus of the three
does not baptize at all. John the Baptist, too, with the Evangelist of the same
name, goes on a long time without being cast into prison. With Matthew, on the
contrary, he is put in prison almost at the time of the temptation of Jesus, and
this is the occasion of Jesus retiring to Galilee, to avoid being put in prison.
But in John there is nothing at all about John's being put in prison. Who is so
wise and so able as to learn all the things that are recorded about Jesus in the
four Evangelists, and both to understand each incident by itself, and have a
connected view of all His sojournings and words and acts at each place? As for
the passage presently before us, it gives in the order of events that on the
sixth day the Saviour, after the business of the marriage at Cana of Galilee,
went down with His mother and His brothers and His disciples to Capernaum, which
means "field of consolation." For after the feasting and the wine it was fitting
that the Saviour should come to the field of consolation with His mother and His
disciples, to console those whom He was training for disciples and the soul
which had conceived Him by the Holy Ghost, with the fruits which were to stand
in that full field.

7. Why His Brothers are Not Called to the Wedding; And Why He Abides at
Capernaum Not Many Days. But we must ask why His brothers are not called to the
wedding: they were not there, for it is not said they were; but they go down to
Capernaum with Him and His mother and His disciples. We must also examine why on
this occasion they do not " go in to" Capernaum, nor " go up to," but "go down
to" it. Consider if we must not understand by His brothers here the powers which
went down along with Him, not called to the wedding according to the
explanations given above, since it is in lower and humbler places than those who
are called disciples of Christ, and in another way, that these brothers receive
assistance. For if His mother is called, then there are some bearing fruit, and
even to these the Lord goes down with the servants and disciples of the Word, to
help such persons, His mother also being with Him. Those indeed who are called
Capernaum appear not to be able to allow Jesus and those who went down with Him
to make a longer stay with them: hence they remain with them not many days. For
the lower field of consolation does not admit the illumination of many
doctrines, but is only capable of a few. To get a clear view of the difference
between those who receive Jesus for longer and for shorter time, we may compare
with this, "They abode there not many days," the words recorded in Matthew as
spoken by Christ when risen from the dead to His disciples who were being sent
out to teach all nations, "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the
world." To those who are to know all that human nature can know while it still
is here, is said with emphasis, "I am with you;" and as the rise of each new day
upon the field of contemplation brings more days before the eyes of the blessed,
therefore He says, "All the days till the end of the world." As for those in
Capernaum, on the contrary, to whom they go down as to the more needy, not only
Jesus, but also His mother and His brothers and His disciples "abode there not
many days."

8. How Christ Abides with Believers to the End of the Age, and Whether He Abides
with Them After that Consummation.

Some may very likely and not unreasonably ask, whether, when all the days of
this age are over, there will no longer be any one to say, "Lo, I am with you,"
with those, namely, who received Him till the fulfilment of the age, for the
"until" seems to indicate a certain limit of time. To this we must say that the
phrase, "I am with you," is not the same as "I am in you." We might say more
properly that the Saviour was not in His disciples but with them, so long as
they had not arrived in their minds at the consummation of the age. But when
they see to be at hand, as far as their effort is concerned, the consummation of
the world which is crucified to them, then Jesus will be no longer with them,
but in them, and they will say, "It is no longer I that live but Christ that
lives in me," [Galatians 2:20] and "If you seek a proof of Christ that speaks in
me." [2 Corinthians 13:3] In saying this we are keeping for our part also to the
ordinary interpretation which makes the "always" the time down to the
consummation of the age, and are not asking more than is attainable to human
nature as it is here. That interpretation may be adhered to and justice yet be
done to the "I." He who is with His disciples who are sent out to teach all the
nations, until the consummation, may be He who emptied Himself and took the form
of a servant, and yet afterwards may be another in point of state; afterwards He
may be such as He was before He emptied Himself, until all His enemies are made
by His Father the footstool of His feet; and after this, when the Son has
delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, it may be the Father who says to
them, "Behold, I am with you." But whether it is "all the days" up to that time,
or simply "all the days," or not "all days" but "every day," any one may
consider that likes. Our plan does not allow us at present to digress so far.

9. Heracleon Says that Jesus is Not Stated to Have Done Anything at Capernaum.
But in the Other Gospels He Does Many Things There. But Heracleon, dealing with
the words, "After this He went down to Capernaum," declares that they indicate
the introduction of another transaction, and that the word "went down" is not
without significance. "Capernaum," he says, "means these farthest-out parts of
the world, these districts of matter, into which He descended, and because the
place was not suitable, he says, He is not reported either to have done anything
or said anything in it." Now if the Lord had not been reported in the other
Gospels either as having done or said anything at Capernaum, we might perhaps
have hesitated whether this view ought or ought not to be received. But that is
far from being the case. Matthew says our Lord left Nazareth and came and dwelt
at Capernaum on the seaside, and that from that time He began to preach, saying,
"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And Mark, starting in his
narrative from the temptation by the devil, relates that after John was cast
into prison, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the Gospel of God, and after
the call of the four fishermen to the Apostleship, "they enter into Capernaum;
and straightway on the Sabbath day He taught in the synagogue, and they were
astonished at His doctrine." And Mark records an action of Jesus also which took
place at Capernaum, for he goes on to say, "In their synagogue there was a man
with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, Ah! What have we to do with
You, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? We know You who You
are, the Son of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold your peace and come out
of him; and the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came
out of him. And they were all amazed." And at Capernaum Simon's mother-in-law is
cured of her fever. And Mark adds that when evening had come all those were
cured who were sick and who were possessed with demons. Luke's report is very
like Mark's about Capernaum. He says, "And He came to Capernaum, a city of
Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath day, and they were astonished
at His teachings, for His word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a
man having a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, Ah!
What have we to do with You, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy
us? I know You who You are, the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying,
Hold your peace and come out of him. Then the demon having thrown him down in
the midst, went out of him, doing him no harm." And then Luke reports how the
Lord rose up from the synagogue and went into the house of Simon, and rebuked
the fever in his mother-in-law, and cured her of her disease; and after this
cure, "when the sun was setting," he says, "all, as many as had persons sick
with various diseases, brought them to Him, and He laid his hands on each one of
them and cured them. And demons also went out from many, crying and saying, You
are the Son of God, and He rebuked them and suffered them not to speak because
they knew that He was the Christ." We have presented all these statements as to
the Saviour's sayings and doings at Capernaum in order to refute Heracleon's
interpretation of our passage, "Hence He is not said to have done or to have
spoken anything there." He must either give two meanings to Capernaum, and show
us his reasons for them, or if he cannot do this he must give up saying that the
Saviour visited any place to no purpose. We, for our part, should we come to
passages where even a comparison of the other Gospels fails to show that Jesus'
visit to this place or that was not accompanied by any results, will seek with
the divine assistance to make it clear that His coming was not in vain.

10. Significance of Capernaum.

Matthew for his part adds, that when the Lord had entered into Capernaum the
centurion came to him, saying, "My boy is lying in my house sick of the palsy,
grievously tormented," and after telling the Lord some more about him, received
the reply, "Go, and as you have believed, so be it unto you." And Matthew then
gives us the story of Peter's mother-in-law, in close agreement with the other
two. I conceive it to be a creditable piece of work and becoming to one who is
anxious to hear about Christ, to collect from the four Gospels all that is
related about Capernaum, and the discourses spoken, and the works done there,
and how many visits the Lord paid to the place, and how, at one time, He is said
to have gone down to it, and at another to have entered into it, and where He
came from when He did so. If we compare all these points together, we shall not
go astray in the meaning we ascribe to Capernaum. On the one hand, the sick are
healed, and other works of power are done there, and on the other, the
preaching, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, begins there, and
this appears to be a sign, as we showed when entering on this subject, of some
more needy place of consolation, made so perhaps by Jesus, who comforted men by
what He taught and by what He did there, in that place of consolation. For we
know that the names of places agree in their meaning with the things connected
with Jesus; as Gergesa, where the citizens of these parts besought Him to depart
out of their coasts, means, "The dwelling of the casters-out." And this, also,
we have noticed about Capernaum, that not only did the preaching, "Repent ye,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," begin there, but that according to the
three Evangelists Jesus performed there His first miracles. None of the three,
however, added to the first wonders which he records as done in Capernaum, that
note attached by John the disciple to the first work of Jesus, "This beginning
of His signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." For that which was done in Capernaum
was not the beginning of the signs, since the leading sign of the Son of God was
good cheer, and in the light of human experience it is also the most
representative of Him. For the Word of God does not show forth His own beauty so
much in healing the sick, as in His tendering the temperate draught to make glad
those who are in good health and are able to join in the banquet.

11. Why the Passover is Said to Be that of the "Jews." Its Institution: and the
Distinction Between "Feasts of the Lord" And Feasts Not So Spoken of.

"And the passover of the Jews was at hand." [John 2:13] Inquiring into the
accuracy of the most wise John (on this passage), I put myself the question,
What is indicated by the addition "of the Jews"? Of what other nation was the
passover a festival? Would it not have been enough to say, "And the passover was
at hand"? It may, however, be the case that the human passover is one thing when
kept by men not as Scripture intended, and that the divine passover is another
thing, the true passover, observed in spirit and truth by those who worship God
in spirit and in truth; and then the distinction indicated in the text may be
that between the divine passover and that said to be of the Jews. We should
attend to the passover law and observe what the Lord says of it when it is first
mentioned in Scripture. [Exodus 12:1-3] "And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron
in the land of Egypt, saying, This month is to you the beginning of months, it
is the first for you among the months of the year. Speak to all the congregation
of the children of Israel, saying, On the tenth of this month shall every man
take a sheep, according to the houses of your families;" then after some
directions in which the word passover does not occur again, he adds, "Thus shall
you eat it, your loins girt and your shoes on your feet, and your staves in your
hands, and you shall eat it with haste. It is the passover of the Lord." He does
not say, "It is your passover." And a little further on He names the festival
again in the same way, "And it shall come to pass, when your sons say to you,
What is this service? And you shall say to them, It is the sacrifice, the
passover of the Lord, how He guarded the houses of the children of Israel." And
again, a little further on, "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, This
is the law of the passover. No alien shall eat of it." And again in a little,
"But if a proselyte come to you, and keep the passover of the Lord, every male
of him shall be circumcised." Observe that in the law we never find it said,
"Your passover;" but in all the passages quoted the phrase occurs once without
any adjunct, while we have three times "The passover of the Lord." To make sure
that there is such a distinction between the passover of the Lord and the
passover of the Jews, we may consider the way in which Isaiah speaks of the
matter: [Isaiah 1:13] "Your new moons and your Sabbaths and your great day I
cannot bear; your fast and your holiday and your new moons and your feasts my
soul hates." The Lord does not call them His own, these observances of sinners
(they are hated of His soul, if such there be); neither the new moons, nor the
Sabbaths, nor the great day, nor the fast, nor the festivals. And in the
legislation about the Sabbath in Exodus, we read, "And Moses said to them, This
is the word which the Lord spoke, The Sabbath is a holy rest unto the Lord." And
a little further on, "And Moses said, Eat ye; for today is a Sabbath unto the
Lord." And in Numbers, before the sacrifices which are offered at each festival,
as if all the festivals came under the law of the continuous and daily
sacrifice, we find it written, "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, Announce to the
children of Israel, and thus shall you say unto them, My gifts, My offerings, My
fruits for a smell of sweet savour, you shall observe to offer unto Me at My
festivals. And you shall say unto them, These are the offerings which you shall
offer unto the Lord." The festival set forth in Scripture He calls His own, not
those of the people receiving the law, He speaks of His gifts, His offerings. A
similar way of speaking is that in Exodus with regard to the people; it is said
by God to be His own people, when it does not sin; but in the section about the
calf He abjures it and calls it the people of Moses. [Exodus 8:21-23] On the one
hand, "You shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, Let My people go, that they
may serve Me in the wilderness. But if you will not let My people go, behold, I
will send against you and against your servants, and against your people and
against your houses, the dog-fly; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full
of the dog-fly, and on the land on which they are, against it will I send them.
And I will glorify on that day the land of Gesem, on which My people are; on it
there shall be no dog-fly, that you may know that I am the Lord, the Lord of all
the earth. And I will make a distinction between My people and your people." To
Moses, on the other hand, He says, [Exodus 32:7] "Go, descend quickly, for your
people has transgressed, which you led out of the land of Egypt." As, then, the
people when it does not sin is the people of God, but when it sins is no longer
spoken of as His, thus, also, the feasts when they are hated by the Lord's soul
are said to be feasts of sinners, but when the law is given regarding them, they
are called feasts of the Lord. Now of these feasts passover is one, which in the
passage before us is said to be that not of the Lord, but of the Jews. In
another passage, too, [Leviticus 23:2] we find it said, "These are the feasts of
the Lord, which you shall call chosen, holy." From the mouth of the Lord
Himself, then, we see that there is no gainsaying our statement on this point.
Some one, no doubt, will ask about the words of the Apostle, where he writes to
the Corinthians: [1 Corinthians 5:7] "For our Passover also was sacrificed for
us, namely, Christ;" he does not say, "The Passover of the Lord was sacrificed,
even Christ." To this we must say, either that the Apostle simply calls the
passover our passover because it was sacrificed for us, or that every sacrifice
which is really the Lord's, and the passover is one of these, awaits its
consummation not in this age nor upon earth, but in the coming age and in heaven
when the kingdom of heaven appears. As for those feasts, one of the twelve
prophets says, [Hosea 9:5] "What will you do in the days of assembly, and in the
days of the feast of the Lord?" But Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
"But you have come unto Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to ten thousands of angels, the assembly and church of
the firstborn, who are written in heaven." And in the Epistle to the Colossians:
"Let no one judge you in meat and in drink, or in respect of a feast-day or a
new moon, or a sabbath-day; which are a shadow of the things to come."

12. Of the Heavenly Festivals, of Which Those on Earth are Typical.

Now in what manner, in those heavenly things of which the shadow was present to
the Jews on earth, those will celebrate festivals who have first been trained by
tutors and governors under the true law, until the fullness of the time should
come, namely, above, when we shall be able to receive into ourselves the perfect
measure of the Son of God, this it is the work of that wisdom to make plain
which has been hidden in a mystery; and it also may show to our thought how the
laws about meats are symbols of those things which will there nourish and
strengthen our soul. But it is vain to think that one desiring to work out in
his fancy the great sea of such ideas, even if he wished to show how local
worship is still a pattern and shadow of heavenly things, and that the
sacrifices and the sheep are full of meaning, that he should advance further
than the Apostle, who seeks indeed to lift our minds above earthly views of the
law, but who does not show us to any extent how these things are to be. Even if
we look at the festivals, of which passover is one, from the point of view of
the age to come, we have still to ask how it is that our passover is now
sacrificed, namely, Christ, and not only so, but is to be sacrificed hereafter.

13. Spiritual Meaning of the Passover. A few points may be added in connection
with the doctrines now under consideration, though it would require a special
discussion in many volumes to treat of all the mystical statements about the
law, and specially of those connected with the festivals, and more particularly
still with the passover. The passover of the Jews consists of a sheep which is
sacrificed, each taking a sheep according to his father's house; and the
passover is accompanied by the slaughter of thousands of rams and goats, in
proportion to the number of the houses of the people. But our Passover is
sacrificed for us, namely, Christ. Another feature of the Jewish festival is
unleavened bread; all leaven is made to disappear out of their houses; but "we
keep the feast [1 Corinthians 5:8] not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven
of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Whether there be any passover and any feast of leaven beyond the two we have
mentioned, is a point we must examine more carefully, since these serve for a
pattern and a shadow of the heavenly ones we spoke of, and not only such things
as food and drink and new moons and sabbaths, but the festivals also, are a
shadow of the things to come. In the first place, when the Apostle says, "Our
passover is sacrificed, Christ," one may feel with regard to this such doubts as
these. If the sheep with the Jews is a type of the sacrifice of Christ, then one
should have been offered and not a multitude, as Christ is one; or if many sheep
were offered it is to follow out the type, as if many Christs were sacrificed.
But not to dwell on this, we may ask how the sheep, which was the victim,
contains an image of Christ, when the sheep was sacrificed by men who were
observing the law, but Christ was put to death by transgressors of the law, and
what application can be found in Christ of the direction, [Exodus 12:8] "They
shall eat the flesh this night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread on bitter
herbs shall they eat," and "Eat not of it raw, nor sodden with water, but roast
with fire; the head with the feet and the entrails; you shall not set any of it
apart till the morning, and a bone thereof you shall not break. But that which
is left thereof till the morning you shall burn." The sentence, "A bone of it
you shall not break," John appears to have made use of in his Gospel, as
applying to the transactions connected with Christ, and connecting with them the
occasion spoken of in the law when those eating the sheep are bidden not to
break a bone of it. He writes as follows: The soldiers therefore came and broke
the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him; but when
they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they broke not His legs,
but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and straightway there
came out blood and water. And he that has seen has borne witness and his witness
is true, and he knows that he says truth that you also may believe. And these
things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "A bone of Him you
shall not break." There are a myriad other points besides this in the Apostle's
language which would call for inquiry, both about the passover and the
unleavened bread, but they would have to be dealt with, as we said above, in a
special work of great length. At present we can only give an epitome of them as
they bear on the text presently before us, and aim at a short solution of the
principal problem. We call to mind the words, "This is the Lamb of God that
takes away the sin of the world," for it is said of the passover, [Exodus 12:5]
"You shall take it of the lambs or of the goats." The Evangelist here agrees
with Paul, and both are involved in the difficulties we spoke of above. But on
the other hand we have to say that if the Word became flesh, and the Lord says,
[John 6:53] "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood,
you have no life in you. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood, has eternal
life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed and
My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in
Me, and I in him,"— then the flesh thus spoken of is that of the Lamb that takes
away the sin of the world; and this is the blood, some of which was to be put on
the two side posts of the door, and on the lintels in the houses, in which we
eat the passover. Of the flesh of this Lamb it is necessary that we should eat
in the time of the world, which is night, and the flesh is to be roast with
fire, and eaten with unleavened bread; for the Word of God is not flesh and
flesh only. He says, in fact, Himself, [John 6:48-50] "I am the bread of life,"
and "This is the bread of life which came down from heaven, that a man should
eat of it, and not die. I am the bread of life that came down from heaven; if a
man eat of this bread, he shall live forever." We must not overlook, however,
that by a loose use of words, any food is called bread, as we read in Moses in
Deuteronomy, "Forty days He ate no bread and drank no water," instead of, He
took no food, either wet or dry. I am led to this observation by John's saying,
"And the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world." Again,
we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we
repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a
repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or
when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to
be those of truth, and are nourished by them. We are not, however, to eat the
flesh of the Lamb raw, as those do who are slaves of the letter, like irrational
animals, and those who are enraged at men truly reasonable, because they desire
to understand spiritual things; truly, they share the nature of savage beasts.
But we must strive to convert the rawness of Scripture into well-cooked food,
not letting what is written grow flabby and wet and thin, as those do who have
itching ears, [2 Timothy 4:3-4] and turn away their ears from the truth; their
methods tend to a loose and flabby conduct of life. But let us be of a fervent
spirit and keep hold of the fiery words given to us of God, such as Jeremiah
received from Him who spoke to him, [Jeremiah 5:14] "Behold, I have made My
words in your mouth like fire," and let us see that the flesh of the Lamb be
well cooked, so that those who partake of it may say, as Christ speaks in us,
"Our heart burned by the way, as He opened to us the Scriptures." [Luke 24:32]
Further, if it is our duty to enquire into such a point as the roasting of the
flesh of the Lamb with fire, we must not forget the parallel of what Jeremiah
suffered on account of the words of God, as he says: "And it was as a glowing
fire, burning in my bones, and I am without any strength, and I cannot bear it."
But, in this eating, we must begin at the head, that is to say, at the principal
and the most essential doctrines about heavenly things, and we must end at the
feet, the last branches of learning which enquire as to the final nature in
things, or about more material things, or about things under the earth, or about
wicked spirits and unclean demons. For it may be that the account of these
things is not obvious, like themselves, but is laid away among the mysteries of
Scripture, so that it may be called, tropically, the feet of the Lamb. Nor must
we fail to deal with the entrails, which are within and hidden from us; we must
approach the whole of Scripture as one body, we must not lacerate nor break
through the strong and well-knit connections which exist in the harmony of its
whole composition, as those do who lacerate, so far as they can, the unity of
the Spirit that is in all the Scriptures. But this aforesaid prophecy of the
Lamb is to be our nourishment only during the night of this dark life of ours;
what comes after this life is, as it were, the dawn of day, and why should we
leave over till then the food which can only be useful to us now? But when the
night is passed, and the day which succeeds it is at hand, then we shall have
bread to eat which has nothing to do with the leavened bread of the older and
lower state of things, but is unleavened, and that will serve our turn until
that which comes after the unleavened bread is given us, the manna, which is
food for angels rather than men. Every one of us, then, may sacrifice his lamb
in every house of our fathers; and while one breaks the law, not sacrificing the
lamb at all, another may keep the commandment entirely, offering his sacrifice,
and cooking it aright, and not breaking a bone of it. This, then, in brief, is
the interpretation of the Passover sacrificed for us, which is Christ, in
accordance with the view taken of it by the Apostles, and with the Lamb in the
Gospel. For we ought not to suppose that historical things are types of
historical things, and material things of material, but that material things are
typical of spiritual things, and historical things of intellectual. It is not
necessary that our discourse should now ascend to that third passover which is
to be celebrated with myriads of angels in the most perfect and most blessed
exodus; we have already spoken of these things to a greater extent than the
passage demands.

14. In the First Three Gospels the Passover is Spoken of Only at the Close of
the Ministry; In John at the Beginning. Remarks on This. Heracleon on the
Passover.

We must not, however, fail to enquire into the statement that the passover of
the Jews was at hand, when the Lord was at Capernaum with His mother and His
brothers and His disciples. In the Gospel according to Matthew, after being left
by the devil, and after the angels came and ministered to Him, when He heard
that John was delivered up He withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazara He came
and dwelt in Capernaum. Then He began to preach, and chose the four fishermen
for His Apostles, and taught in the synagogues of the whole of Galilee and
healed those who were brought to Him. Then He goes up into the mountain and
speaks the beatitudes and what follows them; and after finishing that
instruction He comes down from the mountain and enters Capernaum a second time.
[Matthew viii] Then He embarked in a ship and crossed over to the other side to
the country of the Gergesenes. On their beseeching Him to depart out of their
coasts He embarked in a ship and crossed over and came to His own city. Then He
wrought certain cures and went about all the cities and the villages, teaching
in their synagogues; after this most of the events of the Gospels take place,
before Matthew indicates the approach of the time of passover. With the other
Evangelists also, after the stay at Capernaum it is long till we come to any
mention of the passover; which may confirm in their opinion those who take the
view about Capernaum which was set forth above. That stay, in the neighbourhood
of the passover of the Jews, is set in a brighter light by that nearness, both
because it was better in itself, and still more because at the passover of the
Jews there are found in the temple those who sell oxen and sheep and doves. This
adds emphasis to the statement that the passover was not that of the Lord but
that of the Jews; the Father's house was made, in the eyes of those who did not
hallow it, a house of merchandise, and the passover of the Lord became for those
who took a low and material view of it a Jewish passover. A fitter occasion than
the present will occur for enquiring as to the time of the passover, which took
place about the spring equinox, and for any other enquiry which may arise in
connection with it. As for Heracleon, he says, "This is the great festival; for
it was a type of the passion of the Saviour; not only was the lamb put to death,
the eating of it afforded relaxation, the killing it pointed to what of the
passion of the Saviour was in this world, and the eating it to the rest at the
marriage." We have given his words, that it may be seen with what a want of
caution and how loosely he proceeds, and with what an absence of constructive
skill even on such a theme as this; and how little regard in consequence is to
be paid to him.

15. Discrepancy of the Gospel Narratives Connected with the Cleansing of the
Temple.

"And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. [John 2:13-17] And He found in the temple those
that sold oxen and sheep and doves and the changers of money sitting; and He
made a scourge of cords, and cast out of the temple the sheep and the oxen, and
poured out the small coin of the changers, and overturned their tables, and to
those who sold the doves He said, Take these things hence; make not My Father's
house a house of merchandise. Then His disciples remembered that it was written,
The zeal of your house shall eat me up." It is to be noted that John makes this
transaction of Jesus with those He found selling oxen and sheep and doves in the
temple His second work; while the other Evangelists narrate a similar incident
almost at the end and in connection with the story of the passion. Matthew has
it thus: [Matthew 21:10-13] "At Jesus' entry into Jerusalem the whole city was
stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is Jesus the
prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus went into the temple and cast out
all them that sold and bought in the temple, and He overturned the tables of the
money-changers and the seats of them that sold doves. And He says to them, It is
written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of
robbers." Mark has the following: "And they came to Jerusalem. And having
entered into the temple He began to cast out those that sold and bought in the
temple, and the tables of the money-changers He overthrew and the seats of them
that sold doves. And He suffered not that any should carry a vessel through the
temple; and He taught and said to them, Is it not written that My house shall be
called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a den of
robbers." And Luke: [Luke 19:41-42] "And when he came near, He beheld the city
and wept over it, saying that, if you had known in this day, even you, the
things that belong to peace; but now they are hid from your eyes. For the days
shall come upon you, when they shall surround you and shut you in on every side,
and shall dash you to the ground and your children, and they shall not leave in
you one stone upon another, because you knew not the time of your visitation.
And He entered into the temple and began to cast out those that sold, saying to
them, It is written, My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a
den of robbers." It is further to be observed that what is recorded by the three
as having taken place in connection with the Lord's going up to Jerusalem, when
He did these things in the temple, is narrated in a very similar manner by John
as taking place long after this, after another visit to Jerusalem different from
this one. We must consider the statements, and in the first place that of
Matthew, where we read: [Matthew 21:1] "When He drew near to Jerusalem and came
to Bethphage over against the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,
saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway you
shall find an ass tied and a colt with her; loose them and bring them to Me. And
if any man say unto you, What are you doing? You shall say, The Lord has need of
them, and straightway he will send them. But this was done that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Say ye to the daughter of
Zion, Behold, your king comes, meek and seated upon an ass and upon the colt of
an ass. And the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them; they brought the
ass and the foal, and they placed on them their garments, and He sat thereon.
And the most part of the multitude spread their garments on the road, but the
multitudes that went before Him, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna to the
Son of David, blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the
highest." After this comes, "And when He had entered into Jerusalem the whole
city was stirred," which we cited above. Then we have Mark's account: [Mark
11:1-12] "And when they drew near unto Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, to
the Mount of Olives, He sends two of His disciples and says to them, Go into the
village over against you. And straightway as you enter into it you shall find a
colt tied, on which no man has ever sat, loose it and bring it. And if any one
say to you, Why do ye this? Say, Because the Lord has need of him, and
straightway he will send him back hither. And they went and found the colt tied
at the door outside on the road, and they loose him. And some of them that stood
there said to them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said to them as Jesus
told them, and they let them go. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast on
it their garments. But others cut down branches from the field and spread them
in the way. And they that went before and they that followed cried, Hosanna,
blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord; blessed be the kingdom that
comes, of our father David! Hosanna in the highest! And He went into Jerusalem
to the temple, and looked round about on all things, and as it was already
evening, He went out to Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow when they had
come forth from Bethany He was hungry." Then, after the affair of the withered
fig tree, "They came to Jerusalem. And He went into the temple and began to cast
out them that sold." Luke narrates as follows: [Luke 19:29] "And it came to
pass, when He drew near to Bethphage and Bethany at the mount that is called the
Mount of Olives, He sent two of his disciples, saying, Go into the village over
against you, in which when you enter, you shall find a colt tied, on which no
man ever has sate; loose him and bring him. And if any man asks you, Why do ye
loose him? You shall say thus, The Lord has need of him. And the disciples went
and found as He said to them. And when they were loosing the colt its owners
said to them, Why loose ye the colt? and they said, Because the Lord has need of
him. And they brought him to Jesus, and they threw their garments on the colt,
and set Jesus thereon. And as He went, they strewed their garments in the way.
And when He was drawing near, being now at the descent of the Mount of Olives,
the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud
voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying, Blessed is the King
in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven and glory in the highest. And some of
the Pharisees from the multitude said to Him, Master, rebuke Your disciples. And
He answered and said, I say unto you, If these shall hold their peace, the
stones will cry out. And when He drew near He beheld the city and wept over it,"
and so on, as we cited above. John, on the contrary, after giving an account
nearly identical with this, as far as, "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and He
found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep," gives a second
account of an ascent of the Lord to Jerusalem, and then goes on to tell of the
supper in Bethany six days before the passover, at which Martha served and
Lazarus was at table. "On the morrow, [John 12:12-15] a great multitude that had
come to the feast, having heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took
branches of palm trees and went forth to meet Him; and they cried, Hosanna,
blessed be the King of Israel in the name of the Lord. And Jesus, having found a
young ass, sat thereon, as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold
your King comes, sitting on the foal of an ass." I have written out long
sections from the Gospels, but I have thought it necessary to do so, in order to
exhibit the discrepancy at this part of our Gospel. Three of the Gospels place
these incidents, which we supposed to be the same as those narrated by John, in
connection with one visit of the Lord to Jerusalem. While John, on the other
hand, places them in connection with two visits which are widely separated from
each other and between which were various journeys of the Lord to other places.
I conceive it to be impossible for those who admit nothing more than the history
in their interpretation to show that these discrepant statements are in harmony
with each other. If any one considers that we have not given a sound exposition,
let him write a reasoned rejoinder to this declaration of ours.

16. The Story of the Purging of the Temple Spiritualized. Taken Literally, It
Presents Some Very Difficult and Unlikely Features.

We shall, however, expound according to the strength that is given to us the
reasons which move us to recognize here a harmony; and in doing so we entreat
Him who gives to every one that asks and strives acutely to enquire, and we
knock that by the keys of higher knowledge the hidden things of Scripture may be
opened to us. And first, let us fix our attention on the words of John,
beginning, "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem." [John 2:13] Now Jerusalem, as the
Lord Himself teaches in the Gospel according to Matthew, [Matthew 5:35] "is the
city of the great King." It does not lie in a depression, or in a low situation,
but is built on a high mountain, and there are mountains round about it, and the
participation of it is to the same place, and there the tribes of the Lord went
up, a testimony for Israel. But that city also is called Jerusalem, to which
none of those upon the earth ascends, nor goes in; but every soul that possesses
by nature some elevation and some acuteness to perceive the things of the mind
is a citizen of that city. And it is possible even for a dweller in Jerusalem to
be in sin (for it is possible for even the acutest minds to sin), should they
not turn round quickly after their sin, when they have lost their power of mind
and are on the point not only of dwelling in one of those strange cities of
Judæa, but even of being inscribed as its citizens. Jesus goes up to Jerusalem,
after bringing help to those in Cana of Galilee, and then going down to
Capernaum, that He may do in Jerusalem the things which are written. He found in
the temple, certainly, which is said to be the house of the Father of the
Saviour, that is, in the church or in the preaching of the ecclesiastical and
sound word, some who were making His Father's house a house of merchandise. And
at all times Jesus finds some of this sort in the temple. For in that which is
called the church, which is the house of the living God, the pillar and ground
of the truth, [1 Timothy 3:15] when are there not some money-changers sitting
who need the strokes of the scourge Jesus made of small cords, and dealers in
small coin who require to have their money poured out and their tables
overturned? When are there not those who are inclined to merchandise, but need
to be held to the plough and the oxen, that having put their hand to it and not
turning round to the things behind them, they may be fit for the kingdom of God?
When are there not those who prefer the mammon of unrighteousness to the sheep
which give them the material for their true adornment? And there are always many
who look down on what is sincere and pure and unmixed with any bitterness or
gall, and who, for the sake of miserable gain, betray the care of those
tropically called doves. When, therefore, the Saviour finds in the temple, the
house of His Father, those who are selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the
changers of money sitting, He drives them out, using the scourge of small cords
which He has made, along with the sheep and oxen of their trade, and pours out
their stock of coin, as not deserving to be kept together, so little is it
worth. He also overturns the tables in the souls of such as love money, saying
even to those who sell doves, "Take these things hence," that they may no longer
traffic in the house of God. But I believe that in these words He indicated also
a deeper truth, and that we may regard these occurrences as a symbol of the fact
that the service of that temple was not any longer to be carried on by the
priests in the way of material sacrifices, and that the time was coming when the
law could no longer be observed, however much the Jews according to the flesh
desired it. For when Jesus casts out the oxen and sheep, and orders the doves to
be taken away, it was because oxen and sheep and doves were not much longer to
be sacrificed there in accordance with Jewish practices. And possibly the coins
which bore the stamp of material things and not of God were poured out by way of
type; because the law which appears so venerable, with its letter that kills,
was, now that Jesus had come and had used His scourge to the people, to be
dissolved and poured out, the sacred office (episcopate) being transferred to
those from the Gentiles who believed, and the kingdom of God being taken away
from the Jews [Matthew 21:43] and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of
it. But it may also be the case that the natural temple is the soul skilled in
reason, which, because of its inborn reason, is higher than the body; to which
Jesus ascends from Capernaum, the lower-lying place of less dignity, and in
which, before Jesus' discipline is applied to it, are found tendencies which are
earthly and senseless and dangerous, and things which have the name but not the
reality of beauty, and which are driven away by Jesus with His word plaited out
of doctrines of demonstration and of rebuke, to the end that His Father's house
may no longer be a house of merchandize but may receive, for its own salvation
and that of others, that service of God which is performed in accordance with
heavenly and spiritual laws. The ox is symbolic of earthly things, for he is a
husbandman. The sheep, of senseless and brutal things, because it is more
servile than most of the creatures without reason. Of empty and unstable
thoughts, the dove. Of things that are thought good but are not, the small
change. If any one objects to this interpretation of the passage and says that
it is only pure animals that are mentioned in it, we must say that the passage
would otherwise have an unlikely air. The occurence is necessarily related
according to the possibilities of the story. It could not have been narrated
that a herd of any other animals than pure ones had found access to the temple,
nor could any have been sold there but those used for sacrifice. The Evangelist
makes use of the known practice of the merchants at the times of the Jewish
feasts; they did bring in such animals to the outer court; this practice, with a
real occurrence He knew of, were His materials. Any one, however, who cares to
do so may enquire whether it is in agreement with the position held by Jesus in
this world, since He was reputed to be the Son of a carpenter, to venture upon
such an act as to drive out a crowd of merchants from the temple? They had come
up to the feast to sell to a great number of the people, the sheep, several
myriads in number, which they were to sacrifice according to their fathers'
houses. To the richer Jews they had oxen to sell, and there were doves for those
who had vowed such animals, and many no doubt bought these with a view to their
good cheer at the festival. And did not Jesus do an unwarrantable thing when He
poured out the money of the money-changers, which was their own, and overthrew
their tables? And who that received a blow from the scourge of small cords at
the hands of One held in but slight esteem, was driven out of the temple, would
not have attacked Him and raised a cry and avenged himself with his own hand,
especially when there was such a multitude present who might all feel themselves
insulted by Jesus in the same way? To think, moreover, of the Son of God taking
the small cords in His hands and plaiting a scourge out of them for this driving
out from the temple, does it not bespeak audacity and temerity and even some
measure of lawlessness? One refuge remains for the writer who wishes to defend
these things and is minded to treat the occurrence as real history, namely, to
appeal to the divine nature of Jesus, who was able to quench, when He desired to
do so, the rising anger of His foes, by divine grace to get the better of
myriads, and to scatter the devices of tumultuous men; for "the Lord scatters
the counsels of the nations and brings to naught devices of the peoples, but the
counsel of the Lord abides forever." Thus the occurrence in our passage, if it
really took place, was not second in point of the power it exhibits to any even
of the most marvellous works Christ wrought, and claimed no less by its divine
character the faith of the beholders. One may show it to be a greater work than
that done at Cana of Galilee in the turning of water into wine; for in that case
it was only soulless matter that was changed, but here it was the soul and will
of thousands of men. It is, however, to be observed that at the marriage the
mother of Jesus is said to be there, and Jesus to have been invited and His
disciples, but that no one but Jesus is said to have descended to Capernaum. His
disciples, however, appear afterwards as present with Him; they remembered that
"the zeal of your house shall devour me." And perhaps Jesus was in each of the
disciples as He ascended to Jerusalem, whence it is not said, Jesus went up to
"Jerusalem and His disciples," but He went down to Capernaum, "He and His mother
and His brothers and His disciples."

17. Matthew's Story of the Entry into Jerusalem. Difficulties Involved in It for
Those Who Take It Literally.

We have now to take into consideration the statements of the other Gospels on
the expulsion from the temple of those who made it a house of merchandise. Take
in the first place what we find in Matthew. On the Lord's entering Jerusalem, he
says, "All the city was stirred, saying, Who is this?" But before this he has
the story of the ass and the foal which were taken by command of the Lord and
found by the two disciples whom he sent from Bethphage into the village over
against them. These two disciples loose the ass which was tied, and they have
orders, if any one says anything to them, to answer that "the Lord has need of
them; and immediately he will send them." By these incidents Matthew declares
that the prophecy was fulfilled which says, "Behold, the King comes, meek and
sitting on an ass and a colt the foal of an ass," which we find in Zechariah.
[Zechariah 9:9] When, then, the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them,
they brought the ass and the colt, and placed on them, he says, their own
garments, and the Lord sat upon them, clearly on the ass and the colt. Then "the
most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way, and others cut down
branches from the trees and strewed them in the way, and the multitudes that
went before and that followed cried, Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is He
that comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest." Hence it was that
when He entered Jerusalem, the whole city was moved, saying, Who is this? "and
the multitudes said," those obviously who went before Him and who followed Him,
to those who were asking who He was, "This is the prophet Jesus of Nazareth of
Galilee. And Jesus entered into the temple and cast out all those that sold and
bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the
seats of them that sold doves: and He says unto them, It is written, My house
shall be called a house of prayer; but you make it a den of robbers." Let us ask
those who consider that Matthew had nothing but the history in his mind when he
wrote his Gospel, what necessity there was for two of the disciples to be sent
to the village over against Bethphage, to find an ass tied and its colt with it
and to loose them and bring them? And how did it deserve to be recorded that He
sat upon the ass and the foal and entered into the city? And how does Zechariah
prophesy about Christ when he says, [Zechariah 9:9] "Rejoice greatly, you
daughter of Zion, proclaim it, you daughter of Jerusalem. Behold your king comes
unto you, just is He and bringing salvation, meek and sitting on an ass and a
young foal"? If it be the case that this prophecy predicts simply the material
incident described by the Evangelists, how can those who stand on the letter
maintain that this is so with regard to the following part also of the prophecy,
which runs: "And He shall destroy chariots from Ephraim and horse from
Jerusalem, and the bow of the warrior shall be destroyed, and a multitude and
peace from the Gentiles, and He shall rule over the waters as far as the sea,
and the rivers to the ends of the earth," etc. It is to be noted, too, that
Matthew does not give the words as they are found in the prophet, for instead of
"Rejoice greatly, you daughter of Zion, proclaim it, you daughter of Jerusalem,"
he makes it, "Tell ye the daughter of Zion." He curtails the prophetic utterance
by omitting the words, "Just is He and bringing salvation," then he gives, "meek
and sitting," as in the original, but instead of "on an ass and a young colt,"
he gives, "on an ass and a colt the foal of an ass." The Jews, examining into
the application of the prophecy to what is recorded about Jesus, press us in a
way we cannot overlook with the enquiry how Jesus destroyed chariots out of
Ephraim and horse from Jerusalem, and how He destroyed the bow of the enemy and
did the other deeds mentioned in the passage. So much with regard to the
prophecy. Our literal interpreters, however, if there is nothing worthy of the
appearance of the Son of God in the ass and the foal, may perhaps point to the
length of the road for an explanation. But, in the first place, fifteen stades
are not a great distance and afford no reasonable explanation of the matter,
and, in the second place, they would have to tell us how two beasts of burden
were needed for so short a journey; "He sat," it is said, "on them." And then
the words: "If any man say anything unto you, say ye that the Lord has need of
them, and straightway he will send them." It does not appear to me to be worthy
of the greatness of the Son's divinity to say that such a nature as His
confessed that it had need of an ass to be loosed from its bonds and of a foal
to come with it; for everything the Son of God has need of should be great and
worthy of His goodness. And then the very great multitude strewing their
garments in the way, while Jesus allows them to do so and does not rebuke them,
as is clear from the words used in another passage, [Luke 19:40] "If these
should hold their peace, the stones will cry out." I do not know if it does not
indicate a certain degree of stupidity on the part of the writer to take delight
in such things, if nothing more is meant by them than what lies on the surface.
And the branches being cut down from the trees and strewn on the road where the
asses go by, surely they are rather a hindrance to Him who is the centre of the
throng than a well-devised reception of Him. The difficulties which met us on
the part of those who were cast out of the temple by Jesus meet us here in a
still greater degree. In the Gospel of John He casts out those who bought, but
Matthew says that He cast out those who sold and those who bought in the temple.
And the buyers would naturally be more numerous than the sellers. We have to
consider if the casting out of buyers and sellers in the temple was not out of
keeping with the reputation of one who was thought to be the Son of a carpenter,
unless, as we said before, it was by a divine power that He subjected them. The
words addressed to them, too, are harsher in the other Evangelists than in John.
For John says that Jesus said to them, "Make not My Father's house a house of
merchandise," while in the others they are rebuked for making the house of
prayer a den of robbers. Now the house of His Father did not admit of being
turned into a den of robbers, though by the acts of sinful men it was brought to
be a house of merchandise. It was not only the house of prayer, but in fact the
house of God, and by force of human neglect it harboured robbers, and was turned
not only into their house but their den — a thing which no skill, either of
architecture or of reason, could make it.

18. The Ass and the Colt are the Old and the New Testament. Spiritual Meaning of
the Various Features of the Story. Differences Between John's Narrative and that
of the Other Evangelists.

Now to see into the real truth of these matters is the part of that true
intelligence which is given to those who can say, [1 Corinthians 2:16] "But we
have the mind of Christ that we may see those things which are freely given to
us of God;" and doubtless it is beyond our powers. For neither is the ruling
principle in our soul free from agitation, nor are our eyes such as those of the
fair bride of Christ should be, of which the bridegroom says, [Song of Songs
1:15] "Your eyes are doves," signifying, perhaps, in a riddle, the observant
power which dwells in the spiritual, because the Holy Spirit came like a dove to
our Lord and to the lord in every one. Such as we are, however, we will not
delay, but will feel about the words of life which have been spoken to us and
strive to lay hold of that power in them which flows to him who touches them in
faith. Now Jesus is the word of God which goes into the soul that is called
Jerusalem, riding on the ass freed by the disciples from its bonds. That is to
say, on the simple language of the Old Testament, interpreted by the two
disciples who loose it: in the first place him who applies what is written to
the service of the soul and shows the allegorical sense of it with reference to
her, and in the second place him who brings to light by the things which lie in
shadow the good and true things of the future. But He also rides on the young
colt, the New Testament; for in both alike we find the word of truth which
purifies us and drives away all those thoughts in us which incline to selling
and buying. But He does not come alone to Jerusalem, the soul, nor only with a
few companions; for many things have to enter into us before the word of God
which makes us perfect, and as many things have to come after Him, all, however,
hymning and glorifying Him and placing under Him their ornaments and vestures,
so that the beasts He rides on may not touch the ground, when He who descended
out of heaven is seated on them. But that His bearers, the old and the new words
of Scripture, may be raised yet higher above the ground, branches have to be cut
down from the trees that they may tread on reasonable expositions. But the
multitudes which go before and follow Him may also signify the angelic
ministrations, some of which prepare the way for Him in our souls, and help in
their adorning, while some come after His presence in us, of which we have often
spoken, so that we need not now adduce testimonies about it. And perhaps it is
not without reason that I have likened to an ass the surrounding voices which
conduct the Word Himself to the soul; for it is a beast of burden, and many are
the burdens, heavy the loads, which are brought into view from the text,
especially of the Old Testament, as he can clearly see who observes what is done
in this connection on the part of the Jews. But the foal is not a beast of
burden in the same way as the ass. For though every lead of the latter be heavy
to those who have not in themselves the upbearing and most lightening power of
the Spirit, yet the new word is less heavy than the old. I know some who
interpret the tied-up ass as being believers from the circumcision, who are
freed from many bonds by those who are truly and spiritually instructed in the
word; and the foal they take to be those from the Gentiles, who before they
receive the word of Jesus are free from any control and subject to no yoke in
their unbridled and pleasure-loving existence. The writers I am speaking of do
not say who those are that go before and who those follow after; but there would
be no absurdity in saying that those who went before were like Moses and the
prophets, and those who followed after the holy Apostles. To what Jerusalem all
these go in it is now our business to enquire, and what is the house which has
many sellers and buyers to be driven out by the Son of God. And perhaps the
Jerusalem above to which the Lord is to ascend driving like a charioteer those
of the circumcision and the believers of the Gentiles, while prophets and
Apostles go before Him and follow after Him (or is it the angels who minister to
Him, for they too may be meant by those who go before and those who follow),
perhaps it is that city which before He ascended to it contained the so-called
[Ephesians 6:12] "spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places," or the
Canaanites and Hittites and Amorites and the other enemies of the people of God,
and in a word, the foreigners. For in that region, too, it was possible for the
prophecy to be fulfilled which says, [Isaiah 1:7] "Your country is desolate,
your cities are burned with fire, your land, strangers devour it in your
presence." For these are they who defile and turn into a den of robbers, that
is, of themselves the heavenly house of the Father, the holy Jerusalem, the
house of prayer; having spurious money, and giving pence and small change, cheap
worthless coinage, to all who come to them. These are they who, contending with
the souls, take from them what is most precious, robbing them of their better
part to return to them what is worth nothing. But the disciples go and find the
ass tied and loose it, for it cannot have Jesus on account of the covering that
is laid upon it by the law. [2 Corinthians 3:14] And the colt is found with it,
both having been lost till Jesus came; I mean, namely, those of the circumcision
and those of the Gentiles who afterwards believed. But how these are sent back
again after Jesus has ascended to Jerusalem seated upon them, it is somewhat
dangerous to say; for there is something mystical about it, in connection with
the change of saints into angels. After that change they will be sent back, in
the age succeeding this one, like the ministering spirits, [Hebrews 1:11] who
are sent to do service for the sake of them who will thereby inherit salvation.
But if the ass and the foal are the old and the new Scriptures, on which the
Word of God rides, it is easy to see how, after the Word has appeared in them,
they are sent back and do not wait after the Word has entered Jerusalem among
those who have cast out all the thoughts of selling and buying. I consider, too,
that it is not without significance that the place where the ass was found tied,
and the foal, was a village, and a village without a name. For in comparison
with the great world in heaven, the whole earth is a village where the ass is
found tied and the colt, and it is simply called "the village" without any other
designation being added to it. From Bethphage Matthew says the disciples are
sent out who are to fetch the ass and the colt; and Bethphage is a priestly
place, the name of which means "House of Jaw-bones." So much we have said, as
our power allowed, on the text of Matthew, reserving for a further opportunity,
when we may be permitted to take up the Gospel of Matthew by itself, a more
complete and accurate discussion of his statements. Mark and Luke say that the
two disciples, acting on their Master's instructions, found a foal tied, on
which no one had ever sat, and that they loosed it and brought it to the Lord.
Mark adds that they found the foal tied at the door, outside on the road. But
who is outside? Those of the Gentiles who were strangers [Ephesians 2:12] from
the covenants, and aliens to the promise of God; they are on the road, not
resting under a roof or a house, bound by their own sins, and to be loosed by
the twofold knowledge spoken of above, of the friends of Jesus. And the bonds
with which the foal was tied, and the sins committed against the wholesome law
and reproved by it — for it is the gate of life — in respect of it, I say, they
were not inside but outside the door, for perhaps inside the door there cannot
be any such bond of wickedness. But there were some persons standing beside the
tied-up foal, as Mark says; those, I suppose, who had tied it; as Luke records,
it was the masters of the foal who said to the disciples, Why loose ye the foal?
For those lords who subjected and bound the sinner are illegal masters and
cannot look the true master in the face when he frees the foal from its bonds.
Thus when the disciples say, "The Lord has need of him," these wicked masters
have nothing to say in reply. The disciples then bring the foal to Jesus naked,
and put their own dress on it, so that the Lord may sit on the disciples'
garments which are on it, at His ease. What is said further will not, in the
light of Matthew's statements, present any difficulty; how [Mark 11:15] "They
come to Jerusalem, and entering into the temple He began to cast out them that
sold and bought in the temple," or how [Luke 19:41] "When He drew near and
beheld the city He wept over it; and entering into the temple He began to cast
out them that sold." For in some of those who have the temple in themselves He
casts out all that sell and buy in the temple; but in others who do not quite
obey the word of God, He only makes a beginning of casting out the sellers and
buyers. There is a third class also besides these, in which He began to cast out
the sellers only, and not also the buyers. With John, on the contrary, they are
all cast out by the scourge woven of small cords, along with the sheep and the
oxen. It should be carefully considered whether it is possible that the changes
of the things described and the discrepancies found in them can be
satisfactorily solved by the anagogic method. Each of the Evangelists ascribes
to the Word different modes of action, which produce in souls of different
tempers not the same effects but yet similar ones. The discrepancy we noticed in
respect of Jesus' journeys to Jerusalem, which the Gospel now in hand reports
quite differently from the other three, as we have expounded their words, cannot
be made good in any other way. John gives statements which are similar to those
of the other three but not the same; instead of branches cut from the trees or
stubble brought from the fields and strewed on the road he says they took
branches of palm trees. He says that much people had come to the feast, and that
these went out to meet Him, crying, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the
Lord," and "Blessed is the King of Israel." He also says that it was Jesus
Himself who found the young ass on which Christ sat, and the phrase, young ass,
doubtless conveys some additional meaning, as the small animal afforded a
benefit not of men, nor through men, but through Jesus Christ. John moreover
does not, any more than the others, reproduce the prophetic words exactly;
instead of them he gives us "Fear not, O daughter of Zion; behold your King
comes sitting" (instead of "mounted") "on the foal of an ass" (for "on an ass
and a young foal"). The words "Fear not, daughter of Zion," are not in the
prophet at all. But as the prophetic utterance has been applied by all in this
way, let us see if there was not a necessity that the daughter of Zion should
rejoice greatly and that the greater than she, the daughter of Jerusalem, should
not only rejoice greatly but should also proclaim it when her king was coming to
her, just and bringing salvation, and meek, having mounted an ass and a young
colt. Whoever, then, receives Him will no longer be afraid of those who are
armed with the specious discourses of the heterodox, those chariots of Ephraim
said to be destroyed by the Lord, [Zechariah 9:10] nor the horse, the vain thing
for safety, that is the mad desire which has accustomed itself to the things of
sense and which is injurious to many of those who desire to dwell in Jerusalem
and to attend to the sound word. It is also fitting to rejoice at the
destruction by Him who rides on the ass and the young foal of every hostile
dart, since the fiery darts of the enemy are no longer to prevail over him who
has received Jesus to his own temple. And there will also be a multitude from
the Gentiles with peace [Zechariah 9:9-10] at the Saviour's coming to Jerusalem,
when He rules over the waters that He may bruise the head of the dragon on the
water, and we shall tread upon the waves of the sea and to the mouths of all the
rivers on the earth. Mark, however, writing about the foal, reports the Lord to
have said, "On which never man sat;" and he seems to me to hint at the
circumstance that those who afterwards believed had never submitted to the Word
before Jesus' coming to them. For of men, perhaps, no one had ever sate on the
foal, but of hearts or of powers alien to the Word some had sate on it, since in
the prophet Isaiah the wealth of opposing powers is said to be borne on asses
and camels. [Isaiah 30:6] "In the distress and the affliction," he writes, "the
lion and the lion's cub, whence also the offspring of flying asps, who carried
their riches on asses and camels." The question occurs again, for those who have
no mind but for the bare words, if according to their view the words, "on which
never man sat," are not quite meaningless. For who but a man ever sits on a
foal? So much of our views.

19. Various Views of Heracleon on Purging of the Temple.

Let us see what Heracleon makes of this. He says that the ascent to Jerusalem
signifies the Lord's going up from material things to the spiritual place, which
is a likeness of Jerusalem. And he considers that the words are, "He found in
the temple," and not "in the sanctuary," because the Lord is not to be
understood as instrumental in that call only, which takes place where the spirit
is not. He considers the temple to be the Holy of Holies, into which none but
the High-Priest enters, and there I believe he says that the spiritual go; while
the court of the temple, where the levites also enter, is a symbol of these
psychical ones who are saved, but outside the Pleroma. Then those who are found
in the temple selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting,
he took to represent those who attribute nothing to grace, but regard the
entrance of strangers to the temple as a matter of merchandise and gain, and who
minister the sacrifices for the worship of God, with a view to their own gain
and love of money. And the scourge which Jesus made of small cords and did not
receive from another, he expounds in a way of his own, saying that the scourge
is an image of the power and energy of the Holy Spirit, driving out by His
breath those who are bad. And he declares that the scourge and the linen and the
napkin and other things of such a kind are symbolic of the power and energy of
the Holy Spirit. Then he assumes what is not written, as that the scourge was
tied to a piece of wood, and this wood he takes to be a type of the cross; on
this wood the gamblers, merchants, and all evil was nailed up and done away. In
searching into the act of Jesus, and discussing the composition of the scourge
out of two substances, he romances in an extraordinary way; He did not make it,
he says, of dead leather. He wished to make the Church no longer a den of
robbers, but the house of His Father. We must here say what is most necessary on
the divinity, as referred to in Heracleon's text. If Jesus calls the temple at
Jerusalem the house of His Father, and that temple was made in honour of Him who
made heaven and earth, why are we not at once told that He is the Son of no one
else than the Maker of heaven and earth, that He is the Son of God? To this
house of the Father of Jesus, as being the house of prayer, the Apostles of
Christ also, as we find in their "Acts," are told [Acts 5:20] by the angel to go
and to stand there and preach all the words of this life. But they came to the
house of prayer, through the Beautiful Gate, to pray there, a thing they would
not have done had they not known Him to be the same with the God worshipped by
those who had dedicated that temple. Hence, too, they say, those who obeyed God
rather than men, Peter and the Apostles, "The God [Acts 5:29-30] of our Fathers
raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging Him on a tree;" for they know that by no
other God was Jesus raised from the dead but the God of the fathers, whom Jesus
also extols as the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who are not dead but
living. How, too, could the disciples, if the house was not that of the same God
with the God of Christ, have remembered the saying in the sixty-ninth Psalm,
"The zeal of your house shall devour Me;" for thus it is found in the prophet,
and not "has devoured Me." Now Christ is zealous principally for that house of
God which is in each of us; He does not wish that it should be a house of
merchandise, nor that the house of prayer should be a den of robbers; for He is
the Son of a jealous God. We ought to give a liberal interpretation to such
utterances of Scripture; they speak of human things, but in the way of metaphor,
to show that God desires that nothing foreign should be mixed up with His will
in the soul of all men, indeed, but principally of those who are minded to
accept the message of our most divine faith. But we must remember that the
sixty-ninth Psalm, which contains the words, "The zeal of your house shall
devour me," and a little further on, "They gave Me gall for My drink and for My
thirst they gave Me vinegar," both texts being recorded in the Gospels, that
that Psalm is spoken in the person of the Christ, and nowhere shows any change
of person. It shows a great want of observation on Heracleon's part that he
considers the words, "The zeal of your house shall devour Me," to be spoken in
the person of those powers which were cast out and destroyed by the Saviour; he
fails to see the connection of the prophecy in the Psalm. For if these words are
understood as spoken by the expelled and destroyed powers, it follows that he
must take the words, "They gave Me vinegar to drink," which are a part of the
same psalm, to be also spoken by those powers. What misled him was probably that
he could not understand how the "shall devour Me" could be spoken by Christ,
since He did not appreciate the way in which anthropopathic statements are
applied to God and to Christ.

20. The Temple Which Christ Says He Will Raise Up is the Church. How the Dry
Bones Will Be Made to Live Again.

"The Jews then answered and said to Him, What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing
that You do these things? [John 2:18-19] Jesus answered and said to them,
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Those of the body,
and those who incline to material things, seem to me to be meant by the Jews,
who, after Jesus has driven out those who make God's house a house of
merchandise, are angry at Him for treating these matters in such a way, and
demand a sign, a sign which will show that the Word, whom they do not receive,
has a right to do such things. The Saviour joins on to His statement about the
temple a statement which is really one with the former, about His own body, and
to the question, What sign do You do, seeing that You do such things? Answers,
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He could have
exhibited a thousand other signs, but to the question, "Seeing that You do such
things," He could not answer anything else; He fittingly gave the answer about
the sign connected with the temple, and not about signs unconnected with the
temple. Now, both of these two things, the temple and the body of Jesus, appear
to me, in one interpretation at least, to be types of the Church, and to signify
that it is built of living stones, [1 Peter 2:5] a spiritual house for a holy
priesthood, built [Ephesians 2:20] on the foundation of the Apostles and
prophets, Christ Jesus being the head corner-stone; and it is, therefore, called
a temple. Now, from the text, [1 Corinthians 12:27] "You are the body of Christ,
and members each in his part," we see that even though the harmonious fitting of
the stones of the temple appear to be dissolved and scattered, as it is written
in the twenty-second Psalm that all the bones of Christ are, by the plots made
against it in persecutions and afflictions, on the part of those who war against
the unity of the temple in persecutions, yet the temple will be raised again,
and the body will rise again on the third day after the day of evil which
threatens it, and the day of consummation which follows. For the third day will
rise on the new heaven and the new earth, when these bones, the whole house of
Israel, [Ezekiel 37:11] will rise in the great Lord's day, death having been
overcome. And thus the resurrection of the Saviour from the passion of the cross
contains the mystery of the resurrection of the whole body of Christ. But as
that material body of Jesus was sacrificed for Christ, and was buried, and was
afterwards raised, so the whole body of Christ's saints is crucified along with
Him, and now lives no longer; for each of them, like Paul, glories [Galatians
6:14] in nothing but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which He is
crucified to the world, and the world to Him. Not only, therefore, is it
crucified with Christ, and crucified to the world; it is also buried with
Christ, for we were buried with Christ, Paul says. [Romans 6:4] And then he
says, as if enjoying some earnest of the resurrection, "We rose with Him,"
because He walks in a certain newness of life, though not yet risen in that
blessed and perfect resurrection which is hoped for. Either, then, he is now
crucified, and afterwards is buried, or he is now buried and taken down from the
cross, and, being now buried, is to rise at some future time. But to most of us
the mystery of the resurrection is a great one, and difficult of contemplation;
it is spoken of in many other passages of Scripture, and is specially announced
in the following passage of Ezekiel: "And the hand of the Lord was upon me, and
He led me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me in the midst of the plain,
and it was full of human bones. And He led me round about them in a circle, and
behold there were very many on the face of the plain, and behold they were very
dry. And He said to me, Son of man, shall these bones live? And I said, Lord,
Lord, You know. And He said to me, Prophesy to these bones, and you shall say to
them, Hear the word of the Lord, you dry bones;" and a little further on, "And
the Lord spoke to me, saying, Son of man, these bones are the house of Israel.
And they say, Our bones have become dry, our hope is lost, we have breathed our
last." For what bones are these which are addressed, "Hear ye the word of the
Lord," as if they heard the word of the Lord? They belong to the house of
Israel, or to the body of Christ, of which the Lord says, "All My bones are
scattered," although the bones of His body were not scattered, and not even one
of them was broken. But when the resurrection itself takes place of the true and
more perfect body of Christ, then those who are now the members of Christ, for
they will then be dry bones, will be brought together, bone to bone, and fitting
to fitting (for none of those who are destitute of fitting (ἁρμονία) will come
to the perfect man), to the measure [Ephesians 4:13] of the stature of the
fullness of the body of Christ. And then the many members will be the one body,
all of them, though many, becoming members of one body. But it belongs to God
alone to make the distinction of foot and hand and eye and hearing and smelling,
which in one sense fill up the head, but in another the feet and the rest of the
members, and the weaker and humbler ones, the more and the less honourable. God
will temper the body together, and then, rather than now, He will give to that
which lacks the more abundant honour, that there may be, by no means, any schism
in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another, and,
if any member be well off, all the members may share in its good things, or if
any member be glorified, all the members may rejoice with it.

21. That the Son Was Raised Up by the Father. The Charge Brought Against Jesus
at His Trial Was Based on the Incident Now Before Us.

What I have said is not alien to the passage now engaging us, dealing as it does
with the temple and those cast out from it, of which the Saviour says, "The zeal
of your house shall devour Me;" and with the Jews who asked that a sign should
be showed them, and the Saviour's answer to them, in which He combines the
discourse on the temple with that on His own body, and says, "Destroy this
temple and in three days I will raise it up." For from this temple, which is the
body of Christ, everything that is irrational and savours of merchandise must be
driven away, that it may no longer be a house of merchandise. And this temple
must be destroyed by those who plot against the Word of God, and after its
destruction be raised again on that third day which we discussed above; when the
disciples also will remember what He, the Word, said before the temple of God
was destroyed, and will believe, not only their knowledge but their faith also
being then made perfect, and that by the word which Jesus spoke. And every one
who is of this nature, Jesus purifying him, [John 15:3] puts away things that
are irrational and things that savour of selling, to be destroyed on account of
the zeal of the Logos that is in Him. But they are destroyed to be raised again
by Jesus, not on the third day, if we attend to the exact words before us, but
"in three days." For the rising again of the temple takes place on the first day
after it has been destroyed and on the second day, and its resurrection is
accomplished in all the three days. Hence a resurrection both has been and is to
be, if indeed we were buried with Christ, and rose with Him. And since the word,
"We rose with Him," does not cover the whole of the resurrection, "in Christ
shall all be made alive, [1 Corinthians 15:22-24] but every one in his own
order, Christ the first fruits, then they that are Christ's at His coming, and
then the end." It belongs to the resurrection that one should be on the first
day in the paradise of God, [Luke 23:43] and it belongs to the resurrection when
Jesus appears and says, "Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father,"
[John 20:17] but the perfection of the resurrection was when He came to the
Father. Now there are some who fall into confusion on this head of the Father
and the Son, and we must devote a few words to them. They quote the text, [1
Corinthians 15:15] "Yea, and we are found false witnesses for God, because we
testified against God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up," and
other similar texts which show the raiser-up to be another person than He who
was raised up; and the text, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise
it up," as if it resulted from these that the Son did not differ in number from
the Father, but that both were one, not only in point of substance but in point
of subject, and that the Father and the Son were said to be different in some of
their aspects but not in their hypostases. Against such views we must in the
first place adduce the leading texts which prove the Son to be another than the
Father, and that the Son must of necessity be the son of a Father, and the
Father, the father of a Son. Then we may very properly refer to Christ's
declaration that He cannot do anything but what He sees the Father doing and
saying, [John 5:19] because whatever the Father does that the Son also does in
like manner, and that He had raised the dead, i.e., the body, the Father
granting Him this, who must be said to have been the principal agent in raising
up Christ from the dead. But Heracleon says, "In three days," instead of "On the
third day," not having examined the point (and yet having noted the words "in
three"), that the resurrection is brought about in three days. But he also calls
the third the spiritual day, in which they consider the resurrection of the
Church to be indicated. It follows from this that the first day is to be called
the "earthly" day, and the second the psychical, the resurrection of the Church
not having taken place on them. Now the statements of the false witnesses,
recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew and Mark towards the end of the
Gospel, and the accusation they brought against our Lord Jesus Christ, appear to
have reference to this utterance of His, "Destroy this temple, and I will build
it up in three days." For He was speaking of the temple of His body, but they
supposed His words to refer to the temple of stone, and so they said when
accusing Him, "This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to
build it up in three days," or, as Mark has it, "We heard Him say, that I will
destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build up another
temple not made with hands." Here the high-priest stood up and said to Him,
"Answerest Thou nothing? What do these witness against You? But Jesus held His
peace." Or, as Mark says, "And the high-priest stood up in the midst, and asked
Jesus saying, Answerest Thou nothing? What do these witness against You? But He
held His peace and answered nothing." These words must, I think, necessarily
have reference to the text now before us.

22. The Temple of Solomon Did Not Take Forty-Six Years to Build. With Regard to
that of Ezra We Cannot Tell How Long It Took. Significance of the Number
Forty-Six. The Jews therefore said, "Forty and six years was this temple in
building, [John 2:20] and will you raise it up in three days?" How the Jews said
that the temple had been forty-six years building, we cannot tell, if we adhere
to the history. For it is written in the third Book of Kings, [1 Kings 5:18]
that they prepared the stones and the wood three years, and in the fourth year,
in the second month, [1 Kings 6:1] when Solomon was king over Israel, the king
commanded, and they brought great precious stones for the foundation of the
house, and unhewn stones. And the sons of Solomon and the sons of Hiram hewed
the stones and laid them in the fourth year, and they founded the house of the
Lord in the month Nisan and the second month: in the tenth year in the month
Baal, which was the eighth month, the house was finished according to the whole
count and the whole plan of it. Thus comparing the time of its completion with
the period of building, the building of it occupies less than eleven years. How,
then, do the Jews come to say that the temple was forty-six years in building?
One might, indeed, do violence to the words and make out the period of forty-six
years at all costs, by counting from the time when David, after planning about
the building of the temple, said to Nathan the prophet, [2 Samuel 7:2] "Behold I
dwell in a house of cedar, and the ark of God dwells in the midst of the tent,"
for though it is true that he was prevented, as being a man of blood, from
carrying out the building, he seems to have busied himself in collecting
materials for it. In the first Book of Chronicles, [1 Chronicles 29:1-5]
certainly, David the king says to all the congregation, "Solomon my son, whom
the Lord has chosen, is young and tender, and the work is great, because he is
not to build for man but for the Lord God. According to my whole power I have
prepared for the house of my God, gold, silver, brass, and iron, wood, stones of
Soom, and stones for filling up, and precious stones of many kinds, and all
sorts of precious wood, and a large quantity of Parian marble. And besides this,
for the pleasure I have taken in the house of my God, the gold and the silver I
possess, lo, I have given it for the house of my Lord, to the full; from such
supplies I prepared for the house of the saints, three thousand talents of gold
from Suphir, and seven thousand talents of stamped silver. that the houses of
God may be overlaid with them by the hands of artificers." For David reigned
seven years in Hebron and thirty-three years in Jerusalem; [1 Kings 2:11] so
that if it could be shown that the beginning of the preparations for the temple
and of David's collecting the necessary material, was in the fifth year of his
reign, then, with some forcing, the statement about forty-six years might stand.
But some one else will say that the temple spoken of was not that built by
Solomon, for that it was destroyed at the period of the captivity, but the
temple built at the time of Ezra, [Ezra 6:1] with regard to which the forty-six
years can be shown to be quite accurate. But in this Maccabean period things
were very unsettled with regard to the people and the temple, and I do not know
if the temple was really built in that number of years. Heracleon pays no
attention to the history, but says that in that he was forty-six years preparing
the temple, Solomon was an image of the Saviour. The number six he connects with
matter, that is, the image, and the number forty, which he says is the tetrad,
not admitting of combination, he connects with the inspiration and the seed in
the inspiration. Consider if the forty cannot be taken as due to the four
elements of the world arranged in the building of the temple at the points at
issue, and the six to the fact that man was created on the sixth day.

23. The Temple Spoken of by Christ is the Church. Application to the Church of
the Statements Regarding the Building of Solomon's Temple, and the Numbers
Stated in that Narrative.

"But He spoke of the temple of His body. [John 2:21] When, therefore, He was
raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they
believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said." This refers to the
statement that the body of the Son is His temple. It may be asked whether this
is to be taken in its plain sense, or whether we should try to connect each
statement that is recorded about the temple, with the view we take about the
body of Jesus, whether the body which He received from the Virgin, or that body
of Christ which the Church is said to be, as we are said by the Apostle [1
Corinthians 12:27] to be all members of His body. One may, on the one hand,
suppose it to be hopeless to get everything that is said about the temple
properly connected with the body, in whatever sense the body be taken, and one
may have recourse to a simpler explanation, and say that the body (in either of
these senses) is called the temple, because as the temple had the glory of God
dwelling in it, so He who was the image and glory of God, the first-born of
every creature, could rightly be called, in respect of His body or the Church,
the temple containing the image. We, for our part, see it to be a hard task to
expound every particular of what is said about the temple in the third Book of
Kings, and far beyond our powers of language, and we defer it in the meantime,
as a thing beyond the scale of the present work. We also have a strong
conviction that in such matters, which transcend human nature, it must be the
work of divine wisdom to make plain the meaning of inspired Scripture, of that
wisdom which is hidden in a mystery, which none of the rulers of this world
knew. We are well aware, too, that we need the assistance of that excellent
Spirit of wisdom, in order to understand such matters, as they should be
understood by ministers of sacred things; and in this connection we will attempt
to describe, as shortly as we may, our view of what belongs to this subject. The
body is the Church, and we learn from Peter [1 Peter 2:5] that it is a house of
God, built of living stones, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood. Thus the
son of David, who builds this house, is a type of Christ. He builds it when his
wars are at an end, [1 Kings 5:3-5] and a period of profound peace has arrived;
he builds the temple for the glory of God in the Jerusalem on earth, so that
worship may no longer be celebrated in a moveable erection like the tabernacle.
Let us seek to find in the Church the truth of each statement made about the
temple. If all Christ's enemies are made the footstool of His feet, [1
Corinthians 15:25] and Death, the last enemy, is destroyed, then there will be
the most perfect peace. Christ will be Solomon, which means "Peaceful," [1
Chronicles 22:9] and the prophecy will find its fulfilment in Him, which says,
"With those who hated peace I was peaceful." And then each of the living stones
will be, according to the work of his life here, a stone of that temple, one, at
the foundation, an apostle or a prophet, bearing those placed upon him, and
another, after those in the foundation, and supported by the Apostles, will
himself, with the Apostles, help to bear those in more need. One will be a stone
of the inmost parts, where the ark is, and the cherubim, and the mercy-seat;
another will be on the outer wall, and another even outside the outer wall of
the levites and priests, a stone of the altar of whole burnt offerings. And the
management and service of these things will be entrusted to holy powers, angels
of God, being, respectively, lordships, thrones, dominions, or powers; and there
will be others subject to these, typified by three thousand six hundred [1 Kings
5:15-18] chief officers, who were appointed over the works of Solomon, and the
seventy thousand of those who bore burdens, and the eighty thousand
stone-cutters in the mountain, who wrought in the work, and prepared the stones
and the wood. It is to be remarked that those reported as bearing burdens are
related to the Hebdomad. The quarrymen and stone-cutters, who make the stones
fitted for the temple, have some kinship to the ogdoad. And the officers, who
are six hundred in number, are connected with the perfect number six multiplied
into itself. The preparation of the stones, as they are taken out and fitted for
the building, extends over three years; this appears to me to point solely to
the time of the eternal interval which is akin to the triad. This will come to
pass when peace is consummated after the number of years of the transaction of
the matters connected with the exodus from Egypt, namely, three hundred and
forty, and of what took place in Egypt four hundred and thirty years after the
covenant made by God with Abraham. Thus, from Abraham to the beginning of the
building of the temple, there are two sabbatic numbers, the 700 and the 70; and
at that time, too, our King Christ will command the seventy thousand
burden-bearers not to take any chance stones for the foundation of the temple,
but great stones, precious, unhewn, that they may be hewn, not by any chance
workmen, but by the sons of Solomon; for so we find it written in the third Book
of Kings. Then, too, on account of the profound peace, Hiram, king of Tyre,
cooperates in the building of the temple, and gives his own sons to the sons of
Solomon, to hew, in company with them, the great and precious stones for the
holy place, which, in the fourth year, are placed in the foundation of the house
of the Lord. But in an ogdoad of years the house is finished in the eighth month
of the eighth year after its foundation.

24. The Account of the Building of Solomon's Temple Contains Serious
Difficulties and is to Be Interpreted Spiritually. For the sake of those,
however, who consider that nothing further than the narrative itself is meant to
be indicated in these words, it may not be unfitting to introduce at this point
some considerations which they can scarcely withstand, to show that the words
ought to be regarded as those of the Spirit, and that the mind of the Spirit
should be sought for in them. Did the sons of the kings really spend their time
in hewing the great and precious stones, and practise a craft so little in
keeping with royal birth? And the number of the burden-bearers and of the
stone-cutters and of the officers, the duration, too, of the period of preparing
the stones and marking them, is all this recorded as it really was? The holy
house, too, was got ready in peace and was to be built for God without hammer or
axe or any iron tool, that there might be no disturbance in the house of God.
And again I would ask those who are in bondage to the letter how it is possible
that there should be eighty thousand stone-cutters and that the house of God
should be built out of hard white stones without the noise of hammer or axe or
any iron tool being heard in His house while the building was going on? Is it
not living stones that are hewn without any noise or tumult somewhere outside
the temple, so that they are brought ready prepared to the place which awaits
them in the building? And there is some sort of an ascent about the temple of
God, not with angles, but with bends of straight lines. For it is written, [1
Kings 6:8] "And there was a winding staircase to the middle, and from the middle
to the third floor;" for the staircase in the house of God had to be spiral,
thus imitating in its ascent the circle, which is the most perfect figure. But
that this house might be secure five ties are built in it, [1 Kings 6:10] as
fair as possible, a cubit high, that on looking up one might see it to be
suggested how we rise from sensible things to the so-called divine perceptions,
and so be brought to perceive those things which are seen only by the mind. But
the place of the happier stones appears to be that called Dabir, where the Ark
of the Covenant of the Lord was, and, as I may say, the handwriting of God, the
tables written with His own finger. And the whole house is overlaid with gold;
"the whole house," we read, [1 Kings 6:21] "he overlaid with gold until all the
house was finished." But there were two cherubim in Dabir, a word which the
translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek failed to render satisfactorily.
Some, failing to do justice to the language, render it the temple; but it is
more sacred than the temple. Now everything about the house was made golden, for
a sign that the mind which is quite made perfect estimates accurately the things
perceived by the intellect. But it is not given to all to approach and know
them; and hence the veil of the court is erected, since to most of the priests
and levites the things in the inmost part of the temple are not revealed.

25. Further Spiritualizing of Solomon's Temple-Building.

It is worth while to enquire how, on the one hand, Solomon the king is said to
have built the temple, and on the other the master-builder whom Solomon sent and
fetched, [1 Kings 7:13] "Hiram of Tyre, the son of a woman who was a widow; and
he was of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in
brass, and filled with wisdom and understanding, to work all works in brass; and
he was brought in to King Solomon and wrought all his works." Here I ask whether
Solomon can be taken for the first-born of all creation, [Colossians 1:15] and
Hiram for the man whom he assumed, from the constraint of men — for the word
Tyrians means "constrainers"— the man who derived his birth from nature, and
being filled with all manner of art and wisdom and understanding, was brought in
to cooperate with the first-born of all creation, and to build the temple. In
this temple there are also windows, [1 Kings 6:4] placed obliquely and out of
sight, so that the illumination of the divine light may enter for salvation, and
— why should I go into particulars?— that the body of Christ, the Church, may be
found having the plan of the spiritual house and temple of God. As I said
before, we require that wisdom which is hidden in a mystery, and which he alone
can apprehend who is able to say, "But we have the mind of Christ,"— we require
that wisdom to interpret spiritually each detail of what is said in accordance
with the will of Him who caused it to be written. To enter into these details is
not in accordance with our present subject. What has been said may suffice to
let us understand how "He spoke about the temple of His body."

26. The Promises Addressed to Jerusalem in the Prophets Refer to the Church, and
are Still to Be Fulfilled.

After all this it is proper to ask whether what is narrated as having taken
place about the temple has ever taken place or ever will take place about the
spiritual house. The argument may seem to pinch in whichever way we take it. If
we say that it is possible that something like what is told about the temple may
take place with regard to the spiritual house, or has already taken place in it,
then those who hear us will, with difficulty, be brought to admit that a change
can take place in such good things as these, firstly, because they do not wish
it, and secondly, because of the incongruity of thinking that such things admit
of change. If, on the other hand, We seek to maintain the unchangeableness of
the good things once given to the saints, then we cannot apply to them what we
find in the history, and we shall seem to be doing what those of the heresies
do, who fail to maintain the unity of the narrative of Scripture from beginning
to end. If we are not to take the view proper to old wives or Jews, of the
promises recorded in the prophets, and especially in Isaiah, if, that is to say,
we are to look for their fulfilment in connection with the Jerusalem on earth,
then, as certain remarkable things connected with the building of the temple and
the restoration of the people from the captivity are spoken of as happening
after the captivity and the destruction of the temple, we must say that we are
now the temple and the people which was carried captive, but is to come up again
to Judæa and Jerusalem, and to be built with the precious stones of Jerusalem.
But I cannot tell if it be possible that, at the revolution of long periods of
time, things of the same nature should take place again, but in a worse way. The
prophecies of Isaiah which we mentioned are the following: [Isaiah 54:11-14]
"Behold I prepare for your stone carbuncle and for your foundation sapphire; and
I will make your battlements jasper, and your gates stones of crystal, and your
outer wall choice stones; and all your sons shall be taught of the Lord, and in
great peace shall your children be, and in righteousness shall you be built."
And a little further on, to the same Jerusalem: [Isaiah 60:13-20] "And the glory
of Lebanon shall come to you with cypress, and pine, and cedar, along with those
who will glorify My holy place. And the sons of them that humbled you and
insulted you shall come to you in fear; and you shall be called the city of the
Lord, Sion of holy Israel, because you were desolate and hated, and there was
none to help you. And I will make you an eternal delight, a joy of generations
of generations. And you shall suck the milk of the Gentiles and shall eat the
riches of kings, and you shall know that I am the Lord that saves you and the
God of Israel that chooses you. And instead of brass I will bring you gold, and
instead of iron I will bring you silver, and for wood I will bring you brass,
and for stones iron. And I will establish your rulers in peace and your
overseers in righteousness. And wickedness shall no more be heard in your land,
nor affliction and distress in your borders, but your walls shall be called
salvation and your gates sculpture. And the sun shall no longer be to you for
light by day, nor shall the rising of the moon give light to you by night, but
Christ shall be to you an everlasting light and your God your glory. For your
sun shall no more go down, and your moon shall not fail, for your Lord shall be
to you an everlasting light, and the days of your mourning shall be fulfilled."
These prophecies clearly refer to the age still to come, and they are addressed
to the children of Israel in their captivity, to whom He was sent and came, who
said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Matthew
15:24] Such things, though they are captives, they are to receive in their own
land; and proselytes also are to come to them at that time through Christ, and
are to fly to them, according to the saying, [Isaiah 54:15] "Behold, proselytes
shall come to you through Me, and shall flee to you for refuge." And if all this
is to take place with the captives, then it is plain that they must be about
their temple, and that they must go up there again to be built up, having become
the most precious of stones. For we find with John in his Apocalyse, [Revelation
3:12] the promise made to him that overcomes, that he will be a pillar in the
temple of God, and will go no more out. All this I have said with a view to our
obtaining a cursory view at least of the matters pertaining to the temple, and
the house of God, and the Church and Jerusalem, which we cannot now take up
systematically. Those, however, who, in their reading of the prophets, do not
shrink from the labour of seeking after their spiritual meaning, must enquire
into these matters with the greatest particularity, and must take account of
every possibility. So far of "the temple of His body."

27. Of the Belief the Disciples Afterwards Attained in the Words of Jesus.

"When He was raised from the dead, [John 2:22] His disciples remembered that He
spoke this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said."
This tells us that after Jesus' resurrection from the dead His disciples saw
that what He had said about the temple had a higher application to His passion
and His resurrection; they remembered that the words, "In three days I will
raise it up," pointed to the resurrection; "And they believed the Scripture and
the word which Jesus had said." We are not told that they believed the Scripture
or the word which Jesus said, before. For faith in its full sense is the act of
him who accepts with his whole soul what is professed at baptism. As for the
higher sense, as we have already spoken of the resurrection from the dead of the
whole body of the Lord, we have now to note that the disciples were put in mind
by the fulfilment of the Scripture which when they were in life they had not
fully understood; its meaning was now brought under their eyes and made quite
clear to them, and they knew of what heavenly things it was the pattern and
shadow. Then they believed the Scripture who formerly did not believe it, and
believed the word of Jesus which, as the speaker means to convey, they had not
believed before the resurrection. For how can any one be said in the full sense
to believe the Scripture when he does not see in it the mind of the Holy Spirit,
which God would have us to believe rather than the literal meaning? From this
point of view we must say that none of those who walk according to the flesh
believe the spiritual things of the law, of the very beginnings of which they
have no conception. But, they say, those are more blessed who have not seen and
yet believe, than those who have seen and have believed, and for this they quote
the saying to Thomas at the end of the Gospel of John, "Blessed are they that
have not seen and yet have believed." But it is not said here that those who
have not seen and yet have believed are more blessed than those who have seen
and believed. According to their view those after the Apostles are more blessed
than the Apostles; than which nothing can be more foolish. He who is to be
blessed must see in his mind the things which he believes, and must be able with
the Apostles to hear the words spoken to him, "Blessed are your eyes, for they
see, and your ears, for they hear," [Matthew 13:16] and "Many prophets and
righteous men have desired to see the things which you see, and have not seen
them, and to hear the things which you hear, and have not heard them." Yet he
may be content who only receives the inferior beatitude, which says: [John
20:29] "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed." But how much
more blessed are those eyes which Jesus calls blessed for the things which they
have seen, than those which have not attained to such a vision; Simeon is
content to take into his arms the salvation of God, and after seeing it, he
says, [Luke 2:29-30] "Now, O Lord, let Your servant depart in peace, according
to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation." We must strive, therefore,
as Solomon says, to open our eyes that we may be satisfied with bread; "Open
your eyes," he says, "and be satisfied with bread." What I have said on the
text, "They believe the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said to them,"
may lead us to understand, after discussing the subject of faith, that the
perfection of our faith will be given us at the great resurrection from the dead
of the whole body of Jesus which is His Holy Church. For what is said about
knowledge, "Now I know in part," [1 Corinthians 13:12] that, I think, may be
said in the same way of every other good; and one of these others is faith. "Now
I believe in part," we may say, "but when that which is perfect has come, then
the faith which is in part will be done away." As with knowledge, so with faith,
that which is through sight is far better, if I may say so, than that which is
through a glass and in an enigma.

28. The Difference Between Believing in the Name of Jesus and Believing in Jesus
Himself.

"Now, when He was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed
in His name, beholding His signs which He did. But He, Jesus, did not trust
Himself to them, because He knew all (men) and because He needed not that any
should testify of man, for he Himself knew what was in man." One might ask how
Jesus did not Himself believe in those of whom we are told that they believed.
To this we must say it was not those who believed in Him that Jesus did not
trust, but those who believed in His name; for believing in His name is a
different thing from believing in Him. He who will not be judged because of his
faith is exempted from the judgment, not for believing in His name, but for
believing in Him; for the Lord says, [John 3:18] "He that believes in Me is not
judged," not, "He who believes in My name is not judged;" the latter believes,
and hence he is not worthy to be condemned already, but he is inferior to the
other who believes in Him. Hence it is that Jesus does not trust Himself to him
who believes in His name. We must, therefore, cleave to Him rather than to His
name, lest after we have done wonders in His name, we should hear these words
addressed to us which He will speak to those who boast of His name alone.
[Matthew 7:21-23] With the Apostle Paul [Philippians 4:13] let us seek joyfully
to say, "I can do all things in Christ Jesus strengthening me." We have also to
notice that in a former passage [John 2:13] the Evangelist calls the passover
that of the Jews, while here he does not say that Jesus was at the passover of
the Jews, but at the passover at Jerusalem; and in the former case when the
passover is called that of the Jews, it is not said to be a feast; but here
Jesus is recorded to have been at the feast; when at Jerusalem He was at the
passover during the feast, and many believed, even though only in His name. We
ought to notice certainly that "many" are said to believe, not in Him, but in
His name. Now, those who believe in Him are those who walk in the straight and
narrow way, [Matthew 7:14] which leads to life, and which is found by few. It
may well be, however, that many of those who believe in His name will sit down
with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, the Father's house,
in which are many mansions. And it is to be noted that the many who believe in
His name do not believe in the same way as Andrew does, and Peter, and
Nathanael, and Philip. These believe the testimony of John when he says, "Behold
the Lamb of God," or they believe in Christ as found by Andrew, or Jesus saying
to Philip, "Follow Me," or Philip saying, "We have found Him of whom Moses and
the prophets did write, Jesus the Son of Joseph from Nazareth." Those, on the
other hand, of whom we now speak, "believed in His name, beholding His signs
which He did." And as they believe the signs and not in Him but in His name,
Jesus "did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men, and needed not
that any should testify of man, because He knew what is in every man."

29. About What Beings Jesus Needed Testimony. The words, "He needed not that any
should testify of man," may fitly be used to show that the Son of God is able of
Himself to see the truth about each man and is in no need of such testimony as
any other could supply. The words, however, "He had no need that any should
testify of man," are not equivalent to "He had no need of testimony about any
being." If we take the word "man" to include every being who is according to the
image of God, or every reasonable creature, then He will have no need that any
should testify to Him of any reasonable being whatever, since He Himself, by the
power given Him by the Father, knows them all. But if the term "man" be
restricted to mortal animated reasonable beings, then it might be said, on the
one hand, that He had need of testimony respecting the beings above man, and
while His knowledge was adequate with regard to man it did not extend to those
other beings. On the other hand, however, it might be said that He who humbled
Himself had no need that any should testify to Him concerning man, but that He
had such need in respect of beings higher than men.

30. How Jesus Knew the Powers, Better or Worse, Which Reside in Man.

It may also be asked what signs those many saw Him do who believed on Him, for
it is not recorded that He did any signs at Jerusalem, though some may have been
done which are not recorded. One may, however, consider if what He did may be
called signs, when He made a scourge of small cords, and cast them all out of
the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money, and
overthrew the tables. As for those who suppose that it was only about men that
He had no need of witnesses, it has to be said that the Evangelist attributes to
Him two things, that He knew all beings, and that He had no need that any one
should testify of man. If He knew all beings, then He knew not only men but the
beings above men, all beings who are without such bodies as ours; and He knew
what was in man, since He was greater than those who reproved and judged by
prophesying, and who brought to the light the secret things of the hearts of
those whom the Spirit suggested to them to be thus dealt with. The words, "He
knew what was in man," could also be taken as referring to the powers, better or
worse, which work in men. For if any one gives place to the devil, Satan enters
into him; thus did Judas give place, and thus did the devil put it in his heart
to betray Jesus, and "after the sop," therefore, "the devil entered into him."
[John 13:2-27] But if any one gives place to God, he becomes blessed; for
blessed is the man whose help is from God, and the ascent is in his heart from
God. You know what is in man, Thou who know all things, O Son of God. And now
that our tenth book has come to be large enough we will here pause in our theme.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 13
========================================================================

Volume 13 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by
ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca

Perhaps it might have seemed to you, most godly and devout Ambrosius, that the
discourse concerning the Samaritan woman should not be interrupted, so that a
part of it would be in the twelfth volume, and the rest in the thirteenth. But
since I see that the twelfth volume of the exegesis has received a sufficient
outline, it seemed good to us to conclude the discourse about the Samaritan
woman concerning the well mentioned by her, as Jacob gave it and drank from it
himself, along with his sons and his livestock, so that we may begin the
thirteenth from the response of our Lord to her.

[John 4:13-14] Jesus answered and said to her: "Everyone who drinks of this
water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him
will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Jesus responds this second time to the Samaritan woman, previously saying: "If
you knew the gift of God and who it is that says to you, 'Give me to drink,' you
would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," and now, as
encouraging her to ask for the living water, he says the preceding words. And at
the former instance, the Samaritan woman did not speak but was puzzled about the
comparison of the waters; after the Lord's second response, having accepted what
was said, she says: "Give me this water." It is likely a principle that no one
receives the divine gift who does not ask for it. Even the Savior himself,
through the Psalm, is urged by the Father to ask, so that He may bestow it upon
Him, as the Son teaches us by saying: "The Lord said to me: You are my Son; ask
of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the
earth as your possession"; and the Savior says: "Ask, and it will be given to
you"; "for everyone who asks receives." The Samaritan woman is indeed persuaded
to ask Jesus for water, being, as we mentioned, a representation of the opinion
of those heterodox concerning the divine Scriptures, when she hears about the
comparison of both waters. And observe from the things she suffered how,
although drinking from the well she considered deep, she did not find rest nor
was she freed from her thirst.

Let us see, then, what is meant by "Everyone who drinks from this water will
thirst again." For from the words "to thirst" and "to hunger" in the physical
sense, two things are indicated: one, in that we need food, being emptied and
desiring it, or drink when the liquid within us depletes; another, in that often
the poor and those in want of necessities say they are sated with hunger or
thirst. And indeed, a testimony of the former is in Exodus, when, being in want
of foods, "on the nineteenth day of the second month after they had come out of
the land of Egypt, the whole congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against
Moses and Aaron. And the sons of Israel said to them, 'If only we had died by
the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and
ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill
this whole congregation with hunger.' And the Lord spoke to Moses, 'Behold, I
will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a
day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law
or not.'" For those who were hungry and in want of necessary food, as far as the
words permit. But also when in want of water and being thirsty, they grumbled
against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?" when "Moses cried to the Lord, and
the Lord showed him a piece of wood, and he threw it into the water, and the
water became sweet." And shortly after, when they came to Rephidim, it is
written that "the people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled
against Moses." An example of the second meaning can be found in Paul, who says,
"To the present hour we hunger and thirst and we are poorly clothed." Therefore,
the first, to hunger and to thirst, necessarily happens to healthy bodies; the
second occurs to the indigent. One must therefore inquire from "Everyone who
drinks from this water will thirst again" what kind of "thirst" is being
mentioned; first in the physical sense, or possibly what is implied, that even
if for the present one is sated, but as soon as the drink subsides, the one who
drank will experience the same condition again, that is, will thirst again,
being restored to the state like at the beginning. He then adds, "But whoever
drinks of the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water
springing up into everlasting life." But who, possessing a fountain within
himself, will be able to thirst?

However, what is previously indicated would be such: he who partakes of what is
considered the depth of words, even if he pauses for a little while, having
received as the deepest concepts that seem to be stirring and discovered, yet
again coming upon them a second time, will be perplexed regarding these, as many
times as he paused over them, since the supposed depth cannot provide a clear
and distinct comprehension of the matters sought after. Therefore, even if
someone is seized and complies with the persuasiveness of the words, he will
still find later that the same perplexity remains within him, which he had
before learning certain things; but I have such a discourse, so that the
fountain of the life-giving drink arises in the one who receives the words
announced by me; and to such an extent will the one who has taken my water be
benefited, that a fountain yielding all that is sought springs up in him with
waters leaping upwards, with the mind springing and flying swiftly in accordance
with this quick-moving water, carrying him with its leaps and bounds to the
higher place, to eternal life. He says that the end of the leaping water is
eternal life, just as Solomon, speaking of the bridegroom in the Song of Songs,
says, "Behold, he comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills."
For just as there the bridegroom leaps upon the mountains, which are called the
nobler and more divine souls, and skips upon the lesser ones, called hills, so
here the fountain that arises in the one who drinks of the water given by Jesus
leaps up to eternal life. Perhaps it will also leap after eternal life to the
Father beyond eternal life; for Christ is life; the one greater than Christ is
greater than life. Then the one who drinks of the water that Jesus will give
will have the fountain of water springing up into eternal life, when the promise
made to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness is fulfilled. For the Word
says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall
be filled." And perhaps since it is necessary to hunger and thirst for
righteousness before being filled, it is required to instill the hunger and the
thirst in order to say, "As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul
longs for you, O God. My soul thirsts for the strong, living God; when shall I
come and appear before the face of God?" Therefore, to thirst, it is good first
to drink from the spring of Jacob, not calling it similarly to the Samaritan
woman a well. For the Savior even now, addressing her word, does not say that
the water is from a well, but simply says, "Whoever drinks of this water will
thirst again." If it were not beneficial to drink from the spring, neither would
Jesus have sat by the spring, nor would He have said to the Samaritan woman,
"Give me a drink." It is to be observed, then, that Jesus promising to provide
the water to the Samaritan woman did so not from another place but from the
spring, saying to her, "Go call your husband and come here."

Furthermore, we will understand if the combination of associating and combining
with the truth and the scriptures produce a different kind of benefit from what
is assumed, when the one who drinks from the spring of Jacob thirsts again, but
the one who drinks from the water which Jesus gives has a spring of water within
himself welling up to eternal life. For indeed, some of the most principal and
divine mysteries of God have not been enclosed in scripture, and some not even
in human speech according to the common significations of the words or human
language. "For there are also many other things which Jesus did; if they were
written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the
books that would be written." John, intending to write what the seven thunders
spoke, was prevented; but Paul says he heard inexpressible words which it is not
lawful for a man to utter. These words it was lawful for angels to speak, but
not for men. "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient." What
Paul heard were "inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to
speak." I believe that all the scriptures are minor elements and brief
introductions to the totality of knowledge, even if they are understood very
precisely. Therefore, consider whether the well of Jacob, from which Jacob once
drank–but no longer drinks now– and also his sons drank from it–but now they
have a better drink than that–, and their livestock drank from it too, can be
considered all of scripture, and the water of Jesus is "beyond what is written."
Not everyone is permitted to investigate what is beyond what is written, unless
they become like them, so that they may not be reproached by hearing "Do not
seek what is too difficult for you, and do not investigate what is beyond your
strength." If we say that what is "beyond what is written" exists, we are not
saying that it could be known to the many, but to John who heard and was not
permitted to write them, like the utterances of the thunders, and learned them
and did not write them because he considered that even the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written. But also what Paul learned,
"unspeakable words," "beyond what is written," if indeed what is written is
spoken by men; and "what no eye has seen" is beyond what is written, and "what
no ear has heard" cannot be written. And the things that have not entered into
the heart of man are greater than the well of Jacob, revealed from a spring of
water welling up to eternal life to those who no longer have the heart of man,
but can say "we have the mind of Christ," "that we might know the things that
are freely given to us by God, which we also speak not in words taught by human
wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit." And consider whether it is possible
to not call human wisdom false doctrines, but the elementary principles of
truth, still coming to men; and the teachings of the Spirit perhaps are the
spring of water welling up to eternal life. Therefore, the scriptures are
introductions, from which, having accurately comprehended them, now named the
well of Jacob, we must go up to Jesus, so that he may grant us a spring of water
welling up to eternal life. Not everyone draws alike from the well of Jacob; for
if Jacob drank from it, and his sons and his livestock, and the Samaritan woman,
who still was thirsty, came to it and drew from it, perhaps Jacob and his sons
drank otherwise, with knowledge; and his livestock drank otherwise, more simply
and brutishly; and the Samaritan woman drank otherwise than Jacob and his sons
and his livestock. For the wise according to the scriptures drink like Jacob and
his sons; and the simpler and more innocent ones, the so-called "sheep of
Christ," drink like the livestock of Jacob; and those who distort the scriptures
and introduce certain slanders on the pretext of understanding them drink like
the Samaritan woman did before believing in Jesus.

[John 4:15] The woman says to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may not
thirst, nor come here to draw."

Already, for the second time, the Samaritan woman addresses the Savior as
"Lord"; the first time when she says, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and
the well is deep," when she inquires where he has the living water from, and
whether he is greater than her patriarch Jacob. Now, she asks specifically for
the water that becomes a spring within the drinker, welling up to eternal life.
And if the saying, "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living
water," is true, it is clear that when she says, "Give me this water," she
receives the living water so that she may no longer struggle with thirst and may
not need to come to Jacob's well to draw water, but without Jacob's water, she
may be able to behold the truth angelically and beyond human capacity. For
indeed, the angels do not need Jacob's well to drink, but each has within
himself a spring of water springing up to eternal life, produced and revealed by
the Logos and wisdom itself. Nevertheless, it is not possible to accommodate
another water apart from the water from Jacob's well without diligently
attending to the act of drawing and thirsting; thereby, many lack this refined
practice of drawing from Jacob's well.

[John 4:16-17] He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." The woman
answered and said, "I have no husband."

We also mentioned earlier the ruler of the soul, the law, to which each person
subjects themselves, is considered the husband. Now, even from the Apostle's
letter to the Romans, we will provide this testimony, saying: "Or do you not
know, brothers—for I speak to those who know the law—that the law has dominion
over a person as long as they live?" Who then lives? Taking the law in general,
the law. Then he immediately says, "For the married woman is bound by the law to
her living husband," as if he were saying, "to her living husband, who is the
law." Then again, he says, "But if the husband dies, she is released from the
law of the husband," as if the woman were released upon the death of the law,
and her obligations as a wife to a husband no longer apply. Then he says, "So
then, if while her husband lives she marries another man, she will be called an
adulteress; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is
not an adulteress if she marries another man." The law, therefore, has died
according to the letter, and the soul is not an adulteress when it marries
another, the law according to the spirit. But if the husband has died, the wife
might somehow be said to be dead to the husband, so that we understand it this
way: "So, my brothers, you also were put to death in the law through the body of
Christ, that you may belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in
order that we might bear fruit for God." If, then, the husband is the law, and
the Samaritan woman has some husband, having subjected herself according to a
certain law, according to which each of the heterodox wishes to live, the divine
word intends to expose the ruler of that heterodox soul, who is her law, in
order that she despise him as not being a lawful husband and seek another
husband, to belong to another, to the resurrected Logos, who neither can be
overturned nor will die, but remains eternal and subjugates all enemies, for
"Christ, having been raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer
has dominion over him. For the death he died, he died to sin once for all; but
the life he lives, he lives to God, being at His right hand until all His
enemies are made a footstool for His feet." Where, then, should the supposed
husband of the Samaritan be exposed as not being her husband if not at Jacob's
well by Jesus, unless the woman herself rejected the husband? Therefore, Jesus
said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." As if she already had
something of the water that leaps into eternal life by saying, "Give me this
water," and relying on the truthful promise that "You would have asked him, and
he would have given you living water," the woman answered, condemning herself
for her association with such a husband, and said, "I have no husband."

[John 4:17-18] Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband';
for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your
husband; this you have said truly."

I think that every soul introduced into piety in Christ through the scriptures,
beginning from the sensory and bodily matters mentioned, holds the five husbands
as representatives of each of the senses, being a certain husband of each. But
when, after associating with the sensory, someone desires and turns towards the
intellectual, encountering rationality under the guise of allegory and unhealthy
spiritual matters, this person, after the five husbands, comes to another,
giving, so to speak, a divorce to the former five and deciding to coexist with
the sixth. And as long as Jesus has not come to make us aware of such a man, we
are united with that one; but when the Lord's word comes and converses with us,
denying that man, we say, "I have no husband"; and the Lord praises us, saying,
"You have correctly said, 'I have no husband.'" The phrase "This you have said
truly" is somewhat reproachful, as the former things said by her were not truly
stated. And perhaps it was not true that "Jews do not associate with
Samaritans." For Jesus himself, as we have said earlier, associates with
Samaritans to benefit them as well. It is also not true that "You have nothing
to draw with, and the well is deep." Perhaps it is also not true that "Jacob
drank from the well, and his sons and his livestock." For if Jacob and his sons
and his livestock did not drink in the same manner as the Samaritan woman, but
the Samaritan woman thinks that Jacob and his sons and his livestock drank
entirely the same and identical drink, it is clear that she is lying.

Let us also consider the words of Heracleon regarding these matters, who says
that that life and the glory associated with it were weak, temporary, and
ceasing; for he says it was worldly; and he thinks he provides proof of it being
worldly from the fact that the livestock of Jacob drank from it. And if indeed
he took partial knowledge as weak, temporary, and deficient, namely the
knowledge obtained from the Scriptures by comparison of ineffable sayings,
"which it is not lawful for a man to speak," or all the knowledge that now comes
"through a mirror dimly," being abolished when the perfect comes, we would not
have blamed it. But if he does this to slander the old, he should be reproached.
The water that the Savior gives, he says, is from his Spirit and his power, not
lying. And to "he shall never thirst" he renders thus in these words: "For his
life is eternal and never-perishing, unlike the first which is from the well,
but remaining; for the grace and the gift of our Savior is irrevocable and not
consumed nor corrupted in the one who partakes of it." But calling the first
life perishable, if he meant according to the letter, seeking the removal of the
veil done according to the spirit, and finding, he would speak correctly; but if
he categorically accuses the old of corruption, it is clear he does this as one
not seeing the good things of the future have their shadow there. Not improbably
did he narrate the "leaping" and those partaking of what is abundantly supplied
from above and also themselves gushing forth into others' eternal life what was
provided to them. But he also praises the Samaritan woman as having revealed her
indiscriminate and by nature suitable faith, not doubting what was said to her.
Therefore, if he accepted the intention, not hinting anything about a differing
nature, we would also agree; but if he attributes the cause of the agreement to
the natural construction as if it is not present in all, his statement must be
overturned. I do not know how Heracleon, taking the unrecorded, says that in
regards to "Give me this water," having been briefly instructed by the Word, she
henceforth hated both the place and the so-called living water. Furthermore,
concerning "Give me this water, so that I may not thirst nor come here to draw,"
he says that the woman says these things showing the toilsome, difficult, and
inadequate nature of that water. For where does he have the evidence to show
that the water of Jacob is without stain? Moreover, Heracleon says concerning
the phrase "He said to her," it is clear that saying something like this, "If
you want to receive this water, go call your husband," he supposes that the man
mentioned by the Savior is her fullness, so that being with him, she might be
able to obtain from the Savior the power, the union, and the mingling towards
her fullness. For, he says, He did not tell her to call a man of the world,
since He was not unaware that she did not have a lawful husband. Obviously, he
is overreaching here, saying that the Savior told her, "Call your husband and
come here," meaning the spouse from the fullness. For if this were so, he ought
to have said who the man was and in what manner he should be called, so that she
might be with him before the Savior. But since, as Heracleon says, she did not
recognize her own man in the intelligible sense, and in the simplistic sense was
ashamed to say that she had a lover and not a husband, how is not his command,
"Go, call your husband and come here," void? Then he says further to this, "You
have rightly said that you have no husband," since the Samaritan woman did not
have a husband in the world, for her husband was in the aeon. We, however, have
read, "You have had five husbands," but in Heracleon's text, we found, "You have
had six husbands." And he interprets that all material evil is indicated by the
six husbands, with whom she had been entangled and associated unlawfully,
fornicating and being violated and rejected by them. One must say to him that if
the spiritual was fornicating, the spiritual was sinning; if the spiritual was
sinning, the spiritual was not a good tree; for according to the gospel, "A good
tree cannot bear bad fruit." And it is clear that their myth-making falls apart.
If it is impossible for the good tree to bear bad fruit, and the Samaritan
woman, as a spiritual being, was a good tree, it follows to say that either her
fornication was not a sin, or she did not fornicate.

[John 4:19-20] The woman said to Him, "Lord, I perceive that You are a prophet.
Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is
the place where one ought to worship." For the third time the Samaritan woman
calls our Savior "Lord" when it is lastly written that she spoke this to Him;
but she does not yet consider Him greater than the prophets, nor the prophesied
one, but some prophet. And even the heterodox opinion of those muddling with the
scriptures, refuted by her by the earlier five husbands and the one left
afterward by her believed to be a man, could not initially recognize what He is,
says He is a prophet, as if something divine and having something superior to
human, yet not as great as He was. Hence, she says, as if she somehow saw with
new vision and assumed in contemplation, "I perceive that you are a prophet." To
this, "Our fathers" and what follows must be understood as the Samaritan's
difference with the Jews concerning their considered holy place; for the
Samaritans, believing the called Mount Gerizim to be holy, worship God there, as
Moses remembers in Deuteronomy thus saying, "And Moses commanded the people on
that day, saying: ‘These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people when
you have crossed over the Jordan: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and
Benjamin; and these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher,
Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.’" But the Jews, believing Zion to be a divine and
proper place of God, think that it is the chosen place by the Father of all, and
for this reason, they say the temple was built there by Solomon and all the
Levitical and priestly services are performed there. Consequently, each nation
has taken it upon themselves, according to their beliefs, that the fathers
worshiped God on this or that mountain. And if ever the Samaritans and the Jews
condescended to debate with each other, each would interrogate the other, and
the Samaritan would say to the Jew the recorded words of the woman: "Our fathers
worshiped on this mountain," pointing to Mount Gerizim, "but you say that in
Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." But since the Jews, from
whom salvation comes, are pictures of those who possess sound reasoning, and the
Samaritans of the heterodox, the Samaritans therefore venerate Mount Gerizim,
which is interpreted as "cutting or division"—and from the historical cutting
and division of the ten tribes separated from the remaining two that occurred
during the times of Jeroboam, whose name means "judgment of the people." The
Jews, however, venerate Zion, which means "watchtower." It is reasonable to
question why the blessings of Moses happened on Mount Gerizim. It must be said
in this respect that since the name Gerizim signifies cutting and division, the
aspect of cutting is taken to mean when the people were divided by Jeroboam and
the king dwelt in Samaria; the aspect of division applies to the blessing of the
wise who divide matters precisely for understanding each issue, which is
necessary for the understanding of truth. Therefore, as long as the hour spoken
of by the Lord has not yet come, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem
will they worship the Father, one must avoid the mountain of the Samaritans and
worship God in Zion, where Jerusalem is, which is said to be the city of the
great king, Christ. What is the city of the great king, the true Jerusalem, but
the church built of living stones, where the sanctuary is holy, spiritual
sacrifices are offered to God by those who are spiritual and understand the
spiritual law? But when the fullness of time comes, then it must not be supposed
that true worship and perfect piety will be performed in Jerusalem any longer,
when someone is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit and no longer in type
but wholly in truth, being made in such a way as to resemble those worshippers
whom God seeks.

Twice it is written "The hour is coming," and in the first instance it is not
added "And now is," but in the second instance, the evangelist says, "But the
hour is coming and now is." And I think the former signifies the worship outside
bodies to be consummated in perfection, and the latter the progress towards
perfection as far as human nature allows in this life. Therefore, it is possible
to worship the Father in spirit and truth when not only "the hour is coming" but
"it now is," even if we think it happens in Jerusalem for those who have reached
only so far. Hence, when it is written, "The hour is coming and now is," it is
no longer said, "Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the
Father," as it was said where "The hour is coming" is written without "And now
is." Yet still, the Samaritan woman has a similar mistaken belief as the one
about the supposed well when she says these things. "Is it that you are
greater," she says, "than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from
it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" And here, "Our fathers
worshiped on this mountain."

Heracleon says that in these very words the Samaritan woman has properly
acknowledged the things spoken to her by him: for he says it belongs to a
prophet alone to know everything; but he is doubly false: for angels are also
capable of knowing such things, and a prophet does not know everything; "For we
know in part and we prophesy in part," even if we prophesy or know. After this,
he praises the Samaritan woman for acting according to her nature, neither lying
nor openly confessing her own disgrace; he says she is convinced that he is a
prophet, asking him at the same time to reveal the cause for which she committed
adultery, due to her ignorance of God and neglect of the worship according to
God and all the necessities of life for her, and otherwise always being involved
in worldly things; for he says she would not have come to the well outside the
city otherwise. I do not know how he thought to indicate the cause of her having
committed adultery, or that ignorance became the cause of her transgressions and
the worship according to God; but it seems he has made these statements without
any probability. He adds to these things: that seeking to learn how and by whom
she might please and worship God, and be freed from adulterous behavior, she
says, "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain," and the following. But what has
been said is very easily refutable; for whence is it that she wants to learn by
whom she might please and be freed from adulterous behavior?

[John 4:21] Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, that the hour is coming when
neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father." When it
seemed most likely that Heracleon had observed in these words that it was not
said to her previously, "Believe me, woman," but now this was commanded to her,
then he obscured the plausible observation, saying that the mountain refers to
the devil or to his world, since the devil, he said, was a part of the whole
matter, while the world is the entirety of wickedness, a deserted dwelling place
of beasts, to which all who were before the law and the Gentiles worshipped. But
Jerusalem represents creation or the Creator, whom the Jews worshipped. But also
secondly, he thought that the mountain referred to creation which the Gentiles
worshipped, whereas Jerusalem referred to the Creator whom the Jews served.
Therefore, he said, you, as if the spiritual ones, will worship neither creation
nor the creator but rather the Father of truth; and indeed, he includes her, he
said, as already faithful and included among those who truly worship. But we
understand the pseudo-religion of the Gnostics and those called by seemingly
high-sounding names among the heterodox to be clearly shown by the "Neither on
this mountain," while the canon according to the majority of the church, which
the perfect and holy one will surpass, worshipping the Father more
theoretically, clearly, and divinely, is shown by the "Neither in Jerusalem will
you worship the Father." For as even the Jews would confess, the angels do not
worship the Father in Jerusalem, the place superior to worshipping the Father in
Jerusalem, thus those who have already attained the angelic disposition will not
worship the Father in Jerusalem, but rather better than those in Jerusalem, even
if they accompany those in Jerusalem out of consideration for them, becoming
Jews to the Jews so that they might win over the Jews. Let Jerusalem be
understood by me as we have previously stated, and likewise the Jews. However,
when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem anyone will worship, the hour
having come, a son born with boldness will worship the Father. Therefore, it was
not said, "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship God," but rather, "Neither in
Jerusalem will you worship the Father."

[John 4:22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for
salvation is from the Jews. The "you," in terms of the literal word, refers to
the Samaritans; in terms of higher interpretation, it refers to the heterodox in
relation to the scriptures. But the "we," in the literal sense, is the Jews; in
the allegorical sense, it is I, the Word, and those formed according to me,
holding salvation from the Jewish words; for the revealed mystery has now been
manifested through the prophetic scriptures and the appearance of our Lord Jesus
Christ. But see whether Heracleon did not, on his own, and beyond the sequence
of the words, interpret the "you" in place of "the Jews and the Gentiles." For
how can it be said to a Samaritan, "You Jews," or to a Samaritan, "You
Gentiles?" Yet the heterodox do not know what they worship, for it is a
fabrication and not truth, both myth and not mysteries; but one who worships the
Creator, especially according to the inner Jew and the spiritual words of the
Jews, worships what he knows. It would be too lengthy now to present Heracleon's
words, taken from the so-called "Preaching of Peter," and to stand examining
them and whether the book is genuine, spurious, or mixed; thus, willingly
passing over them, marking only that he attributes to Peter the teaching that
one ought not worship according to the Greeks, accepting and serving material
things and worshipping wood and stones, nor according to the Jews, as even they,
thinking they alone know God, are ignorant of Him, worshipping angels and the
moon and the sun. Yet it needs to be inquired, in regard to truth, to whom the
bodily worship was conducted by the Jews; for it is evident that it was set
before them to offer sacrifices to the Creator of all. It is also worth seeing
what is written in the Acts of the Apostles: "But God turned and gave them up to
worship the host of heaven." I do not understand how, with the Savior declaring
openly that "salvation is from the Jews," the heterodox deny the God of Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob, the fathers of the Jews. Moreover, if the Savior fulfills
the law and in order to fulfill the things written in the prophets such and such
happen according to the coming of the Lord, how is it not clear in what way
"salvation is from the Jews?" For the same God is of Jews and Gentiles, "if
indeed God is one, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the
uncircumcised through faith." For we do not nullify the law through faith, but
rather we uphold the law through it.

[John 4:23] But the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will
worship the Father in spirit and truth.

Those who do not at all profess to worship the Father should not even be called
worshipers of God; but among all those who profess to worship the Creator, if
they no longer walk in the flesh but in the spirit, and walk by the spirit and
do not fulfill the desires of the flesh, these should be called true worshipers,
those who worship the Father in spirit and not in flesh, and in truth and not in
pretense. And one who is enslaved by the letter that kills, and has not partaken
of the spirit that gives life, nor follows the spiritual aspects of the law,
this one would be the untrue worshiper who does not worship the Father in
spirit; and this very one, being wholly of the form and the bodily, when he
seems to be succeeding most fully, then worships God in form and not in truth,
thus being unable to be called a true worshiper. Perhaps it has ever been
reasonably granted for the true worshiper, worshiping in spirit and truth, to
also perform some formal acts, in order that by liberating those enslaved to the
form in the most prudent manner from the forms, he may bring them to truth, as
Paul seems to have done with Timothy, and perhaps also in Cenchreae and
Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It must be observed that the
true worshipers worship the Father in spirit and in truth not only at the future
hour but also at the present hour. But those who worship in spirit, as they have
received the spirit’s earnest, worship presently, but in the fullness of the
spirit, when they will possess all the spirit, they will worship the Father. If
the one who sees through a mirror does not see the truth, as this is shown to
those skilled in mirrors, Paul and those like him now see through a mirror, it
is evident that as they see, so they worship God, and through a mirror, they
worship God; but when the time comes which follows the present time, then
worship will be in the truth "face to face" and no longer seen through a mirror.
However, Heracleon thinks that "We worship" refers to the one in the age and
those who came with him; for these, he says, knew whom they worshiped,
worshiping in truth. But also the statement "For salvation is from the Jews" is
said because it happened in Judea, but not through themselves—for not all of
them were in favor—and because from that nation salvation and the word went out
to the world. According to the understanding, salvation being from the Jews was
told since they are considered images of those in His fullness. It was necessary
for him and those from him to show how each of those in worship is an image of
those in the fullness if indeed they say this not only by voice but also
genuinely believe this. Additionally, he says, explaining "Worshiping God in
spirit and in truth," that the former worshipers worshiped in flesh and in error
to the not-Father, so, according to him, all those who worshiped the Creator
were mistaken. And Heracleon adds that they served the creation, and not the
true Creator, who is Christ if indeed "All things were made through Him, and
without Him was not anything made."

[John 4:23] For the Father seeks such as these to worship Him.

If the Father seeks, He seeks through the Son who has come to seek and save the
lost, whom He equips as true worshippers by cleansing and instructing them with
the word and sound doctrines. Heracleon says that what belongs to the Father is
lost in the deep forest of error, which is sought so that the Father may be
worshipped by His own. Therefore, if he had seen the parable about the lost
sheep and the son who fell away from the Father's sons, we might have accepted
his narration. But since those of his belief create myths and do not clearly
demonstrate to us anything definite about the loss of the spiritual nature, nor
do they teach us anything clear about the times or ages before its loss—for they
are unable to make their argument clear—therefore we willingly dismiss them,
questioning them at this point.

[John 4:24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and
in truth

Many have spoken many things about God and His essence, so that some have said
that He is of a physical, subtle, and ethereal nature, while others have said He
is bodiless, and others beyond essence in dignity and power. It is worthy for us
to see if we have grounds from the divine scriptures to say something about the
essence of God. Here indeed, it is said that His essence is spirit; "For God is
spirit," it says; and in the law, "fire"; for it is written, "Our God is a
consuming fire"; and by John, "light"; "For God," it says, "is light, and in Him
there is no darkness at all." If then we hear these more simply, without
involving ourselves beyond the term, it is time for us to say that God is a
body; but which incongruities this statement entails is not for the many to
know; for few have grasped the nature of bodies, and especially those ordered by
reason and providence; yet those who say that what foresees is of the same
essence with the things foreseen generally, assert it to be perfect but like the
foreseen. Those who wish God to be a body accepted all these things in their
argument absurdly, as they cannot withstand those who clearly demonstrate by
reason. With the exception of those who declare a fifth nature of bodies apart
from the elements, I say these things. But if every body has a material nature,
by its own account, it happens to be devoid of qualities, changeable, and
alterable, and wholly variable, and bearing qualities which the creator may wish
to impart upon it, then it is necessary that God, being material, would also be
changeable, alterable, and variable. And those, indeed, are not ashamed to say
that He is mortal, being a body, a spiritual and ethereal body, especially in
His ruling aspect; they say that, though being mortal, He does not die because
there is not a destroyer of Him. But we, because we do not see the consequences,
if we say that this is a body and because of the scripture such a body,
consuming spirit and fire and light, rejecting what necessarily follows from
these, we will behave disgracefully like fools and speak against the clear
facts. For every fire that needs nourishment is perishable, and every spirit, if
we take spirit in the simplest sense as a body, is subject to transformation to
a denser state according to its own nature. Therefore, it is time either to
accept these many absurdities and blasphemies concerning God by adhering to the
words, or to examine, as we also do with many other matters, what can be meant
by saying that God is spirit or fire or light. And first it must be said that,
just as we find eyes and eyelids and ears, hands and arms and feet written
concerning God, and even wings, we take the written things allegorically,
ignoring those who attribute a human-like form to God and rightly doing so.
Similarly, with regard to the mentioned names, we must do the following as it is
clear from the more practical aspect: "For God is light," according to John,
"and in him there is no darkness at all."

Let us then examine how it is possible to understand him as light more
intelligibly as far as we can. For the term "light" is used in two ways, both
physical and spiritual, which is intellectually perceived and, as the scriptures
might say, invisible, as the Greeks might call it incorporeal. And as for the
physical example acknowledged by those who accept the history, "And for all the
children of Israel, there was light in all their dwellings;" and the
intellectual and spiritual example is in one of the twelve, "Sow for yourselves
in righteousness, reap in the fruit of life, enlighten for yourselves with the
light of knowledge." Similarly, "darkness" will also be spoken of in an
analogous manner. And the more commonly spoken example, "And God called the
light Day, and the darkness he called Night;" and the intellectual, "The people
sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." With
these things being thus, it is worth considering what is fitting for us to think
about God being called light, in whom there is no darkness. For does God
enlighten the physical eyes or the intellectual ones, about which the prophet
also says, "Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep unto death"? I think it is evident
to everyone that we would not say that God is doing the work of the sun,
assigning to another to enlighten the eyes of those not sleeping unto death.
Therefore, God enlightens the mind of those He deems worthy of His
enlightenment. And if He is enlightening the mind according to what is said,
"The Lord is my light," it is necessary for us to consider Him being
intellectual, invisible, and immaterial as light. Perhaps also as a consuming
fire, it seems that He is immaterial, consuming things like wood, grass, and
straw. And if the wood, grass, and straw are intellectual, perhaps the consuming
fire of such material is God, said to be a consuming fire. And it is fitting for
the Lord to consume and destroy such things, from which pains and sufferings
arise, not from physical contact, but in the ruling parts, where the structure
worthy of being consumed is established. Therefore, God is called light, having
been transferred from bodily light to invisible and incorporeal light, and is
thus called because of the power to enlighten intellectual eyes. He is also
called fire, consuming, understood from bodily fire and that which consumes such
matter.

Similarly, it seems to me regarding "God is spirit"; for since in the ordinary
and generally called life, by the blowing of the air around us, the so-called
more bodily breath of life, we are quickened by the spirit, I suppose that from
that the spirit is called God, leading us to true life. For the spirit,
according to scripture, is said to quicken, obviously not the ordinary but the
more divine quickening. For the letter kills and brings death, not the
separation of the soul from the body, but the separation of the soul from God
and from its Lord, and from the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we should also understand
"You will receive their spirit, and they will pass away" and "You will send
forth your spirit and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the
earth" better regarding this spirit if we assumed that he who is deprived of the
divine spirit becomes earthly, and having made himself fit to receive it and
having received it, he will be recreated and, being recreated, saved. Such would
it be if he "breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living
soul," so that we may understand both the inspiration and the breath of life and
the life of the soul spiritually. Since the aforementioned power, as it were,
having found the soul of the holy one to be a suitable dwelling place, imparts
itself to it alone, so to speak, it must be considered written "I will dwell in
them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Yet we need more exercise in order to become perfect and to have our senses
trained to discern both good and evil, truth and falsehood, and to contemplate
intelligible things, so that we may be able to understand more carefully and
fittingly, according to what is possible for human nature, how God is light and
fire and spirit. Even in the third book of Kings, the spirit of the Lord coming
to Elijah suggests something like this about God: "For he said: Go forth
tomorrow and stand before the Lord on the mountain; behold, the Lord will pass
by. And a great strong wind rent the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks
before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind" – in other places we find:
"in the wind of the Lord"; – "after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not
in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the
fire; and after the fire a still small voice"; and perhaps in those things that
are necessary to be explained about the apprehension of the Lord, they are
indicated through these things, which it is not the time to narrate now. But
whom should we have expected to speak to us about what God is, other than the
Son? "For no one knows the Father except the Son," so that we too, as the Son
reveals, may know how God is spirit, and strive to worship God in the spirit
that gives life and not in the letter that kills, and to revere him in truth, no
longer with types nor shadows nor examples, just as neither do the angels serve
God with examples and shadows as humans do, but with intelligible and heavenly
things, having as their guide the high priest according to the order of
Melchizedek for the service that is for the salvation of those who need it, and
for the mystical and secret contemplation. However, as for the saying "God is
Spirit," Heracleon says, for the divine nature is undefiled and pure and
invisible. But I do not know if he has taught us these things on saying how God
is Spirit; but thinking to clarify the phrase "those who worship must worship in
spirit and truth," he says: suitably to the one who is worshipped spiritually,
not carnally; for they too, being of the same nature as the Father, are spirit,
who worship in truth and not in error, as also the apostle teaches, calling such
godliness reasonable service. But we must consider whether it is not exceedingly
impious to say that those who worship God in spirit are of the same substance
with the unbegotten and entirely blessed nature, whom Heracleon himself recently
said had fallen, saying that the Samaritan woman, being of a spiritual nature,
committed fornication. But those who say such things do not see that everything
of the same substance is also receptive to the same things; but if the spiritual
nature received fornication, being of the same substance * * * unholy and
impious and godless consequences follow from their statement about God, and it
is not safe even to imagine. But we, obeying the Savior who says, "The Father
who sent me is greater than I," and for this reason not accepting the title
"Good," which is proper and true and perfect, attributed to him, but referring
it gratefully to the Father with reproof to the one who wants to overly glorify
the Son, say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures, not by
comparison but by surpassing excellence, and so much or even more does he exceed
the Father as he himself and the Holy Spirit exceed the rest, not of any kind of
beings. For such glorification of the one who surpasses thrones, dominions,
principalities, powers, and every name that is named not only in this age but
also in the age to come, and also of holy angels and spirits and righteous
souls, what need is there to say? Yet, exceeding these so great and so many in
substance and preeminence and power and divinity – for he is a living Word – and
in wisdom, he is in no way comparable to the Father. For he is an image of His
goodness and a radiance not of God but of His glory and of His eternal light,
and a vapor not of the Father but of His power, and a pure emanation of His
almighty glory, and an unblemished mirror of His activity, through which mirror
Paul and Peter and those like them see God, saying, "He who has seen me has seen
the Father who sent me."

[John 4:25] The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called
Christ. When he comes, he will tell us all things."

It is worthy to see how the Samaritan woman, accepting nothing beyond the
Pentateuch of Moses, expects the coming of Christ as being proclaimed from the
law only. And it is reasonable for them to hope from the blessing of Jacob to
Judah, saying, “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the
neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down to you.” And shortly
after, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from
between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience
of the peoples.” It is also likely that from the prophecies of Balaam they
themselves hope the same, saying, “A man shall come forth from his seed and he
shall rule over many nations, and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his
kingdom shall increase. God led him out of Egypt; he has the glory of a wild ox;
he shall consume the nations of his enemies and break their bones in pieces, and
pierce them with his arrows. He lay down, he rested like a lion, and like a
lioness; who will rouse him? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are
those who curse you.” And following this, Balaam himself says, “I see him, but
not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a
man shall rise out of Israel; he shall crush the chiefs of Moab and break down
all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be a possession, and Esau a possession, his
enemies. Israel will act valiantly. And one from Jacob shall have dominion and
destroy the survivors of the city.” You may also consider whether Moses’
blessing to Judah is referred to Christ and might thus seem acceptable to the
Samaritans, “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him to his people; let
his hands contend for him, and be a help against his adversaries.” Since the
Samaritans boast Joseph as their patriarch, I suggest that perhaps both the
blessing of Jacob to Joseph and that of Moses may be considered as referring to
the presence of Christ; and whoever wishes may take the sayings directly from
the text itself. And the Savior himself, knowing that Moses had written many
prophecies about Christ, says to the Jews, “If you believed Moses, you would
believe me; for he wrote about me.” Indeed, one can find many things written in
the law that typologically and enigmatically refer to Christ; but at present, I
see no others clearer and unambiguous than these. Messiah is called in Hebrew,
which the seventy translated as “Christ”; but Aquila translated it as
“Anointed.” Consider also the phrase, “When he comes, he will tell us
everything”; whether this was said to the Samaritan woman from tradition or from
the law. It should not be ignored that just as Jesus arose from the Jews,
declaring and proving that he is Christ, so some Dositheus, arising from the
Samaritans, claimed himself to be the prophesied Christ, from whom the
Dositheans derive, carrying books attributed to Dositheus and narrating certain
myths about him, such as that he has not tasted death but is somewhere alive.
And these things pertain to the word. But the heterodox opinion at Jacob’s well,
considered to be its well, regards this saying as a fuller understanding of
Christ, “When he comes, he will tell us everything.” And the awaited and
hoped-for one present with her says, “I, who speak to you, am he.” Consider also
what Heracleon says; for he states that the church welcomed Christ and was
convinced about him, that he alone knows everything.

[John 4:26-27] Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one speaking to you.” At that
moment his disciples arrived. They were astonished that he was speaking with a
woman. Nevertheless, none of them said, “What are you seeking?” or “Why are you
speaking with her?”

It should be considered whether Christ revealed himself and compared these
things to one another like, “I am the one who testifies about myself, and the
Father who sent me also testifies about me,” and further “If you believed Moses,
you would believe me, for he wrote about me,” and any other similar statements
in the Gospels. But let us learn from this saying that he is meek and humble in
heart, not exalting himself in talking about such significant matters with a
woman drawing water because of great poverty and fatigue coming to the city to
draw water. The disciples were amazed when they arrived, having previously
perceived the greatness of his divinity, and they marveled at how such a great
one spoke with a woman. But we, driven by arrogance and pride, overlook the
simpler people and forget that each person is made in the image and likeness of
God, and forget the one who has formed the hearts of all humans individually and
who understands all their works. We do not recognize that God is the one who
humbles himself and is a helper of the needy, a supporter of the weak, a
protector of the hopeless, and a savior of the desperate. It’s as if he even
used this woman as an apostle to those in the city, having so much influenced
her through his words that she left her water jar and went to the city to tell
the people, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be
the Christ?” When they came out of the city and made their way to him, it is
clear then and not later that the Word made himself known so clearly, causing
the disciples to marvel if even this woman, being of lesser intellect and easily
deceived, was deemed worthy to have a conversation with the Word. However, the
disciples, convinced by the Word that all things are done well, did not
criticize or discuss the inquiry towards the Samaritan woman and the
conversation with her. Perhaps they were also astounded by the great kindness of
the Word who condescended to a despised soul, Zion, trusting in the Mount of
Samaria; therefore, it is written, “They were astonished that he was speaking
with a woman.” And Heracleon also says about “I am he, the one speaking to you,”
that when the Samaritan woman was persuaded about Christ that he would declare
everything to her, he said, "Know that the one you are expecting, I am he, the
one speaking to you." And when he acknowledged himself as the awaited one who
had come, “The disciples came to him,” it says, indicating that he had come to
Samaria for their sake. How had he come to Samaria for the sake of the
disciples, who had already been with him before?

[John 4:28-29] The woman then left her water jar and went into the city and said
to the people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I have done; could this
be the Christ?"

It is not for nothing, I think, that the evangelist recorded both the details
about the water jar being left, which the woman left behind when she went into
the city, and the greater zeal indicated by the Samaritan woman leaving the jar,
showing no longer so much concern for the physical and meaner duty as for the
benefit of many people. For she was very kindly moved, wishing to preach Christ
to the citizens, witnessing to Him who told her "all that she had done." She
calls them to see a man who has a word greater than human; for the visible to
her eyes was a man. Therefore, we also, forgetting the more physical things and
leaving them, must hasten to impart the benefit we have received to others. For
this the evangelist encourages through his praise of the woman written to be
read by those who know. Moreover, we must look into the symbolism of the water
jar which the Samaritan woman left behind, having received some sort of message
from Jesus; perhaps it represents the vessel of her teaching, which she put
aside, deeming it base, having taken in the superior teaching, now that in her
was established a source of "water springing up to eternal life." For how else
would she have preached Christ so generously to the citizens, marveling at Him
who proclaimed to her "all that she did," unless through the saving water she
had received and taken in? Rebekah, too, had a water jar on her shoulders,
before the servant of Abraham finished speaking in his mind, and she was going
out, a beautiful virgin by appearance. Since she did not draw the same way as
the Samaritan woman, she goes down to the well and fills the jar, and as she
ascended with it, Abraham's servant ran to meet her and said, "Let me drink a
little water from your jar." For because he was Abraham's servant, he loved to
receive even a little water from Rebekah's jar. "And Rebekah hurried, and
lowered the jar to her arm and gave him a drink until he finished drinking."
Therefore, because Rebekah's jar was commendable, it was not left behind by her,
but the Samaritan woman’s, in the sixth hour, was left. Here the Samaritan woman
evangelizes Christ to the Samaritans, and at the end of the Gospels, the woman
who first saw the Savior after His resurrection tells the apostles. But this
woman, though heralding the perfect faith, was not commended by the Samaritans
who said: "We no longer believe because of your words; for we have heard
ourselves and we know that this is truly the savior of the world." And she who
touched Christ was not believed when he said to her: "Do not cling to me." For
Thomas was about to hear: "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your
hand and put it into my side." All that the woman did, her association with the
five husbands and after them her conciliation with the sixth, who was not her
genuine husband, for which she abandoned the water jar and decently rests on the
seventh day, bringing benefit to those living in the city with their previous
doctrines, constructing with unsound words, the same as the woman; they are also
the reason to leave the city and come to Jesus. The Samaritans very carefully
request Jesus next, not to stay in the city but "with them," meaning in their
leading position; for perhaps it was impossible for him to stay in their city
since they themselves left the city and came to him greatly doing well. As these
things are very distinctly shown, with the evangelist giving us grounds for
deeper insights, from this we must judge; previously it was written: "They went
out of the city and were coming to him," and after a little while: "Many
Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, 'He
told me everything I ever did.'" When the Samaritans came to him, they urged him
to stay with them. And indeed, before that, they came out of the city to him,
and secondly, the Samaritans came to him while he was still beside Jacob’s
well—for he seemed not to have moved from there—and "they urged him to stay with
them"; it is not written after this that he entered the city, but "He stayed
there two days." But even subsequently it is not said, "After the two days he
went out of the city," but "He departed from there"; for as far as the spiritual
aspect is concerned, all the economy of benefit for the Samaritans happened
beside Jacob's well.

Heracleon believes the jug receiving life to be a disposition and thought of the
power from the savior, which she left, he says, with him, that is, having with
the savior such a vessel, in which she came to receive living water, she
returned to the world announcing Christ's presence; for through the spirit and
by the spirit the soul is brought to the savior. But consider whether this jug
can be commendable at all left behind; "The woman left her water jar," she said.
It does not imply that she left it with the savior. And how is it not
implausible that having left an accepting disposition of life and power's
thought from the savior and the vessel in which she came to receive living
water, she went away into the world without these, evangelizing Christ's
presence? And how can the spiritual one, after all these words, not be clearly
convinced about Christ, but says: "Could this be the Christ?" And the narrative
"They went out of the city" signifies rather their previous worldly conduct; and
they came through faith, he says, to the savior. But one must tell him how he
stays with them for the two days; for he did not adhere to what we previously
stated about not being recorded as having remained in the city for two days.

[John 4:31] Meanwhile, his disciples asked him, saying, "Rabbi, eat."

After the dispensation concerning the drink and the teaching on the distinction
of the waters, it was appropriate also to record matters concerning food.
Therefore, the Samaritan woman asked to drink, though she was in a state of
questioning, as it were, * * but because of the one who asked; for she had no
worthy drink to give to Jesus, if he willed to do her a favor by means of what
she gave to drink. It was fitting now * * * * from the Samaritan woman. But the
disciples * * * having gone to the city to buy food, either finding suitable
food from the heterodox, or some fitting words, * * * * * * to him, they said,
"Eat," thinking it a suitable time for him to take food between the departure of
the woman to the city and the arrival of the Samaritans to him; for they did not
set the food before him at any other time, perhaps because it would be vexing to
the Samaritan woman, if she saw the disciples intending to set food from her
city, whether it existed or was considered so, before the teacher. Nor would
those disciples fittingly say "Rabbi, eat," in the presence of the Samaritans,
as those wishing to abandon their city. Therefore, the phrase "Meanwhile, his
disciples were asking him, saying, Rabbi, eat" is well placed. Why "they were
asking him" and not is worth seeing; for it could have been written more simply,
"Meanwhile, his disciples said to him, Rabbi, eat." But to ask him to eat, to
beg and to plead with him, indicates something before the inquiry, or sometimes
even after the inquiry. And observe whether perhaps, fearing that * * the
discourse * * with suitable * * or with strengthening foods, they ask him to
consume what is found; for the disciples always wish to nourish the word with
what they find, so that by strengthening, invigorating, and empowering it, it
may remain more with those who nourish it, reciprocally nourishing those who
present it with food. For this reason, he says he stands at the door and knocks
so that if anyone opens the door, he will come in to him and dine with him, so
that later the one who has dined might be able to reciprocate the diner with the
word given by the man. However, Heracleon says that they wished to share with
him what they had bought and brought back from Samaria. He says these things so
that some * * * the five foolish virgins * * * from the bridegroom. How then do
I think * * to have the same * * are said * * * * to the foolish virgins who
were shut out, conveying a charge against the disciples, belonging with those
same foolish virgins. Furthermore, there is the dissimilarity of light to food,
and of oil to provisions * * * to bring an accusation against the
interpretation; or if there was anything that could make the word clear, he had
to comfort it through more preparation, constructing his own interpretation.

[John 4:32] He said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about."
The needless does not require food, but that which requires food is not
needless. And it is clear that the one who eats does not eat out of not needing
food, but out of needing and wanting it. Bodies, being fluid by nature, are
nourished by food that replenishes the places of what has flowed out. But those
things better than the body are nourished by incorporeal thoughts and words and
healthy actions, not dissolving into non-existence if they are not nourished;
for even bodies do not dissolve into non-existence if they are not nourished. It
loses its being in such a way when it is not nourished by things suited to its
differing nature from bodies. Just as bodies that need food are not nourished by
qualities, nor is the same quantity of food sufficient for all. Similarly, one
must understand with matters better than bodies. For these too need more or less
nourishment, not being equally receptive. Nor does the quality of nourishing
words and thoughts, and fitting actions in contemplation, suit all souls the
same. Furthermore, both vegetable and solid food do not nourish those needing
improvement from these at the same time. For newborn infants, as Peter says,
should long for pure spiritual milk. And if anyone is in the infant state like
the Corinthians, to whom Paul says, "I fed you with milk, not solid food." And
the weak, due to a lack of faith, should eat vegetables; and Paul too says this,
teaching "The one who believes may eat all things, but the weak eats
vegetables." And there is sometimes a "better dinner of vegetables with
friendship and grace, as opposed to fatted calves with enmity." "Solid food is
for the mature, who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good
from evil." Yet, there is also poisonous food, which we learn from the Fourth
Book of Kings, where some said to Elisha, "Death in the pot, man of God." And
there is also spiritual yet rudimentary food for the less rational souls, which
another herb or grass or straw symbolizes, as indicated in "The Lord is my
shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me
beside still waters." And Isaiah also says, "The lion shall eat straw like the
ox." But grass is also placed before the cattle in Rebecca's household for the
child of Abram. If there is a more rational and therefore also intellectual
person, he eats the intellectual bread, as it is written in the Psalms: "Bread
strengthens the heart of man," and he rejoices in the intellectual wine, none
other than a man: "For wine gladdens the heart of man." But the word must ascend
from the irrational and men to the angels, who also are nourished; for they are
not completely without need. "Man ate the bread of angels," and blessed Abraham
was able to present to the three appearing to him unleavened cakes. But now it
is necessary to proceed to the discourse concerning the eating of Christ, which
the disciples did not then know; for Jesus speaks truly, saying: "I have food to
eat that you do not know about." For what Jesus did, accomplishing the will of
the one who sent him and completing his work, this the disciples did not know.
To understand more clearly the saying, "I have food to eat that you do not know
about," let Paul speak to those who need milk, and not solid food, to the
Corinthians, who are fed with milk and not food, who are not yet able to partake
of food: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." And always the one who
excels and sees what the inferior cannot will say: "I have food to eat that you
do not know about." It is not unreasonable to say that not only humans and
angels are in need of intellectual nourishment, but also Christ of God; for even
he, so to speak, is ever being sustained by the Father, the only one who is
without need and self-sufficient. The general populace of the disciples receives
food from the disciples of Jesus, being commanded to give to the crowds; the
disciples of Jesus receive from Jesus himself, though sometimes also from holy
angels; but the Son of God receives food from the Father alone, not through
someone. It is not unreasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is also nourished;
but we must seek a scriptural phrase that suggests this. The parables about the
feasts should be gathered from the Gospels. The entire mystery of the calling
and election is present in the foods of the great feast: "For a man," it says,
"made a great feast, and at the hour of the feast sent to call the invited."
Also, through Isaiah, the promises of eating and drinking are given: "Behold, my
servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink,
but you shall be thirsty." Yet, in Genesis, God places man in the paradise of
delight, giving laws about eating this and not eating that. And man would have
remained immortal, had he eaten from every tree in the paradise, but not from
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See also what is said in the
twenty-first Psalm about those who worship because they have eaten: "All the fat
ones of the earth have eaten and worshipped," for this reason: "The Lord will
not let the soul of the righteous go hungry," but when we become unjust, He will
send "a famine upon the land, not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but
of hearing the words of the Lord." Therefore, as we progress, we shall eat
greater and better food, until perhaps we reach the point of eating the same
food as the Son of God, which the disciples at present do not know. Heracleon
did not speak anything significant to this word.

[John 4:33] The disciples therefore said to one another, "Has anyone brought him
something to eat?"

Even if Heracleon understands these things carnally as having been said by the
disciples, who still think more humbly and imitate the Samaritan woman saying,
"You have no bucket and the well is deep," it is fitting for us to consider
whether the disciples, seeing something more divine, said to one another, "Has
anyone brought him something to eat?" For perhaps they suspected that some
angelic power had brought him food; and it is reasonable that they were taught
because of this that the food he had to eat was greater, which was to do "the
will of the one who sent him and to finish his work."

[John 4:34] Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me
and to finish His work." The appropriate food for the Son of God when He becomes
the doer of the Father's will is to will in Himself what was also in the Father,
so that the will of God may be in the will of the Son, and the will of the Son
may become identical with the will of the Father, so that there may no longer be
two wills but one will; this one will is the reason for the Son saying, "I and
the Father are one," and through this will whoever has seen the Son has seen the
One who sent Him. And it is more appropriate for us to consider doing the
Father's will by the Son as this: from which will even the things outside of the
will occur rightly, rather than us to think that the doing of the will of the
One who sent us is to do something external. For that which occurs outside of
the will without the previously mentioned will, is not the entire will of the
Father; but the whole will of the Father is done by the Son whenever the will of
God is done in the Son, doing these things which the will of God wishes. Only
the Son does the entire will of the Father, and thus He is also His image. We
must also consider concerning the Holy Spirit. But the other holy things will do
nothing contrary to the will of God, and indeed whatever they do, they do
according to the will of God, yet they do not suffice to perfectly represent the
whole will. And this holy one compared to that holy one is greater or more
complete or more perfect as it departs from the paternal will, and again
different from it something else will depart respectively; but the whole and
entire will of God is done by Him who said, "My food is to do the will of Him
who sent Me." After this, indeed, He says thankfully concerning God, "The Son
can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it; for whatever the
Father does, these things the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son and
shows Him all that He does." Perhaps for these reasons He is the image of the
invisible God; for His will is the image of the primary will, and His divinity
is the image of the true divinity; and being the image of the Father's goodness,
He says, "Why do you call Me good?" And this will is the Son’s peculiar food,
through which the food is what it is. That the will concerns the disposition is
shown by the succeeding word, which says after the doing of the will to complete
the work of God. Additionally, we must consider this to understand what "I will
complete His work" means. Someone might simply say that the commanded work,
which is from Him who commanded, * * as we say of examples, indicating those
building or cultivating to complete the work of the one who took them to the
work, in the doing for which they were received; someone else might say that if
the work of God is completed by Christ, it is clear that this, before being
completed, was incomplete. How then was it imperfect, the work of God? And how
is the work of God perfected by the one who said: "The Father who sent me is
greater than I"? But the perfection of the work was the perfection of the
rational being; for this came, being imperfect, to render perfect the Word who
became flesh. Was then the work created imperfect, and the Savior sent to
perfect the imperfect? And how is it not absurd for the Father to be the maker
of the imperfect, and the Savior to perfect the imperfect, having been created
imperfect? I suppose a deeper mystery lies hidden in these passages; for perhaps
the rational being was not entirely imperfect at the same time it was placed in
paradise. For how would God have placed the entirely imperfect in paradise to
work and guard it? For the one able to work "the tree of life" and everything
planted by God and subsequently sprouted, could not reasonably be called
imperfect. Perhaps, being somehow perfect, it became imperfect through
disobedience and needed the one who would perfect it from imperfection, and thus
the Savior was sent, first to do the will of the one who sent him, becoming his
servant even here, and second to perfect the work of God and each one perfected
may be suitable for solid food and exercise wisdom. "Solid food is for the
perfect, those who through practice have their senses trained to distinguish
good from evil." And the one speaking wisdom says, "We speak wisdom among the
perfect." And when each of us, the work of God, is perfected by Jesus, he will
say, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the
faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." Not only
man, but also the "sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they are fair,
took for themselves wives of all whom they chose," and consistently all those
who left "their own dwelling" and did not preserve their own principality - and
by "principality" I mean not in reference to power but to the beginning and
foundation; just as for man, the beginning was to be in paradise, but the end
perhaps due to transgression in Hades below or some such place, so also for each
of the fallen ones a particular beginning is given. However, Jesus perfecting
the work of God, I say every rational being, not man alone, perfects it in the
same way; indeed the more blessed ones persuade reason without toil alone are
perfected by the word; others, having disobeyed the word, require sufferings, so
that after sufferings they may later be brought to reason and then perfected by
it. Nevertheless, both are one food own to Jesus, to do the will of the one who
sent him and to perfect his work. But Heracleon interprets "My food is to do the
will of him who sent me" to mean the Savior dismissed his disciples that this
was what he was discussing with the woman, calling the will of the Father his
proper food; for this was his nourishment and rest and power. And he said that
the will of the Father is to know men the Father and be saved, which was the
work of the Savior who for this was sent into Samaria, that is, into the world.
He thus understood Jesus' food and discourse with the Samaritan woman, which I
think is clearly evident to all, understood plainly and forced. But how the will
of the Father is the food of the Savior he did not clearly show, nor how the
will of the Father is rest; for the Lord says in another place, as if not all of
the Father's will is his rest: "Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me;
nevertheless, not what I will, but what you [will]." And how also is the will of
God the strength of the Savior? Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and
then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and see how
the fields are already white for harvest. To those who think it is said more
simply and physically, 'Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then
comes the harvest"?' it must be pointed out that one must be persuaded that the
Savior often spoke of the spiritual and the unseen. For if the time when Jesus
said this was four months before the actual harvest, it is clear that it was
winter. In Judea, the harvest begins in the month calls Nisan by the Hebrews,
when the Passover is celebrated, and often they make unleavened bread from new
wheat. But let us grant that the harvest is not in that month, but in the
following month called Iyar by them. Thus, the time four months prior would be
considered winter. Therefore, if we show that when Jesus said these things it
was near the time of harvest, either approaching or already at hand, we will
have demonstrated the context. It should be noted that after the incident in
Cana of Galilee concerning the turning of water into wine, the Lord is said to
have gone down to Capernaum with his mother, brothers, and disciples, where they
stayed a few days; and it was near the Passover of the Jews, and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem. There he found those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves in the
temple, and made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple. After
talking with Nicodemus, he came himself and his disciples into the land of
Judea, where he stayed with them and baptized. How much time should we assume he
spent baptizing in Judea after the Passover? For it is not written explicitly.
And it seems, as the Pharisees had learned that Jesus was making and baptizing
more disciples than John, he left Judea and went into Galilee, passing through
Samaria. He said what no one expected, 'Do you not say, "There are yet four
months, and then comes the harvest?"'. If someone supposes that Jesus stayed
many months in Judea baptizing with his disciples after the Passover, so that it
was already at the time four months before the harvest, it should be noted that
he stayed two days with the Samaritans and then went into Galilee, and it is
written, as the Passover had recently occurred and the events with him in
Jerusalem, 'When he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen
all that he did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also went to the feast'. But
it is plausible that someone might say these things do not contradict him
staying in Judea for a longer period before coming to Jacob's well, and
departing for Galilee, at which point 'There are yet four months,' he said, 'to
the harvest'; and there is nothing strange in the Galileans receiving him
because of what happened eight months prior in Jerusalem. It should be read to
them that upon coming into Galilee, "He went to Cana of Galilee, where" He had
previously made "the water wine", where also He healed the son of the royal
official who was sick at Capernaum, saying to his father: "Your son lives", and
"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem", when
He healed the paralytic who had been sick for thirty-eight years. If this feast
is the Passover—for the name of it is not given—the sequence of the story is
troubled, especially since shortly after it is said, "The feast of the Jews, the
Feast of Tabernacles, was near." Examining these things further, it is fitting
for the one who observes the deeper meaning of the scriptures to inquire into
what Jesus, meaning, said to His disciples, "Do you not say, 'There are four
months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes and
see the fields, for they are already white for harvest." Just as we said
considering the Samaritans about the issues concerning the waters, so let us do
here also. For who would not agree that "Lift up your eyes and see the fields,
for they are white for harvest already" is spiritual, and entirely spiritual,
being bare of the physical? It would follow that the disciples' saying that
after four months the harvest would come refers, as far as their understanding,
to the harvest shown by Jesus. We think, therefore, that there is something
similar in the disciples saying, "There are four months, and then comes the
harvest"; most of the disciples of the Word, understanding that the truth is
difficult to attain to human nature, when they have received the concept of
another life beyond the present one, having despaired in the present they
suppose they will grasp the truth after transcending the four elements.
Accordingly, the disciples say concerning the harvest, which is the completion
of the works of those who gather the truth, that it occurs after the present
tetrad. But the name of the months has been taken appropriately to the bodily
discourse concerning the harvest. For it would not have been fitting to say, "Do
not you say: There are yet four days, and harvest comes" or "There are yet four
years, and harvest comes?" Especially since the word desires to conceal the
mystical from the many and the more bodily-minded, revealing what is simpler to
make the words spoken by the Savior appear clear. Or perhaps the intention of
the disciples saying: "There are yet four months, and harvest comes" is such:
there are four spheres of the four elements underlying the etheric nature, in
the middle and lowest place, of earth, around it that of water, and thirdly that
of air, and fourthly that of fire, after which is that of the moon, and so on.
And we should consider whether the disciples understand that those who have
become nearer to the purer essence will grasp the truth when one can also
surpass the sphere of fire, not being corrupted by sin, which is the matter of
everything in the regions before the * * * etheric places * *. Refuting this
notion as unhealthy, the Word made flesh says to those who think so, "Do not you
say: There are yet four months, and harvest comes? Behold, I say to you: Lift up
your eyes and see the fields that they are white for harvest already." For it
indeed seems inconceivable to us that he would be talking about a single harvest
in all these things when he reproaches the disciples who think, as they suppose,
that the harvest comes after four months, which we have shown previously does
not seem capable of occurring after four months; and correcting, as it were, the
notion of the disciples, he says, "Do not you say this? But I say this;"
besides, how is it not absurd to allegorically interpret the "Lift up your eyes"
clearly, and the "See the fields that they are white for harvest already," but
not take allegorically the preceding "Do not you say: There are yet four months,
and harvest comes?" And Heracleon, likewise, remained with the common
interpretation of the phrase, not thinking it could be elevated. He says,
indeed, that he speaks of the harvest of crops, which still has a period of four
months, but that the harvest he spoke of was already present. And also, I do not
know how he understood the harvest in relation to the soul of believers, saying
that they are already ripe and ready for harvest and suitable for being gathered
into the barn, that is, through faith into rest, as many indeed are ready; for
not all are; for, he says, some were already ready, others were about to be,
others are already being sown. Thus he said. But how can the disciples, lifting
up their eyes, see the souls already suitable for being, as he thinks, gathered
into the barn, I do not know how he can show. And indeed, how is the saying "One
sows, and another reaps" and "I sent you to reap that for which you have not
labored" true concerning the souls? How can we accept the statement "Others have
labored, and you have entered into their labor" concerning the soul? Therefore,
we understand the harvest of the gathered fruit into eternal life as the
completion of the word sown in ideas for us, perfected from greater cultivation.
How one sows and another reaps we will discuss further on.

[John 4:35] Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for
they are white already to harvest. In many places in scripture is the phrase
"Lift up your eyes" set forth by the divine word, urging us to elevate and raise
our thoughts and our vision, which is cast down and stooped, unable to fully
look up and to rise on high; just as in Isaiah: "Lift up your eyes on high and
see: who has created these things?" And the Savior, when about to proclaim the
Beatitudes to those gathered on the plain, lifted up his eyes to his disciples
and said, "Blessed are they" and so forth; for no true disciple of Jesus is
below, just as neither is the one resting in Abraham's bosom. Thus the rich man,
being in torments, lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom.
Moreover, the woman "bowed together and could in no wise lift up herself" was
straightened by Jesus so that she might lift up her eyes. And no one
involuntarily afflicted or attached to the flesh or immersed in material things
has kept the commandment that says, "Lift up your eyes," whence such a one shall
not see the fields even if they are "already white to harvest." Yet again, no
one working the deeds of the flesh has lifted up their eyes. The fields are
"already white for harvest" when the word of God is present, making all the
fields of scripture fully illumined by His presence. Perhaps even all
perceptible things, up to the very heavens and those within them, are fields
white and ready for harvest to those who lift up their eyes, clearly shown to
those receiving the word concerning each thing, transformed from glory to glory,
an image of the eyes seeing how each created thing was good; for the "God saw"
concerning each creature, "that it was good" is such because God inserted into
each the word concerning it and saw how each created thing is good according to
the words concerning them. But if someone does not thus accept "God saw that it
was good," let them tell how in "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creatures that have life, and fowl that fly above the earth in the open
expanse of the heaven" is preserved the "God saw that it was good," especially
since "God created the great sea creatures." Rather, the word concerning each of
these things, seen by God, is what is "good." The same must be said concerning
"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind," to which also is
appended "God saw that it was good." For how are the beasts and creeping things
good unless the word concerning them is what is good? These things are said to
us because of "Lift up your eyes and look at the fields for they are white
already to harvest," exhorting the hearers of the present word to lift up their
eyes both to the fields of scripture and to the fields of the word within each
being, that someone might see the whiteness and brightness of the light of truth
everywhere. "For all things are straight before those who understand," according
to Solomon, "and right to those who wish to find knowledge."

[John 4:36] The one who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life,
so that the one who sows and the one who reaps may rejoice together.

I think it is necessary to present in how many ways the harvest is mentioned in
scripture and on what grounds it is arranged, so that we may be able to see here
to which of the many meanings the word is applied. We see in Matthew, when the
disciples came to the Lord saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of
the field," the Lord's teaching about this says among other things, "The harvest
is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels." But indeed also in another
place, concerning the multitude of believers seeking a clear teaching to them
about the things they believe in, our Savior says, "The harvest is plentiful,
but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to
send out laborers into his harvest." Besides this, the apostle names the seed as
the good deeds or sins of people in this life, and the harvest as the
retribution for these, each according to its merit, saying thus; "For whatever a
man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh
reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap
everlasting life." I believe that the prophet expressed something similar in
Psalms, "Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. He who continually goes forth
weeping, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing,
bringing his sheaves with him." The term is also used in customary matters, for
instance in Ruth through this: "They arrived at Bethlehem at the beginning of
barley harvest." Having presented five significances at this time, it is evident
that neither the customary meaning is implied here, nor that assigned to the end
of the age; for neither the customary “the one who reaps receives wages and
gathers fruit for eternal life” nor the encouraging thought about the angel
reapers can be sensibly understood in this context. Nor can the phrase “the one
who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life” be taken here
according to “the one who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption,
and the one who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.”
For according to the apostolic sayings, the same one is both sowing and reaping,
whether to the flesh or to the Spirit, and hence gathering either corruption or
eternal life; but according to the current passage, “one is the sower and
another the reaper.” Similarly, the same one both sows and reaps according to
what we have stated in the Psalms, distinctly differing from the apostolic in
its more mystical and inscrutable nature. For the apostolic is expressed more
simply, not teaching about the differing nature of the seeds from where they are
taken. However, the Psalms seem to me to indicate about the descent of the
nobler souls arriving in this life with the salvific seeds, and arriving indeed
almost unwillingly with a sigh, but returning with rejoicing because the seeds
have been well cultivated and have grown and multiplied, along with those who
have gathered them. "One sows and another reaps" in the proposed phrase. And
Heracleon will say, perhaps along with someone ecclesiastical in agreement with
this view, that these things are similarly stated to the one indicated by "The
harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few," that they are ready for harvest
and suitable to already be gathered into the storehouse through faith for rest,
and suitable for salvation and reception of the word. According to Heracleon,
through their preparation and nature, and according to the ecclesiastical,
through some preparation of the leading part, ready for completion so that it
may also be harvested. Therefore, it must be spoken to those who received it in
this manner, if they wish to accept, that there has perhaps not been a harvest
similar to the one hoped for from the times of the gospel preaching before the
advent of our Savior. For if many have believed because the harvest is
plentiful, though there were few workers beyond the apostles as many as received
the word, either through "Look at the fields, that they are white for harvest
already," no one before the physical advent of our Savior believed, nor was
there any worker among the believers—which is the most absurd to claim—Abraham
and Moses and the prophets did not occupy the position of workers or the reaped.
Or if indeed there were workers and harvest even before, it will not seem
paradoxical for the Savior to promise to those who lift up their eyes to see the
fields "that they are white for harvest already." From these things, indeed, it
may be somehow clear that none of the aforementioned is understood here
according to the harvest. Nor will the thing said by the apostle elsewhere be
applied here, saying "The one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and
the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully." Therefore, we seek a
seventh meaning suitable to the previously given ones concerning "Do you not
say, 'There are still four months, and then comes the harvest?' Behold, I say to
you, lift your eyes, and look at the fields, that they are white for harvest
already." So, the clear discourse about the clarity of the scriptures or how
"all that God has made is very good" in connection with the harvest, which the
reaper has two fruits of reaping: one that he receives a reward, and another
that he gathers fruit for eternal life. And I think that due to the promises to
come after these things according to what is written: "Behold, the Lord and His
reward is with Him, to give to each one according to his work," it was said
"Receives a reward"; and due to the benefit from the very contemplation itself,
naturally inherent in the intellect, and inherently superior to reason and apart
from other promises beside this, it is written: "Gathers fruit unto eternal
life," which indicates some well-being of the ruling part, as we have
demonstrated in the third book of the Stromata explaining "Your Father who sees
in secret will reward you." But Heracleon thinks that "Reaps a reward" was said
because the Savior says that he is a reaper. And he considers the reward of our
Lord to be the salvation and restoration of those being reaped, in that he is
pleased with them. And he says that "Gathers fruit unto eternal life" was spoken
either because what is gathered is the fruit of eternal life, or because it
itself is eternal life. But I think his interpretation is forced, claiming the
Savior receives a reward and confusing the reward and the gathering of the fruit
into one, while the scripture presents two distinct things, as we have
previously explained. Therefore, if we have attained the exaltation of the
apostles' eyes and the vision of the fields already white unto harvest, we must
next examine what "That both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together"
means. I think that in every art and science derived from many theories, he who
finds the principles sows, and others taking them and working on them, passing
on what was found to others, become the cause of what they found for the later
ones who were unable to find the principles and link the subsequent parts and
complete the end of arts and sciences, to receive the full fruit of such arts
and sciences as in the harvest. If this is true for arts and certain sciences,
how much more can it be perceived in the highest art and science of sciences.
For those coming after have elaborated on what was found by the predecessors and
handed it down to those who approach the findings inquisitively, providing
sources so that the one body of truth can be gathered together with wisdom.
Therefore, with the whole work of the highest art completed, "both he who sows
and he who reaps rejoice together," with God rewarding and bringing to a unified
end all. Consider if "those who sow" are Moses and the prophets, who wrote for
our admonition, reaching the ends of the ages, and proclaimed the advent of
Christ; and "those who reap" are the apostles who received Christ and witnessed
His glory, in agreement with the prophetic rational seeds harvested through
their elaboration and understanding of the mystery hidden from the ages, now
revealed at the end of times, which "in other generations was not made known to
the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets."
The whole word was a seed "according to the revelation of the mystery kept
secret since the world began but now revealed through the prophetic scriptures"
and the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, when the true light made the
regions, illuminating them, already white unto harvest. According to this
argument, the regions in which the seeds were sown are the legal and prophetic
scriptures, which were not white to those who had not advanced to the presence
of the Word. But they become such to the disciples of the Son of God and to
those who obey Him who says, "Lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are
white for harvest already." Therefore, as genuine disciples of Jesus, let us
lift up our eyes and behold the fields sown by Moses and the prophets, so that
we may see their whiteness and in what way it is already possible to harvest
them and gather fruit unto eternal life, while also hoping for wages from the
Lord of the fields and the giver of the seeds. For the sower and the reaper to
rejoice together when "pain and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" in the age
to come, everyone who agrees with the readers will confess: "That many shall
come from the east and the west and will sit down with Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." If anyone hesitates to accept that every sower
already rejoices together with every reaper, let him understand that the
transformation of Jesus in glory was seen not only by the reapers Peter, James,
and John, who went up with Him, but also by the sowers Moses and Elijah; they
too rejoiced seeing the glory of the Son of God, which neither Moses nor Elijah
had seen before, though enlightened by the Father, now illuminated and
illuminating those seeing it, as they now behold it along with the holy
apostles. Thus, we understand universally the statement "He who reaps receives
wages and gathers fruit unto eternal life, that both he who sows and he who
reaps may rejoice together," since more reapers and more laborers are addressed
following it, as it clearly pertains to sowing. It is said to many reapers, "I
sent you to reap what you did not labor for," and to many who toiled in the
sowing, "Others have toiled and you have entered into their labors." This
equally can be understood universally in "He who reaps receives wages" and the
following phrase, "Everyone who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit unto
eternal life," so that everyone who sows and everyone who reaps may rejoice
together. Some will readily accept these words, not doubting that what was
hidden in past generations and to Moses and the prophets has been revealed to
the holy apostles through Christ's presence, illuminating them with the
knowledge of all scripture's light; others will hesitate to accept it, not
daring to say that such great Moses and the prophets had not yet reached what
was understood by the apostles while they lived in human life and because this
is sown in the divine scriptures ministered by them. The former will use the
saying "Many prophets and righteous men longed to see the things you see but did
not see them, and to hear the things you hear but did not hear them", and
"Behold, something greater than Solomon is here", and "In other generations, it
was not known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs,
and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ", and that which is
written in Daniel after a certain vision, "I arose, and there was none who
understood", and that in Isaiah, "The words of this book are like the words of a
sealed book, which if they give it to a man learned in letters, saying, Read
this, he will say, I cannot, for it is sealed. And if they give it to a man not
learned, saying, Read this, he will say, I am not learned." But the latter will
resolve all these with the saying, "A wise man will understand from his own
mouth, and on his lips, he wears discernment," saying Moses and each of the
prophets comprehended what was ministered by them, not so that they might hand
it down to others and unfold the mysteries; but the apostles, as having become
in the time of revelation, will say, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions
which you were taught" and "The things which you have heard from me in the
presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men, who will be able to
teach others also", and that although many prophets and righteous men longed to
see what the apostles saw and heard from the Savior, they did not long for the
legal and prophetic writings, but for greater things being declared in addition
to the spiritual matters of the law and the secrets of the prophets by the
Savior to the apostles, such as "I heard ineffable words, which it is not lawful
for a man to utter" and things similar to what the Comforter says.

Yet another will argue that if the evangelist is narrating about the one reaping
receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, saying "that both he who
sows and he who reaps may rejoice together," then, if it is so that both the
sower and the reaper may rejoice together, receiving wages and gathering fruit
for eternal life, perhaps the sower, participating in the reaper's reward and
gathering the fruit gathered for eternal life, will rejoice at the same time as
the reaper. Another will say that all the legal and prophetic words were
precisely understood spiritually by Moses and the prophets and were written as
they should be covered and concealed; and since " When a wise man hears a word
of wisdom, he will praise it and add to it," it is clear that the apostles,
using the seeds of more mysterious and deeper things understood by Moses and the
prophets, have advanced to reach the many-fold sights of truth, as Jesus was
lifting their eyes and enlightening their minds, and the many-fold were the
harvests of the many fields; not because the prophets and Moses from the
beginning could not see as much as the apostles during Jesus' presence, but as
those waiting for the fullness of time, in which after the exceptional presence
of Jesus Christ, exceptional things beyond what had been spoken in the world or
written were to be revealed by Him who did not regard "being equal with God a
thing to be grasped," but emptied Himself and took "the form of a servant."

[John 4:37] For in this the saying is true: that one sows and another reaps.

Whether we take the example from the arts and sciences in place, it is clear how
this saying is true: that one is the sower and another the reaper; whether in
that Moses and the prophets sow, but those who lift their eyes according to the
exhortations of our Savior Jesus see that the fields were white already for
harvest, it is thus clear that one sows and another reaps. Consider if it is
possible to understand the "one" and "another" in that those are justified in
such a manner of life, and these in another way, so that we may say that one is
the legalist and another the evangelical. However, they both rejoice in one end
from one God through one Christ in one Holy Spirit. And Heracleon explained
"that the sower may rejoice together with the reaper" thus: for he says that the
sower rejoices because he sows, and because some of his seeds are already
gathered, having the same hope for the rest; and the reaper likewise because he
also reaps; but the first began by sowing, and the second by reaping. For they
could not both begin at the same time; for it was necessary for it first to be
sown, and then later to be reaped. Moreover, while the sower has ceased to sow,
the reaper still reaps; yet at present, each performing their own work, both
rejoice together considering the completion of the seeds to be a common joy. And
again, in "In this the saying is true: that one sows and another reaps," he
says: the son of man sows above the place; but the savior, being himself also
the son of man, reaps and sends reapers who are understood as angels through the
disciples, each over his own soul. But he did not very clearly set forth who the
two sons of man are, one of whom sows and the other reaps.

[John 4:38] I sent you to reap what you have not labored for; others have
labored, and you have entered into their labor.

It is not difficult from the foregoing to see how Jesus sent the disciples to
reap this, for which they did not labor, but others before them did; for Moses
and the prophets labored, that they might be able to comprehend the mysteries,
the traces of which they left us in their writings. The apostles have entered
into the labor of Moses and the prophets, with Jesus their mystagogue reaping
and gathering into the storehouses of their souls the understanding from those
[writings]. Moreover, the word always makes the labor of the predecessors
clearer to those being taught genuinely, without the similar toil of the sowers.
In all things concerning those sowing by others and reaping by others, it is to
be considered whether the apostles, helpers in the completion of what has been
sown, enter into the labor of others, reaping and finding fruits in those
benefited, which the coming of Jesus has made ready for harvest even before the
hopeful four-month period. If these things are so, it is worth pondering whether
the ministry of angels to sow souls into bodies is laborious, bringing together
in unison two contradicting natures, beginning to administer each individual
case in due time, and advancing to completion what has been preformed. But
someone might say that it is contradictory to assert that God himself is the one
who forms, both in "Your hands have made and fashioned me" and in "Before I
formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I
sanctified you." To this, it should be said that just as the law was ordained
through angels, and the word spoken by angels was confirmed, it is clear that it
was spoken by God. Thus, it is also conceivable that God, through the angels
appointed over creation, is said to fashion in the womb. I do not know if it
accounts for what is uncertain and something like this could be said: that those
who said "Your hands have made and fashioned me"—Job and David—being part of
God's portion, were fashioned by Him, and Jeremiah hearing, "Before I formed you
in the womb, I knew you"—as being to be part of God’s portion—was fashioned by
Him; while those of other portions are fashioned by those who received them by
lot. And even more curiously, this argument avoids the "Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness," as said by God about all men and initiating the work
which was later performed also by the rest unto whom the word was addressed,
according to their own portion, God saying to them, "Let us make man," and who
again says at the confusion of the languages, "Come, let us go down and there
confuse their language." But we say these things without making any
determinations, for such deep matters require much examination, to determine
whether it is indeed so or otherwise. Yet we must not disdain such an
interpretation; each person is a portion of someone according to the "When the
Most High divided the nations, as He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the
borders of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and God's
portion became His people, Jacob, the lot of His inheritance Israel." If each
person is thus certainly a portion of someone, with God dispersing the sons of
Adam, each of the angels works with his own portion, managing what pertains to
it. But during the Savior's coming, they are taken captive into the obedience of
Christ from every portion by the apostles and evangelists and teachers serving
the gospel, under Christ, and are brought to become the inheritance of Christ
among the nations. Could it therefore perhaps be said, to those apostles who
would soon after hear, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," "Others
have labored, and you have entered into their labor"? If holy angels are those
who have received the other portions separate from the chosen one and are
appointed over the dispersion of souls, it is not unreasonable for the sower and
the reaper to rejoice together after the harvest. But Heracleon says that these
seeds were not sown by or from the apostles, but those who have toiled are the
angels of the economy, through whom, as intermediaries, the seed was sown and
nurtured. And in "You have entered into their labor," he interpreted this: for
the labor of those who sow and those who reap is not the same; for those who
sow, digging the earth in cold and water and toil, and throughout the winter
care, cleaning and selecting the woods, while those who enter the ready fruit
during summer rejoice harvesting. It will be permissible for the one comparing,
encountering what we have said and what has been found by Heracleon, to see
which of the narratives could be achieved.

[John 4:39] And from that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of
the word of the woman who testified, "He told me everything I ever did." When
the Samaritan woman left her water jar and went into the city to evangelize
about the Savior, and those who believed in the word of the woman came to the
Lord, in the meantime, the Savior being with the disciples has spoken the
previously mentioned words, while the disciples were asking him to eat. After
speaking to the disciples as much as possible, the scripture returns to those
who came from the city to him and believed because of the testimony of the woman
saying, "He told me everything I ever did." If we hold to what was previously
said about Samaria and the Samaritan woman and Jacob's well, it is not difficult
to see how those initially constrained by other teachings, upon encountering
sound doctrine, leave the city of dogmas, and going out, come to healthy belief
by means of one who had first progressed at Jacob's well in saving teaching, and
leaving the aforementioned water jar to invite others to similarly benefit.
Heracleon understood "from the city" as "from the world"; "because of the word
of the woman" as by means of the spiritual church; he also marks "many" as
referring to many of a psychic nature, and he speaks of the one as the
incorruptible nature of the chosen, singular and unique. We have stood by what
was previously said, as far as it was possible, to address these matters.

[John 4:40-41] So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with
them. And he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word.

It is not improbable that someone might correlate the statement, "Do not go into
the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans," with this
passage. Because when the Savior was asked to stay with the Samaritans, "he
stayed there two days," though he had said, "Do not enter a city of the
Samaritans." Clearly, then, his disciples also had entered with him. It should
be said here that to go into the way of the Gentiles is to adopt some doctrine
foreign to the "Israel of God," and to follow it; to enter a city of the
Samaritans is to engage in spurious knowledge, concerning those who profess to
focus on the words of the law, or the prophets, or the gospel, or the apostles.
However, when the Samaritans left their own city and came to Jesus by Jacob's
well, recognizing the good intention of those who believed, Jesus stayed with
those who asked him. I think that John precisely recorded that the Samaritans
did not ask him to enter Samaria, or to enter their city, but simply to stay
with them; for it is not the same thing to stay with a believer and to enter his
city. Furthermore, the passage also does not say, "And he stayed in that city
two days," or "he stayed in Samaria," but, "He stayed there," that is, with
those who asked him. For Jesus stays with those who ask him, especially when
those asking him leave their own city and come to Jesus, in imitation of
Abraham, who was persuaded by God saying, "Get out of your country and from your
kindred and from your father's house." Jesus stays with those who ask him for
two days because they could not yet accommodate his third day, since they were
not capable of receiving a great miracle, like those in Cana of Galilee who
dined with Jesus on the third day at the wedding. The beginning of the belief by
many from Samaria was due to the word of the woman testifying, "He told me all
that I ever did"; but the growth and increase in the many more who believed were
not any longer because of the woman's word but because of his own word. For the
word itself, shining light on the receiver, is not perceived the same when it
testifies through another. Heracleon interprets that he stayed "with them" and
not "in them" for two days, suggesting this means the present age and the future
age represented in marriage, or the time before his passion and the time after,
during which he brought many to faith by his own word and then separated from
them. This interpretation implies that "with them" and not "in them" is written,
comparing it to "Behold, I am with you always," for he did not say, "I am in
you." Mentioning the two days also signifies this age and the next, or the time
before and after the passion. However, it overlooks the future ages following
the coming age, as stated by the apostle, "that in the ages to come he might
show," nor does it recognize that Jesus remains with those who come to him not
just before and after his passion but always, never leaving his disciples, so
much so that they could say, "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me."

[John 4:42] They said to the woman: "No longer do we believe because of your
words, for we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is truly the savior
of the world."

They renounce the faith because of the woman's words, having found a better one
than that, in having heard the savior himself, to know also that "this is truly
the savior of the world." And it is indeed better to become an eyewitness of the
word and to hear directly from him teaching without instruments and to perceive
through the teaching the clearest forms of truth, than not seeing him and also
not being enlightened by his power through ministers who have seen him, to hear
the word about him. For it is impossible for the one learning from the seer and
recounting to affect the rational soul in the same way as to the one who has
seen, and indeed it is better to walk by sight than by faith. Therefore, those
who walk as if by sight are said to be in the earlier gifts in "the word of
wisdom" through the Spirit of God and "the word of knowledge according to the
same Spirit"; and those who walk by faith, even if faith is a gift according to
"to another faith by the same Spirit," are in the later order than the previous
ones. But we must examine when and how Paul says, "For we walk by faith, not by
sight." For how, as many suppose, does the one who says most profoundly walk by
faith and not by sight: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen
Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?" Let us then see how we should
understand the statement "For we walk by faith, not by sight," considering it
from what has been stated above: "Now the one who has formed us for this very
purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore we are always
courageous and we know that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from
the Lord—for we walk by faith, not by sight." It is clear, then, that while we
are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord—being courageous, "we would
rather be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." When these
things are spoken in this way to understand what it means to be at home in the
body and away from the Lord, and what it means to be away from the body and at
home with the Lord, let us learn what we shall say about the apostle. Whether
being at home in the body, he was away from the Lord, or being away from the
body, he was at home with the Lord. Clearly, since "those who are in the flesh
cannot please God," the saints are not in the flesh "but in the Spirit, if
indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them." Paul was not in the flesh nor in the
body; for he says truly, "I think that I also have the Spirit of God," not being
at home in the flesh and body, but walking by faith, not by sight. And see if it
can belong to apostolic precision to distinguish between "being in the flesh"
and "being at home in the body"; "for those who are in the flesh cannot please
God"; but those who are at home in the body are "away from the Lord";
nevertheless, they walk by faith, even if not yet proceeding by sight. And I
think that those who are in the flesh are those who wage war according to the
flesh, and those who are at home in the body and away from the Lord are those
who do not understand the spiritual things of scripture, but wholly adhere to it
and the body; for how is he not away from the Lord if "the Lord is the Spirit,"
who has not yet grasped the life-giving Spirit and the spiritual meaning of
scripture? However, such a one walks by faith, and is away from the body and at
home with the Lord, who compares spiritual things with spiritual and becomes
spiritual, who judges all things but is judged by no one. Although these things
may seem to have been said with a digression into apostolic words, they are
nevertheless most necessary for distinguishing the reason of the Samaritans, who
no longer believe because of the woman's speech but having heard for themselves
and knowing that "this is the Savior of the world." It is not at all surprising
that it is said concerning some that they walk by faith and not by sight, and
concerning others, by sight greater than walking by faith. Heracleon, however,
more simply took the words "we no longer believe because of your speech" saying
that "only" is missing. For still towards the words "for we have heard for
ourselves, and we know that this is the Savior of the world," he says: people at
first believe in the Savior being led by humans, but when they encounter His
words, they no longer believe through mere human testimony, but through the
truth itself.

[John 4:43-44] After the two days He departed from there to Galilee, for Jesus
Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country. The phrase
appears very inconsistent. What connection is there between His leaving after
two days from the Samaritans, with whom He stayed, and going to Galilee, “for
Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country”? For if
Samaria were His country and He was dishonored there, then it would have
consistently followed that “for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no
honor in his own country” applies here. But even if it were written, “After the
two days He departed into Galilee, but it did not happen in His own country,”
“for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country,”
the statement would still make sense. And perhaps the intent of the speaker is
this, though John expressed it awkwardly, as he was unpolished in his use of
language. For it is not mentioned where in Galilee they accepted Him, “having
seen all the things He did in Jerusalem at the feast.” Nonetheless, it is
recorded that He came “to Cana of Galilee” afterward. The evangelist listens to
himself and is not puzzled about the narrative. After mentioning in what manner
the Lord left Judea and went to Galilee – and describing how He necessarily had
to pass through Samaria, narrating the incidents near the plot of ground Jacob
gave to Joseph by Jacob's well, and how He stayed two days with the Samaritans –
he resumes the account of His arrival in Galilee, despite many intervening
matters being narrated. Since we have previously noted that Judea symbolizes
something superior as it is positioned above, and Galilee something inferior,
the compassionate God does not overlook the inspection of the lesser, and hence
leaves the Samaritans promptly to attend to those Galileans who would willingly
receive Him and to heal a nobleman’s son. Having done these things in Galilee,
with the feast of the Jews at hand, He goes up to Jerusalem, making the feast
more joyful and significant by His presence.

Let us see also what this means, “for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has
no honor in his own country,” and let us seek the sense of the phrase deserving
of Jesus’ testimony. The homeland of the prophets was indeed in Judea, and it is
evident that they did not receive honor among the Jews, having been stoned, sawn
asunder, tempted, slain with the sword, wandering in sheepskins and goatskins,
being destitute, afflicted, tormented. And the Jews are reproached by the one
who says to them: "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And
they have killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One?"
Furthermore, they dishonored even the ultimate prophet, through whom the
prophets became prophets: "Away with him, away with him, crucify him," they
said. In my homeland, however, all the prophets and the one raised up by God
according to what was said about him by Moses— "The Lord your God will raise up
for you a prophet from among your brethren like unto me; him shall you hear"—are
honored; for was not his homeland among the nations that had accepted salvation
through Israel's transgression? And it is also written elsewhere: "No prophet is
accepted in his homeland and in his own house," and it is useful to gather from
the Gospels when and to whom this was said regarding the Savior. It is
remarkable to observe the truth of the Savior’s statement, which is seen not
only in regard to the holy prophets who were dishonored by their own people and
to our Lord himself but also to those who excelled in some wisdom and were
despised by their fellow citizens, so that some of them were even led to death.
This can be gathered from Greek history concerning those who philosophized and
practiced astronomy or excelled in any other study. And there are such voices of
dishonor: "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And
his brothers are with us? From whence then does this man have all these things?"
And it is most paradoxical of the prophets that, while alive, their fellow
citizens did not honor them, but upon their death, they attend to them by
building and adorning their tombs. To build and adorn the monuments of the
prophets is when someone, leaving aside the life-giving spirit that resides in
the intentions of their writings, attends to and decorates the letter that
kills, thinking the beauty of the prophecy lies in the mere letter. This is the
work of those who are tormented by the Lord—the scribes and Pharisees, the
scribes named after the mere letter, and the Pharisees, who are divided and have
lost the divine unity; for Pharisee means "the separated ones."

[John 4:45] When therefore he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him,
having seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast: for they also
went unto the feast.

It is worth seeing the reason for the acceptance of the Galileans, who received
the Savior coming into Galilee, if it was such as to instill amazement and
wonder about the Savior, so as to receive him; and what is referred to by the
many things he did in Jerusalem, the "having seen all the things he did in
Jerusalem at the feast.” We find nothing mentioned before, except that "he found
in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers
sitting; and having made a scourge of cords, he drove them all out of the
temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and
overturned the tables, and to those who sold doves he said, 'Take these things
hence, make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.'” What therefore is so
great in these things, that the Galileans, moved by them, received the Lord,
testified because of this to have received him, since having come to the feast
in Jerusalem they saw all the things Jesus did there? If we remember the things
said in the place indicating no less power to be manifested by the Savior in
those things than that which worked to make the blind see, the deaf hear, and
the lame walk, it must be said that what the Galileans, realizing what they
never thought, and being astonished at the divinity of Jesus, received him
coming into Galilee "having seen all the things he did in Jerusalem.” And the
"all these things” were, with the scourge of cords, driving out of the temple
both the sheep and the oxen and pouring out the changers' money and overturning
the tables, and with authority telling those who sold doves, "Take these things
hence, make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.” Yet I think he did
not only these things then, but also other signs; for it is added to those, "Now
when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover during the feast, many believed in his
name, observing his signs which he did"; upon which also Nicodemus says, “Rabbi,
we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs
that you do unless God is with him.” But it is permitted for a Galilean to be
celebrating in Jerusalem, where the temple of God is, and to see all the things
Jesus did there, especially how he drove out with the scourge of cords those who
sold oxen and sheep and doves, the sheep and the oxen and the rest. For the
feast in Jerusalem is the beginning for the Galileans to also receive the Son of
God coming to them; for if they had not seen the things at the feast, they would
not have received him; nor would he have so eagerly come to them if they had not
been prepared to receive him, having left those who asked him to "stay with
them." But those who received Jesus also received the one who sent him; for he
says, "He who receives me receives the one who sent me." First, then, one must
see, that is, understand, all the works of Jesus in Jerusalem, how he cleanses
the temple, restoring it to be "the house of my Father" and no longer “a house
of merchandise,” so that after seeing these things, we may receive the word who
worked these things. I think that the one who has not seen all the works of
Jesus in Jerusalem will not receive Jesus, nor will he come to this visit, which
is a symbol of the visit to those who have not previously gone up to the feast
and have not seen all the things he did in Jerusalem.

[John 4:46] Then he came again to Cana of Galilee, where he had made the water
wine.

Whatever we have discussed concerning Cana, we have said above. And not without
reason are there two visits of Jesus in Cana; for perhaps they signify the two
comings of the Savior into the world: the first, to bring joy to those feasting,
and the second, to raise the son of a certain royal one, now near death, but not
a king's son. Perhaps the royal one was Abraham or Jacob, whose people—the son—,
after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, he will save in the end. And
there can also be two presences of the Word in the soul: the former offering
wine made from water for the joy of those at the feast, and the latter removing
every remaining weakness and the threat of death. It is not surprising if most
of the works of God are hidden, with Jesus doing many things for the salvation
of those in various places, of which types are the remaining recorded passages.
By visiting twice in this Cana, he confirms the possession of those who believe
in the Father through him from this land.

[John 4:46-53] And there was a certain royal official whose son was sick at
Capernaum. And he believed, and his whole house as well.

We do not commonly find among the Jews the name “royal official,” hence neither
do we, with respect to the story, cast our minds to who this royal official was,
and whose king's name he bore. The more genuine would consider this royal
official to be a man of King Herod’s. But another, similar to this one, will say
that this royal official came from the household of Caesar, doing something
around Judea at that time; for it is not found clearly whether he was a Jew,
since it does not follow his son who was sick in Capernaum was native to that
place. His rank is also evident from the fact that his servants met him as he
was coming down, saying that his son lives; for the servants are mentioned in
the plural. Thus, let the history stand as it does, and the son of the royal
official have recovered more elegantly by the words of the Savior at the seventh
hour, freed from the fever, and his whole house believed. Let us then, as much
as in us lies, investigate of whose symbol he might be and his son. Indeed,
there is a great king, whose city is the true Jerusalem, and the king of kings,
the one who went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself and to
return, and coming back as king, we know none other than he who says, “But I am
appointed king by him over Zion, his holy mountain, declaring the command of the
Lord.” All who see and rejoice in his day are the king’s people, and those who
believe in the Father through him are reputed as his kingdom, of whom we seek
one and the son of him who was sick, and the following associates. We said above
that the whole people are sons of Abraham, as they themselves boast, “We are
Abraham’s seed and have never been enslaved to anyone,” and, “Are you greater
than our father Abraham who died?” For the people boasted of him beyond the rest
and with him, saying, and hence even the Savior says, “Do not begin to say, ‘We
have Abraham as our father,’” or “Do not think to say, ‘We have Abraham as our
father;’ for God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” But
Isaiah also says to the people, “Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who
bore you.” And why should we extend the argument by examples, since it is clear
that he primarily holds the position of the people’s father, which is why he is
specially called “father”? We therefore conjecture that the royal official is
Abraham, and his son who was sick in Capernaum and was about to die represents
the Israelite nation, weakened in godliness and the observance of the divine
laws and falling to death unto God, inflamed by the fiery darts of the enemy and
thus said to be feverish. It appears that the saints who have passed from this
life care about the people, as it is written in the Maccabees many years after
the assumption of Jeremiah, "This is Jeremiah, the prophet of God, who prays
much for the people." Therefore, see if it is possible for us to understand that
Abraham, being a nobleman, when his son was sick and about to die, requests help
from our Savior, going to Him and asking that He come down and heal his son, for
he was about to die. The statement, “Unless you see signs and wonders,”
referring to him, has relevance to his sons, and perhaps also to himself. For as
John, expecting Christ’s advent, awaited the given sign to recognize the
prophesied one - and the sign was, “On whom you see the Spirit descending and
remaining, this is the Son of God” - so the holy ones who have fallen asleep,
expecting the coming of Christ in the flesh, recognized Him through signs and
wonders, believing in the hoped-for Savior through these. Quickly he asks the
Lord to come down to his ailing child, fearing that death would overcome the
sick, and Christ drives away the fever by His word, promising the father
concerning the life of the endangered child through, "Go; your son lives." This
nobleman has not only a son but also servants, symbolized by Abraham’s household
and bought slaves, representing a certain inferior and subordinate belief.
These, being with the sick child, witness his salvation and meet the father,
announcing the child's health with, "Your child lives," indicating that they did
not believe previously that the master's child lived. Not in vain does the fever
leave him at the seventh hour, for this number is of rest. However, the son in
Capernaum, the one who was sick and being healed in the "field of consolation,"
represents a race labouring but not entirely devoid of fruit. The father's faith
is most complete when he believes in the son's salvation and when his whole
household believes in Christ. After descending from Judea to Galilee, how Jesus
performed this second sign, as much as possible, we will investigate in the
following passages according to the text. If the nobleman is an image of the
rulers of this age, and if his son is especially the people under his authority,
and, to put it in this way, a kind of chosen ones among them, and if his illness
represents a condition contrary to the will of the ruler, and Capernaum
symbolizes the place of residence of those under him, it is worth examining. For
I think that even some of the rulers, struck by His power and divinity, have
fled to Him and deemed worthy of the things governed under them; for why indeed
would men accept repentance and transform from unbelief to faith, but we
hesitate to say something similar about the powers? Or let someone tell us why
those clothed in flesh and blood, having transformed, are able to come to God
through Christ, but those using a purer nature are all insusceptible to faith in
the savior and amazement at the miraculous powers brought about by Him; but I
think that even among the rulers something becomes better in the presence of
Christ, so that some whole cities or even nations have come to hold more closely
to the things concerning Christ. And there will be nothing strange about this
interpretation if it is said to the royal official, "Unless you see signs and
wonders, you will not believe." The royal official being able to entreat
concerning the power of God, to come down to the place of the child's illness
and heal the one that is sick; but not necessarily needing to come down to the
feverish son of the royal official; for "Your son lives" is sufficient when said
for the salvation of the child, the word being effective and creative of what
the speaker desires. Heracleon seems to call the creator the royal official
because he also ruled over what was under him; but due to his short and
temporary reign, he is called royal official, as if a small king appointed by a
universal king over a small kingdom; and narrates that his son in Capernaum is
the soul attached to the part that is lower and toward the sea, that is, the one
attached to matter, and says that his own person being weak, that is, not
according to nature, was in ignorance and sins. Then the phrase "from Judea into
Galilee" instead of "from the higher Judea"... I do not know how, moved by "he
was about to die," he thinks he overturns the doctrines of those presuming the
soul to be immortal and contributing to the notion of the soul and body
perishing in hell. And Heracleon does not think the soul to be immortal, but
suitable for salvation, calling it itself the one wearing incorruption mortal
and immortality perishable, whenever "death is swallowed up in victory." In
addition, he says that "unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe"
is properly said to a person of such nature, believing by works and sensory
experience and not by word. He believes "come down before my child dies" was
said because the end of the law is death, arising from sins; so before, he says,
the child is completely put to death by sins, the father petitions the only
savior to help the son, that is, such a nature. Besides, he interprets "Your son
lives" to have been said by the savior without arrogance, since he did not say
"let him live," nor did he declare that he himself provided life. He says that
going down to the sick one and healing him of the illness, that is, the sins,
and giving life through forgiveness, he said, "Your son lives." And adds to "the
man believed" that even the creator is confident that the savior can heal even
when not present. He redeemed the angels of the Creator out of servitude,
proclaiming it in the words, "Your son lives," showing that he is now fitting
and proper and no longer engaging in improper acts. Therefore, he considers that
the servants report to the king concerning the salvation of the son, as he also
believes that the angels are the first to observe the actions of people in the
world, whether they live strictly and sincerely after the Savior's advent.
Regarding the seventh hour, he says that by this hour the nature of the healed
is indicated. And in all these things, "He and his whole household believed" has
been narrated concerning the angelic order and people closest to him. He says it
is questioned whether certain angels who descended upon the daughters of humans
will be saved. And he considers that the destruction of the Creator's humans is
indicated in "The sons of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness." And
concerning these, Isaiah prophesied, "I have borne and raised sons, but they
have rejected me," calling them foreign sons, an evil seed, and a lawless
vineyard producing thorns. These are Heracleon's words, which, being bolder and
more impious, required much preparation to refute if they were true. I do not
know how he also disbelieves in the immortality of the soul, not understanding
what is implied by the term "death." For he should have examined the meaning
carefully and seen if it in every way signified mortality. If it means that the
soul is capable of sin and the soul that sins will die, we too will say it is
mortal; but if he considers its complete dissolution and disappearance as death,
we will not agree, nor can we even think that a mortal substance could transform
into an immortal one, or a corruptible nature into an incorruptible one. For
this is like saying something changes from physical to non-physical, as if there
were a common substrate underlying both physical and non-physical natures, which
remains as those dealing with these matters claim the material remains despite
the qualities changing into incorruptibility. But it is not the same to clothe a
corruptible nature with incorruptibility as it is to change a corruptible nature
into incorruptibility. The same things must be said about the mortal, which does
not change into immortality but is clothed with it. Since he thought the psychic
nature could be convinced by deeds and perception, not by words, we will ask him
about Paul, of what nature he was. If he was of a spiritual nature, how did he
believe through a miraculous appearance? If he could not believe except through
a miraculous appearance, it follows that he too was psychic, according to him.
How is it not impious to consider that the angels of the Creator observe the
steadfast and sincere conduct of those improved by the power of the Savior,
alongside the clear meaning of the word concerning the Creator, and also
contrary to the scripture saying, "Can a man hide in secret places so that I do
not see him?" and "The Lord searches the reins and hearts" and "The Lord knows
the thoughts of men even if they are vain"? How will he save the statement, "He
who knows all things before their existence"? Why is the nature of the healed
indicated more by the number of the hour than the nature of the healing being
accomplished in its appropriate, restful number? The idea of psychic
corruptions, in the end of what we have set forth being said by him, using an
ambiguity and introducing another fourth nature, which he does not intend.

[John 4:54] This again was the second sign that Jesus performed after coming
from Judea to Galilee. The saying is ambiguous; for it signifies something like
this: during the period of Jesus' coming from Judea to Galilee, He performed two
signs, of which the one concerning the royal official's son is the second.
Another interpretation is that of the two signs which Jesus performed in
Galilee, the second was performed upon His coming from Judea to Galilee. And
this indeed is the accepted and true interpretation; for He did not perform the
former upon coming from Judea to Galilee; the former sign was the turning of
water into wine, which happened the day after Andrew, the brother of Simon
Peter, found out where Jesus was staying and stayed with Him about the tenth
hour of the day; for it is written: "The next day He wanted to go to Galilee,
and He found Philip." Consider the arrangement, if we can understand it, where
the evangelist marks this second sign as happening upon the Lord's coming from
Judea to Galilee. We had previously said that the two visits of our Savior to
Cana could symbolize His two comings to earth; which, being by His authority as
He possessed every power both in heaven and on earth, was named Cana. During the
first visit, after baptism, He delights us who were dining with Him and gives us
to drink of the wine that comes from His power, though it was water at first
when it was drawn, but became wine when Jesus transformed it. Indeed, truly
before Jesus the scripture was water, but from Jesus, it has become wine for us.
During the second visit, He releases from fever at the time of judgment, which
He was trusted to bear by God, releasing from fever and completely healing the
son of the royal official, whether named Abraham or some ruler referred to as
royal. And these things have been recounted as leading to the previous ones.
Since we must remember ourselves, it should be noted that His dual visitation to
all creation can be understood. And you will notice if you lay down the first as
preceding in this and the second as following, so that in the former those
accepting Him rejoice, while in the latter those who are healed from every
disease and the burning darts of the enemy are those who did not previously wish
to drink of His wine. The first power is indivisible; for it was He who made the
water wine in Cana, and they who drank it; the second, however, involves a kind
of division; for the son of the royal official who was sick was not where Jesus
was; for he was not in Cana but in Capernaum. And the message of power comes
forth from Cana; for "Your son lives" was spoken in Cana; but the work of the
message takes place in Capernaum; for there the son of the royal official who
was sick was healed by Jesus' word at the seventh hour. We find this man healed
by the word of Jesus, who was not believed to be present with him, as well as
the centurion’s servant; for the Lord did not come into the house of the
centurion when he said, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my
roof, but only speak a word, and my servant shall be healed.” Therefore, He says
to him, “Go, and as you have believed, let it be done for you.” And we have also
noted that in Capernaum both were sick, the centurion’s servant and the
nobleman’s son. Peter’s mother-in-law also, having been bedridden with a fever
in Capernaum, He healed by touching her hand, causing her to arise and serve
Him. And they were healed during the daytime in Capernaum: the nobleman’s son at
the seventh hour, the centurion’s servant, and Peter’s mother-in-law before
evening. “In the evening—according to Matthew, in Capernaum—they brought to Him
many who were demon-possessed, and He cast out the spirits with a word, and
healed all who were sick.” Therefore, some are healed by Jesus later and others
sooner; those at evening later, being lesser, for they were demon-possessed and
in a worse condition than those healed during the day. One should attempt to
gather the places where those in need of healing were found and note in which
places other signs occurred, not just concerning the sick; for example, in
Samaria, the sign was, “You have had five husbands, and the one whom you now
have is not your husband,” which caused the woman to be amazed and say, “I
perceive that you are a prophet”; and to the townspeople, she says, “Come, see a
man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” One must
also observe His words, where and why and upon what occasions they are spoken;
for only through such observations and examinations, along with the sufferings,
will you find little by little the fruits of your labors, the blessing in the
psalms that says, “You shall eat the fruit of your labors.” Additionally, with
regard to “This again is the second sign that Jesus did,” it must also be said
that nowhere are the miracles mentioned alone; if they are spoken of anywhere,
they are recorded along with the signs, as in “Unless you see signs and wonders,
you will not believe”; but often the signs are mentioned without the wonders, as
they are now. And we must inquire whether there is any difference between
wonders and signs. I think that extraordinary and wondrous powers, due to their
extraordinary nature and their surpassing of what is customary, are called
"wonders"; but those that are indicative of something beyond what happens are
called "signs." Therefore, we also find the name "sign" used for
non-extraordinary things. For instance, circumcision is called a sign by God in
these words: "Every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant
between me and you." Nowhere are wonders alone named, since nothing
extraordinary happens in Scripture that is not a sign and symbol of something
beyond what is sensibly occurring. As if a wonder occurred that was not symbolic
of something else, it would have been written that Jesus, or Moses, or some
other saint, performed the wonder. Therefore, when we are taught by Scripture to
seek what something signifies, it says, "This second sign Jesus performed"; but
when the royal official is rebuked for not believing without seeing
extraordinary things, it is no longer said, "Unless you see signs, you will not
believe"—since it is not the signs happening that induce belief as signs, if
coincidentally the sign is not also a wonder—but "Unless you see signs and
wonders, you will not believe," with you believing for the extraordinary, while
we also act because of what is signified by it. You will seek in the
seventy-seventh Psalm, "He placed his signs in Egypt and his wonders in the
field of Tanis," whether signs and wonders differ in their subject, or if they
are the same, insofar as they are signs that occurred in Egypt, with Egypt
itself referring to some intelligible thing; but where they are wonders "in the
field of Tanis," neither the wonders as wonders nor the field of Tanis as the
field of Tanis are to be taken allegorically. But wonders, insofar as they are
signs, need to be referred to their higher meaning, as does the field of Tanis
to Egypt. Let us conclude here with the thirteenth volume, containing the
account of events up to the seventh ministry of Jesus from the beginning: first,
being baptized at Bethabara beyond the Jordan; secondly, making water wine at
Cana of Galilee; third, descending to Capernaum where it is fitting that those
who are weak are; fourth, ascending to Jerusalem; fifth, residing in Judea with
his disciples; sixth, teaching in Samaria at Jacob's well, which we examined to
the extent possible; and seventh, again being at Cana of Galilee. Henceforth, by
God's grace, we will discuss what happened and was said during the festival of
the Jews in Jerusalem.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 19
========================================================================

Volume 19 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by
ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca

[John 8:19] Jesus answered, “You neither know me nor my Father. If you had known
me, you would have known my Father also.”

If the words were addressed to the same, saying, "You know me and where I am
from," [John 7:28] and then saying, "You neither know me nor my Father," it
would seem directly contradictory. But now the phrase "You know me" is directed
to some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem who said, "Do the rulers know indeed
that this is truly the Christ? But we know where this man is from, and when the
Christ comes, no one knows where he is from." However, the statement "You
neither know me" and what follows it is to the Pharisees who said to him, "You
bear witness of yourself; your witness is not true." Nevertheless, he says to
both the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the earlier words, and to the
Pharisees through the words now under examination, that they do not know the
Father. To the inhabitants of Jerusalem, through these words: "I have not come
of myself, but He who sent me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him because
I am from Him, and He sent me." And to the Pharisees, through the words: "You
neither know me nor my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my
Father also." And one may reasonably inquire how, if it is true that "If you had
known me, you would have known my Father also," the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to
whom he says, "You know me," do not know the Father. And John adds to the
perplexity regarding this point by what he says in his catholic epistle:
"Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the
Son has the Father also." For if "Whoever denies the Son denies the Father" and
"He who acknowledges the Son has the Father also," it is evident that the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, insofar as they do not know the Father, by denying the
Father, also deny the Son. And if they deny the Son, how is the statement "You
know me" true? Again, if they know the Son because of "You know me," since "He
who acknowledges the Son has the Father also," they acknowledge the Father. But
if they acknowledge the Father, how is it true that "He who sent me is true,
whom you do not know"?

It must be said that the Savior sometimes speaks about himself as a man and
sometimes as having a divine nature united with the unbegotten nature of the
Father. For when he says, "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the
truth," he speaks knowing that what is being sought to be killed is not God but
a man. But when he says, "I and the Father are one" and "I am the truth and the
life" and "I am the resurrection" and similar things, he is not teaching about
the man who is sought to be killed. Thus, we must understand from the context
whether each of the matters before us refers to his human nature or his
divinity. The phrase "You know me and where I am from" refers to his human
nature, but "You neither know me nor my Father" refers to his divinity. For
before saying, "You know me and where I am from," the following had been stated:
"Some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem said, 'Is this not the man whom they seek
to kill? And look, he speaks openly and they say nothing to him. Do the rulers
know indeed that this is truly the Christ? But we know where this man is from;
when the Christ comes, no one knows where he is from.'" And regarding the phrase
"You neither know me nor my Father," the following was said by the Pharisees to
him: "You bear witness of yourself; your witness is not true." Jesus answered
and said to them, “Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true, because
I know where I came from and where I am going. * * * You judge according to the
flesh; I am not judging anyone. But even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for
I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me.” It is clear from these that
it was said by those in Jerusalem, “We know where this man is from,” referring
to his being born in Bethlehem, and knowing that his mother was called Mary, and
his brothers James and John and Simon and Judas. Therefore, it testifies to
those who said, “We know where he is from” by saying, “You know me and you know
where I am from.” To the Pharisees, “Even if I testify about myself, my
testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going;”
speaking according to his divine nature, he said these things, and, as one might
say, as the firstborn of all creation he was. Therefore, to those who asked
these things of him and said, “Where is your father?” he answers (as one might
say, being different from the one who said, “You know me”) and says, “You
neither know me nor my Father.” But regarding the ignorance of the Pharisees,
either not understanding that he was speaking about the God of all, with “He who
sent me testifies about me, the Father,” or if they accepted that he was
speaking about God, thinking that God is in a location, and therefore
responding, “Where is your Father?”

It is necessary, though, to know that heretics consider clearly from this that
the God whom the Jews worship does not be the Father of Christ; for if to the
Pharisees worshipping the creator, they say, the Savior said, “You neither know
me nor my Father,” it is clear that the Father of Jesus, being different from
the creator, the Pharisees did not know, nor did those in Jerusalem, to whom he
had previously said, “But he who sent me is true, whom you do not know.” They
say these things not having read the divine scriptures, nor having kept to the
customary language in them. For even if one can understand thoroughly from the
scriptures of the fathers concerning God that one must worship only Him, if he
does not live well, they say this one does not have the knowledge of God. If,
indeed, another knew about the creator and his priestly service, it would be
clear that even the sons of Eli the priest, being raised in the worship, but
even so, having sinned, it is written about them in the first book of Samuel:
“And the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the Lord.” For we
will inquire of the heretics whether it is written about the creator, “They did
not know the Lord,” and if they answer that these things are about the creator,
we will seek to understand why it was said about the sons of Eli, “They did not
know the Lord;” whether it was due to the things concerning the creator or due
to their wickedness; it is clearly said because of their wickedness that they
are said not to have known the Lord. And this can be found not only about the
sons of Eli but also about other kings who ruled in Israel and Judah who were
sinners. Thus then, the Pharisees did not know the Father; for they did not live
according to the will of the creator.

There is also another meaning of knowing God, with there being a difference
between knowing God and merely believing in God, as is evident from: "Whatever
the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the law," indicating clearly
that it also includes the prophets whose words are called law, as we have
demonstrated elsewhere. It is said in the Psalms: “Be still and know that I am
God.” Who would not agree [believe] that these words were written to people who
believe in the Creator? Whom to know is impossible without being still and
purifying the mind of those who contemplate, and seeing God with more divine
eyes because they have made their hearts pure, and are deemed worthy of this
grace, as the Savior testifies, saying: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they
shall see God.” Similarly, regarding “No one knows the Father except the Son,”
we shall say that knowing the Father is not the same thing as believing in Him.
Therefore, the statement “No one knows the Father except the Son” does not
contradict “And Abraham believed in God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness.” If someone thinks we are forcing the issue by saying that
believing is not the same as knowing, and that it is possible to believe without
having knowledge of the one they believe in, let them hear what Jesus says to
those Jews who had believed in Him: “If you continue in my word, you are truly
my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Notice that before it says “If you continue in my word, you will know the
truth,” it is written: “So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him,” and
what He said was: “If you continue in my word, you will know the truth.” It is
vastly different to have knowledge alongside believing, compared to merely
believing. For one is given by the Spirit, a message of wisdom; to another, a
message of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith by the same Spirit.

These things, then, show that knowing God is different from believing in Him.
Regarding the exactness, we will assign this meaning to the words said to the
Pharisees: “Neither know me, nor my Father,” meaning reasonably: you do not even
believe in my Father, for they did not believe in the one sent by the Father,
and he who denies the Son does not have the Father either; and in no way do I
say that they neither believe nor know. See whether the scripture also teaches
that those who have been united to something and are joined with it are said to
know that to which they have been united and shared in; but before such union
and shared participation, even if they comprehend the words about something,
they do not know it. Therefore Adam, speaking about Eve, said, "This now is bone
of my bones and flesh of my flesh," but did not yet know the woman; for when he
was united with her, it is said, "And Adam knew Eve his wife." And if anyone
should stumble because we have received this as an example concerning the
knowledge of God from "And Adam knew Eve his wife," let him first reflect on
"This mystery is great." Secondly, let him compare what is said about male and
female by the apostle; he uses the same expression concerning man and the Lord:
"He who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her, but he who is joined to
the Lord is one spirit." Therefore, the one joined to the prostitute has known
the prostitute, and the one joined to the wife has known the wife; moreover, he
who is joined to the Lord surely and holy knows the Lord. If this is the case,
the Pharisees did not know the Father nor the Son, and true was the one who
said, "Neither know me nor my Father." If we do not understand it in this final
acceptation—I mean, taking knowledge as the same as being united and
mixed—someone might explain, "But now that you have come to know God, or rather
to be known by God," and, "The Lord knows those who are his." For according to
us, the Lord knew those who were his by uniting with them and sharing with them
his divinity and taking them up, as the gospel word says, into his hand, those
who have believed in the Savior being in the hand of the Father; therefore, if
they do not fall away by distancing themselves from the hand of God, they will
not be seized. For no one seizes from the hand of the Father.

After this, you will inquire into the same point, I mean the statement, "Neither
have you known me, nor my Father," whether it is possible for someone to know
God without knowing the Father; for if there is a different conception of Him as
Father, and a different one as God, then perhaps it is possible to know God
without knowing the Father as long as one knows Him as God, but does not know
the Father. The Savior, therefore, says after the resurrection to Mary, "Go to
my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my
God and your God.'" It is suitable for heterodox to say, granting them that
Moses and the prophets did not know the Father, which perhaps is not true,
because anyone who has not known the Father has not known the Son; for the Son
knows the Father, but the servant knows the Lord; and just as we would not be
impious by saying that the Son did not know the Lord (for being a Son, He has
not experienced the Father's dominion), so keeping the same God, we would not
admit anything absurd by saying that the Son should know the Father and the
servant the Lord, and neither the servant knows the Father nor the Son the Lord.
Though there are many prayers written in the Psalms and the prophets and in the
law itself, we do not find anyone praying and saying to God, "Father," perhaps
because they did not know the Father; but they pray to Him as God and Lord,
expecting the Spirit of adoption that He pours out not less upon them than upon
those believing in God through Him after His appearing; unless indeed the
spiritual advent of Christ has already happened to them and they have once
received the Spirit of adoption when perfected; in a veiled manner and not
openly known to all they called or wrote about God as Father, lest they
anticipate the grace being bestowed upon the whole world through Jesus, calling
everyone to adoption, to declare the name of God to His brothers and praise the
Father in the midst of the congregation according to what is written: "I will
declare Your name to my brothers, in the midst of the congregation I will praise
You." For it is evident that the same God is the God of the prophets and the
creator of the world; it is sufficient for the present to consider the speech of
Stephen in Acts where he says to the people, "Men, brothers, and fathers,
listen." The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, "Depart from your land
and from your kin," and the rest. From the entire speech, it is incontestably
clear to learn that the God of the prophets is the Father of Christ Jesus. And
from the epistle to the Romans of the apostle in these words: "Paul, a servant
of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God, which
He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning
His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was
declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the
resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received
grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the
Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are called of Jesus Christ; to
all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace
from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Clearly, from these words we
have learned that the Creator and God of the prophets and the Father of Christ
is both the God and Father of us. Therefore, the Pharisees not only did not have
knowledge of Him either as Father or as God, who gave the law as the Father of
Christ; but neither did they believe in Him confessing as Father of Jesus and
His God, nor perhaps even as the God who created all things.

They did not know Christ, and the Savior rightly reproves them saying, "You
neither know Me nor My Father." These I inquire: whether "If you knew Me, you
would know My Father also" is equal to "If you knew My Father, you would know Me
also," or not? And I think that these do not equally correspond to one another,
that from the knowledge of the Son ascending to the knowledge of the Father, the
one who knows the Father knows Him not otherwise than by seeing the Son. "For he
who has seen Me," He says, "has seen the One who sent Me." He would not have
said, "He who has seen the Father has seen Me," since he who has perceived the
Word of God has perceived God, ascending from the Word to God. It is impossible
to perceive God apart from the Word. And the one who contemplates the wisdom
that God created before the ages for his works rises from knowing wisdom to
knowing her Father. And it is impossible to conceive the God of wisdom without
progressing through wisdom. You will say the same about truth; for no one can
conceive or behold God without first knowing the truth, so that thus he might
come to see in the essence or the power and nature of God beyond essence. And
perhaps, just as there were some steps in the temple through which one would
enter the Holy of Holies, in the same way, for all of us, the Only-Begotten of
God is the steps. And just as of the steps one is first towards the lower parts,
another higher than it, and so on in succession up to the highest, in the same
way the Savior is all the steps. The first lower one is his human nature, upon
which ascending, we proceed through the rest of his steps along the whole path
in the steps, so that through him, who is both angel and the other powers, we
might ascend. And according to the concepts about him, if there is another way
and door, one must first meet the way, so that afterwards he may reach the door,
and use him as a leader inasmuch as he is also a shepherd, so that he may later
enjoy him also as a king, gain advantage of him first as a lamb, in order to
first take away our sin, and then, being purified, eat his flesh, the true food;
and someone will more diligently examine and acquire these things which are
adjacent, and he will hear: "If you knew me, you would know my Father also," and
"Since you have known me, you have known my Father."

[John 8:20] These words he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple; and no
one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.

If it were not useful to learn from what was previously mentioned that the
Savior spoke in the treasury, the evangelist would not have added to the words
of Jesus, "These words he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple;" and
everywhere that it is mentioned, "These words he spoke" in this place, you will
find the reason for the addition. Therefore, so that it may be understood why
these words were spoken by Jesus in the treasury, we will present what we have
learned from Luke and Mark, who named the treasury. From Luke: "Looking up, he
saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and he saw a certain poor
widow putting in two small coins. And he said, 'Truly I tell you, this poor
widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their
abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.'" And
from Mark: "And Jesus sat opposite the treasury and watched how the crowd put
money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums; but a poor widow
came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny." And he called his
disciples to him, and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put
in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them
have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in
everything she had, all she had to live on." But what does the mention of these
sayings mean to me, considering that the treasury was in the temple? To
understand the presented word of John let us already say: if we regard the
sacred place of God and the matters concerning the temple in a spiritual sense,
correspondingly let us also understand the treasury in the temple, which is a
place for money in honor of God and for the maintenance of the offered poor.
What might this money be other than the divine words bearing the image of the
great king imprinted, observed by experienced bankers, who know how to separate
the genuine from the counterfeit that pretends to be genuine while it is not,
and who keep the command of Jesus saying, "Be competent bankers," as well as the
teaching of Paul saying, "Test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain
from every form of evil"? Let each person contribute to the edification of the
church, bringing to the spiritual treasury whatever they can in honor of God and
for the benefit of the community.

Since the community can be benefited in two ways, both by words and by deeds,
which the righteous performs, these also are fittingly brought to the spiritual
treasury. But as not all have equal or similar strength in this life, since the
householder gave to one five talents, to another two, and to another one, each
according to their ability, the living word accepts them, observing the ability
of those contributing to the treasury we described, and does not only observe
the quantity of their contributions. Therefore, if someone is capable of more,
but contributes less relative to their inherent ability, even though it is more
compared to those less able, he accepts those who contribute less with all their
might over those who contribute more from an ability to give manifold, as it is
written in what we have set forth from both Luke and Mark. At the same time,
these spoken words teach the one who has understood them spiritually to never
think of exalting themselves above those who are considered inferior by human
judgment. For, let no one be convinced who thinks themselves to do greater and
better things, comparing themselves with those who, as far as human judgment is
concerned, do the least, just because they have done everything they could, or
because the other person did not deliver everything they could according to the
word's requirement. Then Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts
into the treasury, and noticing the poor widow putting in two small coins,
perhaps in a way according to her discernment or her practice, thinking more
simply about divine matters and living accordingly, he said, “Truly I say to
you, this poor widow has put in more than all.” And he said this observing how
those who were powerful and rich, able to contribute many times more, put into
the offerings for God only a small fraction of what they were capable of
contributing. But he reflected on the widow’s want and how, by straining
herself, she had offered everything she had for survival into the treasury in
the temple, giving all her strength to God. So Jesus, according to Luke, looking
up at the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, also saw the poor widow
putting in two small coins; and according to Mark, standing opposite the
treasury he watched how the people gave, each according to their ability, into
the treasury, like meaningful copper, and being able to see the rich he also saw
if a poorly endowed soul gave with all their might and was thus justified more
than the many rich. He does not say these things to the general public but, as
Mark says, to his disciples; and he now, calling his disciples, teaches them to
see not as man sees but as God sees (“For man looks at the outward appearance,
but the Lord looks at the heart”), the “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has
put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury," and the
following words.

What do all these things mean to me as the narrative presents “These words that
he spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple,” or show that when everyone
contributing to the treasury of the temple gave the things to nourish those in
need, Jesus should have given the things to benefit them more than all, which
were words of eternal life and teaching about God and himself? And indeed, more
precious than any currency was the saying “I am the light of the world,” spoken
in the treasury, and “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also,”
and all the further sayings in that place. And compared to the words of Jesus,
all the gold brought by the others into the treasury was like a little sand; for
all his words were wisdom. “For all gold in comparison to wisdom is a little bit
of sand, and silver will be counted as clay before it.” [Wisdom 7:9] And these
things will be clearly understood by those who have learned to hearken to the
wisdom spoken among the perfect, hidden in a mystery, "which God foreordained
before the ages to the glory" of His righteous ones, and who are able to
perceive the supremacy of God's wisdom beyond the "wisdom of this age" or "the
rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing," as if using their own prophets,
opposing any words that are contrary to truth; for all other wisdoms are
considered little sand compared to gold in the presence of the wisdom [Wisdom
7:9], which God created as the beginning of His ways for His works, and the
shining and persuasive argument of many regarded as silver will be counted as
clay [Wisdom 7:9], the pure oracles of the Lord that are seven times purified
and proved, as they come from the Word who was with God in the beginning. And
from the book called Wisdom, we have otherwise recorded to understand the power
of "These words which He spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple." For let
the narrative about the rich and the poor widow be kept as it has been rendered,
and if anyone is an imitator of Christ, let him not walk by the mind alone to
the spiritual temple of God, but be led by the Spirit able to guide him there,
and bring accepted offerings, words of eternal life, to the treasury, and works
corresponding to such words. But may none of us be poor or widowed, able to
bring nothing more than two mites, nor rich bringing only out of abundance, but
consecrating all wealth to God.

Jesus did not speak all the words He had in the treasury teaching, but only as
many as the treasury could hold; for I think not even the whole world could
contain the word of God. Yet, still speaking and teaching so many words in the
treasury, Jesus was not yet seized by anyone; for His words were stronger than
those wishing to seize Him. And as long as He speaks, none of His adversaries
could seize Him; but if He is silent, then He is seized. Thus, when He desired
to suffer for the world, being examined by Pilate and scourged, He was silent;
for if He had spoken, it would no longer have happened to Him to be crucified
through weakness, since there is no weakness in what the Word speaks. And while
He was in the treasury, the time for Him to be seized had not yet come, nor even
when He was in the temple; but He needed to be in a place like a torrent when He
wished and could be seized. And it was necessary that the time for His capture
should not be by day; "For Judas, having taken the cohort and officers from the
chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns and torches and weapons."
We have discussed more about "His hour had not yet come" above, and it will be
useful for the present as well.

[John 8:21] Then He said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek me,
and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." And these
things He spoke in the treasury, in the temple, adding to the previous words not
only these but more until, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am." After this statement, when they took up stones to throw at Him, Jesus hid
Himself and went out of the temple. Passing by, He saw a man who was blind from
birth, about whom we will inquire, God willing, when we meet at the place. He
says these things so that they may happen, "While He was speaking these things,
many believed in Him," like the poor coming to the treasury to take whatever
they can and whatever is distributed to them. Many indeed believed in Him, but
not many knew Him, since among those who believed in Him, those who remain in
His word, truly becoming His disciples, will know the truth. Not many of those
who believed in Him remain in His word, nor do many truly become His disciples.
Therefore, not many will know the truth, and if the truth sets free, they will
not be free; for very few perceive freedom. Who then are those who will know or
exalt Him? As He Himself teaches, saying, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then
you will know that I am He." No one exalts Him while being fed with milk,
preparing himself for receiving solid food; therefore, He says to such a one, "I
determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified," to
whom even the minister of the word becomes weak, as Paul says to such, "I was
with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling." Thus speaks the word of
God, beginning the second teachings in the treasury in the temple, "I am going
away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin." I seek through the
"While He was speaking these things, many believed in Him," lest perhaps He says
this not to all those present, but to those who He knew would not believe, and
therefore they will die in their sin and will not be able to follow Him; unable
because they do not want to; for if willing, they could not, it would not
reasonably be said to them, "You will die in your sin."

Someone might say to this, "If He said this to those persisting in unbelief, how
can He say to such, 'You will seek me'?" For often seeking Jesus is good,
somehow the same as seeking the Word and truth and wisdom. But you will say that
it is also said concerning those who plot, just as in, "They sought to seize
Him, but no one laid a hand on Him because His hour had not yet come," and in "I
know that you are Abraham’s seed, but you seek to kill me, because my word finds
no place in you," and in "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the
truth which I heard from God." Therefore, it is said to those not seeking
rightly, "You will seek me," not contradicting "Everyone who seeks finds." And
there are always differences among those seeking Jesus, not all seeking Him
genuinely and for their own salvation and to benefit from Him. For there are
also countless fallen dispositions seeking Jesus; therefore, only those who have
rightly sought Him found peace, who rightly could be said to seek the Word from
the beginning, the Word with God, and to be brought near to the Father. But when
the Word is present and appearing, if it is not accepted, it threatens to depart
and says, "I am going away;" and if we seek Him after He has departed, we shall
not find Him, but we shall die in our sins. He knows from whom He is going away
and to whom He remains inaccessible until He is sought in due time. And it is
said to those who have Him like this and have not yet observed Him: "Do not say
in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven? That is, to bring Christ down; or,
'Who will descend into the abyss? That is, to bring Christ up from the dead.'
But what does the scripture say? 'The word is very near you, in your mouth and
in your heart.'" To these, the Savior kindly shows also concerning the kingdom
of God, so that they do not seek it outside themselves nor say, "Here it is," or
"There it is;" for He says to them, "The kingdom of God is within you." And as
long as we preserve within our soul the seeds of truth and its beginnings that
were sown in us, the Word has not yet departed from us; but if we are corrupted
by the outpouring of wickedness, then He will say to us, "I am going," so that
if we seek Him we shall not find Him, but we shall die in our sins, caught in
them and taken by those appointed to seize the soul, according to what was said:
"Fool, this very night your soul will be demanded from you."

We should not pass over unexamined also the phrase, "You will die in your sins."
If it is taken more commonly, it is clear that sinners will die in their sin,
and the righteous will die in their righteousness; but if "You will die" is
understood according to the death of the enemy of Christ, as one sinning unto
death, it is clear that those to whom it was said had not yet died. And you
inquire how those who did not believe while they were living will ever die.
Someone will answer even to this, saying that at that time not yet believing was
not yet a sin unto death, and those to whom the word came had not yet sinned
unto death. But they were living in the weakness of their soul, and that
weakness was unto death. Therefore, the physician, seeing them gravely ill, said
in despair of their healing, "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you
will die in your sins." We said then that "since that infirmity was 'unto death'
for them, since they learned from Jesus the difference of infirmities. Lazarus
also was sick, but the physician knew that his sickness was not unto death;
therefore he says: 'This sickness is not unto death.' Therefore, even when we
take hold of our own sicknesses, let us be careful lest we fall sick unto death,
the disease changing from one that can still have a cure to one that is
incurable. At the same time, it becomes somewhat clearer also what is meant by
'Where I am going, you cannot come,' in relation to 'You will die in your sin.'
For when someone dies in their own sin, where Jesus is going they cannot go; for
no dead person can follow Jesus. 'The dead do not praise you, Lord, nor any of
those who go down into Hades. But we, who are alive, shall bless the Lord.' You
may also add to 'You will die in your sin' what is written in Ezekiel: 'The soul
who sins shall die'; for the death of the soul is sin, though not every sin, but
the one that John speaks of as unto death. He also distinguishes that some sins
are the death of the soul, some its sickness, and perhaps even thirdly, some a
loss to the soul, the sin namely from 'What shall a man profit if he gains the
whole world but loses or suffers loss of his soul?' and from 'If someone’s work
is burned, he will suffer loss.' To those, therefore, who die in their sin, he
says: 'I go away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin; where I
go, you cannot come,' but to Peter: 'Where I am going, you cannot follow me now,
but you will follow afterward'; for it is possible that one who is a disciple of
Jesus can now not be prepared to follow Him as He goes to the Father, but later
diligently walking in His steps, they may follow their teacher and follow the
Word of God. It is reasonable that someone, considering what pertains to the
end, will dwell on 'Where I am going you cannot come,' and regarding it will say
that one may be unable to do so now, but later may be able; and if there is a
present age and another to come, to whom it is said, 'You cannot come,' in the
present age (and much time remains until its completion) they cannot come where
Jesus is, which is, where truth and wisdom and the Word are, for that is 'where
Jesus is.' I know some who are not only in this age but also in the future held
by their own sin, as those regarding whom the Word says: 'He who blasphemes
against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness either in this age or in the
age to come,' nor indeed even in the future age nor in the ages to come. But
Heracleon, setting forth the word about the treasury, said nothing about it. But
to 'Where I am going you cannot come,' he says: 'How can those in ignorance,
unbelief, and sins attain incorruption?' and not even in this does he listen to
himself; for if those in ignorance, unbelief, and sins cannot attain
incorruption, how have the apostles who were once in ignorance and unbelief, and
in sins, attained incorruption? Therefore, those who were in ignorance,
unbelief, and sins can become incorrupt if they change, and it is possible for
them to change."

[John 8:22] Therefore the Jews were saying, “Surely, he will not kill himself,
will he, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”

It is worth asking what moved the Jews to say, "Surely, he will not kill
himself, will he, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?" so that
it may also be given more simply that they said “Surely, he will not kill
himself?" How can those who are able to kill themselves, even if they do not
take their own lives and do not go where one who takes his own life goes, not be
able to go where the one who takes his own life goes? It must therefore be said,
concerning these inquiries, to those who more carefully and deeply hear the
words spoken by the Jews in the Gospels, that it is clear that they were saying
many things according to certain secret and obscure traditions, as having known
things other than the common and publicized ones. But when we see from the
context of the said things, then we will seek if they also say this about the
Savior, seeing something deeper. But that they said so according to retired and
obscure words, not publicized ones, is evident from the fact that they said that
the unclear one cast out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons. For they
surely had learned something about demons and their ruler, whose name is
Beelzebul; these things are not very much laid out in the extant books; and the
Savior's testimony does not lie when he says of Beelzebul, “If I cast out demons
by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?” For having admitted that
there is one Beelzebul and that in him one casting out demons, he speaks as if a
division of Satan against himself is in effect. They were mistaken indeed,
saying that the demons were cast out by the Savior in Beelzebul, but they had a
grasp that there was a Beelzebul, ruler of demons. But even if they say about
Jesus that he is John risen from the dead, or one of the prophets, surely having
a belief about the soul, as we have examined in the case of John, they
conjecture such things about the Savior. It is likely that they also knew myriad
other things, either from tradition or from apocryphal sources, beyond the
common knowledge. Let us therefore see about "Surely, he will not kill himself?"
if they might have thought something not more common and simpler, such as when
one takes his own life either by hanging or by sword or by any other means, and
especially since they think that by taking his own life he would go to a place
they could not reach. And if not indeed superstitiously concerning names, but
observing the matters not found using other names according to the matters,
maybe, so to speak, in a more divine manner Jesus took away his own life, which
we thus set forth: that the souls of all departing from the body, being demanded
back by certain appointed over this, are taken up; it is likely that those
appointed over this service are superior to the souls themselves; for the saying
“Fool, this night your soul is demanded back from you” signifies something of
the sort.

If someone says that this can be said only about the lesser ones and not about
the greater and virtuous ones, let him understand whether our Lord uniquely
declares concerning himself: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of
my own accord; I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up
again." For let us consider someone who leaves the body when he wishes and
departs without the way that leads to death, whether through violent means or
through diseases, and then returns whenever he wishes, and uses the body as an
instrument, which he had left behind; for we would say of such a person that his
life is not taken away from him. And it is fitting indeed to say this about
Jesus' life, and that he, wanting to present to his disciples the uniqueness of
his departure, said, "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own
accord"; for neither Moses, nor any of the Patriarchs or prophets, nor any of
the apostles, would say this except Jesus, since all the souls of men are taken
away from them. With this being understood, it can be clear what was said in the
seventy-seventh Psalm in this manner from the perspective of the Savior: "Among
the dead, free." By examining what is written in the Gospels about his
departure, you will find the account of his exodus not discordant with the
records; for if he had died as the bandits crucified with him, with the soldiers
breaking the legs of those suffering, we would not say that he laid down his
life of his own accord, but in some way like dying ones. But now "Jesus cried
out with a loud voice and gave up his spirit," and like a king leaving the body
and acting with power and authority, doing what he thought reasonable to do,
immediately "the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the
earth shook, and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened, and many
bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and after his
resurrection, they came out of the tombs and went into the holy city and
appeared to many"; seeing this, the centurion and those with him, who were
keeping guard over Jesus, were greatly afraid, saying, "Truly this was the Son
of God." Perhaps then, among the traditions about Christ, just as it was said
that he was born in Bethlehem and arose from the tribe of Judah in accordance
with the sound interpretations of the prophetic words, so also regarding his
death, as he himself separated from life in the manner we have said; and it is
likely that they knew this about the one who would depart in this way to a place
where those understanding these things could not be, so they did not speak in a
simple sense but according to some tradition about Christ, saying, "Will he kill
himself because he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" And if the Jews
say these things, they say them hesitantly; for "Will he kill himself?" is of
this nature. And it is not surprising that they were confused about Christ,
considering even earlier the people, having heard the words of Jesus, were
saying: "This man is truly the prophet;" others were saying: "This man is the
Christ;" still others were saying: "No, the Christ does not come from Galilee,
does he? Has not the scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David
and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" So there became a division
among the people because of him. Shortly after, it is written that "The officers
answered, 'Never has a man spoken like this man.'” As even the Pharisees told
those marveling at his word: "Surely you have not been led astray too, have you?
Has anyone of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd
that does not know the law is accursed." When Nicodemus, who had come to him
earlier, said, "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and
knowing what he is doing?" They replied, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and
see that no prophet arises from Galilee."

How could those hearing him saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever
follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life," consider
him as simply removing himself? To this, the Pharisees said to him, "You testify
on your own behalf; your testimony is not true." Jesus answered, "Even if I
testify on my own behalf, my testimony is true, because I know where I came from
and where I am going. You judge by human standards; I judge no one. Yet even if
I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the
Father who sent me. In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is
true. I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies
on my behalf." What is believable in killing oneself after speaking these
intelligent words: "You do not know me or my Father; if you knew me, you would
know my Father also"? It is likely that they expected the same for his saying,
"I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin.
Where I am going, you cannot come." To this, the Jews responded, “Will he kill
himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?” It is indeed
evident that the authority to die willingly, leaving the body behind, lies in "I
am going away." Perhaps because of "I am going away," he adds "And you will
search for me." It is likely that those present with him, when he departed from
life, would seek him. And because they die in their sins, even after all this,
they were not convinced enough to say about him unmistakably, "Will he kill
himself?" since they cannot go where he is going. I think that with more ill
intent, naming it according to what was said about the death of Christ, it has
come to them. "And not glorifying the one thus departing from life, they have
said the phrase, 'Will he kill himself?' For it was said hesitantly, with an
emphasis on his glory in death, and as if to say in this manner: Will his soul
leave, whenever he wishes, leaving behind the body, and this is why he says,
'Where I am going, you cannot come.' At the same time, observe what was said to
us about how he departed from life: 'And going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the
twelve aside by themselves, and on the way, he told them, 'Behold, we are going
up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests
and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him to the Gentiles
to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and on the third day he will rise
again.' If someone objects by quoting, 'From then on, he began to show his
disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders,
chief priests, and scribes, and be killed,' and 'The Son of Man is to be
delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he
will rise again,' you will say that they killed him, all who shouted, 'Crucify,
crucify him,' and those who are guilty of his death, even though he cried out
with a loud voice and gave up his spirit before the soldiers coming to break his
legs. Refer also to this: 'Whoever finds me will kill me,' and 'Anyone who kills
Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.' For how could 'Whoever finds Cain
will kill him' be true if one had already killed him? Or how could 'Anyone who
kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over' not imply that many would
kill him? For the word 'anyone' has been said about a multitude. Perhaps Peter,
taking the words of the Savior in a more human sense, says, 'God forbid, Lord;
this shall never happen to you.' But the Savior, rebuking him for not
understanding correctly, says, 'Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block
to me, for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's.'
Likewise, see how Paul's statement, 'He gave himself for us as a sacrifice to
God,' fits into this context. Thus alone can you interpret the eternal high
priest according to the order of Melchizedek and the lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world, offering a sacrifice to God, not by the hands of the
ungodly but by a pious high priest. So we have wrestled with the intent of those
who said, 'Will he kill himself because he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot
come'?' having heard the many words previously spoken by Jesus. It is likely
that some stumble at what they think is a forced interpretation, believing the
Jews simply said, 'Will he kill himself?' as if Jesus were taking his own life
and going to a place of punishment where they could not go, not being guilty of
the same sin against themselves. But even they must admit if the Jews could have
conceived that Jesus said this, condemning himself to a place of punishment
where they could not go, considering themselves better than him, or they will
have to admit that if Jesus perceived this and decided to kill himself, he
preferred taking his own life to not doing so. Also, Heracleon claims that the
Jews, thinking meanly of Jesus, said this and considered themselves greater than
the Savior, believing they were destined for eternal rest with God, while the
Savior, by managing his death, was heading towards destruction and death, where
they did not think they would go. In their very words, he says that the Jews
believed the Savior was saying, 'I, managing my own death, am going to
destruction, where you cannot come.' But how can this be, according to the one
who said, 'I am the light of the world,' and what follows, that he was heading
toward destruction? If someone argues that the Savior did not say this, but the
Jews thought it, it becomes clear that the Jews had despised him, believing that
those who destroy themselves would perish and be punished, which was utterly
foolish in every way."

[John 8:23] And he said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are
of this world, I am not of this world." And in the foregoing, he said, "He who
is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks of the earth; he who comes from
heaven is above all; what he has seen and heard, this he testifies." Therefore,
if "he who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks of the earth," and
"he who comes from heaven testifies to what he has seen and heard," you may
inquire whether "being of the earth" is the same as "being from below" or
something different. And at the same time, notice that he did not say, "He who
is from heaven belongs to heaven and speaks of heaven"; for perhaps the Savior
was not from heaven, most especially as he was the firstborn of all creation.
For "the second man" was from heaven, as Paul also somewhere says, "The first
man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven." Here too,
consider whether "You are from below" and "You are of this world" mean the same
thing or if "being from the earth" is different from "being of this world."
Similarly, examine "I am from above" and "I am not of this world." It is
worthwhile to see what it means to be "from above" and what it means to be "not
of this world."

Indeed, consider whether he who has taken on generation and bodies from matter,
by abandoning the better part, is from the earth; whoever belongs to the earth
speaks of the earth, not being able to see or speak of anything higher. Such a
one is also from below. However, there is a different conception of being from
below and being of the earth. Below is understood not only in terms of place but
also in beliefs and mind. And anyone who uses such beliefs and mind, which are
from below, is from below. But also, the visible world, having become material,
due to those who desire material life, has places that differ; all such places
are considered below in comparison to the immaterial, the invisible, and the
incorporeal, not so much in place as in comparison to the invisible. As for
examining the places of the world with the places of the world, some places
might indeed be below and others above; the earthly things are below, and the
heavenly things are above, thus someone who is from below is certainly of this
world, but someone who is of this world is not necessarily from below. For
consider if someone who is a citizen of the heavenly things is somehow of this
world, but not locally from below. Nevertheless, even he is from below in
comparison to the intelligible things. For every citizen of the visible and
transient and temporary is from below, even if he happens to be in the highest
place. Yet it is possible for the one from below and from this world and from
the earth to change and become from above and no longer from this world, and
another who is from this world, but from heaven. For he says to his disciples:
"You were of the world, and I chose you out of the world, and you are no longer
of the world." For if the Savior came to seek and save what was lost, he came to
transfer those below and registered among the below to the above. For he who
descended to the lower parts of the earth did so for those in the lowest parts
of the earth; but he also ascended above all the heavens, making a path for
those willing and truly apprenticed to him, the path leading above all the
heavens, that is, above the realm of bodies. And if you desire to learn from
writing who is from below and who is from above, listen: since wherever each
one’s treasure is, there also is his heart; if someone treasures on the earth,
he becomes from below by treasuring on the earth, but if someone treasures in
the heavens, he is born from above and assumes the image of the heavenly; but
even otherwise, having gone through all the heavens, he is found in the highest
blessedness. It would be as each one’s works, as I said, so that one may say
that the works of the flesh make one from below, but the fruit of the Spirit
makes one from above; and again, love for this world makes one from this world.
Since, according to John, the one who has the love of God * * he is not from
this world, who does not love the world nor the things in the world, but says,
"May it never be that I boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world," and
proceeds to love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul and
with all his mind, such love not being distressed by love for the world or the
things in the world; for it is impossible for love for the world to coexist with
love for God, just as it is impossible for light and darkness, or Christ and
Belial, or the temple of God and the temple of idols to coexist. As there is a
difference among the lower things themselves, it is said superlatively, "They
placed me in the lowest pit" and "He who descended into the lower parts of the
earth, this one also ascended." Therefore, all those descending into the lower
regions of the earth, into Hades, will fall down before Christ, since it is
true: "In death, there is no one remembering you, and in Hades, who will confess
you?" And if someone argues about Him descending into the lower parts of the
earth, you will notice that it is said about those descending into the earth:
"They will fall down," for all things submit to Christ and every knee bends at
the name of Jesus; some fall down to Him sooner and others later. Perhaps those
on the earth will fall down and be subjected before others, for it is worse to
be subjected later, which is why "the last enemy to be destroyed is death."
After this, inquire if there is also a difference among the higher things, just
as there is among the lower, as something is spoken of as the lowest, so also
among the higher, especially since the inheritance of the kingdom of heavens is
the same, with all heirs of heavens being above, but not all equally having the
state of being above. But even with the intellectual descent of the soul due to
wickedness and malicious doctrines, and its intellectual ascent, you will find
no simple difference; indeed, you will consider the spiritual descents to be
more profound. At the same time, consider whether you do not hear, more
mystically and not spatially, concerning the soul of Jesus: "Ascending above all
the heavens," for the intellectual ascent of that soul has surpassed all the
heavens and, as it can be said, has already reached toward God Himself.

However, there exists another world besides the visible one composed of heaven
and earth, or heavens and earth, where unseen things exist; and all this is an
invisible world, an unobservable world, and an intellectual world, the vision
and beauty of which will be perceived by the pure in heart, preparing through
seeing it to proceed to see God, such that they see God as He is naturally seen,
as He is by nature, God. Inquire also if in any sense the firstborn of all
creation can be the cosmos, particularly since "wisdom" is manifold; for by
being the reasons of everything whatsoever, by which all things made by God are
made in wisdom (as the prophet says, "You made all things in wisdom"), in Him,
He might also be the cosmos, differing as much from the material cosmos as the
reason devoid of matter differs from the material world, not coming from matter,
but from the participation of reason and wisdom, decorating matter. And observe
if the saying, "I am not from this world," means the soul of Jesus is conducting
itself within the whole cosmos, encompassing it all and guiding those being
taught to it. That world does not have anything below, just as this one does not
have anything above when examined precisely. For how could this world have
anything above, whose creation is a foundation? Therefore, we must not
heedlessly understand "before the foundation of the world," for the holy ones
devised this name of foundation with such an intent; yet, they could have said
"before the creation of the world" and not used the name "foundation." Thus, the
entire world and everything in it are in a foundation; but those true disciples
of Jesus become outside the foundation of every world, whom He chose out of the
world, so that they are no longer of the world, lifting up their own cross and
following Him.

[John 8:24] Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins; for if you do
not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. When did He say to them,
"You will die in your sins," or when He said, "You will seek Me, and you will
die in your sins?" What is the cause of men dying in their sins if not believing
that Jesus is the Christ? For He Himself says, "If you do not believe that I am
He, you will die in your sins." And if he who does not believe that Jesus is the
Christ will die in his own sins, it is clear that he who does not die in his
sins has believed in Christ, and he who dies in his own sins, even if he claims
to believe in Christ, has not truly believed in Him; if faith is said to exist
but without works, it is dead, as we read in the epistle attributed to James. So
who then is he who believes or who has been affected by being disposed according
to the word and to be in concord with it by not falling into, as much as
possible, sinful actions? As for "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ
has been born of God," is it not to sin and towards anything that happens
contrary to the right word? Moreover, you will understand what "For if you do
not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" means, by considering that
He is the firstborn of all creation. For instance, one who believes in what
righteousness is would not act unjustly, and he, by having observed what wisdom
is, having believed in wisdom would not say or do anything foolish, since he who
has believed in the Word that was in the beginning with God, in having
understood Him, would do nothing illogically. Besides, he who believes that "He
is our peace" would not act in a way of war and strife. But if Christ is not
only the wisdom of God but also the power of God, he who believes in Him as
power would not be incapable regarding good things. Necessarily, considering Him
as patience and strength, because "And now, what is my hope? Is it not the
Lord?" and "My strength," and "The Lord is my sustenance," we shall say that if
we yield to hardships, we do not believe in Him as patience, and if we are
feeble, we have not believed in Him as strength. And if we thus reconsider the
remaining attributes of Christ, we will find from the sayings without difficulty
how he who does not believe in Christ will die in his sins; for by becoming in
the opposites of the attribute of Christ, he dies in those very sins.

[John 8:25] So they said to him, "Who are you?"

It was natural for those listening with great authority to ask the one speaking
these things, "Who is this person?" For it appeared that the one asserting these
things seemed to possess a nature greater and more divine than that of a human.
The Savior asserted, "If you do not believe that I am, you will die in your
sins." Hence, the "Who are you?" as if asking directly, was a response such as,
"I am the Christ" or "I am the Prophet" or "I am Elijah" or perhaps "I am an
angel of God." For one asserting such genuine words would certainly belong to
one of these or something similar to them.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 2
========================================================================

Book II.

2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.

3. Various Relations of the Logos to Men.

4. That the Logos is One, Not Many. Of the Word, Faithful and True, and of His
White Horse.

5. He (This One) Was in the Beginning with God.

6. How the Word is the Maker of All Things, and Even the Holy Spirit Was Made
Through Him.

7. Of Things Not Made Through the Logos.

8. Heracleon's View that the Logos is Not the Agent of Creation.

9. That the Logos Present in Us is Not Responsible for Our Sins.

10. "That Which Was Made Was Life in Him, and the Life Was the Light of Men."
This Involves the Paradox that What Does Not Derive Life from the Logos Does Not
Live at All.

11. How No One is Righteous or Can Truly Be Said to Live in Comparison with God.

12. Is the Saviour All that He Is, to All?

13. How the Life in the Logos Copies After the Beginning.

14. How the Natures of Men are Not So Fixed from the First, But that They May
Pass from Darkness to Light.

15. Heracleon's View that the Lord Brought Life Only to the Spiritual,
Refutation of This.

16. The Life May Be the Light of Others Besides.

17. The Higher Powers are Men; And Christ is Their Light Also.

18. How God Also is Light, But in a Different Way; And How Life Came Before
Light.

19. The Life Here Spoken of is the Higher Life, that of Reason.

20. Different Kinds of Light; And of Darkness.

21. Christ is Not, Like God, Quite Free from Darkness: Since He Bore Our Sins.

22. How the Darkness Failed to Overtake the Light.

23. There is a Divine Darkness Which is Not Evil, and Which Ultimately Becomes
Light.

24. John the Baptist Was Sent. From Where? His Soul Was Sent from a Higher
Region.

25. Argument from the Prayer of Joseph, to Show that the Baptist May Have Been
an Angel Who Became a Man.

26. John is Voice, Jesus is Speech. Relation of These Two to Each Other.

27. Significance of the Names of John and of His Parents.

28. The Prophets Bore Witness to Christ and Foretold Many Things Concerning Him.

29. The Six Testimonies of the Baptist Enumerated. Jesus' "Come and See."
Significance of the Tenth Hour.

30. How John Was a Witness of Christ, and Specially of "The Light."

Book II.

1. "And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the preceding section,
my revered brother Ambrosius, brother formed according to the Gospel, we have
discussed, as far as is at present in our power, what the Gospel is, and what is
the beginning in which the Word was, and what the Word is which was in the
beginning. We now come to consider the next point in the work before us, How the
Word was with God. To this end it will be of service to remember that what is
called the Word came to certain persons; as "The Word of the Lord1 which came to
Hosea, the son of Beeri," and "The Word2 which came to Isaiah, the son of Amos,
concerning Judah and concerning Jerusalem," and "The Word which came to
Jeremiah3 concerning the drought." We must enquire how this Word came to Hosea,
and how it came also to Isaiah the son of Amos, and again to Jeremiah concerning
the drought; the comparison may enable us to dud out how the Word was with God.
The generality will simply look at what the prophets said, as if that were the
Word of the Lord or the Word, that came to them. May it not be, however, that as
we say that this person comes to that, so the Son, the Word, of whom we are now
theologizing, came to Hosea, sent to him by the Father; historically, that is to
say, to the son of Beeri, the prophet Hosea, but mystically to him who is saved,
for Hosea means, etymologically, Saved; and to the son of Beeri, which
etymologically means wells, since every one who is saved becomes a son of that
spring which gushes forth out of the depths, the wisdom of God. And it is nowise
marvellous that the saint should be a son of wells. From his brave deeds he is
often called a son, whether, from his works shining before men, of light, or
from his possessing the peace of God which passes all understanding, of peace,
or, once more, from the help which wisdom brings him, a child of wisdom; for
wisdom,4 it says, is justified of her children. Thus he who by the divine spirit
searches all things, and even the deep things of God, so that he can exclaim,5
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!" he can
be a son of wells, to whom the Word of the Lord comes. Similarly the Word comes
also to Isaiah, teaching the things which are coming upon Judaea and Jerusalem
in the last days; and so also it comes to Jeremiah lifted up by a divine
elation. For Iao means etymologically lifting up, elation. Now the Word comes to
men who formerly could not receive the advent of the Son of God who is the Word;
but to God it does not come, as if it had not been with Him before. The Word was
always with the Father; and so it is said, "And the Word was with God." He did
not come to God, and this same word "was" is used of the Word because He was in
the beginning at the same time when He was with God, neither being separated
from the beginning nor being bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He
come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it, nor did He come to be
with God after not having been with Him. For before all time and the remotest
age6 the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Thus to find out
what is meant by the phrase, "The Word was with God," we have adduced the words
used about the prophets, how He came to Hosea, to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, and we
have noticed the difference, by no means accidental, between "became" and "was."
We have to add that in His coming to the prophets He illuminates the prophets
with the light of knowledge, causing them to see things which had been before
them, but which they had not understood till then. With God, however, He is God,
just because He is with Him. And perhaps it was because he saw some such order
in the Logos, that John did not place the clause "The Word was God" before the
clause "The Word was with God." The series in which he places his different
sentences does not prevent the force of each axiom from being separately and
fully seen. One axiom is, "In the beginning was the Word," a second, "The Word
was with God," and then comes, "And the Word was God." The arrangement of the
sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first "In the beginning
was the Word," then, "And the Word was with God," and thirdly, "And the Word was
God," so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God.

2. In What Way the Logos is God. Errors to Be Avoided on This Question.

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write
without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the
Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He
adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only.
He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all
things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which
we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between
the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is
over all is God with the article not without it, so "the Logos" is the source of
that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which
is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now
there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here
into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods,
and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either
they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the
Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they
deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and
making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are
separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one
hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His
prayer to the Father,7 "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all
beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to
be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And
thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to
attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods
beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written,8 "The God of gods, the
Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born
that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should
be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The
true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods,
images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of
all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being
with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being
with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this,
except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the
Father.

3. Various Relations of the Logos to Men.

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the
Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who
have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him
who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings
called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God
the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. To this we
must add, in order to obviate objections, that the reason which is in every
reasonable creature occupied the same relation to the reason who was in the
beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word occupies to God. As the
Father who is Very God and the True God is to His image and to the images of His
image-men are said to be according to the image, not to be images of God-so He,
the Word, is to the reason (word) in every man. Each fills the place of a
fountain-the Father is the fountain of divinity, the Son of reason. As, then,
there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords,
but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so there are many Lo/goi, but we, for
our part, pray that that one Lo/goj may be with us who was in the beginning and
was with God, God the Logos. For whoever does not receive this Logos who was in
the beginning with God, or attach himself to Him as He appeared in flesh, or
take part in some of those who had part in this Logos, or whoever having had
part in Him falls away from Him again, he will have his portion in what is
called most opposite to reason. What we have drawn out from the truths with
which we started will now be clear enough. First, we spoke about God and the
Word of God, and of Gods, either, that is, beings who partake in deity or beings
who are called Gods and are not. And again of the Logos of God and of the Logos
of God made flesh, and of logoi, or beings which partake in some way of the
Logos, of second logoi or of third, thought to be logoi, in addition to that
Logos that was before them all, but not really so. Irrational Reasons these may
be styled; beings are spoken of who are said to be Gods but are not, and one
might place beside these Gods who are no Gods, Reasons which are no Reasons. Now
the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of
the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly
Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead. But
God the Logos is the God, perhaps, of those who attribute everything to Him and
who consider Him to be their Father. Now the sun and the moon and the stars were
connected, according to the accounts of men of old times, with beings who were
not worthy to have the God of gods counted their God. To this opinion they were
led by a passage in Deuteronomy which is somewhat on this wise:9 "Lest when thou
liftest up thine eyes to heaven, and seest the sun and the moon and the whole
host of heaven, thou wander away and worship them and serve them which the Lord
thy God hath appointed to all the peoples. But to you the Lord thy God hath not
so given them." But how did God appoint the sun and the moon and all the host of
heaven to all the nations, if He did not give them in the same way to Israel
also, to the end that those who could not rise to the realm of intellect, might
be inclined by gods of sense to consider about the Godhead, and might of their
own free will connect themselves with these and so be kept from falling away to
idols and demons? Is it not the case that some have for their God the God of the
universe, while a second class, after these, attach themselves to the Son of
God, His Christ, and a third class worship the sun and the moon and all the host
of heaven, wandering, it is true, from God, but with a far different and a
better wandering than that of those who invoke as gods the works of men's hands,
silver and gold, -works of human skill. Last of all are those who devote
themselves to the beings which are called gods but are no gods. In the same way,
now, some have faith in that Reason which was in the beginning and was with God
and was God; so did Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah and others who declared that
the Word of the Lord, or the Logos, had come to them. A second class are those
who know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, considering that the Word
made flesh is the whole Word, and knowing only Christ after the flesh. Such is
the great multitude of those who are counted believers. A third class give
themselves to logoi (discourses) having some part in the Logos which they
consider superior to all other reason: these are they who follow the honourable
and distinguished philosophical schools among the Greeks. A fourth class besides
these are they who put their trust in corrupt and godless discourses, doing away
with Providence, which is so manifest and almost visible, and who recognize
another end for man to follow than the good. It may appear to some that we have
wandered from our theme, but to my thinking the view we have reached of four
things connected with the name of God and four things connected with the Logos
comes in very well at this point. There was God with the article and God without
the article, then there were gods in two orders, at the summit of the higher
order of whom is God the Word, transcended Himself by the God of the universe.
And, again, there was the Logos with the article and the Logos without the
article, corresponding to God absolutely and a god; and the Logoi in two ranks.
And some men are connected with the Father, being part of Him, and next to
these, those whom our argument now brings into clearer light, those who have
come to the Saviour and take their stand entirely in Him. And third are those of
whom we spoke before, who reckon the sun and the moon and the stars to be gods,
and take their stand by them. And in the fourth and last place those who submit
to soulless and dead idols. To all this we find analogies in what concerns the
Logos. Some are adorned with the Word Himself; some with what is next to Him and
appears to be the very original Logos Himself, those, namely, who know nothing
but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and who behold the Word as flesh. And the
third class, as we described them a little before. Why should I speak of those
who are thought to be in the Logos, but have fallen away, not only from the good
itself, but from the very traces of it and from those who have a part in it?

4. That the Logos is One, Not Many. Of the Word, Faithful and True, and of His
White Horse.

"He was in the beginning with God." By his three foregoing propositions the
Evangelist has made us acquainted with three orders, and he now sums up the
three in one, saying, "This (Logos) was in the beginning with God." In the first
premiss we learned where the Logos was: He was in the beginning; then we learned
with whom He was, with God; and then who He was, that He was God. He now points
out by this word "He," the Word who is God, and gathers up into a fourth
proposition the three which went before, "In the beginning was the Word," "The
Word was with God," and "The Word was God." Now he says, He, this (Word) was in
the beginning with God. The term beginning may be taken of the beginning of the
world, so that we may learn from what is said that the Word was older than the
things which were made from the beginning. For if "in the beginning God created
heaven and earth," but "He" was in the beginning, then the Logos is manifestly
older than those things which were made at the beginning, older not only than
the firmament and the dry land, but than the heavens and earth. Now some one
might ask, and not unreasonably, why it is not said, "In the beginning was the
Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God." But
he who asked such a question could be shown to be taking for granted that there
are a plurality of logoi, differing perhaps from each other in kind, one being
the word of God, another perhaps the word of angels, a third of men, and so on
with the other logoi. Now, if this were so with the Logos, the case would be the
same with wisdom and with righteousness. But it would be absurd that there
should be a number of things equally to be called "The Word; "and the same would
apply to wisdom and to righteousness. We shall be driven to confess that we
ought not to look for a plurality of logoi, or of wisdom, or of righteousness,
if we look at the case of truth. Any one will confess that there is only one
truth; it could never be said in this case that there is one truth of God, and
another of the angels, and another of man,-it lies ill the nature of things that
the truth about anything is one. Now, if truth be one, it is clear that the
preparation of it and its demonstration, which is wisdom, must in reason be
conceived as one, since what is regarded as wisdom cannot justly claim that
title where truth, which is one, is absent from its grasp. But if truth is one
and wisdom one, then Reason (Logos) also, which announces truth and makes truth
simple and manifest to those who are fitted to receive it, will be one. This we
say, by no means denying that truth and wisdom and reason are of God, but we
wish to indicate the purpose of the omission in this passage of the words "of
God," and of the form of the statement, "In the beginning the Logos was with
God." The same John in the Apocalypse gives Him His name with the addition "of
God," where he says:10 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and
He that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness doth He judge
and make war. And His eyes are as a flame of fire, and on His head are many
diadems, and He hath a name written which no one knoweth but He Himself. And He
is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood, and His name is called11 Word of
God. And His armies in heaven followed Him on white horses, clothed in pure fine
linen. And out of His mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it He should
smite the nations, and He shall rule them with a rod of iron, and He treadeth
the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. And He hath on His
garment and on His thigh a name written: King of kings, and Lord of lords." In
this passage Logos is necessarily spoken of absolutely without the article, and
also with the addition Logos of God; had the first not been the case (i.e., had
the article been given) we might have been led to take up the meaning wrongly,12
and so to depart from the truth about the Logos. For if it had been called
simply Logos, and had not been said to be the Logos of God, then we would not be
clearly informed that the Logos is the Logos of God. And, again, had it been
called Logos of God but not said to be Logos absolutely, then we might imagine
many logoi, according to the constitution of each of the rational beings which
exist; then we might assume a number of logoi properly so called. Again, in his
description in the Apocalypse of the Logos of God, the Apostle and Evangelist
(and the Apocalypse entitles him to be styled a prophet, too) says he saw the
Word of God in the opened heaven, and that He was riding on a white horse. Now
we must consider what he means to convey when he speaks of heaven being opened
and of the white horse, and of the Word of God riding on the white horse, and
also what is meant by saying that the Word of God is Faithful and True, and that
in righteousness He judges and makes war. All this will greatly advance our
study on the subject of the Word of God. Now I conceive heaven to have been shut
against the ungodly, and those who bear the image of the earthly, and to have
been opened to the righteous and those adorned with the image of the heavenly.
For to the former, being below and still dwelling in the flesh, the better
things are closed, since they cannot understand them and have neither power nor
will to see their beauty, looking down as they do and not striving to look up.
But to the excellent, or those who have their commonwealth in heaven,13 he
opens, with the key of David, the things in heavenly places and discloses them
to their view, and makes all clear to them by riding on his horse. These words
also have their meaning; the horse is white because it is the nature of higher
knowledge (gnw=sij) to be clear and white and full of light. And on the white
horse sits He who is called Faithful, seated more firmly, and so to speak more
royally, on words which cannot be set aside, words which run sharply and more
swiftly than any horse, and overhear in their rushing course every so-called
word that simulates the Word, and every so-called truth that simulates the
Truth. He who sits on the white horse is called Faithful, not because of the
faith He cherishes, but of that which He inspires, because He is worthy of
faith. Now the Lord Jehovah, according to Moses,14 is Faithful and True. He is
true also in respect of His relation to shadow, type, and image; for such is the
Word who is in the opened heaven, for He is not on earth as He is in heaven; on
earth He is made flesh and speaks through shadow, type, and image. The
multitude, therefore, of those who are reputed to believe are disciples of the
shadow of the Word, not of the true Word of God which is in the opened heaven.
Hence Jeremiah says,15 "The Spirit of our face is Christ the Lord, of whom we
said, In His shadow shall we live among the nations." Thus the Word of God who
is called Faithful is also called True, and ill righteousness He judges and
makes war; since He has received from God the faculty of judging in very
righteousness and very judgment, and of apportioning its due to every existing
creature. For none of those who have some portion of righteousness and of the
faculty of judgment can receive on his soul such copies and impressions of
righteousness and judgment as to come short in no point of absolute
righteousness and absolute justice, just as no painter of a picture can
communicate to the representation all the qualities of the original. This, I
conceive, is the reason why David says,16 "Before Thee shall no living being be
justified." He does not say, no man, or no angel, but no living being, since
even if any being partakes of life and has altogether put off mortality, not
even then can it be justified in comparison of Thee, who art, as it were, Life
itself. Nor is it possible that one who partakes of life and is therefore called
living, should become life itself, or that one who partakes of righteousness
and, therefore, is called righteous should become equal to righteousness itself.
Now it is the function of the Word of God, not only to judge in righteousness,
but also to make war in righteousness, that by making war on His enemies by
reason and righteousness, so that what is irrational and wicked is destroyed,17
He may dwell in the soul of him who, for his salvation, so to speak, has become
captive to Christ, and may justify that soul and cast out from her all
adversaries. We shall, however, obtain a better view of this war which the Word
carries on if we remember that He is an ambassador for the truth. while there is
another who pretends to be the Word and is not, and one who calls herself the
truth and is not, but a lie. Then the Word, arming Himself against the lie,
slays it with the breath of His mouth and brings it to naught by the
manifestation of His coming.18 And consider whether these words of the Apostle
to the Thessalonians may be understood in an intellectual sense. For what is
that which is destroyed by the breath of the mouth of Christ, Christ being the
Word and Truth and Wisdom, but the lie? And what is that which is brought to
naught by the manifestation of Christ's coming, Christ being conceived as wisdom
and reason, what but that which announces itself as wisdom, when in reality it
is one of those things with which God deals as the Apostle describes,19 "He
taketh the wise, those who are not wise with the true wisdom, in their own
craftiness"? To what he says of the rider on the white horse, John adds the
wonderful statement: "His eyes are like a flame of fire." For as the flame of
fire is bright and illuminating, but at the same thee fiery and destructive of
material things, so, if I may so say, are the eyes of the Logos with which He
sees, and every one who has part in Him; they have not only the inherent quality
of laying hold of the things of the mind, but also that of consuming and putting
away those conceptions which are more material and gross, since whatever is in
any way false flees from the directness and lightness of truth. It is in a very
natural order that after speaking of Him who judges in righteousness and makes
war in accordance with His righteous judgments, and then after His warring of
His giving light, the writer goes on to say, "On His head are many diadems." For
had the lie been one, and of one form only, against which the True and Faithful
Word contended, and for conquering which. He was crowned, then one crown alone
would naturally have been given Him for the victory. As it is, however, as the
lies are many which profess the truth and for warring against which the Word is
crowned, the diadems are many which surround the head of the conqueror of them
all. As He has overcome every revolting power many diadems mark His victory.
Then after the diadems He is said to have a name written which no one knows but
He Himself. For there are some things which are known to the Word alone; for the
beings which come into existence after Him have a poorer nature than His, and
none of them is able to behold all that He apprehends. And perhaps it is the
case that only those who have part in that Word know the things which are kept
from the knowledge of those who do not partake of Him. Now, in John's vision,
the Word of God as He rides on the white horse is not naked: He is clothed with
a garment sprinkled with blood, for the Word who was made flesh and therefore
died is surrounded with marks of the fact that His blood was poured out upon the
earth, when the soldier pierced His side. For of that passion, even should it be
our lot some day to come to that highest and supreme contemplation of the Logos,
we shall not lose all memory, nor shall we forget the truth that our admission
was brought about by His sojourning in our body. This Word of God is followed by
the heavenly armies one and all; they follow the Word as their leader, and
imitate Him in all things, and chiefly in having mounted, they also, white
horses. To him that understands, this secret is open. And as sorrow and grief
and wailing fled away at the end of things, so also, I suppose, did obscurity
and doubt, all the mysteries of God's wisdom being precisely and clearly opened.
Look also at the white horses of the followers of the Word and at the white and
pure linen with which they were clothed. As linen comes out of the earth, may
not those linen garments stand for the dialects on the earth in which those
voices are clothed which make clear announcements of things? We have dealt at
some length with the statements found in the Apocalypse about the Word of God;
it is important for us to know clearly about Him.

5. He (This One) Was in the Beginning with God. To those who fail to distinguish
with care the different propositions of the context the Evangelist may appear to
be repeating himself. "He was in the beginning with God" may seem to add nothing
to "And the Word was with God." We must observe more carefully. In the statement
"The Word was with God" we are not told anything of the when or the where; that
is added in the fourth axiom. There are four axioms, or, as some call them,
propositions, the fourth being "He was in the beginning with God." Now "The Word
was with God" is not the same thing as "He was," etc; for here we are told, not
only that He was with God, but when and where He was so: "He was in the
beginning with God." The "He," too, used as it is for a demonstration, will be
considered to refer to the Word, or by a less careful enquirer, to God. What was
noted before is now summed up in this designation "He," the notion of the Logos
and that of God; and as the argument proceeds the different notions are
collected in one; for the notion God is not included in the notion Logos, nor
the notion Logos in that of God. And perhaps the proposition before us is a
summing up in one of the three which have preceded. Taking the statement that
the Word was in the beginning, we have not yet learned that He was with God, and
taking the statement that the Word was with God it is not yet clear to us that
He was with God in the beginning; and taking the statement that the Word was
God, it has neither been shown that He was in the beginning, nor that He was
with God.

Now when the Evangelist says, "He was in the beginning with God," if we apply
the pronoun "He" to the Word and to God (as He is God) and consider that "in the
beginning" is conjoined with it, and "with God" added to it, then there is
nothing left of the three propositions that is not summed up and brought
together in this one. And as "in the beginning" has been said twice, we may
consider if there are not two lessons we may learn. First, that the Word was in
the beginning, as if lie was by Himself and not with any one, and secondly, that
He was in the beginning with God. And I consider that there is nothing untrue in
saying of Him both that He was in the beginning, and in the beginning with God,
for neither was He with God alone, since He was also in the beginning, nor was
He in the beginning alone and not with God, since "He was in the beginning with
God."

6. How the Word is the Maker of All Things, and Even the Holy Spirit Was Made
Through Him.

"All things were made through Him." The "through20 whom "is never found in the
first place but always in the second, as in the Epistle to the Romans,21 "Paul a
servant of Christ Jesus, a called Apostle, separated to the Gospel of God which
He promised before by His prophets in Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who
was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, deter mined the Son of God
in power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead,
Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship, for
obedience of the faith among all the nations, for His name's sake." For God
promised aforehand by the prophets His own Gospel, the prophets being His
ministers, and having their word to speak about Him "through whom." And again
God gave grace and apostleship to Paul and to the others for the obedience of
the faith among all the nations, and this He gave them through Jesus Christ the
Saviour, for the "through whom" belonged to Him. And the Apostle Paul says in
the Epistle to the Hebrews:22 "At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son,
whom He made the heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages,"
showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the" through whom" belonging,
when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were
made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the
Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the
Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, we have to
enquire if the Holy Spirit also was made through Him. it appears to me that
those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that "all
things were made through Him," must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was
made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He. And he who
shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if
he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be
uncreated. There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the
Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated),
namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the
Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to
consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the
Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son
in the passage,23 "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man. it shall
be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall
not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come." We
consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit; and at the same thee we believe nothing to be uncreated but the
Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all
things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent
and the first in order24 of all that was made by the Father through Christ. And
this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's own Son. The
Only-begotten only is by nature and from the beginning a Son, and the Holy
Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His essence, so as to
enable Him not only to exist, but to be wise and reasonable and just, and all
that we must think of Him as being. All this He has by participation of the
character of Christ, of which we have spoken above. And I consider that the Holy
Spirit supplies to those who, through Him and through participation in Him, are
called saints, the material of the gifts, which come from God; so that the said
material of the gifts is made powerful by God, is ministered by Christ, and owes
its actual existence in men to the Holy Spirit. I am led to this view of the
charisms by the words of Paul which he writes somewhere,25 "There are
diversities of gifts but the same Spirit, and diversities of ministrations, and
the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but it is the same God
that worketh all in all." The statement that all things were made by Him, and
its seeming corollary, that the Spirit must have been called into being by the
Word, may certainly raise some difficulty. There are some passages in which the
Spirit is placed above Christ; in Isaiah, for example, Christ declares that He
is sent, not by the Father only, but also by the Holy Spirit. "Now the Lord hath
sent Me," He says,26 "and His Spirit." and in the Gospel He declares that there
is forgiveness for the sin committed against Himself, but that for blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit there is no forgiveness, either in this age or in the
age to come. What is the reason of this? Is it because the Holy Spirit is of
more value than Christ that the sin against Him cannot be forgiven? May it not
rather be that all rational beings have part in Christ, and that forgiveness is
extended to them when they repent of their sins, while only those have part in
the Holy Spirit who have been found worthy of it, and that there cannot well be
any forgiveness for those who fall away to evil in spite of such great and
powerful cooperation, and who defeat the counsels of the Spirit who is in them.
When we find the Lord saying, as He does in Isaiah, that He is sent by the
Father and by His Spirit, we have to point out here also that the Spirit is not
originally superior to the Saviour, but that the Saviour takes a lower place
than He in order to carry out the plan which has been made that the Son of God
should become man. Should any one stumble at our saying that the Saviour in
becoming man was made lower than the Holy Spirit, we ask him to consider the
words used in the Epistle to the Hebrews,27 where Jesus is shown by Paul to have
been made less than the angels on account of the suffering of death. "We behold
Him," he says, "who hath been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus,
because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour." And this,
too, has doubtless to be added, that the creation, in order to be delivered from
the bondage of corruption, and not least of all the human race, required the
introduction into human nature of a happy and divine power, which should set
right what was wrong upon the earth, and that this action fell to the share, as
it were, of the Holy Spirit; but the Spirit, unable to support such a task, puts
forward the Saviour as the only one able to endure such a conflict. The Father
therefore, the principal, sends the Son, but the Holy Spirit also sends Him and
directs Him to go before, promising to descend, when the thee comes, to the Son
of God, and to work with Him for the salvation of men. This He did. when, in a
bodily shape like a dove, He flew to Him after the baptism. He remained on Him,
and did not pass Him by, as He might have done with men not able continuously to
bear His glory. Thus John, when explaining how he knew who Christ was, spoke not
only of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus, but also of its remaining upon him.
For it is written that John said:28 "He who sent me to baptize said, On
whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, the same
is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit and with fire." It is not said only,
"On whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending," for the Spirit no doubt
descended on others too, but "descending and abiding on Him." Our examination of
this point has been somewhat extended, since we were anxious to make it clear
that if all things were made by Him, then the Spirit also was made through the
Word, and is seen to be one of the "all things" which are inferior to their
Maker. This view is too firmly settled to be disturbed by a few words which may
be adduced to the opposite effect. If any one should lend credence to the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says, "My mother, the Holy
Spirit took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mount
Tabor," he will have to face the difficulty of explaining how the Holy Spirit
can be the mother of Christ when it was itself brought into existence through
the Word. But neither the passage nor this difficulty is hard to explain. For if
he who does the will of the Father in heaven29 is Christ's brother and sister
and mother, and if the name of brother of Christ may be applied, not only to the
race of men, but to beings of diviner rank than they, then there is nothing
absurd in the Holy Spirit's being His mother, every one being His mother who
does the will of the Father in heaven. On the words, "All things were made by
Him," there is still one point to be examined. The "word" is, as a notion, from
"life," and yet we read, "What was made in the Word was life, and the life was
the light of men." Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made
through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the
Saviour is presented to us? Or must we take the "all things were made by Him"
subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself? The latter course
appears to be the preferable one. For supposing we should concede that the life
which is the light of men was made through Him, since it said that the life "was
made" the light of men, what are we to say about wisdom, which is conceived as
being prior to the Word? That, therefore, which is about the Word (His relations
or conditions) was not made by the Word, and the result is that, with the
exception of the notions under which Christ is presented, all things were made
through the Word of God, the Father making them in wisdom. "In wisdom hast Thou
made them all," it says,30 not through, but in wisdom.

7. Of Things Not Made Through the Logos.

Let us see, however, why the words are added, "And without Him was not anything
(Gr. even one thing) made." Some might think it superfluous to add to the words
"All things were made through Him," the phrase "Without Him was not anything
made." For if everything whatsoever was made through the Logos, then nothing was
made without Him. Yet it does not follow from the proposition that without the
Logos nothing was made, that all things were made through the Logos. It is
possible that though nothing was made without the Logos, all things were made,
not through the Logos only, but some things by Him. We must, therefore, make
ourselves sure in what sense the "all things" is to be understood, and in what
sense the "nothing." For, without a clear preliminary definition of these terms,
it might be maintained that, if all things were made through the Logos, and evil
is a part of all things, then the whole matter of sin, and everything that is
wicked, that these also were made through the Logos. But this we must regard as
false. There is nothing absurd in thinking that creatures were made through the
Logos, and also that men's brave deeds have been done through Him, and all the
useful acts of those who are now in bliss; but with the sins and misfortunes of
men it is otherwise. Now some have held that since evil is not based in the
constitution of things-for it did not exist at the beginning and at the end it
will have ceased-that, therefore, the evils of which we spoke are the Nothing;
and as some of the Greeks say that genera and forms, such as the (general)
animal and the man, belong to the category of Nothings, so it has been supposed
that all that is not of God is Nothing, and has not even obtained through the
Word the subsistence it appears to have. We ask whether it is possible to show
from Scripture in any convincing way that this is so. As for the meanings of the
word "Nothing" and "Not-being," they would appear to be synonymous, for Nothing
can be spoken of as Not-being, and the Not-being can be described as Nothing.
The Apostle, however, appears to count the things which are not, not among those
which have no existence whatever, but rather among things which are evil. To him
the Not-being is evil; "God," he says,31 "called the things that are not as
things that are." And Mardochaeus, too, in the Esther of the Septuagint, calls
the enemies of Israel "those that are not," saying,32 "Deliver not Thy sceptre,
O Lord, to those that are not." We may also notice how evil men, on account of
their wickedness, are said not to be, from the name ascribed to God in Exodus:33
"For the Lord said to Moses, I am, that is My name." The good God says this with
respect of us also who pray that we may be part of His congregation. The Saviour
praises him, saying,34 "None is good but one, God the Father." The good, then,
is the same as He who is. Over against good is evil or wickedness, and over
against Him who is that which is not, whence it follows that evil and wickedness
are that which is not. This, perhaps, is what has led some to affirm that the
devil is not created by God. In respect that he is the devil he is not the work
of God, but he who is the devil is a created being, and as there is no other
creator but our God, he is a work of God. It is as if we should say that a
murderer is not a work of God, while we may say that in respect he is a man, God
made him. His being as a man he received from God; we do not assert that he
received from God his being as a murderer. All, then, who have part in Him who
is, and the saints have part in Him, may properly be called Beings; but those
who have given up their part in the Being, by depriving themselves of Being,
have become Not-beings. But we said when entering on this discussion, that
Not-being and Nothing are synonymous, and hence those who are not beings are
Nothing, and all evil is nothing, since it is Not-being, and thus since they are
called Not-being came into existence without the Logos, not being numbered among
the all things which were made through Him. Thus we have shown, so far as our
powers admit, what are the "all things" which were made through the Logos, and
what came into existence without Him, since at no time is it Being, and it is,
therefore, called "Nothing."

8. Heracleon's View that the Logos is Not the Agent of Creation.

It was, I consider, a violent and unwarranted procedure which was adopted by
Heracleon,35 the friend, as it is said, of Valentinus, in discussing this
sentence: "All things were made through Him." He excepted the whole world and
all that it contains, excluding, as far as his hypothesis goes, from the "all
things "what is best in the world and its contents. For he says that the aeon
(age), and the things in it, were not made by the Logos; he considers them to
have come into existence before the Logos. He deals with the statement, "Without
Him was nothing made," with some degree of audacity, nor is he afraid of the
warning:36 "Add not to His words, lest He find thee out and thou prove a liar,"
for to the "Nothing" he adds: "Of what is in the world and the creation." And as
his statements on the passage are obviously very much forced and in the face of
the evidence, for what he considers divine is excluded from the all, and what he
regards as purely evil is, that and nothing else, the all things, we need not
waste our time in rebutting what is, on the face of it, absurd, when, without
any warrant from Scripture, he adds to the words, "Without Him was nothing
made," the further words, "Of what is in the earth and the creation." In this
proposal, which has no inner probability to recommend it, he is asking us, in
fact, to trust him as we do the prophets, or the Apostles, who had authority and
were not responsible to men for the writings belonging to man's salvation, which
they handed to those about them and to those who should come after. He had,
also, a private interpretation of his own of the words: "All things were made
through Him," when he said that it was the Logos who caused the demiurge to make
the world, not, however, the Logos from whom or by whom, but Him through whom,
taking the written words in a different sense from that of common parlance.37
For, if the truth of the matter was as he considers, then the writer ought to
have said that all things were made through the demiurge by the Word, and not
through the Word by the demiurge. We accept the "through whom," as it is usually
understood, and have brought evidence in support of our interpretation, while he
not only puts forward a new rendering of his own, unsupported by the divine
Scripture, but appears even to scorn the truth and shamelessly and openly oppose
it. For he says: "It was not the Logos who made all things, as under another who
was the operating agent," taking the "through whom" in this sense, "but another
made them, the Logos Himself being the operating agent." This is not a suitable
occasion for the proof that it was not the demiurge who became the servant of
the Logos and made the world; but that the Logos became the servant of the
demiurge and formed the world. For, according to the prophet David,38 "God spake
and they came into being, He commanded and they were created." For the
unbegotten God commanded the first-born of all creation,39 and they were
created, not only the world and what is therein, but also all other things,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, for all things were
made through Him and unto Him, and He is before all things."

9. That the Logos Present in Us is Not Responsible for Our Sins.

One point more on the words: "Without Him was not anything made." The question
about evil must receive adequate discussion; what was said of it has not, it is
true, a very likely appearance, and yet it appears to me that it ought not to be
simply overlooked. The question is whether evil, also, was made through the
Logos, taking the Logos, now be it well noted, in the sense of that reason which
is in every one, as thus brought into being by the reason which was from the
beginning. The Apostle says:40 "Without the law sin was dead," and adds, "But
when the commandment came sin revived," and so teaches generally about sin that
it has no power before the law and the commandment (but the Logos is, in a
sense, law and commandment), and there would be no sin were there no law, for,41
"sin is not imputed where there is no law." And, again, there would be no sin
but for the Logos, for "if I had not come and spoken unto them," Christ says,42
"they had not had sin." For every excuse is taken away from one who wants to
make excuse for his sin, if, though the Word is in him and shows him what he
ought to do, he does not obey it. It seems, them, that all things, the worse
things not excepted, were made by the Logos, and without Him, taking the nothing
here in its simpler sense, was nothing made. Nor must we blame the Logos if all
things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made, any more than we
blame the master who has showed the pupil his duty, when the instruction has
been such as to leave the pupil, should he sin, no excuse or room to say that he
erred through ignorance. This appears the more plainly when we consider that
master and pupil are inseparable. For as master and pupil are correlatives, and
belong together, so the Logos is present in the nature of reasonable beings as
such, always suggesting what they ought to do, even should we pay no heed to his
commands, but devote ourselves to pleasure and allow his best counsels to pass
by us unregarded. As the eye is a servant given us for the best purposes, and
yet we use it to see things on which it is wrong for us to look, and as we make
a wrong use of our hearing when we spend our time in listening to singing
competitions and to other forbidden sounds, so we outrage the Logos who is in
us, and use Him otherwise than as we ought, when we make Him assist in our
transgressions. For He is present with those who sin, for their condemnation,
and He condemns the man who does not prefer Him to everything else. Hence we
find it written:43 "The word which I have spoken unto you, the same shall judge
you." That is as if He should say: "I, the Word, who am always lifting up my
voice in you, I, myself, will judge you, and no refuge or excuse will then be
left you." This interpretation. however, may appear somewhat strained, as we
have taken the Word in one sense to be the Word in the beginning, who was with
God, God the Word, and have now taken it in another sense, speaking of it, not
only in reference to the principal works of creation, as in the words, "All
things were made through Him," but as related to all the acts of reasonable
beings, this last being the Logos (reason), without whose presence none of our
sins are committed. The question arises whether the Logos in us is to be
pronounced the same being as that which was in the beginning and was with God,
God the Word. The Apostle, certainly, does not appear to make the Logos in us a
different being from the Logos who was in the beginning with God. "Say not in
thine heart," he says,44 "who shall go up into heaven; that is to bring Christ
down, or who shall go down into the abyss; that is to bring Christ up from the
dead. But what saith the Scripture? The Logos is very nigh thee, in thy mouth
and in thy heart."

10. "That Which Was Made Was Life in Him, and the Life Was the Light of Men."
This Involves the Paradox that What Does Not Derive Life from the Logos Does Not
Live at All. The Greeks have certain apothegms, called paradoxes, in which the
wisdom of their sages is presented at its highest, and some proof. or what
appears to be proof, is given. Thus it is said that the wise man alone, and that
every wise man, is a priest, because the wise man aloha: and every wise man
possesses knowledge as to the service of God. Again, that the wise man alone and
that every wise man is free and has received from the divine law authority to do
what he himself is minded to do, and this authority they call lawful power of
decision. Why should we say more about these so-called paradoxes? Much
discussion is devoted to them, and they call for a comparison of the sense of
Scripture with the doctrine thus conveyed. so that we may be in a position to
determine where religious doctrine agrees with them and where it differs from
them. This has been suggested to us by our study of the words, "That which was
made was life in Him; "for it appears possible to follow the words of Scripture
here and to make out a number of thing's which partake of the character of the
paradoxes and are even more paradoxical than these sentences of the Greeks. If
we consider the Logos in the beginning, who was with God, God the Word, we shall
perhaps be able to declare that only he who partakes of this being, considered
in this character, is to be pronounced reasonable ("logical"), and thus we
should demonstrate that the saint alone is reasonable. Again, if we apprehend
that life has come in the Logos, he, namely, who said, "I am the life," then we
shall say that no one is alive who is outside the faith of Christ, that all are
dead who are not living to God, that their life is life to sin, and therefore,
if I may so express myself, a life of death. Consider however, whether the
divine Scriptures do not in many places teach this; as where the Saviour says,45
"Or have ye not read that which was spoken at the bush, I am the God of Abraham
and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not God of the dead but of the
living." And46 "Before Thee shall no living being be justified." But why need we
speak about God Himself or the Saviour? For it is disputed to which of them the
voice belongs which says in the prophets,47 "As I live, saith the Lord."

11. How No One is Righteous or Can Truly Be Said to Live in Comparison with God.

First let us look at the words, "He is not the God of the dead but of the
living." That is equivalent to saying that He is not the God of sinners but of
saints. For it was a great gift to the Patriarchs that God in place of His own
name should add their name to His own designation as God, as Paul says,48
"Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God." He is the God, therefore,
of the fathers and of all the saints; it might be hard to find a passage to the
effect that God is the God of any of the wicked. If, then, He is the God of the
saints, and is said to be the God of the living, then the saints are the living
and the living are saints; neither is there any saint outside the living, nor
when any one is called living is the further implication absent that in addition
to his having life he is a holy one. Near akin to this is the lesson to be drawn
from the saying,49 "I shall be well pleasing to the Lord in the land of the
living." The good pleasure of tile Lord, he appears to say, is in the ranks of
the saints, or in the place of the saints, and it is there that he hopes to be.
No one pleases God well who has not entered the rank of the saints, or the place
of the saints; and to that place every one must come who has assumed beforehand,
as it were in this life, the shadow and image of true God-pleasing. The passage
which declares that before God no living being shall be justified shows that in
comparison with God and the righteousness that is in Him none, even of the most
finished saints, will be justified. We might take a parable from another quarter
and say that no candle can give light before the sun, not that the candle will
not give light, only it will not when the sun out-shines it. In the same way
every "living" will be justified, only not before God, when it is compared with
those who are below and who are in the power of darkness. To them the light of
the saints will shine. Here, perhaps, we have the key to the meaning of that
verse:50 "Let your light shine before men." He does not say, Let your light
shine before God; had he said so he would have given a commandment impossible of
fulfilment, as if he had bidden those lights which have souls to let their light
shine before the sun. It is not only, therefore, the ordinary mass of the living
who will not be justified before God, but even those among the living who are
distinguished above the rest, or, to put it more truly, the whole righteousness
of the living will not be justified before God, as compared with the
righteousness of God, as if I were to call together all the lights which shine
on the earth by night, and to say that they could not give light in comparison
with the rays of the sun. We rise from these considerations to a higher level
when we take the words before our minds, "I live, saith the Lord." Life, in the
full sense of the word, especially after what we have been saying on the
subject, belongs perhaps to God and none but Him. Is this the reason why the
Apostle, after speaking of the supreme excellency of the life of God and being
led to the highest expression about it, says about God (showing in this a true
understanding of that saying, "I live, saith the Lord"); "who only hath
immortality."51 No living being besides God has life free from change and
variation. Why should we be in further doubt? Even Christ did not share the
Father's immortality; for He "tasted death for every man."

12. Is the Saviour All that He Is, to All?

We have thus enquired as to the life of God, and the life which is Christ, and
the living who are in a place by themselves, and have seen how the living are
not justified before God, and we have noticed the cognate statement, "Who alone
hath immortality ." We may now take up the assumption which may appear to be
involved in this, namely, that whatever being is gifted with reason does not
possess blessedness as a part of its essence, or as an inseparable part of its
nature. For if blessedness and the highest life were an inseparable
characteristic of reasonable being, how could it be truly said of God that He
only has immortality? We should therefore remark, that the Saviour is some
things, not to Himself but to others, and some things both to Himself and
others, and we must enquire if there are some things which He is to Himself and
to no other. Clearly it is to others that He is a Shepherd, not a shepherd like
those among men who make gain out of their occupation; unless the benefit
conferred on the sheep might be regarded, on account of His love to men, as a
benefit to Himself also. Similarly it is to others that He is the Way and the
Door, and, as all will admit, the Rod. To Himself and to others He is Wisdom and
perhaps also Reason (Loges). It may be asked whether, as He has in Himself a
system of speculations, inasmuch as He is wisdom, there are some of those
speculations which cannot be received by any nature that is begotten, but His
own, and which He knows for Himself only. Nor should the reverence we owe to the
Holy Spirit keep us from seeking to answer this question. For the Holy Spirit
Himself receives instruction, as is clear from what is said about the Paraclete
and the Holy Spirit,52 "He shall take of mine and shall declare it to you." Does
He, then, from these instructions, take in everything that the Son, gazing at
the Father from the first, Himself knows? That would require further
consideration. And if the Saviour is some things to others, and some things it
may be to Himself, and to no other, or to one only, or to few, then we ask, in
so far as He is the life which came in the Loges, whether he is life to Himself
and to others, or to others, and if to others, to what others. And are life and
the light of men the same thing, for the text says, "That which was made was
life in Him and the life was the light of men." But the light of men is the
light only of some, not of all, rational creatures; the word "men" which is
added shows this. But He is the light of men, and so He is the life of those
whose light he is also. And inasmuch as He is life He may be called the Saviour,
not for Himself but to be life to others, whose light also He is. And this life
comes to the Logos and is inseparable from Him, once it has come to Him. But the
Loges, who cleanses the soul, must have been in the soul first; it is after Him
and the cleansing that proceeds from Him, when all that is dead or weak in her
has been taken away, that pure life comes to every one who has made himself a
fit dwelling for the Loges, considered as God.

13. How the Life in the Logos Copies After the Beginning.

Here, we must carefully observe, we have two things which are one, and we have
to define the difference between them. First, what is before us in The Word in
the beginning, then what is implied in The Life in Word. The Word was not made
in the beginning; there was no time when the beginning was devoid of the Word,
and hence it is said, "In the beginning was the Word." Of life, on the other
hand, we read, not that it was as the Word, but that it was made; if at least it
he the case that the life is the light of men. For when man was not yet, there
was no light of men; for the light of men is conceived only in relation to men.
And let no one annoy us with the objection that we have put this trader the
category of time, though it be the order of the things themselves, that make
them first and second and so on, and even though there should have been no time
when the things placed by the Loges third and fourth were not in existence. As,
then, all things were made by Him, not all things were by Him, and as without
Him was nothing made, not, without Him nothing was, so what was made in Him, not
what was in Him, was life. And, again, not what was made in the beginning was
the Word, but what was in the beginning was the Word. Some of the copies, it is
true, have a reading which is not devoid of probability, "What was made is life
in Him." But if life is the same thing as the light of men, then no one who is
in darkness is living, and none of the living is in darkness; but every one who
is alive is also in light, and every one who is in light is living, so that not
he only who is living, but every one who is living, is a son of light; and he
who is a son of light is he whose work shines before men.

14. How the Natures of Men are Not So Fixed from the First, But that They May
Pass from Darkness to Light.

We have been discussing certain things which are opposite, and what has been
said of them may serve to suggest what has been omitted. We are speaking of life
and the light of men, and the opposite to life is death; the opposite to the
light of men, the darkness of men. It is therefore plain that he who is in the
darkness of men is in death, and that he who works the works of death is nowhere
but in darkness. But he who is mindful of God, if we consider what it is to be
mindful of Him, is not in death, according to the saying,53 "In death there is
no one who remembers Thee." Are the darkness of men, and death, such as they are
by nature? On this point we have another passage,54 "We were once darkness, but
now light in the Lord," even if we be now in the fullest sense saints and
spiritual persons. Thus he who was once darkness has become, like Paul, capable
of being light in the Lord. Some consider that some natures are spiritual from
the first. such as those of Paul and the holy Apostles; but I scarcely see how
to reconcile with such a view, what the above text tells us, that the spiritual
person was once darkness and afterwards became light. For if the spiritual was
once darkness what can the earthy have been? But if it is true that darkness
became light, as in the text, how is it unreasonable to suppose that all
darkness is capable of becoming light? Had not Paul said, "We were once in
darkness, but now are we light in the Lord," and thus implied of those whom they
consider to be naturally lost, that they were darkness, or are darkness still,
the hypothesis about the different natures might have been admissible. But Paul
distinctly says that he had once been darkness but was now light in the Lord,
which implies the possibility that darkness should turn into light. But he who
perceives the possibility of a change on each side for the better or for the
worse, will not find it hard to gain an insight into every darkness of men, or
into that death which consists in the darkness of men.

15. Heracleon's View that the Lord Brought Life Only to the Spiritual,
Refutation of This.

Heracleon adopts a somewhat violent course when he arrives at this passage,
"What was made in Him was life." Instead of the "In Him" of the text he
understands "to those men who are spiritual," as if he considered the Logos and
the spiritual to be identical, though this he does not plainly say; and then he
proceeds to give, as it were, an account of the origin of the matter and says,
"He (the Logos) provided them with their first form at their birth, carrying
further and making manifest what had been sown by another,55 into form and into
illumination and into an outline of its own." He did not observe how Paul speaks
of the spiritual,56 and how he refrains from saying that they are men. "A
natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him; but the spiritual judgeth all things." We maintain that it
was not without a meaning that he did not add the word men to the word
spiritual. Spiritual is something better than man, for man receives his form
either in soul, or in body, or in both together, not in what is more divine than
these, namely, in spirit; and it is after he has come to have a prevailing share
of this that he is called "spiritual." Moreover, in bringing forward such a
hypothesis as this, he furnishes not even the pretence of a proof, and shows
himself unable to reach even a moderate degree of plausibility for his argument
on the subject. So much, then, for him.

16. The Life May Be the Light of Others Besides.

Let us suggest another question, namely, whether the life was the light of men
only, and not of every being as well that is in blessedness. For if the life
were the same thing as the light of men, and if the light of Christ were for men
alone, then the life also would be only for men. But such a view is both foolish
and impious, since the other Scriptures testify against this interpretation and
declare that, when we are somewhat more advanced, we shall be equal to the
angels.57 The question is to be solved on the principle that when a predicate is
applied to certain persons, it is not to be at once taken to apply to them
alone. Thus, when the light of men is spoken of, it is not the light of men
only; had that been the meaning, a word would have been added to express it; the
life, it would have read, was the light of men only. For it is possible for the
light of men to be the light of others besides men, just as it is possible that
certain animals and certain plants may form the food of men, and that the same
animals and plants should be the food of other creatures too. That is an example
from common life; it is fitting that another analogy should be adduced from the
inspired books. Now the question here before us, is why the light of men should
not be the light of other creatures also, and we have seen that to speak of the
light of men by no means excludes the possibility that the light may be that of
other beings besides man, whether inferior to him or like him, Now a name is
given to God; He is said to be the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. He,
then, who infers from the saying, "The life was the light of men," that the
light is for no other than for men, ought also to conclude that the God of
Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the God of no one else but
these three patriarchs. But He is also the God of Elijah,58 and, as Judith
says,59 of her father Simeon, and the God of the Hebrews. By analogy of
reasoning, then, if nothing prevents Him from being the God of others, nothing
prevents the light of men from being the light of others besides men.

17. The Higher Powers are Men; And Christ is Their Light Also.

Another, again, appeals to the text, "Let us make man according to our image and
likeness,60 " and maintains that whatever is made according to God's image and
likeness is man. To support this, numberless instances are adduced to show that
in Scripture "man "and "angel" are used indifferently, and that the same subject
is entitled both angel and man. This is true of the three who were entertained
by Abraham, and of the two who came to Sodom; in the whole course of Scripture,
persons are styled sometimes men, sometimes angels. Those who hold this view
will say that since persons are styled angels who are manifestly men, as when
Zechariah says,61 "The messenger of the Lord, I am with you, saith the Lord
Almighty," and as it is written of John the Baptist,62 "Behold I send My
messenger before thy face," the angels (messengers) of God are so called on
account of their office, and are not here called men on account of their nature.
It confirms this view that the names applied to the higher powers are not those
of species of living beings, but those of the orders, assigned by God to this
and to that reasonable being. "Throne" is not a species of living being, nor
"dominion," nor "principality," nor "power"; these are names of the businesses
to which those clothed with the names have been appointed; the subjects
themselves are nothing but men, but the subject has come to be a throne, or a
dominion, or a principality, or a power. In Joshua, the son of Nun, we read63
that in Jericho there appeared to Joshua a man who said, "I am captain of the
Lord's host, now am I come." The outcome of this is that the light of men must
be held to be the same as the light of every being endowed with reason; for
every reasonable being is man, since it is according to the image and likeness
of God. It is spoken of in three different ways. "the light of men," and simply
"the light," and "the true light." It is the light of men either, as we showed
before, because there is nothing to prevent us from regarding it as the light of
other beings besides men, or because all beings endowed with reason are called
men because they are made in the image of God.

18. How God Also is Light, But in a Different Way; And How Life Came Before
Light. The Saviour is here called simply light. But in the Catholic Epistle of
this same John64 we read that God is light. This, it has been maintained,
furnishes a proof that the Son is not in substance different from the Father.
Another student, however, looking into the matter more closely and with a
sounder judgment, will say that the light which shines in darkness and is not
overtaken by it, is not the same as the light in which there is no darkness at
all. The light which shines in darkness comes upon this darkness, as it were,
and is pursued by it, and, in spite of attempts made upon it, is not overtaken.
But the light in which there is no darkness at all neither shines on darkness,
nor is at first pursued by it, so as to prove victor and to have it recorded
that it was not overtaken by its pursuer. The third designation was "the true
light." But in proportion as God, since He is the Father of truth, is more and
greater than truth, and since He is the Father of wisdom is greater and more
excellent than wisdom, in the same proportion He is more than the true light. We
may learn, perhaps, in a more suggestive manner, how the Father and the Son are
two lights, from David, who says in the thirty-fifth Psalm,65 "In Thy light we
shall see light." This same light of men which shines in darkness, the true
light, is called, further on in the Gospel, the light of the world; Jesus
says,66 "I am the light of the world." Nor must we omit to notice that whereas
the passage might very well have run, "That which was made was in Him the light
of men, and the light of men was life," he chose the opposite order. He puts
life before the light of men, even if life and the light of men are the same
thing; in thinking of those who have part in life, though that life is also the
light of men, we are to come first to the fact that they are living the divine
life spoken of before; then we come to their enlightenment. For life must come
first if the living person is to be enlightened; it would not be a good
arrange-meat to speak of the illumination of one not yet conceived as living,
and to make life come after the illumination. For though "life" and "the light"
of men are the same thing, the notions are taken separately. This light of men
is also called, by Isaiah, "the light of the Gentiles," where he says,67 "Behold
I have set Thee for a covenant of the generation, for a light of the Gentiles;
"and David, placing his confidence in this light, says in the twenty-sixth
Psalm,68 "The Lord is my illumination and my Saviour; whom shall I fear? "

19. The Life Here Spoken of is the Higher Life, that of Reason. As for those who
make up a mythology about the aeons and arrange them in syzygies (yokes or
pairs), and who consider the Logos and Life to have been emitted by Intellect
and Truth, it may not be beside the point to state the following difficulties.
How can life, in their system, the yokefellow of the Word, derive his origin
from his yokefellow? For "what was made in Him," he says, evidently referring to
the Word, mentioned immediately before, "was life." Will they tell us how life,
the yokefellow, as they say, of the Word, came into being in the Word, and how
life rather than the Word is the light of men. It would be quite natural if men
of reasonable minds, who are perplexed with such questions and find the point we
have raised hard to dispose of, should turn round upon us and invite us to
discuss the reason why it is not the Word that is said to be the light of men,
but life which originated in the Word. To such an enquiry we shall reply that
the life here spoken of is not that which is common to rational beings and to
beings without reason, but that life which is added to us upon the completion of
reason in us, our share in that life, being derived from the first reason
(Logos). It is when we turn away from the life which is life in appearance only,
not in truth, and when we yearn to be filled with the true life, that we are
made partakers of it, and when it has arisen in us it becomes the foundation of
the light of the higher knowledge (gnosis). With some it may be that this life
is only potentially and not actually light, with those who do not strive to
search out the things of the higher knowledge, while with others it is actually
light. With these it clearly is so who act on Paul's injunction, "Seek earnestly
the best gifts; "and among the greatest gifts is that which all are enjoined to
seek, namely, the word of wisdom, and it is followed by the word of knowledge.
This wisdom and this knowledge lie side by side; into the difference between
them this is not a fitting occasion to enquire.

20. Different Kinds of Light; And of Darkness.

"And69 the light shineth in darkness and the darkness hath not overtaken it." We
are still enquiring about the light of men, since it is what was spoken of in
the preceding verse, and also, I consider, about darkness, which is named as its
adversary, the darkness also being, if the definition of it is correct, that of
men. The light of men is a generic notion covering two special things; and with
the darkness of men it is the same. He who has gained the light of men and
shares its beams will do the work of light and know in the higher sense, being
illuminated by the light of the higher knowledge. And we must recognize the
analogous case of those on the other side, and of their evil actions, and of
that which is thought to be bat is not really knowledge, since those who
exercise it have the reason (Logos) not of light but of darkness. And because
the sacred word knows the things which produce light, isaiah says:70 "Because
Thy commandments are a light upon the earth," and David says in the Psalm,71
"The precept of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes." But since in addition
to the commandments and the precepts there is a light of higher knowledge, we
read in one of the twelve (prophets),72 "Sow to yourselves for righteousness,
reap to yourselves for the fruit of life, make light for yourselves the light of
knowledge." There is a further light of knowledge in addition to the
commandments, and so we read, "Make light for yourselves," not simply light, but
what light?-the light of knowledge. For if any light that a man kindles for
himself were a light of knowledge, then the added words, "Make light for
yourselves, the light of knowledge," would have no meaning. And again that
darkness is brought upon men by their evil deeds, we learn from John himself,
when he says in his epistle,73 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and
walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth," and again, "He that saith he is
in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now," and again,
"He that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth
not whither he goeth, because darkness hath blinded his eyes." Walking in
darkness signifies evil conduct, and to hate one's brother, is not that to fall
away from that which is properly called knowledge? But he also who is ignorant
of divine things walks in darkness, just because of that ignorance; as David
says,74 "They knew not, they understood not, they walk in darkness." Consider,
however, this passage,75 "God is light and in Him is no76 darkness," and see if
the reason for this saying is not that darkness is not one, being either two,
because there are two kinds of it, or many, because it is taken distributively,
individually with reference to the many evil actions and the many false
doctrines; so that there are many darknesses, not one of which is in God. The
saying of the Saviour could not be spoken of the Holy One, "Ye are the light of
the world; "for the Holy One is light of the world (absolute, not particular),
and there is not in Him any darkness.

21. Christ is Not, Like God, Quite Free from Darkness: Since He Bore Our Sins.

Now some one will ask how this statement that there is no darkness in Him can be
regarded as a thing peculiar to Him, when we consider that the Saviour also was
quite without sin. Could it not be said of Him also that "He is light, and that
there is no darkness in Him"? The difference between the two cases has been
partly set forth above. We will now, however, go a step further than we did
before, and add, that if God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us,77
then it could not be said of Him that there was no darkness in Him. For if Jesus
was in the likeness78 of the flesh of sin and for sin, and condemned sin by
taking ripen Him the likeness of the flesh of sin, then it cannot be said of
Him, absolutely and directly, that there was no darkness in Him. We may add that
"He79 took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses," both infirmities of the
soul and sicknesses of the hidden man of our heart. On account of these
infirmities and sicknesses which He bore away from us, He declares His soul to
be sorrowful and sore troubled,80 and He is said in Zechariah to have put on
filthy garments,81 which, when He was about to take them off, are said to be
sins. "Behold, it is said, I have taken away thy sins." Because He had taken on
Himself the sins of the people of those who believed in Him, he uses many such
expressions as these: "Far from my salvation are the words of my
transgressions,"82 and "Thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins were not hid
from Thee."83 And let no one suppose that we say this from any lack of piety
towards the Christ of God; for as the Father alone has immortality and our Lord
took upon Himself. for His love to men, the death He died for us, so to the
Father alone the words apply, "In Him is no darkness," since Christ took upon
Himself, for His goodwill towards men, our darknesses. This He did, that by His
power He might destroy our death and remove the darkness which is in our soul,
so that the saying in Isaiah might be fulfilled,84 "The people that sat in
darkness saw a great light." This light, which came into being in the Logos, and
is also life, shines in the darkness of our souls, and it has come where the
rulers of this darkness carry on their struggle with the race of men and strive
to subdue to darkness those who do not stand firm with all their power; that
they might be enlightened the light has come so far, and that they might be
called sons of light. And shining in darkness this light is pursued by the
darkness, but not overtaken.

22. How the Darkness Failed to Overtake the Light. Should any one consider that
we are adding something that is not written, namely, the pursuit of the light by
the darkness, let him reflect that unless the darkness had pursued the light the
words, "The darkness did not overtake it," would have no meaning. John writes
for those who have wit to see what is omitted and to supply it as the context
requires, and so he wrote, "The darkness did not overtake it." If it did not
overtake it, it must first have pursued it, and that the darkness did pursue the
light is clear from what the Saviour suffered, and those also who received His
teachings, His own children, when darkness was doing what it could against the
sons of light and was minded to drive light away from men. But since, if God be
for us,85 no one, however that way minded, can be against us, the more they
humbled themselves the more they grew, and they prevailed exceedingly. In two
ways the darkness did not overtake the light. Either it was left far behind and
was itself so slow, while the light was in its course so sharp and swift, that
it was not even able to keep following it, or if the light sought to lay a snare
for the darkness, and waited for it in pursuance of the plan it had formed, then
darkness, coming near the light, was brought to an end. In either case the
darkness did not overtake the light.

23. There is a Divine Darkness Which is Not Evil, and Which Ultimately Becomes
Light. In connection with this subject it is necessary for us to point out that
darkness is not to be understood, every time it is mentioned, in a bad sense;
Scripture speaks of it sometimes in a good sense. The heterodox have failed to
observe this distinction, and have accordingly adopted most shameful doctrines
about the Maker of the world, and have indeed revolted from Him, and addicted
themselves to fictions and myths. We must, therefore, show how and when the name
of darkness is taken in a good sense. Darkness and clouds and tempest are said
in Exodus86 to be round about God, and in the seventeenth Psalm,87 "He made
darkness His secret place, His tent round about Him, dark water in clouds of the
air." Indeed, if one considers the multitude of speculation and knowledge about
God, beyond the power of human nature to take in, beyond the power, perhaps, of
all originated beings except Christ and the Holy Spirit, then one may know how
God is surrounded with darkness, because the discourse is hid in ignorance which
would be required to tell in what darkness He has made His hiding-place when He
arranged that the things concerning Him should be unknown and beyond the grasp
of knowledge. Should any one be staggered by these expositions, he may be
reconciled to them both by the "dark sayings" and by the "treasures of
darkness," hidden, invisible, which are given to Christ by God. In nowise
different, I consider, are the treasures of darkness which are hid in Christ,
from what is spoken of in the text, "God made darkness His secret place," and
(the saint) "shall understand parable and dark saying."88 And consider if we
have here the reason of the Saviour's saying to His disciples, "What ye have
heard in darkness, speak ye in the light." The mysteries committed to them in
secret and where few could hear, hard to be known and obscure, He bids them,
when enlightened and therefore said to be in the light, to make known to every
one who is made light. I might add a still stranger feature of this darkness
which is praised, namely, that it hastens to the light and overtakes it, and so
at last, after having been unknown as darkness, undergoes for him who does not
see its power such a change that he comes to know it and to declare that what
was formerly known to him as darkness has now become light.

24. John the Baptist Was Sent. From Where? His Soul Was Sent from a Higher
Region.

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."89 He who is sent is sent
from somewhere to somewhere; and the careful student will, therefore, enquire
from what quarter John was sent, and whither. The "whither" is quite plain on
the face of the story; he was sent to Israel, and to those who were willing to
hear him when he was staying in the wilderness of Judaea and baptizing by the
banks of the Jordan. According to the deeper sense, however, he was sent into
the world, the world being understood as this earthly place where men are; and
the careful student will have this in view in enquiring from where John was
sent. Examining the words more closely, he will perhaps declare that as it is
written of Adam,90 "And the Lord sent him forth out of the Paradise of pleasure
to till the earth, out of which he was taken," so also John was sent, either
from heaven or from Paradise, or from some other quarter to this place on the
earth. He was sent that he might bear witness of the light. There is, however,
an objection to this interpretation, which is not to be lightly dismissed. It is
written in Isaiah:91 "Whom shall I send, and who will go to the people? "The
prophet answers: "Here am I,-send me." He, then, who objects to that rendering
of our passage which appears to be the deeper may say that Isaiah was sent not
to this world from another place, but after having seen "the Lord sitting on a
throne high and lifted up," was sent to the people, to say, "Hearing, ye shall
hear and shall not understand," and so on; and that in the same manner John, the
beginning of his mission not being narrated, is sent after the analogy of the
mission of Isaiah, to baptize,92 and to make ready for the Lord a people
prepared for Him, and to bear witness of the light. So much we have said of the
first sense; and now we adduce certain solutions which help to confirm the
deeper meaning about John. In the same passage it is added, "He came for
witness, to bear witness of the light." Now, if he came, where did he come from?
To those who find it difficult to follow us, we point to what John says
afterwards of having seen the Holy Spirit as a dove descending on the Saviour.
"He that sent me," he says,93 "to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon
whomsoever thou shall see the Holy Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, the
same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit and with fire." When did He send
him and give him this injunction? The answer to titlE question will probably be
that when He sent him to begin to baptize, then He who was dealing with him
uttered this word. But a more convincing argument for the view that John was
sent from another region when he entered into the body, the one object of his
entry into this life being that he should bear witness of the truth, may be
drawn from the narrative of his birth. Gabriel, when announcing to Zacharias the
birth of John, and to Mary the advent of our Saviour among men, says:94 That
John is to be "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." And we
have also the saying, "For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into
mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." He who sedulously guards himself
in his dealings with Scripture against forced, or casual, or capricious
procedure, must necessarily assume that John's soul was older than his body, and
subsisted by itself before it was sent on the ministry of the witness of the
light. Nor must we overlook the text, "This is Elijah which is to come."95 For
if that general doctrine of the soul is to be received, namely, that it is not
sown at the same time with the body, but is before it, and is then, for various
causes, clothed with flesh and blood; then the words "sent from God" will not
appear to be applicable to John alone. The most evil of all, the man of sin, the
son of perdition, is said by Paul to be sent by God:96 "God sendeth them a
working of error that they should believe a lie; that they all might be judged
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." But our
present question may, perhaps, be solved in this way, that as every man is a man
of God, simply because God created him, but not every man is called a man of
God, but only he who has devoted himself to God, such as Elijah and those who
are called men of God in the Scriptures, thus every man might be said in
ordinary language to be sent from God, but in the absolute sense no one is to be
spoken of in this way who has not entered this life for a divine ministry and in
the service of the salvation of mankind. We do not find it said of any one but
the saints that he is sent by God. It is said of Isaiah as we showed before; it
is also said of Jeremiah, "To whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go";97 and
it is said of Ezekiel,98 "I send thee to nations that are rebellious and have
not believed in Me." The examples, however, do not expressly speak era mission
from the region outside life into life, and as it is a mission into life that we
are enquiring about, they may seem to have little bearing on our subject. But
there is nothing absurd in our transferring the argument derived from them to
our question. They tell us that it is only the saints, and we were speaking of
them, whom God is said to send, and in this sense they may be applied to the
case of those who are sent into this life.

25. Argument from the Prayer of Joseph, to Show that the Baptist May Have Been
an Angel Who Became a Man. As we are now engaged with what is said of John, and
are asking about his mission, I may take the opportunity to state the view which
I entertain about him. We have read this prophecy about him, "Behold, I send My
messenger (angel) before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee; "and
at this we ask if it can be one of the holy angels who is sent down on this
ministry as forerunner of our Saviour. No wonder if, when the first-born of all
creation was assuming a human body, some of them should have been filled with
love to man and become admirers and followers of Christ, and thought it good to
minister to his kindness towards man by having a body like that of men. And who
would not be moved at the thought of his leaping for joy when yet in the belly,
surpassing as he did the common nature of man? Should the piece; entitled "The
prayer of Joseph," one of the apocryphal works current among the Hebrews, be
thought worthy of credence, this dogma will be found in it clearly expressed.
Those at the beginning, it is represented, having some marked distinction beyond
men, and being much greater than other souls, because they were angels, they
have come down to human nature. Thus Jacob says: "I, Jacob, who speak to you,
arid Israel, I am an angel of God, a ruling spirit, and Abraham and Isaac were
created before every work of God; and I am Jacob, called Jacob by men, but my
name is Israel, called Israel by God, a man seeing God, because I am the
first-born of every creature which God caused to live." And he adds: "When I was
coming from Mesopotamia of Syria, Uriel, the angel of God, came forth, and said,
I have come down to the earth and made my dwelling among men, and I am called
Jacob by name. He was wroth with me and fought with me and wrestled against me,
saying that his name and the name of Him who is before every angel should be
before my name. And I told him his name and how great he was among the sons of
God; Art not thou Uriel my eighth, and I am Israel and archangel of the power of
the Lord and a chief captain among the sons of God? Am not I Israel, the first
minister in the sight of God, and I invoked my God by the inextinguishable name?
"It is likely that this was really said by Jacob, and was therefore written
down, and that there is also a deeper meaning in what we are told, "He
supplanted his brother in the womb." Consider whether the celebrated question
about Jacob and Esau has a solution. We read,99 "The children being not yet
born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth, it was
said, "The elder shall serve the younger." Even as it is written: "Jacob I
loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteousness with
God? God forbid." If, then, when they were not yet born, and had not done
any-thing either good or evil, in order that God's purpose according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, if at such a period this was
said, how if we do not go back to the works done before this life, can it be
said that there is no unrighteousness with God when the elder serves the younger
and is hated (by God) before he has done anything worthy of slavery or of
hatred? We have made something of a digression in introducing this story about
Jacob and appealing to a writing which we cannot well treat with contempt; but
it certainly adds weight to our argument about John, to the effect that as
Isaiah's voice declares100 he is an angel who assumed a body for the sake of
bearing witness to the light. So much about John considered as a man.

26. John is Voice, Jesus is Speech. Relation of These Two to Each Other.

Now we know voice and speech to be different things. The voice can be produced
without any meaning and with no speech in it, and similarly speech can be
reported to the mind without voice, as when we make mental excursions, within
ourselves. And thus the Saviour is, in one view of Him, speech, and John differs
from Him; for as the Saviour is speech, John is voice. John himself invites me
to take this view of him, for to those who asked who he was, he answered, "I am
the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord! make His
paths straight!" This explains, perhaps, how it was that Zacharias lost his
voice at the birth of the voice which points out the Word of God, and only
recovered it when the voice, forerunner of the Word, was born. A voice must be
perceived with the ears if the mind is afterwards to receive the speech which
the voice indicates. Hence, John is, in point of his birth, a little older than
Christ, for our voice comes to us before our speech. But John also points to
Christ; for speech is brought forward by the voice. And Christ is baptized by
John, though John declares himself to have need to be baptized by Christ; for
with men speech is purified by voice, though the natural way is that speech
should purify the voice which indicates it. In a word, when John points out
Christ, it is man pointing out God, the Saviour incorporeal, the voice pointing
out the Word.

27. Significance of the Names of John and of His Parents. The force that is in
names may be applied in many matters, and it may be worth our while to ask at
this point what is the significance of the names John and Zacharias. The
relatives wish, as the giving of a name is a thing not to be lightly disposed
of, to call the child Zacharias, and are surprised that Elisabeth should want
him to be called John. Zacharias then writes, "His name is John," and is at once
freed from his troublesome silence. On examining the names, then, we find
"Joannes "to be "Joa" without the "nes." The New Testament gives Hebrew names a
Greek form and treats them as Greek words; Jacob is changed into Jacobus, Symeon
into Simon, and Joannes is the same as Joa. Zacharias is said to be memory, add
Elisabeth "oath of my God," or "strength of my God." John then came into the
world from grace of God (=Joa=Joannes), and his parents were Memory (about God)
and the Oath of our God, about the fathers. Thus was he born to make ready for
the Lord a people fit for Him, at the end of the Covenant now grown old, which
is the end of the Sabbatic period. Hence it is not possible that the rest after
the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the
contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to
be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection.101 28.
The Prophets Bore Witness to Christ and Foretold Many Things Concerning Him.

"He came for a witness that He might bear witness of the light, that all through
Him might believe."102 Some of the dissenters from the Church's doctrine, men
who profess to believe in Christ, have desired another being, as indeed their
system requires, besides the Creator, and hence cannot allow His coming to the
world to have been foretold by the prophets.103 They therefore endeavour to get
rid of the testimonies of the prophets about Christ, and say that the Son of God
has no need of witnesses, but that He brings with Him His own evidence, partly
in the sound words full of power which He proclaimed and partly in the wonderful
works He did, which were sufficient at once to convince any one whatever. Then
they say: If Moses is believed on account of his word and his works, and has no
need of any witnesses to announce him beforehand, and if the prophets were
received, every one of them, by these people, as messengers from God, how should
not one who is much greater than Moses and the prophets accomplish His mission
and benefit the human race, without prophets to bear witness about Him? They
regard it as superfluous that He should have been foretold by the prophets,
since the prophets were concerned, as these opponents would say, that those who
believed in Christ should not receive Him as a new God, and therefore did what
they could to bring them to that same God whom Moses and the prophets taught
before Jesus. To this we must say that as there are many causes which may lead
men to believe, since men who are not moved by one argument may be by another,
so God is able to provide for men a number of occasions, any of which may cause
their minds to open to the truth that God, who is over all, has taken on Himself
human nature. It is manifest to all, how some are brought by the prophetic
writings to the admiration of Christ. They are astounded at the voices of so
many prophets before Him, which establish the place of His birth, the country of
His upbringing, the power of His teaching, His working of wonderful works, and
His human passion brought to a close by His resurrection. We must notice, too,
that Christ's stupendous acts of power were able to bring to the faith those of
Christ's own time, but that they lost their demonstrative force with the lapse
of years and began to be regarded as mythical. Greater evidential value than
that of the miracles then performed attaches to the comparison which we now make
between these miracles and the prophecy of them; this makes it impossible for
the student to cast any doubt on the former. The prophetic testimonies do not
declare merely the advent of the Messiah; it is by no means the case that they
teach this and nothing else. They teach a great deal of theology. The relation
of the Father to the Son and of the Son to the Father may be learned not less
from what the prophets announce about Christ, than from the Apostles narrating
the splendours of the Son of God. A parallel case, which we may venture to
adduce, is that of the martyrs, who were honoured by the witness they bore Him,
and by no means conferred any favour on Him by their witnessing for the Son of
God. And how is it if, as many of Christ's true disciples were honoured by
having thus to witness for Him, so the prophets received from God as their
special gift that of understanding about Christ and announcing Him before, and
that they taught not only those living after Christ's advent how they should
regard the Son of God, but those also who lived in the generations before Him?
As he who in these times does not know the Son has not the Father either,104 so
also we are to understand it was in these earlier times. Hence "Abraham rejoiced
to see the day of Christ, and he saw it and was glad."105 He, therefore, who
declares that they are not to testify about Christ is seeking to deprive the
chorus of the prophets of the greatest gift they have; for what office of equal
importance would be left to prophecy, inspired as it is by the Holy Spirit, if
all connection with the economy of our Lord and Master were taken away from it?
For as these have their faith well ordered who approach the God of the universe
through Mediator and High-Priest and Paraclete, and as his religion is a halting
one who does not go in through the door to the Father, so also in the case of
men of old time. Their religion was sanctified and made acceptable to God by
their knowledge and faith and expectation of Christ. For we have observed that
God declares Himself to be a witness and exhorts them all to declare the same
about Christ, and to be imitators of Him, bearing witness of Him to all who
require it. For he says,106 "Be witnesses for Me, and I am witness, saith the
Lord God, and My servant whom I have chosen." Now every one who bears witness to
the truth, whether he support it by words or deeds, or in whatever way, may
properly be called a witness (martyr); but it has come to be the custom of the
brotherhood, since they are struck with admiration of those who have contended
to the death for truth and valour, to keep the name of martyr more properly for
those who have borne witness to the mystery of godliness by shedding their blood
for it. The Saviour gives the name of martyr to every one who bears witness to
the truth He declares; thus at the Ascension He says to His disciples:107 "You
shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in Judaea and in Samaria and unto the
uttermost parts of the earth." The leper who was cleansed108 had still to bring
the gift which Moses commanded for a testimony to those who did not believe in
the Christ. In the same way the martyrs bear witness for a testimony to the
unbelieving, and so do all the saints whose deeds shine before men. They spend
their life rejoicing in the cross of Christ and bearing witness to the true
light.

29. The Six Testimonies of the Baptist Enumerated. Jesus' "Come and See."
Significance of the Tenth Hour.

Accordingly John came to bear witness of the light, and in his witness-bearing
he cried, saying,109 "He that cometh after me exists before me; for He was
before me; for of His fulness we have all received and grace for grace, for the
law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one
hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him." This whole speech is from the mouth of the
Baptist bearing witness to the Christ. Some take it otherwise, and consider that
the words from "for of His fulness" to "He hath declared Him" are from the
writer, John the Apostle. The true state of the case is that John's first
testimony begins, as we said before, "He that cometh after me," and ends, "He
hath declared Him," and his second testimony is that spoken to the priests and
levites sent from Jerusalem, whom the Jews had sent. To them he confesses and
does not deny the truth, namely, that he is not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the
prophet, but "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way
of the Lord, as saith Isaiah the prophet."110 After this there is another
testimony of the same Baptist to Christ, still teaching His superior nature,
which goes forth into the whole world and enters into reasonable souls. He
says,111 "There standeth One among you whom you know not, even He that cometh
after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Consider if,
since the heart is in the middle of the whole body, and the ruling principle in
the heart, the saying, "There standeth One among you whom you know not," can be
understood of112 the reason which is in every man. John's fourth testimony of
Christ after these points to His human sufferings. He says,113 "Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After
me cometh a man who exists before me, for He was before me. And I knew Him not,
but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing
with water." And the fifth testimony is recorded in the words,114 "I beheld the
Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it abode upon Him, and I knew Him
not, but He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever
thou shall see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, the same is He that
baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is
the Son of God." In the sixth place John witnesses of Christ to the two
disciples:115 "He looked on Jesus as He walked and saith, Behold the Lamb of
God.': After this testimony the two disciples who heard it followed Jesus; and
Jesus turned and beheld them following, and saith unto them, "What seek ye?
"Perhaps it is not without significance that after six testimonies John ceases
from his witness-bearing and Jesus brings forward in the seventh place His "What
seek ye? "Very becoming in those who have been helped by John's testimony is the
speech in which they address Christ as their Master, and declare their wish to
see the dwelling of the Son of God; for they say to Him, "Rabbi," which answers
to "Master," in our language, "where dwellest Thou? "And since every one that
seeketh findeth, when John's disciples seek Jesus' dwelling, Jesus shows it to
them, saying, "Come and see." By the word "Come" He exhorts them perhaps to the
practical part of life, while the "see" is to suggest to them that that
speculation which comes in the train of right conduct will be vouchsafed to
those who desire it; in Jesus' dwelling they will have it. After they had asked
where Jesus dwells, and had followed the Master and had seen, they desired to
stay with Him and to spend that day with the Son of God. Now the number ten is a
sacred one, not a few mysteries being indicated by it; and so we are to
understand that the mention of the tenth hour as that at which these disciples
turned in with Jesus, is not without significance. Of these disciples, Andrew,
the brother of Simon Peter, is one; and he having profited by this day with
Jesus and having found his own brother Simon (perhaps he had not found him
before), told him that he had found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted,
Christ. It is written that "he that seeketh findeth." Now he had sought where
Jesus dwelt, and had followed Him and looked upon His dwelling; he stays with
the Lord "at the tenth hour," and finds the Son of God, the Word, and Wisdom,
and is ruled by Him as King. That is why he says, "We have found the Messiah,"
and this a thing which every one can say who has found this Word of God and is
ruled as by a king, by His Divinity. As a fruit he at once brings his brother to
Christ, and Christ deigned to look upon Simon, that is to say, by looking at him
to visit and enlighten his ruling principle; and Simon by Jesus' looking at him
was enabled to grow strong, so as to earn a new name from that work of firmness
and strength, and to be called Peter, 30. How John Was a Witness of Christ, and
Specially of "The Light."

It may be asked why we should have gone through all this when the verse before
us is, "He came for wireless, that he might bear witness of the light." But it
was necessary to give John's testimonies to the light, and to show the order in
which they took place, and also, in order to show how effective John's testimony
proved, to set forth the help it afforded afterwards to those to whom he bore
it. But before all these testimonies there was an earlier one when the Baptist
leaped in the womb of Elisabeth at the greeting of Mary. That was a testimony to
Christ and attested His divine conception and birth. And what more need I say?
John is everywhere a witness and forerunner of Christ. He anticipates His birth
and dies a little before the death of the Son of God, and thus witnesses not
only for those at the time of the birth, but to those who were expecting the
freedom which was to come for man through the death of Christ. Thus, in all his
life, he is a little before Christ, and everywhere makes ready for the Lord a
people prepared for Him. And John's testimony precedes also the second and
diviner coming of Christ, for we read,116 "If ye will receive it, this is Elijah
which is to come. He that hath ears to hear let him hear." Now, there was a
beginning, in which the Word was,-and we saw from Proverbs that that beginning
was wisdom.-and the Word was in existence, and in the Word life was made, and
the life was the light of men; and all this being so, I ask why the man who
came, sent from God, whose name was John, why he came for witness to bear
witness especially of the light? Why did he not come to bear witness of the
life, or of the Word, or about the beginning. or about any other of the many
aspects in which Christ appears? Consider here the texts, "The people which sat
in darkness saw a great light," and "The light shineth in darkness, and the
darkness overtook it not," and consider how those who are in darkness, that is,
men, have need of light. For if the light of men shines in darkness, and there
is no active power in darkness to attain to it, then we must partake of other
aspects of Christ; at present we have no real share of Him at all. For what
share have we of life, we who are still in the body of death, and whose life is
hid with Christ in God?117 "For when Christ who is our life shall appear, then
shall we also appear with Him in glory." It was not possible, therefore, that he
who came should bear witness about a life which is still hid with Christ in God.
Nor did he come for witness to bear witness of the Word, for we know the Word
who was in the beginning with God and who is God the Word; for the Word was made
flesh on the earth. And though the witness had been, at least apparently, about
the Word, it would in fact have been about the Word made flesh and not about the
word of God. He did not come, therefore, to bear witness of the Word. And how
could there be any witness-bearing about wisdom, to those who, even if they
appear to know something, cannot understand pure truth, but behold it through a
glass and in an enigma? It is likely, however, that before the second and
diviner advent of Christ, John or Elias will come to bear witness about life a
little before Christ our life is made manifest, and that then they will bear
witness about the Word, and offer also their testimony about wisdom. Some
inquiry is necessary whether a testimony such as that of John is to precede each
of the aspects of Christ. So much for the words, "He came for witness, to bear
witness of the light." What we are to understand by the further words, "That all
might believe through Him," may be considered later.

1: Hos. i. 1.

2: Isa. ii. 1.

3: Jer. xiv. 1.

4: Matt. xi. 19.

5: Rom. xi. 33.

6: Omitting to , with Jacobi.

7: John xvii. 3.

8: Ps. l. 1.

9: Deut. iv. 19, quoted apparently from memory.

10: Apoc. xix. 11-16.

11: In the Greek the article is here omitted.

12: Reading parekdecasqai with Huet.

13: Philipp. iii. 20.

14: Deut. xxxii. 4.

15: Lam. iv. 20.

16: Ps. cxliii. 2.

17: Omitting legesqai , with Jacobi.

18: 2 Thess. ii. 8.

19: 1 Cor. iii. 19.

20: see R. V. Margin, John i. 3.

21: Rom. i. 1-5.

22: i. 1,2.

23: Matt. xii. 32.

24: Reading pro pautwn , with Jacobi.

25: 1 Cor. xii. 4-6.

26: Isa. xlviii. 16.

27: ii, 9.

28: John i. 32.

29: Matt. xii. 50.

30: Ps. civ. 24.

31: Rom. iv. 17.

32: Esth. iv. 22.

33: Exod. iii. 14, 15.

34: Mark x. 18.

35: On the fragments of Heracleon in this work of Origen, see Texts and Studies
, vol. i, part iv. by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

36: Prov. xxx, 6.

37: Accepting Jacobi's and Brook's correction para thn .

38: Ps. cxlviii. 5.

39: Coloss. i. 15, 16.

40: Rom. vii. 8, 9.

41: Rom. v. 13.

42: John xv. 22.

43: John xii. 48.

44: Rom x. 6-8.

45: Mark xii. 26.

46: Ps. cxliii. 2.

47: Numb xiv. 28.

48: Heb. xi. 16.

49: Ps. cxvi. 9.

50: Matt. v. 16.

51: 1 Tim. iv. 16.

52: John xvi. 14, 15.

53: Ps. vi. 6.

54: Ephes. v. 8.

55: The demiurge.

56: 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15.

57: Matt. xxii. 30.

58: 2 Kings ii. 14.

59: Judith ix. 2.

60: Gen. i. 26.

61: Zechar i ; Hagg. i. 13.

62: Mal. iii. 1; Mark i. 2.

63: v. 13, 14.

64: i. 5.

65: Ps. xxxvi. 10. 4 viii. 12.

66: viii. 12.

67: Isa. xlii. 6.

68: Ps. xxvii. 1.

69: i. 5.

70: xxvi. 9.

71: xix. 9.

72: Hosea x. 12.

73: 1 John i. 6; ii. 9. 11.

74: Ps. lxxxii. 5.

75: 1 John i. 5.

76: oudemia , not one.

77: 2 Cor. v. 21.

78: Rom. viii, 3.

79: Matt. viii. 17.

80: Matt. xxvi. 38.

81: Zech. iii. 4.

82: Ps. xxii. 1.

83: Ps. lxix. 5.

84: ix. 2.

85: Rom. viii. 31.

86: xix. 9. 16.

87: Ps. xviii. 11.

88: Prov. i. 6.

89: John i. 6.

90: Gen. iii. 23

91: vi. 1, 9.

92: Luke i. 17.

93: John i. 33.

94: Luke i. 13, 15.

95: Matt. xi. 14.

96: 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12.

97: Jer. i. 7.

98: Ezek. ii. 3.

99: Rom. ix. 11-14 100: Isa. xl. 3.

101: Origen appears to be pointing to the fact that the Christian rest which is
connected in its origin with the resurrection of Christ is not held as the
Jewish Sabbath rest on the seventh but on the first day of the week. John
marking the end of the old period is the son of Elisabeth the oath, or seventh,
of God, and is thus connected with the seventh day; but not so Jesus.

102: John i, 7.

103: The Old Testament belongs to the Creator, the Demiurge.

104: 1 John ii. 23.

105: John viii. 56.

106: Isa. xliii. 10.

107: Acts i. 8.

108: Matt. viii. 4.

109: i. 7, 15-18.

110: i. 23.

111: i. 26 112: Reading kata for kai .

113: i. 29-31.

114: i. 32-34.

115: i. 35-38.

116: Matt. xi. 14, 15.

117: Coloss. iii. 3, 4.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 20
========================================================================

Volume 20 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by
ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca In dictating the twentieth volume on the
Gospel according to John, most God-loving and knowledge-seeking in the Lord
Ambrose, we pray from the fullness of the Son of God, in whom all fullness was
pleased to dwell, to receive complete and, so to speak, substantial insights,
and having nothing deficient, that the Gospel may be revealed to us according to
our examinations, without us either omitting anything necessary to be examined
and recorded in interpretative writings, nor unduly increasing anything, nor
misunderstanding the mind of our Savior Jesus. So may God send Him, the Word,
revealing Himself, so that we may become spectators of His depth, granted by the
Father.

[John 8:37] I know that you are Abraham’s seed, but you seek to kill me because
my word has no place in you.

It may seem contentious to those who do not understand the significance of the
term "seed" and the term "child" to interpret the phrase "I know that you are
Abraham’s seed" and what will be immediately brought forward and said to them:
"If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham." So that
these matters may be considered, let us first examine physically the difference
between "seed" and "child." It is clear that the seed has within itself the
words of the one who sowed it, still resting in quiet and laid up; but the
child, after the seed has transformed and worked on the material surrounding it
from the woman and the accumulated nourishment, stands formed and prepared for
birth; and if indeed a part is truly a child of someone, in terms of the bodily,
it has arisen from seed, while if it is a seed, it does not necessarily become a
child. With these distinctions having been pre-stated by us, if one were
supposed to understand "I know that you are Abraham’s seed" physically, it would
certainly follow that they are also Abraham’s children to whom the phrase is
spoken, granted that the child is still seed and not given strictly. Since the
children of Abraham are judged by their character and works, perhaps those who
are seeds of Abraham should be identified by certain seminal words sowed, as I
suppose, into certain souls. And just as not all humans physically are Abraham’s
seed, so in the matters now considered regarding who are Abraham’s seed, it is
clear that not all humans inherit the same seminal words implanted into their
souls for the life of mankind. The cause for these differences, through great
judgments and ineffable ways, viewed by those who have received the mind of
Christ, to see the things granted to them by God, can only be comprehended by a
few who diligently grasp things before and within every individual’s birth; and
since such considerations might disturb some, although understanding these
things, not investigating them accurately, we risk endangering ourselves in
dealing with such matters, where discussing and unfolding such subjects is
perilous, even if it is correct. And furthermore, it is precarious because the
steward of God's mysteries must also seek the opportune moment for the
presentation of such doctrines, so as not to harm the listener, and consider the
measure of what is lacking or excessive; and even if the opportune moment is
observed, and something is done contrary to right reason, it must be more
carefully examined whether those to whom such things are delivered are fellow
slaves, or slaves of someone else other than the Lord of the ruler. For that the
steward of God's mysteries must examine all these things is indicated by the
saying: "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will appoint
over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?" Not all
people, therefore, are the seed of Abraham; for they do not have the words sown
within their souls which, if cultivated, could make them children of Abraham.
And someone might argue that one who has become seed of Abraham could be
condemned if he does not also become his child; but how could one reasonably
blame someone for not doing the works of Abraham, who does not even have the
initial condition of being the seed of Abraham, from which comes the becoming
children of Abraham? We might answer this by using history as a stepping-stone
and seeking the traces of truth regarding the place in the scriptures, that if
someone is not a child of Abraham, but is seed of no righteous person, then one
would be blameless among sinners, having no opportunity from the seeds for what
is good. But now, just as in bodies one might be the seed of many righteous
people, while another has fewer, as will be evident from the juxtaposition of
what will be said, so also in matters of spiritual advancement it is fitting to
speak proportionally. Abraham is the twentieth born from the first-formed: for
there are ten generations from Adam to Noah, and ten from Noah to Abraham. And
Abraham had brothers Nahor and Haran; for the three were the sons of Terah.
Nahor and Haran were not descendants of Abraham; nor was Abraham himself a
descendant of Abraham. The three were, however, descendants of righteous men, as
we still seek to count those from Adam in certain numbers: of Seth, whom God
raised in place of Abel; and of Enosh, who "began to call on the name of the
Lord" and of Enoch, "who pleased God, after becoming the father of Methuselah
for two hundred years"; and of Noah, of whom it is said that "Noah was a
righteous man, perfect in his generation; Noah walked with God"; and of Shem,
whose "Lord God" seems first to have been addressed in Genesis, as it is plain
from "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem." Among those who were unrighteous,
these three sons of Terah were the descendants. Therefore, what we have said
about the seed of Abraham, let it be understood about the seed of Shem and Noah
and the aforementioned righteous men, whose characteristics Abraham, Nahor, and
Haran seem to have inherited as they came into existence. But Abraham cultivated
within himself the seminal reasons of all the righteous before him and added to
them his own holy quality, particular to his own seed, from which those who
followed after him, called "seed of Abraham," could partake. But Haran made
little effort for himself and the paternal seeds in him, from which he managed,
though weakly, to give forth Lot. Nahor, however, was lesser than both his
brothers. Therefore, it is possible, even not being of the seed of Abraham, to
be of the seed of Noah, since certainly by the history of the flood all
descended from Noah. If this is so, then also of the seed of Enoch, surely also
of the seed of Enosh and Seth. It is unclear to us among many of those lower
than Noah, who is of the seed of Shem, who of Ham, and who of Japheth, and of
those even lower; but no one is without some share in the seed of the righteous.
I consider it possible that one having the starting points which Abraham had
from prior seeds, even not being of the seed of Abraham, might become similar to
Abraham. For as Abraham, though not from the seed of Abraham but from those
previously mentioned, became Abraham, so it is possible for someone, having
cultivated the superior things sown in him, to become another Abraham, not
necessarily from the seed of Abraham but himself also capable of sowing like
Abraham. And let us hear of all these matters, referring the spoken words not to
bodies and people, but to certain intelligible things and words, more or fewer,
which those entering into generation or existence participate in variously, and
perhaps even ascending. And you may consider if such seeds can apply, now being
named as particular to those who receive them, the phrase "They that go forth,
go weeping, bearing their seeds"; for if one can, let him understand the journey
of some souls into generation with weeping, carrying the seeds either of more
just or fewer and even unjust things. And let him reflect, seeing as if
gardeners agonizing over the seeds they hold, how to cultivate these (I mean
those that are superior), and not to sow these, if they come with worse seeds.
For what kind of weeping is it likely for these to weep about whom the saying
is: "They that go forth, go weeping, bearing their seeds"? And there is indeed a
good hope among those who go forth and weep, carrying their seeds; for these as
usually "shall come with rejoicing, carrying their sheaves." Perhaps, however,
there are others, concerning whom you might say: "They that go forth went forth
and laughed, bearing their seeds"; and for them the following will be: "And they
shall come with weeping, carrying their sheaves"; concerning whom you might say:
"They were born like grass on the rooftops, which withers before it is plucked,
of which the mower fills not his hand, nor the binder of sheaves his bosom. And
they that pass by do not say: The blessing of the Lord be upon you." And observe
if it can perhaps be said more deeply and mystically by our savior the saying
"Blessed are those who weep now, for they shall laugh;" and "Woe to those who
laugh now, for they shall mourn and weep." However much the seed of later just
ones is, it produces that many more words of righteousness, as for this reason
the phrase "The seed of Abraham his servants, the sons of Jacob his chosen ones"
is written, and for this reason somehow the saying about John: "Among those born
of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist." Having come to these
places, consider if it has any meaning that some seeds disappear by God, so that
there be no more evil on earth, if those not deriving from better sources are
sown to cultivate those from superior seeds. For this reason, the flood occurs
to destroy the seed of Cain, since those born from him could not have anything
to cultivate but only from Adam. That the flood happened to destroy the seed of
Cain is shown by the inscription of the Proverbs of Solomon through these words:
“Departing from her, the unrighteous in his anger perished” (it being evident
that it means wisdom), “killed by fratricidal lusts, for whom wisdom again saved
the submerged earth, steering the righteous with a simple piece of wood.” The
disappearance of Sodom and the land of those likewise seems to be depicted to
me: "Their land remains a smoking wasteland, bearing plants at fruitless
seasons." And it was the work of a good God to make Sodom disappear from the
earth and to dry up whatever residue of mist remained from it, so that there
would no longer be a vine of Sodom, nor a branch of Gomorrah, nor a grape of
bitterness, nor a cluster of harshness, nor wine, the anger of dragons and the
incurable wrath of asps. You would say the same about the Egyptians, about whom
it is said: “He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamore trees with
frost”; for it is a good God who kills the vines of the Egyptians and the
sycamore trees of the ungodly. These things are set forth for the examination of
the debate about seeds regarding Abraham or any of the righteous, so that it may
be shown how and in what manner it is said by the Savior, “I know that you are
Abraham’s seed,” and “If you are Abraham’s children, do the works of Abraham.”
Concerning the children of Abraham doing the works of Abraham, we will speak,
God willing, in better time, when we come to the testing of that statement. It
is possible then for someone who happens to be a seed of Abraham to become his
child through diligence, but it is also possible through neglect and lack of
cultivation to lose even the standing of being his seed. Those to whom the word
was addressed were still of hope, for Jesus knew that they were still Abraham’s
seed and saw that they had not yet lost the ability to become children of
Abraham; as it was still possible for them to become children of Abraham since
they were his seed, he said to them, “If you are children of Abraham, do the
works of Abraham.” Just as there are some who are the seed of Abraham, there are
others, as Daniel says, “the seed of Canaan and not of Judah,” and others, as
Wisdom says, “a cursed seed from the beginning.” And we will say concerning
these that just as in physical matters, from many seeds, sometimes one seed
proves capable of more vigorous growth, so it is with spiritual seeds. What I
say will be clear from the subsequent statements; for since the one who sows has
within himself ancestral and kin-related reasons, sometimes his own reason
prevails, and what is generated resembles the sower, sometimes the reason of the
sower’s brother, or the sower’s father, or the sower’s uncle, or sometimes even
the sower’s grandfather; hence, those who are begotten resemble one or another
of these. One can see that the word of the wife or of the wife’s father or of
her brother or of her grandfather prevails, in accordance with the comminglings
in their fermentations while all of them are shaken, until some of the seminal
words should prevail. Let these things be transferred to the soul filled with
intelligible seeds, coming from certain named fathers of her, and from the
mobility or ease of movement of the governing principle, let certain seminal
words of the fathers emerge as images on such occasions. When cultivated, there
will be a son, this one of Abraham, clearly the same also of Noah, another of
Noah, not, however, to be also of Abraham, and another of Canaan, and another of
someone among the just or the unjust. Yet, we have all come not with similar and
the same seeds, but no one has come empty of salvific and holy seeds; unless one
of us happens to entreat strongly and simultaneously offering the help from God
that does not reject even the worst and those who have entered life without the
best seeds, and to entreat from the saying, "God is able from these stones to
raise up children to Abraham." All things spoken about the seed of Abraham and
those having an analogy to this, we would reasonably accept if indeed we have
received that it was not spoken according to the physical that "I was sent only
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and "I have not found such faith in
Israel," and whatever related things have been said similarly. These, to whom
the word is directed, seem not to accommodate the word, unable to contain it
through the excess of its own greatness beyond them, since they were still
merely the seed of Abraham. But if in addition to being the seed of Abraham they
had cultivated and the seed of Abraham had grown into greatness and increase, in
the greatness and increase of the seed of Abraham the word of Jesus would have
fitted. And even to this point, you will admit that the word does not fit in
those not advancing from being the seed of Abraham and not coming into being his
children. These also wish to kill the word and as it were to crush it, not being
able to contain its greatness. And it is always possible to see those not
accommodating the word, because they are lesser vessels, wishing to kill the
unity of the greatness of the word, as if they could contain its members after
its destruction and crushing. To those in whom the word thus happens, having, as
it were, destroyed it, it will be said, "All my bones have been scattered." So
if one of us is the seed of Abraham and yet the word of God does not fit in him,
let him not seek to kill the word, but having changed from being the seed of
Abraham to being the child of Abraham, he will be able to contain the word of
God which he previously did not accommodate.

[John 8:38] What I have seen from the Father, I speak; and you, therefore, what
you have heard from the Father, you do.

Just as we might say that certain men from the beginning have been eyewitnesses
of the word, concerning whom Luke says, “Just as those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us,” so we will
say that the Savior is an eyewitness of things from the Father, and thus the
saying “No one knows the Father except the Son” is said, since there are no
other eyewitnesses to whom the Son might reveal. Clearly, the statement in “What
I have seen from the Father, I speak” indicates that the Savior is an eyewitness
of things with the Father. If someone ever inquires whether there will be a time
when the angels themselves will see the things with the Father, no longer seeing
through an intermediary and servant; then those who have seen the Son have seen
the Father who sent Him; in the Son, one sees the Father. But when one looks at
the Father as the Son sees the Father and the things with the Father, one will
be, as it were, an eyewitness of the Father and of the things of the Father, no
longer understanding these things from the image of Him whom the image is. And I
think this will be the end, when the Son hands over the kingdom to God the
Father, and when God becomes all in all. Therefore, the Savior, having seen the
things with the Father, speaks; but the Jews who believed in Him have not seen
the things with the Father, but they heard from the Father to do what they
heard. Therefore, the Lord tells them, “And you, therefore, do what you have
heard from the Father.” Someone might ask when the Jews who believed in the Lord
heard from the Father; and to this, one might say, having simply heard, “What
you have heard from the Father, do,” that they heard from the Father through
Moses and the prophets the things written in the Law and the Prophets to be
done. He who uses the saying against heterodox opinions clearly demonstrates
that the Father of Christ is no other than the God who gave the Law and the
Prophets.

Another also, using the phrase "Everyone who has heard and learned from the
Father comes to me; not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is
from the Father, he has seen the Father," will say that there are some souls
that, having been embodied before coming into existence, have been taught by the
Father and have heard from Him, who also come to the Savior. Among these were
even those Jews who now believe in Him and were being examined, to whom He said,
"You then do what you have heard from the Father." And he will say that these
are those also called the seed of Abraham. But someone might oppose this,
claiming that the statement "Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned
comes to me" necessarily means that the one who has heard from the Father and
learned from Him comes to the Savior; but "You then do what you have heard from
the Father," spoken to the Jews seeking to kill the Son of God, to whom it is
said as if they were not yet children of Abraham, "If you were children of
Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham," shows that they do not yet have the
fruits of having come to the Savior. To such an opposer it will be answered,
stating that "Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned" is not the
same as "You then do what you have heard from the Father"; for the one who has
heard from the Father and learned necessarily comes to the Savior, while those
who have heard but not necessarily learned are not yet children of Abraham. We
might inquire from those introducing the natures and attributing to "My word has
no place in you" according to Heracleon, that it is because they are unfit
either in essence or in intention, how those who are unfit in essence have heard
from the Father. Moreover, were these ever sheep of Christ, or were they
originally strangers to Him? If they were strangers, how did they hear from the
Father? Clearly, as they believe, it is said to the strangers, "For this reason
you do not hear, because you are not of my sheep." Unless, being pressed by
another absurdity, they surround themselves with the claim that the strangers
have heard from the Father but do not hear from the Savior. If they were
belonging to the Savior and of the blessed nature, how were they seeking to kill
Him? And how did the word of the Savior not have a place in them?

[John 8:39] They answered and said to Him, "Our father is Abraham."

They might have made their answer much humbler, accepting concerning who was
their father, as the Lord was saying. For Jesus, referring to God, said "You do
the works you heard from the Father." But humbler, they acknowledge their
father's nationality, saying, "Our father is Abraham." Someone might assist
them, as replying well, by saying that as moderate and not claiming themselves
to be sons of God, when Jesus said "You do the works you heard from the Father"
referring to God, they say "Our father is Abraham." Clearly, the Savior
redirects even this as falsely spoken through "If you were the children of
Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham." Therefore, one might inquire about
these things improperly, because, according to the Savior, denying them to be
children of Abraham, saying to them "You do the works you heard from the
Father," referring to the Father, which is God. For he who is not a child of
Abraham can be much more criticized as those after Abraham against whom the word
is directed, much more so will he not be a child of God. But see if also for
this we can say it has not been said, "And you also should do the works you
heard from your father or our father," but "from the Father," whosoever He may
be, not necessarily the father of those who are not children of Abraham and are
not formed from the seed of Abraham to the children of Abraham; or the saying,
"You do the works you heard from the Father," can be taken indefinitely instead
of "from My Father," and this will be clear from "What I have seen with My
Father I speak," meaning "with My Father." And following, we are taught to whom
God is Father, by which also the Savior says these things: "If God were your
Father, you would love Me." It is clear that those seeking to kill the Son did
not love Him; and those not loving Him could not be called sons of God. Thus it
is clear that "You do the works you heard from the Father" is not equal to "from
your father."

[John 8:39] Jesus said to them, "If you are children of Abraham, do the deeds of
Abraham."

Those who choose one of the deeds of Abraham, the "Abraham believed God, and it
was counted to him as righteousness," and thinking this is what is referred to
by "Do the deeds of Abraham" so that it may be granted to them that faith is a
deed, which would not be granted by those accepting the "Faith without works is
dead" nor by those hearing that it differs to be justified "by faith" rather
than "by works of the law," let them respond why it was not said: "If you are
children of Abraham, do the deed of Abraham" in the singular, but in the plural:
"Do the deeds of Abraham," which, as I think, amounts to "Do all the deeds of
Abraham." And if it equals "Do all the deeds of Abraham," neither must he who
has a wife approach a maidservant fleshly nor, after the death of the married
woman in old age, take another woman, who wishes to become a child of Abraham by
doing the deeds of Abraham according to the teaching of the Savior. Clearly, we
learn here that it is necessary for each one to do spiritually all the history
allegorized according to Abraham, starting from "Go out of your land and from
your kindred and from your father's house to the land that I will show you,"
spoken not only to Abraham but to everyone who will be his child. For each of us
has a land, an unworthy kindred before the divine instruction, and the house of
our father before the word of God reached us, from all of which we must exit
according to the word of God if we hear the Savior saying: "If you are children
of Abraham, do the deeds of Abraham"; thus we will arrive, leaving our land, at
the land which God will show us, truly good and really vast, which properly
should be given by the Lord God to those who have fulfilled what was commanded
in the "Go out of your land." And just as abandoning a family that is not good,
we shall become a great nation and greater than according to humans; and just as
despising the house of a not praiseworthy father, we shall be blessed with our
name being magnified, becoming so blessed, that those who bless us will be
blessed by God, and those who curse us will be under a curse, and every tribe of
the earth will be blessed in us (when it may be said about us: “He went,” as it
was said about Abraham, “And Abraham went, as the Lord had spoken to him.” I
think that in the beginnings and for some time Lot will follow us, of which
there was a symbol: “And Lot went with him”), and returning to the land of
Canaan, we shall pass through the land as far as the place of Shechem, thus
advancing in the ascent of the mind until we come to the high oak. And the Lord
God, who appeared to Abraham, will appear to us, and he will promise to give the
land around the high oak to the seed of our intellectual soul. It is for the one
who understands the phrase “Do the works of Abraham” also to build an altar to
the Lord where the high oak is manifesting to us, and after these things to
depart from the place of the high oak to the mountain, and from the mountain
towards the east of Bethel, which is interpreted “House of God,” where he will
pitch his tent, with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east; Ai is interpreted
“Feasts.” And as such a one progresses, he will build again an altar to the
Lord, now also able to call on the name of the Lord. And next, departing from
there, the one who will be a child of Abraham, becoming somewhat more strategic
and understanding against how many enemies he must prepare himself, will camp in
the wilderness. After this, he will experience the trial of the famine in the
land and will go down to Egypt to sojourn there, so that the famine which
prevails in the land may not overpower him there. And he will go down to Egypt
with his beautiful wife, making certain agreements with her, so that the
Egyptians may treat him well because of her and give him in Egypt “sheep and
oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and mules and camels.” Concerning
each one of whom some wise person, capable of reaching the depths of the text
with proficiency, it would be the work to speak and generally test every part of
the history of Abraham and everything written about him, which things are
allegorized; these we will attempt to do spiritually, as spiritual ones. But see
if it does not clearly appear to us from the examination of the passage that it
is the mark of a wise person endowed with every virtue to become a child of
Abraham. For what need is there to say how much wisdom we need to understand the
works of Abraham? And how much strength to carry them out? What wisdom or what
power do we need, or of Christ, who is "the power of God and the wisdom of God?"
Therefore, it is written: "If you are Abraham's children, do the works of
Abraham"; correspondingly, you could say: if you are Isaac's children, do the
works of Isaac; and similarly about Jacob and each one of the holy fathers. And
by the opposites, each sinner in general is a child of the devil, since
"everyone who commits sin is of the devil," or more specifically, of Cain, or of
Ham, or of Canaan, or of Pharaoh, or of Nebuchadnezzar, or some of the impious
ones. Accordingly, you will say to these that each one departing from this life
will go to his own fathers; for it must be supposed to be said of not only
Abraham, but also to all people at their departure: "You shall go to your
fathers"; yet not to all people, but only to the saints: "In peace"; and to
those completed and become spiritually aged also: "Having lived a good old age,"
since "Wisdom is gray hair to men and an unspotted life is old age among men"
and "A crown of pride is old age" and the glory to the true and godly elders are
the adornments of spiritual gray hairs.

[John 8:40] Now you seek to kill a man who has spoken to you the truth which I
heard from God.

Those who seek to kill, since God is not killed, even if they do kill, they kill
a man. Even if they seek to kill, not yet killing, they do not think they are
devising against God but against a man; for no one who is persuaded that he is
God to whom he devises would still devise against him. It is always possible to
consider those devising against the word of God, that they seek to kill and make
him disappear, supposing him to be a man, that is, human and mortal, or they
attack his more human and visible aspect; so that even if they kill the body of
the word, it is clear that after this they can do nothing more. Therefore, we
should not fear those who kill the body and after that can do nothing more, nor
should we fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul of the word. But
if there is such a word that both his body and soul can be destroyed,
considering them worthy of destruction, we should fear the one who can destroy
and make disappear both soul and body in Gehenna or in whatever manner he
wishes; for the Lord Jesus will consume with the spirit of his mouth and abolish
with the brightness of his coming the opposing word and what is lifted up
against everything called God or worshiped. And these who seek to kill a man who
has spoken the truth he heard from God and received do so. Yet if we take the
place more simply, the Savior clearly taught that what was sought by the Jews to
be killed was not God but a man, who was also killed; for it is not proper to
say that God dies; therefore, the Word in the beginning with God, which was God,
did not die. But you may ask, since it is written that "The Word became flesh,"
whether the Word that became flesh became also a man or not. For if he became a
man, he could be sought to be killed; but if he did not become a man, then the
Word that became flesh was not killed and restores each to what he was before he
became flesh.

[John 8:40] "This Abraham did not do."

It was altogether impossible for this to be done by Abraham, if Abraham had not
done it, as it happened to be stated, it would seem, that 'This Abraham did not
do.' For some would say toward this that it is vainly said, 'This Abraham did
not do,' if he did not do what was not at all done in his time; for Jesus had
not come in his time. But since I consider "This Abraham did not do," to be
said, so to speak, in praise regarding Abraham, I would say that according to
the teacher's discourse, 'Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day,
and he saw it and was glad,' it means that a man speaking the truth he heard
from God did arise in the time of Abraham, yet was not sought to be slain by
Abraham. And understand that there is no time when the man allegorically
understood as Jesus was not present in life, both after the times of the story
about him and earlier. Therefore, I think that anyone who was once enlightened
and has tasted the heavenly gift, and has become a partaker of the Holy Spirit,
and has tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and has
fallen away, again renews himself to repentance, either re-crucifying or
re-nailing the Son of God to the cross and exposing him to public shame, whether
before the bodily advent of our Savior or after. For he who, after enlightenment
and the other beneficences of God towards him, sins again, re-crucifies the Son
of God through his own sins to which he has returned, fulfills nothing short of
the common bodily action known as crucifying the Son of God, nor was it done
earlier and anyone sinning after hearing divine words pre-crucified the Son of
God. But if anyone is pleased to accept what is recorded in the Acts of Paul as
said by the Savior, ‘I am being crucified again above,’ this person, as he
accepts 'I am being crucified again above' occurring after the advent, so also
before the advent, whenever the same causes occur, might say, ‘Now I am being
crucified.’ Why indeed should it not be said that ‘he is being crucified above,’
since he had been crucified before? But see if it is not only the voice of the
saints after the presence that says 'I am crucified with Christ,' but also of
those earlier, lest we say that the saints after the presence differ from Moses
and the patriarchs. And the statement 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ
lives in me' should also be said not only by those after the presence but also
by those earlier. I also bring into focus the statement 'God of Abraham and God
of Isaac and God of Jacob; He is not the God of the dead but of the living' said
by the Savior, lest it may be because of this that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are
living, since they too were buried with Christ and rose together with him, not
necessarily according to the bodily burial or bodily resurrection of Jesus.
These things are in regard to 'This Abraham did not do.' But what is 'this'? It
is the seeking to kill a man who has spoken the truth which he heard from God.
For we assert that the spiritual economy according to Jesus was never absent
from the saints. If you elevate these things as we have hinted at in other
instances, interpreting them mystically rather than commonly in reference to
Abraham, you will try to harmonize all the circumstances related to the place,
seeking the coherence of each of these."

[John 8:41] You are doing the works of your father. With respect to this saying,
it is not clear which father He means to say to the Jews who have believed in
Him and have not yet known the truth; for He says all these things to them. And
if He had not shortly after added, "You are of your father the devil" and "you
want to do the desires of your father," we would have understood clearly the
intent of what was spoken. It is not remarkable if He said to those Jews who
believed in Him but had not yet remained in His word, so that they might truly
become His disciples and know the truth by being freed by it, "You are doing the
works of your father" and as he shortly after added, "You are of your father the
devil." For though such words may seem harsh when said of those who believe in
Him and somewhat have become His disciples, though not yet truly being disciples
of Jesus, it should be understood in the light of what is written in the
Catholic epistle by John concerning the children of God and the children of the
devil: "For the one who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has been
sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that
He might destroy the works of the devil. Everyone born of God does not commit
sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of
God. By this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil:
whoever does not do righteousness is not of God, neither he who does not love
his brother." Therefore, with these words being so, understand this if it isn’t
clearly said that everyone who commits sin is of the devil. As much as we commit
sins, we have not yet shed the generation of the devil, even though we may be
counted as believing in Jesus; and it follows from this that Jesus said to the
believing Jews, "You are doing the works of your father," referring with
"father" to the devil because of "You are of your father the devil." And if
everyone who commits sin is of the devil, then everyone who is not of the devil
does not commit sin. But even if "the Son of God was manifested for this
purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil," so long as He has not
yet destroyed the works of the devil within us, by our not presenting ourselves
to the One who destroys the works of the devil, we have not yet cast away being
children of the devil, as we are known by our fruits as to whose children we
are. And from these things, it is clear that no one is by nature a son of the
devil, nor is anyone called a son of God among men because he was so created;
and it is clear that one who was once a son of the devil can become a son of
God, which is also evident from Matthew, who reports the Savior saying thus:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your
enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Note that from
"love your enemies" and "pray for those who persecute you," he who was not
previously a son of the heavenly Father, afterward becomes His son; and indeed,
because of "By this the works of God and the works of the devil are manifest,"
it was said concerning the children of the devil that "He who commits sin is of
the devil"; but concerning the children of God, it was said that "Everyone who
is born of God does not commit sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot
sin, because he is born of God." It is therefore clear that every person
completing the word is either a child of God or a child of the devil; for either
he commits sin or he does not commit sin, with nothing in between committing sin
and not committing sin; and if he commits sin, he is of the devil; but if he
does not commit sin, he is born of God. Thus, what is said in the same letter
concerning the children of God and the children of the devil stands: "Everyone
who abides in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him." Therefore,
if everyone who abides in Him does not sin, he who sins does not abide in the
Son; and if everyone who sins has not seen Him, he who has seen Him does not
sin. At the same time, note what John meant by saying, "Everyone who sins has
not seen Him," indicating through "has seen Him" that those who always see the
Son of God and from having seen Him gain power to by no means sin. You might
also say that the saying "You do the works of your father" can sometimes refer
to the children of the devil and at other times to the children of God. For
those who sin do the works of their father the devil, but those who do right do
the works of their father, God. It is possible that someone might be moved by
these things, not being able to be the same, doing good and evil deeds
alternately, being a child of God due to the good deeds and a child of the devil
due to the contrary ones. But this, besides being highly irrational, is not
stated in the Scriptures. For John declares that "Everyone who has been born of
God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin,
because he has been born of God." Therefore, everyone who has been born of God
does not commit sin; but it is not written that everyone who has been born of
the devil does not practice righteousness, but "the one who commits sin is of
the devil". Again, it is not stated in the same way, "The one who commits sin is
of the devil," as it is written, "the one who practices righteousness is of
God." Pay attention to the distinctions of the statements, how with all
precision John has said them, so as to marvel how perfectly and, as some might
say, dialectically he expressed them, not bringing forth similar things about
those born of the devil and those born of God. Similarly, he would have
expressed it if he had said, just as "The one who commits sin is of the devil,"
so "the one who practices righteousness is of God," or as he wrote, "Everyone
who has been born of God does not commit sin," he might have written "everyone
who has been born of the devil does not practice righteousness." Perhaps also by
using "is" for the one of the devil, and not using it for those of God, or by
using "born" for those of God and not using it for those of the devil, he
expressed it very wisely. For he exalted the one of God by attributing "born" to
him; which, if it had been said of the one of the devil, would have shown
something worse than "is of the devil." But even if he had used "is" as he did
for the one of the devil, he would have shown less for the one of God, as being
born of God is much greater than being from God. Some might say that some
creatures are indeed from God but are not born of God, and these undoubtedly
occupy a lesser rank in the universe than those who are said to be born of God.
And indeed, being according to the distinction of "It is of the devil" and "Born
of God," do not ever seek if there is someone who is both born of the devil and
who is certainly of the devil, for not everyone who is of the devil is born of
the devil; and again there is someone who is of God who is not entirely born of
God, hence not everyone who is of God is born of God. However, the one born of
God is characterized by not committing sin, because the seed of God remains in
him, and due to the power of that seed residing within him, he is unable to sin
any longer. And in the last parts of the letter, it is said: "Everyone who is
born of God does not sin, but the one born of God keeps himself, and the wicked
one does not touch him." If the one born of God keeps himself and the wicked one
does not touch him, then the one who does not keep himself so that the wicked
one does not touch him is not born of God, and everyone who the wicked one
touches is not born of God. The wicked one touches those who do not keep
themselves. Since there is no interval between the matters concerning Abraham,
it follows: "You do the works of your father," we seek whether this is written
on account of the first command given to Abraham. The first instruction to him
is as follows: "Get out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your
father's house, and go to the land that I will show you." So Abraham went out
from his father's house, which those who are being rebuked for not speaking
soundly have not done; "Our father is Abraham," they say. For if you are the
children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham; the first of his works was to
leave his country, and his kindred, and his father's house, and go to the land
that God shows him. Therefore, those to whom this word applies are reproved as
not being the children of Abraham, clearly because they have not gone out from
their father's house they are reprimanded as still being of their wicked father
and still doing the works of that father. With these things being clearly stated
in the text, I think those who assume from this that there are some who are by
nature children of the devil are refuted.

[John 8:41] They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one
Father, God."

I seek whether, when reproved as not being children of Abraham, those who are
said to have believed in Him, the Jews, answered more bitterly, covertly hinting
that the Savior was born out of fornication, as they probably insinuate this by
denying His notorious and widely discussed birth from the Virgin. For it seems
quite irrational to me that they should dismiss these words offhand. Neither do
they suit the preceding nor the following context if the phrase "We were not
born of fornication" spoken by them is understood more literally. But since the
Savior said that God was His own Father, not admitting any human father, it is
likely that they brought up again the phrase "We have one Father, God" to
confront the "We were not born of fornication." As if they were saying, "We have
one Father, God, rather than you, who, claiming to be born of a virgin, were
born of fornication, and by boasting of your virgin birth, claim to have God as
your only Father," acknowledging both God as Father and not denying a human
father. But someone will say that understood in this manner, these cannot be the
words of Jews who believed in Him. To this it must be replied that, at the
beginning of His conversation with them, "If you remain in My word, you are
truly My disciples, and you shall know the truth," as they were capable of
remaining in Jesus’ word and also of not remaining, it was not impossible that
some of those reproved did not remain in His word, and those who did not remain
spoke bitterly and reactively by saying, "We were not born of fornication; we
have one Father, God." It seems to me that they answered more contentiously; for
having previously said, "We are Abraham's seed," and confirming this more
plainly by saying, "Our father is Abraham," on hearing in response, "If you are
Abraham's children, do the works of Abraham," they claim a greater father than
Abraham for themselves by saying, "We have one Father, God." Perhaps because
some men are of the devil and others are born of God, we might rightly say that
all who are not born of God are born of fornication. For the devil begets or
makes those who are from him, not from a bride, but from a prostitute, from
matter, those who are attached to bodily things and clinging to material lusts,
becoming one body with her, whereas those who are born of God refrain from the
prostitute matter, cleaving to the Lord, and being united with the Word who was
in the beginning with God, and with His wisdom, "which He created as the
beginning of His ways for His works," that they may become one spirit with her;
for "He who is joined to the prostitute is one body with her; but he who is
joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

[John 8:42] Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for
I came from God and am here."

Therefore, since those who bring in the natures use this saying, narrating it
thus, that you would have recognized me as your own and as a brother, but also
as your own, you would have loved me if God were your Father, it must be
questioned thus towards them: there was a time when Paul hated Jesus, and he
hated him when he devastated and persecuted the church of God, and indeed the
first divine communication correctly said to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you
persecute me?' If therefore it is true that 'If God were your Father, you would
love me,' it is clearly also valid to reverse it: 'If you do not love me, God is
not your Father.' Therefore, for those who do not love Jesus, God is not the
Father; there was a time when Paul did not love Jesus, therefore there was a
time when God was not Paul's Father. Hence, Paul was not by nature a son of God,
but later became a son of God, when we also properly take what follows, namely
that 'But indeed God, O Paul, is your Father, therefore you love Jesus.' But
even before the times of Paul's faith, being true the saying 'If God were your
Father, you would love me,' it would have been correct to accept Jesus saying,
'But indeed you do not love me, therefore God is not your Father, O Paul.' But
when does God become anyone's Father? Or when one keeps the commandments,
through which he, who was not previously a son of the heavenly Father, becomes
His son, when also the Father, leading him to rebirth, who becomes His son,
takes him as such a Father. This can be addressed from what is written in the
Gospel according to Matthew: 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love
your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, and
pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who
is in heaven.' Pay attention to 'so that you may become sons of your Father who
is in heaven,' which shows that someone does not become a son of the heavenly
Father before. By keeping carefully also concerning what pertains to 'the
Father,' which is 'yours' (for it is written, 'so that you may become sons of
your Father'), you will ask whether it is said more plainly, or whether it is
added by error of the scribes (for we would not have questioned if it had been
written, 'so that you may become sons of the Father who is in heaven'); and
especially since it seems to contain contention about someone becoming a son,
not simply of the heavenly Father, but of one's own Father. For if He is his
Father, he does not later become his son; but if he becomes his son, He was not
his Father. Moreover, you will note that some of those thought to have believed
are called slaves of God, but others are called His sons, that perhaps not just
by any commandment but by some notable achievement, someone becomes a son of God
who achieves it. Observe, then, that in the Gospel of Matthew, it is stated,
"That you may become sons of your Father who is in heaven," in connection with,
"But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." For
indeed, the likeness to God and imitation of Him who loves all things and abhors
nothing of what He has made, and spares all (for all things are His), is shown
in the one who loves his enemies and prays for those who persecute him. How
fitting would it be for "That you may become sons of your Father who is in
heaven," to be joined with, "You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit
adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her
has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and concerning the loss
of one of your members rather than the whole body being cast into hell?
Furthermore, if it were added to "You have heard it said to the ancients, 'You
shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord'; but I say to
you, do not swear at all," it would cause great offense. But now, as the Father
who is in heaven makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, so each of the
sons of God, having love in themselves as a kind of sun, makes it rise on the
evil when he loves his enemies. And again, as He sends rain on the just and on
the unjust, so does the holy one send prayer as a kind of rain upon those below
who persecute him and prays for such people. This is made clear in our teaching
of, "If God were your Father, you would love me." Let us also consider the
statement, "I came forth from God and am here," which seems useful for me to
relate to the prophecy of Micah, saying, "Hear, O peoples, the word, and let the
earth listen, and all that is in it. And the Lord will be a witness against you,
the Lord from His holy house." For behold, the Lord is going forth from His
place, and He will come down and step upon the high places of the earth, and the
mountains will melt under Him, and the valleys will be split like wax before the
fire, like waters poured down a steep place. And see if perchance “I proceeded
from God” is equivalent to “The Lord goes forth from His place,” since when the
Son is in the Father, being in the form of God before He emptied Himself, God is
as it were His place. And if anyone understands that, before emptying Himself,
He existed in the previous form of God, he will see the Son, not yet having gone
forth from God, nor yet having proceeded from His place. But when comparing that
state of the Son with taking on the form of a servant, emptying Himself, he will
understand how the Son of God went forth and came to us, and as it were has come
outside of the one who sent Him, even if in another way the Father did not leave
Him alone but is with Him, and is in the Son as He is in the Father. And if in
no other way you understand the Son to be in the Father as He was before He went
forth from God, it will seem as though the going forth from God and being in God
while having gone forth from God contain a contradiction. Others have narrated
that “I proceeded from God” instead means “I was begotten from God,” following
which they assert that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, as
it were diminishing and lacking the substance which He previously had, when He
begets the Son, as if one would understand this also of those who are pregnant.
These also follow and say that the Father and the Son have a body, and that the
Father is divided, which are the doctrines of men who have not at all conceived
in thought the nature that is invisible and incorporeal, being truly essence.
And it is clear that they will place the Father in a bodily place, and the Son
as having changed place bodily, having visited life, and not from state to
state, as we have understood.

[John 8:42] For I have not come of myself, but He who sent me.

I think these words are spoken to those who come of themselves and are not sent
by the Father. Concerning such men, who pretend to teaching or prophecy, we are
also taught by Jeremiah, where it is written: "I have not sent the prophets, yet
they ran." And if certain powers come to men not sent by the Father, you
understand and know if some of them are from God and have erred in this by not
being sent from Him. But it must not be left unexamined in the discussion
concerning the soul: perhaps the soul of Jesus, being in its own perfection in
God and the fullness, having come forth from there, because it was sent by the
Father, took up the body from Mary. But others have not come forth from God in
this way, that is, they were not sent nor dispatched by the divine will.

[John 8:43] Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to
hear my word. The reason, he says, that you do not understand my speech is that
you are not able to hear my word. Therefore, one must first acquire the capacity
to hear the divine word, so that afterward we may be able to understand all the
speech of Jesus; for it is possible for one who was previously unable to hear
the word of Jesus to later come to be able to hear it, just as someone who has
not yet had his ears healed by the word saying to the deaf, "Be opened," cannot
hear. But when the cause of deafness has been removed, then one will be able to
hear Jesus, at which point he can also understand his speech. Or let those who
believe and through these things construct the argument about nature tell us
whether they were still able to hear when they were deaf, whom he later healed,
or were they unable to hear? Since it is clear that "they were unable," it is
evident that one can transition from being unable to hear the words of Jesus to
being able to hear them, and not due to an incurable nature where one cannot
hear. These things should particularly be applied to the heterodox, who delight
in allegories and interpret the stories of healings as concerning the healing of
the soul, relieved by Jesus from every disease and every weakness. I think that
hearing now pertains to understanding the things being spoken, and knowing
pertains to apprehending them with assent, enlightened by the light of
understanding regarding the things being spoken. However, Heracleon assumes that
the reason they could neither hear Jesus' word nor understand his speech is
given in "You are of your father the devil." In these very words he says, »Why
can you not hear my word? Is it because you are from your father, the devil?»
instead of saying «from the substance of the devil,» clearly indicating to them
their nature, and having convicted them that they are neither children of
Abraham (for then they would not hate him), nor of God, hence they do not love
him. And if indeed he received the "You are of your father, the devil" as we
have previously narrated, and said: "Because you are still of the devil, you
cannot hear my word," although we had accepted his account. But now it is clear
that he speaks of some people as being of the same essence as the devil,
considering them to be of another substance, contrary to what those from him
think, calling them either psychic or spiritual.

[John 8:44] You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of
your father. The word is ambiguous; for it indicates either that the devil has a
father, from who these (to whom the word is spoken) are said to be, according to
the statement; or, which is more likely, that you are from this father, in whom
"the devil" is accused. So, the statement would be ambiguous even if the first
article "the" were omitted, but the intention of the statement would appear
clearer. But certainly, not agreeing with those who believe that the devil has a
father, whose sons those to whom the word is spoken are supposed to be, will use
the text as it is: "When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar
and the father of it," and will say that the devil is falsehood and that another
is the father of falsehood apart from him. But this will not be said correctly;
for falsehood rather fits the opponent of the one who said, "I am the truth;"
and I mean the Antichrist, whose father is the devil, being a liar. But it is
likely that one might stumble at believing that the Antichrist is falsehood,
which would not be blameworthy, if in substance he is not otherwise false.
Relating to this, the phrase "You have become desolation, and you will not exist
forever" spoken in Ezekiel about someone who had turned into desolation because
of his wickedness, similarly explains that someone may become false not by
nature, but by perversion and personal choice, and thus, to use a new term,
puffed up. Therefore, one avoiding the strange notion of calling the Antichrist
falsehood, will say that the statement "When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his
own" applies to all who lie; for the falsehood in each liar, when he speaks,
speaks "of his own falsehood." But also "He is a liar and the father of it" †
can be applied to each who utters falsehood from his own mouth, falsely calling
him the father of the falsehood he speaks. Such an interpretation would not be
unreasonable. These matters have been spoken as lying next to the ambiguity of
the present text given to us. But in recounting "You do the works of your
father" previously addressed, and having spoken to this, having gathered many
helpful things from different sources to the narration, it would not be
reasonable now to dwell on the topic. Except if someone, by committing sin, is
born of the devil and has not eliminated the birth from him within himself, this
person wishes to do not just one, but many desires of such a father. And it is
clear that the desires of every son of the devil, which are born from the
desires in the devil, are desires of earthly mindedness and corruption, which
might properly be called enmities against God. Murders, injustices, and greed he
indeed claims to be his desires, engendering in his sons similar desires, he
does not negate; but also generally he says that these desires, which happen to
be contrary to the nature of purity, are his desires, from which the desires
towards impurity become inherent in the children of the devil, it is not
difficult to accept. But to say that this desire is fornication or adultery or
child corruption or effeminacy is not easily accepted, even if one is puzzled as
to how these desires in humans arise from those in him. Just as desires present
themselves in humans, just as, therefore, men want to do the desires of their
father, so everything that they desire unlawfully was the desires of their
father first. For such is the saying, "And the desires of your father you want
to do." It must be said, however, that the devil desires this one, let’s say, to
perish, and that one to be adulterated, and for these to prostitute, and
inspires these desires in those able to minister to him, to desire to do what he
wishes to perform, so that in this way one might say beforehand that the one
committing fornication or adultery is first performing the devil's fornication
and adultery. The same you will say about all sins: for example, the devil does
not desire silver, but desires to make men covetous and attached to material
things; and doing this, they wish to fulfill his desire who loves money.
Therefore, it is necessary that we halt in all things we wish to do and examine
whether what we wish to do is from the desires of the devil; so that from
recognizing what comes from the desires of the devil, we may cease wishing to do
those things, knowing that everyone who wishes to do the desires of the devil is
by no means a child of God but has become a child of the devil and is being
formed and made in the likeness of his evil father, from whom come and are
shaped those images of that earthly one. For he was the first earthly one,
having fallen from higher things first and having desired another life instead
of the higher life, becoming worthy of being the beginning neither of creation
nor workmanship but of "the molding of the Lord, made to be ridiculed by his
angels." And indeed our previous existence is in the image of the creator; but
the present existence is due to the mold taken from the earth’s dust. And if
indeed, as if having forgotten the better essence within us, we subject
ourselves to the substance made from dust, the better part will take the image
of the earthly; but if we understand what has been made according to the image
and taken from the dust of the earth, we might all incline towards Him in whose
image we have been made, and we shall be according to the likeness of God,
leaving behind every attachment to matter and bodies and any likeness. Since,
according to the divine scriptures, the desire of the middle things is, not
knowing the Greek precision of the meanings among those who articulate such
things accurately, so as to name the noble desire, which they define as a
reasonable longing, and the base desire, which they say is an irrational longing
or a violent longing, it must be stated that every created nature wishes to
fulfill the desires of its own father, just as every one does the works of its
own father, with the first holy father being uncreated (this is God), and the
first wicked father being from no one as a father; for no one introduced
wickedness in him, but the deviation from God generated it. Therefore, what is
now being examined according to "And you wish to do the desires of your father"
clearly refers to the devil, since it is first stated "You are from your father
the devil" and adding "He was a murderer from the beginning." And to each it
would be healthily said not only to those from the devil but also to those from
God "You wish to do the desires of your father." For some desires are also
called God's, naming thus His wills. For in the eighteenth psalm it is said:
"The judgments of the Lord are true, justified together; more to be desired than
gold and much precious stone." And if, as one of the manuscripts has, it reads
"the desires are more to be desired than gold and much precious stone," you
would say that the desires to desire them are worthy, just as the blessed things
to bless, and the beloved things to love. Just as therefore the blessings are
more blessed by God and the beloved things more loved by God, so too the desires
would more blessedly desired by God, more gratefully heard by us, as we have
said, of the desire. And the Savior also says: "With desire I have desired to
eat this Passover with you before I suffer." Concerning the fact that there is
also a base desire, the present statement was sufficient; however, nothing
prevents us from also presenting "Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has
already committed adultery with her in his heart." It is not always the case
that one who desires desires an absent thing, just as not always the one who
wishes wishes absent things. This we have previously attended to because of the
desires of God and the desires of the perfect. Every son, therefore, desires to
do the desires of his father, and every son does the works of his father. Thus
also the Savior desires to do the desires of His Father and does the works of
His Father. And "the man of sin, the son of perdition" desires to do the desires
of his father, and does the works of his father. And among us men, certainly,
the works are either of God or of the devil, and what we desire to do is either
a desire of our good Father in heaven or of His enemy, the devil. And if we do
the works of God and desire to do His desires, we are sons of God; but if we do
the deeds of the devil, desiring to do what he desires, we are from the father,
the devil. Therefore, let us consider not only what we do but also what we
desire. For it is sufficient to be a son of the devil merely to desire to do his
desires. Perhaps this is why, after "You do the works of your father," it is
said, "You desire to do the desires of your father," so that we might learn that
even if we merely desire to do what the devil desires, we are sons of the devil.
It is most probable that one might argue from this that it suffices to be a son
of God by desiring to do His desires, even if performing the works of God does
not accompany this. But it must be said that the one desiring to do the desires
of God must also do the works of God; for not only the will but also the
working, as Paul says, is from God, necessarily following good willing with the
working that matches it (for "all things work together for good to those who
love God"), and the one who does all things well will not let good willing be
incomplete. Nor can good willing be conceived without the working that is good
in accordance with such willing being joined to it. Yet the working accompanying
willing, even if it is often hindered by Providence for some common benefit, or
for some other useful reason, interrupts the more harmful work according to the
will. Heracleon, however, says of these matters: to whom the words apply, they
were of the substance of the devil, as if the substance of the devil is
different from that of other rational beings. But this seems to me similar to
those who say that the substance of an eye that sees incorrectly is different
from one that sees correctly, or that there is a different substance of hearing
when it hears improperly and when it hears correctly. For in these things, it is
not the substance that is different, but some cause has intervened leading to
the improper seeing or hearing. Thus, in every being naturally endowed with
reasoning, the reasoning faculty is the same, whether it follows reason or turns
away from it. For what would the difference be among us humans between one who
follows and one who does not follow if, even after understanding what is said,
one person approves and consents to what is said, and another rejects it. We
have often said that if this impossible thing is conceded (I mean that there
could be a different and impervious substance of the devil to better things),
then we will argue that he (the devil) cannot be blamed for evil; we will assign
the blame to the one who created and made him, which is the most absurd thing of
all. The irrationality becomes evident to one who understands the nature of
human souls and sees that it is impossible, just as it is impossible for human
bodies to be of different and diverse substances, so also for souls, and the
intellectual part apart from the intellectual part, and the thoughtful part
apart from the thoughtful. You would say the same about the rational part and
the powers in the soul, both the memory and the imaginative faculties; for if
one human being is of a different substance from another, then the powers of the
soul must also be of different kinds, and we must say, for example, that the
memory is different from the memory and the intellectual part different from the
intellectual.

Examine then the argument about these things, which can equally be understood
and grasped mentally, so that one may similarly agree or suspend judgment or
reject what they say is spiritual and what they claim to be earthly. For is it
that the similar has been created in different substances, or has the passion
become similar due to this, since it was of the same substance with that in
which the passion occurred? It is not reasonable to say that the same forms of
imaginations, agreements, thoughts, and memories have occurred in those of
different substances; while it is foolish to say that, even in those of the same
substance, there is another and different substance among them.

Let them indicate another substance alongside these powers, one that neither
understands nor thinks nor remembers nor imagines in those they say are
spiritual better than the one that understands and thinks, or in the earthly
ones either resembling or inferior; for they will not claim it is better. But it
is likely they will say that just as it is possible to be impressed with the
same seal in different substances of gold and silver and tin and lead and wax,
so it is possible for similar forms to arise from the same imaginations in those
who find themselves in different substances and are imagining. They will say
similar things about thoughts and understanding and memory. But see if this
argument, even if it seems very plausible, is more capable of seizing and
crafting notions unfittingly combined, rather than persuading someone who
meticulously examines the example; for in the case of the image, I can show that
either in gold or in silver, where the form appears similar, the particularity
of it being in gold stands out as opposed to being imprinted in silver or the
other materials.

Thus, let them demonstrate to us the distinctiveness of the one receiving the
form being better or lesser or inferior, and let them try even to proclaim with
full clarity the different substances of those receiving the same forms; for
even if they illustrate, they will not prove it.

Such things are also said concerning the argument of Heracleon: "From the father
of the devil" should be said instead of "from the substance of the father".

Again regarding "You want to do the desires of your father," he distinguishes
saying that the devil does not have will but desires. And from this, the
irrationality of the argument becomes evident; for everyone would acknowledge
that it is the wicked things he desires. And you will gather likewise, even if
we do not have it available at the moment to present, if anywhere in the
Scripture the will is ascribed to the devil. Thereafter, Heracleon says that
these things are not spoken of those who are the natural sons of the devil, the
earthly ones, but of those who are psychic, becoming sons of the devil by
disposition; from whom some, by nature, are able to become sons of God by
disposition. And he says indeed that because they love the desires of the devil
and do his works, these become children of the devil, not being such by nature.
And thus it is distinguished that there are three ways to hear the designation
"children" — first by nature, second by will, third by worth. By nature, he
says, it is what is begotten by someone begotten, which is also properly called
a child. By will, when someone does the will of another and is called the child
of the one whose will he performs. By worth, in the sense that some are called
children of Gehenna, darkness, lawlessness, and offspring of serpents and
vipers. For these are not begotten by anyone by nature, for they are destructive
and consuming those thrown into them. But since they have done their works, they
are called their children.

Having made such a distinction, he did not even seek a measure of consolation
for his own account from the scriptures. We might say to him, "If not by nature,
but by the worthiness of hell's children and of darkness and lawlessness (for
these are destructive and consuming rather than constructing), how does Paul
somewhere say, 'We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest'? Or let them
say to us how wrath is not destructive and especially corruptive, according to
him, of which we were children. Again, he says that these are now called
children of the devil, not because the devil begets anyone, but because by doing
the works of the devil, they have become like him."

How much better would it be to declare this concerning all the children of the
devil, that they become like him by doing his works and not by the essence and
construction that, without works, names them children of the devil?

[John 8:44] He was a murderer from the beginning, and he did not stand in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. For indeed there is a more common
murderer, whoever has ever killed a man, who is even comparable, as Phinehas did
with zeal for God, killing the Israelite who fornicated and the Midianite woman,
and David will not be reproachfully called a murderer either, “in the name of
the Lord of hosts, God of the armies of Israel,” having struck down Goliath. It
is necessary to seek the true life of a man and his death opposite to it, to
understand the reproachful murderer. And as much as you say about Adam and Eve
in the narrative, as long as they did not sin, they would not have been killed;
but on the day they ate from the forbidden tree, they immediately died, not by
being killed by another but by the murderer devil, when he deceived Eve through
the serpent and Eve gave to her husband from the tree, and the man ate. However,
understanding the deeper doctrines of "I shall not die, but live, and declare
the works of the Lord," and what the Savior spoke to the Sadducees most
profoundly to those able to understand the meaning, in the Gospel according to
Matthew: "Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was
spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and
the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," and in the
Gospel according to Luke: "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in
the passage about the bush, as he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham and the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living;
for all live to him." And also in the Gospel according to Mark: "Concerning the
dead, have you not read that they are raised in the book of Moses, in the
passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham
and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but
of the living," you will see that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead, before
they live again risen from the dead; indeed, no one is called dead who has not
first lived. Take note of "In Adam all die, and in Christ all will be made
alive," in which neither the intermediate death is signified by "In Adam all
die," nor the indifferent life which is neither good in itself nor evil by "In
Christ all will be made alive," and you will see the life of the human being in
the image of God. Then, understanding his life, you will understand in what way
the murderer killed the living man, not through a specific characteristic alone,
but through the entire race, which he killed, as “in Adam all die,” and he will
be properly called a murderer. This murder he committed beginning from the
beginning, for which murder each of those understanding it and his own body, and
to whom it belongs, will say this, lamenting upon having died in Adam: "Wretched
man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Seeing also how it
is said, "You have brought me down to the dust of death," and "You have humbled
us in a place of affliction," and "The body of our humiliation." There is also
something more secret, for which the murderer from the beginning is the ruler of
this world, I mean of the earthly place where there are those whom people have
killed. Thus, the murderer killed us; but we by the grace of God have been
buried with Christ and raised with him, if indeed we have become conformed to
his resurrection and walk in newness of life. The murderer rules over the slain
and rules over the dead but cannot command any living one. If you study also
what is written about the dead, like this: "For this Christ died and arose, that
he might lord over both the dead and the living," you will understand in what
manner, through the death of Jesus, he does not rule over the dead anymore; for
Jesus died to also rule over the dead. So long as man lives, he does not bear
the image of the earthly; but in dying and being slain by the murderer, he
neither keeps the image of God nor takes up the image of the earthly and dead;
for the earthly is dead, just as the heavenly is living; and God is not the God
of the dead but of the living. Therefore, if we have risen together, walking in
the newness of life, God is our God; but if we are still among the dead, God
will not be our God who is not the God of the dead. But it remains to examine
the things concerning the murderer from the beginning and to see some who are
dead, yet not in another but in Christ dead, who will also rise first;
concerning whom it is spoken thus in the letter to the Corinthians: "For the
trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be
changed;" and in the letter to the Thessalonians: "For this we declare to you by
a word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the
Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep; for the Lord himself will
descend from heaven with a command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the
trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive,
who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever." And I consider those
who are perfected and no longer committing sin to be living in Christ, and those
dead in Christ to be those disposed according to the faith in Christ and
choosing to live well but not yet perfecting it, still sinning, either through
ignorance of the true word concerning righteousness or being overcome by the
weakness of judgments from the flesh desiring against the spirit. And after
these things, it follows naturally that Paul, being aware of himself, says, "We
who are alive." And those whom we have said are dead, these are indeed those who
need resurrection, neither can those living be seized up in the clouds to meet
the Lord in the air, before first the dead in Christ rise; thus it is written:
"The dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are alive" and what follows.
And you would observe that even because of his murder, the things on the
accursed earth were not constituted in the works of him who was cast out of "the
paradise of delight," Adam. Yet this one became a murderer from the beginning of
those existing, who, I believe, being "the beginning of the Lord's creation,"
envied those created "to exist." Thus "through envy, death entered into the
world," always murdering those living whenever he finds them until all enemies
are subjected under the feet of the Son of God, and the last enemy, death, is
abolished. But let us also see regarding "and in the truth he does not stand."
Every person and solely the one who securely holds sound doctrines and through
the certainty of doctrines remains unshaken in his judgments at all times, and
under no circumstance or bodily excuse, such as unbearable pains or intense
desires of sensual pleasures or any other cause, being shaken so as to be moved
even slightly from the good, would reasonably be considered to stand in the
truth; but let this saying hasten even upon the natures outside flesh and blood;
for even in their life there are those who accomplish to stand in the truth
correctly; if anyone does not live thus, "he does not stand in the truth."

However, I suggest that perhaps there is one and uniform manner of standing in
the truth, but varied and manifold is the manner of not standing in it: some,
with trembling and shaking, as I might phrase it, their foundations, being
forced to stand in it and not yet having it; others, not having experienced
this, yet being established in danger of falling into it, such as one who says,
"But as for me, my feet had almost slipped," and others who have fallen into it,
concerning whom I believe it is said, "Everyone who falls on this stone will be
broken to pieces." To this standing in the truth, the Lord urged Moses, saying
to him, "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand upon the rock"; for
if the rock was Christ, and Christ says, "I am the truth," maybe "you shall
stand upon the rock" could mean "you shall stand upon the truth." Yet rarely and
only after much does this happen to someone. Up to the point of "Behold, there
is a place by me, and you shall stand on the rock," Moses had not yet stood upon
the rock. And if anyone would examine more closely the nature of humanity, not
easily able to be free from false doctrines, he shall see that just as "every
man is a liar," so also every man does not stand in the truth. For if there is
anyone who is not a liar and stands in the truth, such a person is not a man, so
that God could say to him and to those like him, "I said, 'You are gods, and all
of you are children of the Most High,'" without the addition of "But you shall
die like men." Therefore, if also another does not stand in the truth, it is
evident that the devil from the beginning, a murderer of men, and the cause of
his not standing in the truth has been said in this manner: "Because there is no
truth in him." For this reason, there is no truth in him, because he has been
deceived and considers false things and is deceived by himself, being reckoned
worse than the rest who are deceived, because they are deceived by him, but he
is the creator of his own deception. It is worthwhile to investigate how it is
said, "There is no truth in him," whether it means that he does not have any
true doctrine, but all that he ever believes are lies, or that he does not
partake in Christ, as those who partake of Christ do partake of Him who said, "I
am the truth." For those who partake of Him partake of Him also inasmuch as He
is truth, and therefore truth is in them. And thirdly, one might inquire whether
it is necessary to say that there is no truth in anyone who thinks any
falsehood, even if he believes many true things together with it. For as a
falsehood mixed with countless truths is still regarded as a falsehood, so in
the one who believes one falsehood with many truths, such a condition is as if
mixed, so that one might say that there is no truth in such a person. I show
that one who believes one falsehood among many truths. And all three might seem
to have a reason, with one saying that "There is no truth in him" because he
does not partake of Christ, whom he opposes, another saying so because he does
not think anything true but is deceived in everything, and because of this, he
is the devil and wicked and worse than any other offender, as perhaps in many
there is also something true among the many errors, but in this one, there is
nothing true. And thirdly, someone might agree with the rest, saying it is
impossible for a rational being to believe falsehood in everything and not even
weakly think the truth about anything. Certainly, the devil might at least have
some true doctrine, considering that he is rational and that such-as-such a
thing is a man, such-as-such is an angel, and such-and-such a thing is a body,
and the nature of the body and something else different from the body. But that
he should not even think or say the last thing would indeed be enough to prove
that it cannot be true about him that he does not think anything true.
Therefore, while we hear, "He does not stand in the truth" as not indicating
such a nature nor presenting impossibility regarding his standing in the truth.
But Heracleon says in these words, "For his nature is not from truth but from
the opposite of truth, from error and ignorance. Therefore," he says, "he can
neither stand in the truth nor have truth in himself, having falsehood from his
own nature, unable by nature ever to speak the truth; and he says that not only
he is a liar but also his father, specifically taking 'his father' as his
nature, since he is made up of error and falsehood."

All these things absolve the devil of every charge, accusation, and blame; for
no one could reasonably blame, accuse, or censure one who is not by nature
inclined towards better things. Thus, according to Heracleon, the devil is
rather unfortunate than blameworthy. It should be noted, however, that just as
the devil does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him, so also
those who are of the father, the devil, do not stand in the truth, because there
is no truth in them. All those who still commit sins, even if they say they
belong to Christ, are like this: "For everyone who commits sin is born of the
devil."

[John 8:44] "When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a
liar and the father of it."

Having previously referred to 'You are of your father the devil,' we recalled
the saying and have spoken what occurred to us concerning it, seeking what the
lie and its father are. Let what is said now be examined together with those
things. I believe that every evil and deceitful spirit is a lie and that each of
them, when it speaks, speaks from its own resources and not at all from the
things of God; and the liar, father of these, is the devil. But why we are moved
to call every evil spirit a lie, we shall now set forth. It is written in the
Third Book of Kings how Micaiah, when summoned by Ahab to prophesy about whether
he should go up to Ramoth-Gilead to battle or refrain, said, 'I saw the God of
Israel seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing around Him on
His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said: Who will persuade Ahab, king
of Israel, to go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said this manner, and
another said that. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and
said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said to him: In what way? And he said: I
will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' In the
Second Book of Chronicles, the same Micaiah says to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 'Hear
the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of
heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said: Who will
persuade Ahab, king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And
one spoke in this way, and another spoke in that way. Then a spirit went out and
stood before the Lord and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said: In what
way? And he said: I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his
prophets.' Clearly, then, from these passages it is shown that if a spirit is a
lying spirit, all similar spirits would be lies, having received their lying
nature from the father of lies, according to falsehood and wickedness, and not
in essence. But the Holy Spirit or an angelic spirit, when it speaks, does not
speak from its own resources, but from the Word of truth and wisdom; which
indeed is shown also in the Gospel of John, where it teaches about the Paraclete
and says, 'He will take of Mine and declare it to you.' However, a lie, when it
speaks, speaks from its own resources; and the lying spirit that deceived Ahab
spoke from its own resources. Note, however, that the name 'liar' is similarly
applied both to the devil who begot lies and to a man; for here it is not said
about a man, 'For he is a liar and the father of it,' but in the Psalms, 'I said
in my haste, All men are liars.' These things we have set forth so that we may
flee with all might from being mere men and strive to become 'gods,' since as
long as we are men, we are liars, just as the father of lies is a liar. It is
similar in us sharing the same name and the thing signified by the name; I say
us, if we still remain men, and the devil, who is called a liar."

[John 8:45] But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

If we remember to whom these words were spoken, we will see that they were
addressed to the Jews who had believed in him, who had received the promise that
if they remain in the word of Jesus, then they are truly his disciples and they
will know the truth that will set them free. We will wonder how he says to these
people, "But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." And consider
whether it is possible for someone to believe one aspect of a thing but not
another. For example, those who believe in Jesus who was crucified under Pontius
Pilate in Judea but do not believe in the one who was born of Mary the virgin,
these believe and do not believe in the same one. Similarly, those who believe
in Jesus who performed the recorded wonders and signs in Judea but do not
believe in the Son of the one who created heaven and earth, these believe and do
not believe in the same one. Again, those who believe in the Father of Jesus
Christ but do not believe in the creator and maker of all things, these believe
and do not believe in the same one. Furthermore, those who believe in the
creator of heaven and earth but do not believe in the Father of Jesus crucified
under Pontius Pilate, these believe in God and do not believe in him. Therefore,
to avoid any contradiction indicating that the writer of the gospel was unaware
of this, you will say that the one who said to the Jews who believed in him,
"But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me," meant that they believed
in one sense and did not believe in another. And it is likely that they believed
in him according to what they saw because of the miracles, but did not believe
in the deeper things he said. And it fits with the statement, "You will know the
truth," that those who have not known the truth, to them it was said, "Because I
tell the truth, you do not believe me." "Believe me," as if he were saying: On
the one hand you believe me because I perform wonders, but on the other hand,
you do not believe me because I speak the truth. You might even see this now in
many people, marveling at Jesus when they observe the story about him, but no
longer believing him when a deeper and greater discourse than their own
understanding is unfolded to them, but suspecting him to be false. Therefore,
let us be careful lest the word also says to us, "Because I speak the truth, you
do not believe me."

[John 8:46] Who among you convicts me of sin? When the word clearly demonstrates
its intention so that none of the listeners can oppose it, and even if it says
these things to implore those not consenting; because if you cannot convict the
words spoken as erroneous, you might justly demand assent. The statement also
has, according to the saying, the frankness of the Savior, with no person being
able to say with confidence from not having sinned, "Who among you convicts me
of sin?" except our Lord alone, who did not commit sin, yet was tempted "in
every way in likeness without sin," being able to say this to all who have ever
known him. I hear "Who among you" being said not only to those present but also
to the entire human race, as if it were clarified in this way: who from your
race? or what kind of person will be able to convict me of sin? But I know well
that none. And insofar as it is possible for human nature through the "Be
imitators of me, as I am of Christ" in every way should strive to take up such a
pure conscience's frankness towards all people, so as to say about subsequent
times and after the beginning of faith to each of those who know us, "Who among
you convicts me of sin?" although it may not be possible to say this from the
time we completed the word. And this not only would the Savior say to people but
also to the devil and the powers under him, having nothing to say against
regarding his sin. And this is indeed consistent with "The ruler of this world
comes, and he has nothing in me." It is also possible for us with much diligence
to take up from a certain period such frankness to say to the devil seeking
occasion against us and his angels before the time of departure: "Who among you
convicts me of sin?"

[John 8:46] If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

It is worth seeing what appears from the puffiness. But we shall see this if
even those to whom the word was directed did not bring forth the proper
response. For someone might say: For this reason we do not believe, because we
do not perceive in what way what is said is true; and we do not perceive because
our natural faculties of perceiving the truth have not yet been cleansed; and
since we are such, we are not of God; if we are not yet of God, but also the
faculties of perceiving the truth are not cleansed, due to them being covered or
thickened or clouded by wickedness. Understanding, then, what it means to truly
believe according to which "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God," and realizing how far we fall short of believing in this way, let
us answer these things, asking the physician of the sight of the soul to do
everything by his wisdom and benevolence to uncover our eyes, which are still
covered by the dishonor brought about by our wickedness, as it is said
somewhere: "Our dishonor has covered us"; for he will listen to us confessing
the reasons for our not yet believing, and, as he assists, will aid in us
receiving the gift to believe, placed third in Paul’s list of gifts after the
word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, to which he adds: "To another faith by
the same Spirit"; about which he also says elsewhere: "For to you it has been
granted not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him." And from this
operation it will be evident that it is no chance gift of God, among the many
different teachings preached by many who claim to teach the truth, to believe in
no one or only the true one; for this is already the work of an approved banker,
whom you would not err in calling perfect, as also is written in the epistle to
the Hebrews: "But solid food belongs to those who are mature, those who by
reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

[John 8:47] He who is from God hears the words of God; for this reason you do
not hear, because you are not from God.

Those who introduce myths about different natures and say that they are sons of
God by nature and from the initial construction, only because of kinship with
God, are receptive to God's words, and from this they demonstrate what is at
hand for them. But they indeed seize upon even this saying, applying it to those
who are uncritical and unable to respond to the plausibility of the use of the
saying, nor seeing its solution thus lying: if all those who received “the true
light, which enlightens every man coming into the world," did not receive it by
being from God (for if they had received it by being from God, it would not have
been written about them: “But as many as received him, he gave them the
authority to become children of God, to those who believe in his name”), it is
evident that those who are not from God, before receiving the light, they in no
way have authority to become children of God; but when they receive it, they do
not yet become children of God, but they receive authority through accepting the
light to become children of God. Then, having become from God, they also hear
His words, no longer merely believing simply but now understanding the matters
of piety more insightfully. Moreover, those who are not such, having not aspired
to be children, do not become of God, and for that reason do not hear His words
nor understand His will; but they remain in the state of those who, before they
were children of God, only believed, being servants of God by having received
the spirit of slavery in fear and not having strived to advance and progress to
also occupy the place of adoption, in which those who have it cry out: “Abba,
Father.” For it is clear that no person is initially a son of God, as also is
demonstrated by Paul's saying, “We were by nature children of wrath;” this he
also said about himself. It is evident from “But I say to you, love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you, that you may become sons of your Father in
heaven.” For if Paul was by nature a “son of wrath,” who, more so than Paul, as
far as nature is concerned, would not be a son of wrath before receiving the
authority to become a child of God and before becoming a child of God? And if
one can only become a son of the heavenly Father by loving his enemies and
praying for those who persecute him, it is clear that no one hears God’s words
by being from God by nature, but by receiving the authority to become a child of
God and properly using the authority, and by loving his enemies and praying for
those who offend him, thus becoming a son of the heavenly Father. Then it is
from God and hears the words of God, understanding them and acquiring knowledge
of them; which is characteristic not of slaves but of children of God, who have
abandoned all fleshly genesis and have taken up the one from God through "the
spirit of adoption." Simultaneously, it should be understood more carefully how
to accept "He hears the words of God" in a manner similar to "My sheep hear My
voice." For if we take hearing in the sense of mere consent, even those who
believe for a time would be from God, as testified by the Word that some believe
for a time. But if we take "hearing" in the sense of keeping the commandments,
it is clear that even if someone sins in one matter, he would not be a son of
God; this would not trouble us who say that someone becomes a son of God through
change, but it would trouble those who are unable to show themselves entirely
sinless and those involved in similar teachings. But if we take "hearing" in the
sense of understanding and comprehending, let them show anyone who hears all the
words of the new covenant in such a manner, so that we may call them sons of God
if this definition of theirs does not accept reversal into the holy scriptures.
For we imagine even in these matters a great and marvelous person who is already
a son of God, and we will not be condemned unworthily as those from God
receiving "The one who is from God hears the words of God."

Now, from the contrary, it may be possible to demonstrate something paradoxical.
What is the paradox or the matter that one may be more a son of God than
another, and doubly that another is a son of God over another? How this is shown
from the opposite we shall present as follows: In Matthew, the second rebuke
against the scribes and Pharisees is as follows: "Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you traverse sea and land to make one proselyte, and
when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
Hence, according to this, there are no natural children of hell, nor are the
children of hell equally children of it if one is doubly a child of it over
another. But if one person is twice the son of Gehenna as another, why not also
twice the son of destruction and death and darkness and of the other things, of
which those who sin differently are sons? But if in these cases, why also not
sons of light twice as much as others, and sons of life, and sons of wisdom, and
thus sons of God? If indeed one becomes a son of God twice as much as another,
why not also many times and as many times as one can conceive the firstborn of
all creation to be the son of God compared to the other sons of God and those no
longer having a spirit of bondage to fear but having received the spirit of
adoption? Consequently therefore, since there are more sayings of God, not only
those that are written but also those which are unspeakable, which it is not
lawful for a man to speak, and of those about which John says, "I suppose that
even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written,"
anyone hearing any of the sayings of God is already from God; and the more one
hears the sayings of God, by that much more will he become from God; so that if
one hears all the sayings of God, if indeed it comes to pass for any of those
receiving the spirit of adoption, he absolutely and consummately becomes a son
of God, and wholly and entirely from God. It is necessary to interpret the
phrase "wholly and entirely" with understanding in relation to all doctrines and
all knowledge and all mysteries, so that it might be said that one has become
wholly and entirely from God who knows all the mysteries and all knowledge, and
has accomplished those of perfect love. Consider then if it is possible
consistently with "We know in part and we prophesy in part" to say, "we are sons
of God in part," and again, "when that which is perfect has come, then that
which is in part will be done away," the perfection of becoming a son of God
will come, abolishing the partial becoming a son of God. Nor should it be left
unexamined whether it is possible to be a son in part of the distinguished
portion concerning the divine, and in part of the contrary, or whether this is
impossible to be so. With which examination, consider how many sons can be
called of one father, whether through the forefathers and those of their
lineage, or according to such an intention. Therefore having received the
authority to become children of God, let us do all things so that we may become
from God and hear His words, and advance in being from God, so that we may
advance also in hearing the words of God, always proclaiming more of these,
until we grasp all the words of God, as many as it is possible to grasp now and
after this for those deemed worthy of the spirit of adoption. As often as we do
not hear the words of God that are spoken, that is, do not understand them, it
must be supposed that we are rebuked as not being from God. For because of this,
he who does not hear the words of God does not hear them, because he is not from
God, and he is not from God regardless of himself. And yet sometimes having
already received authority to become a child of God, and being able from loving
the enemies and praying for those who persecute, to become a son of the Father
in heaven.

[John 8:48] The Jews answered him, saying, "Are we not right in saying that you
are a Samaritan and have a demon?"

It is likely that many often said these things silently among themselves about
the Savior, calling him a Samaritan as one who distorts Jewish [ways] similarly
to the Samaritans; "For Jews do not associate with Samaritans," differing in
many doctrines from them. But it is worth investigating how, with the Samaritans
denying the future age and not admitting even the survival of the soul, they
dared to call the Savior [a Samaritan], who taught much about the resurrection
and judgment. But perhaps they said this as an insult to him and not because he
actually shared the same doctrines as those people. And it is likely that some
also thought he did not teach about the future age and about judgment and
resurrection with sincere intent, being disposed like a Samaritan, as if nothing
awaited humans after life, but feigned it for the sake of glory and to please
the Jews by presenting things about resurrection and eternal life; and they also
said he had a demon because of his superhuman words, by which he called God his
own father, and claimed to have come down from heaven, and that he himself was
the bread of life much better than manna, so that whoever eats this bread will
live forever, and countless other things with which the Gospels are filled. It
could also have been said because of their suspicion about Beelzebul: "You have
a demon," since some thought "by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," he was
casting out demons, as if having Beelzebul within himself. Indeed, the enemies
will know, saying he has a demon; but we believe him when he says, "I do not
have a demon"; for neither can a demon open the eyes of the blind or perform
these signs which are recorded, of which traces and remnants remain in the
churches to this day in the name of Jesus. After this, anyone would seek to
understand why, of the two accusations directed at him, "You are a Samaritan"
and "You have a demon," the Jews responded to him not by those who believed in
him, but by answering to the second accusation only, saying, "I do not have a
demon." And look if this can compare to the parable in the Gospel according to
Luke about the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho who fell among robbers,
whom the priest and the Levite passed by, but the traveling Samaritan came upon
him and, seeing him, had compassion, and approached, bandaged his wounds,
pouring on oil and wine. For if anyone is able to explain the parable, showing
that no one but the Savior is represented by the Samaritan, who healed the
half-dead man fallen among robbers, he will explain why he did not deny being a
Samaritan. Another considering the distinction between Jews and those under the
law, bringing those under the law to the Samaritans, and realizing the Savior
was made all things to all men to win everyone, will say that because he was
among those under the law as under the law, it is as though he became a
Samaritan, and thus did not deny being a Samaritan. And a third, interpreting
the Samaritan as "guardian," will say that even if the Jews called him a
Samaritan in another sense, he did not deny the meaning derived from the name,
knowing that he is the guardian of human souls, as it is said, "Behold, he who
keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep," and "The Lord guards the little
ones." The Hebrews call the guardian "Shomer," and they relate that the
Samaritans got their name because they were appointed by the king of the
Assyrians to guard the land of Israel after the captivity, when another Israel
fell into Assyrian captivity because of many sins.

[John 8:49-50] Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father,
and you dishonor me. I do not seek my own glory. There is one who seeks and
judges."

If the planted tree 'by the rivers of water' is such that it yields its fruit
'in its season' and its leaf does not wither but prospers in whatever it does,
what should be thought concerning our Savior Jesus, who Himself is the tree of
life in being wisdom, and that wisdom is 'a tree of life to those who lay hold
of her,' and who bears fruit and whose other leaves are such that not one of
them withers? Therefore, no word of Jesus, as also these granted worthy to be
recorded by His holy disciples, should be disregarded, but every scrutiny even
to those deemed clear should be applied, not denying that even about His simple
and straightforward words an apt thing will be found for those rightly seeking
as worthy of that sacred mouth. Now when we do not find, we should blame
ourselves and not the word of Jesus as if it does not breathe doctrines full of
truth and wisdom from the entirety.

These things I have said to examine 'I do not have a demon,' through which we
all who encounter the gospel learn something we did not know before encountering
the gospel. What then is to be understood by this? It pleases scripture for
those who err to do mostly against reason because they have become receptive to
the activity of an evil spirit or impure will of a demon. Therefore, they did
not shrink even those considered minimal sins to attribute to demons, calling
anger a demon, similarly slander too. Likewise, countless other things
fantasized by and acting in us according to their will; and among men, just as
no one is 'pure from filth,' and no 'one is righteous on earth who does good and
does not sin,' so too no one is always cleansed of demons and never susceptible
to their activity. Consequently, interpreting the healings in the gospel
allegorically, which include the expulsions of demons, we will say that always
demons are expelled by Jesus from those who no longer accept the demons'
activities upon being healed by the word. Therefore, I think it is only Jesus'
voice, who alone stripped the principalities and powers and made a public
example of them triumphing over them in it, setting the cross as a trophy
against all opposing power, just as 'The ruler of this world is coming, but he
has no claim on me,' so also 'I neither had, nor have, nor will have a demon.'
We too can utter the voice and say, 'I do not have a demon,' but we will be
refuted like those who denied their possession and were proven by their very
deeds that they lied." Or is it not proof that we are demonized when we, having
the condition of madmen, shout, burning with anger and rage, or neighing like
horses and mounting our own wives like frenzied stallions, casting aside the
words of God regarding impassibility? But even if we are humbled and dragged
down by sorrow and have lost the inherent pride of rational beings, let us not
forget that a sparrow does not fall into a snare without God and that the
judgments concerning each event that happens to people are just. What shall we
say but that we suffer these things because the demon has overcome us and
obscured our governing faculty? But what about fears of things not to be feared
and excessive delight in worthless things—what are these but the activities of
demons filling those who cannot truthfully say, "I have no demon"? But suppose
some of the holy patriarchs, or the sacred servant, or the wonderful prophets,
or the most powerful apostles of our savior Jesus, were brought in for
examination. Would they not also say, like Jesus, "I have no demon"? To whom it
can be said: Did these also ever sin, or is the statement "For all have sinned
and come short of the glory of God" false, and is it not true that "No one is
pure from filth"? Or has it not been considered when it is said, "There is no
righteous person on earth who does good and never sins"? But clearly all
scriptures are true and those who have turned to a virtuous life were not
always, nor from the beginning, able to say, "I have no demon," but this phrase
originally belonged only to the one conceived as our savior. Therefore, most
sovereignly and truly, this was the voice of the only one who honored the
Father: for no one honoring something that is not honored by God honors the one
who despises what is honored by Him. How can it be said that one honors the
Father if he has not even received the spirit of adoption initially? And no one
who sins has the spirit of adoption, for the one born of God does not sin. And
how does one who honors earthly glory or money or the material wealth or the
beauty born of flesh and blood or anything attached to matter and corruption
honor the Father? It is clear then how this is the voice of the savior, "I honor
the Father," which, as far as we can, we ought to strive to say with a
conscience bearing witness with us in the Holy Spirit, rendering to "Him honor
to whom honor is due," and not bestowing it elsewhere. And indeed, at the
fulfillment of time, he who was sent by God to be born of a woman and born under
the law, complying with the law that says "Honor your father and your mother so
that you may have a long life," having no other father but the God in heaven,
says, "But I honor my Father." So we too shall say this phrase, understanding
the baptism of regeneration and having been washed in it to become sons of God
and no longer calling anyone on earth "father" because we have become sons of
the Father in heaven and brothers of the one who said, "I am ascending to my
Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Thus, it is clear that when
Jesus most sovereignly and perfectly said, "I have no demon but I honor my
Father," his imitators, each according to his ability, being strengthened in
Christ Jesus who empowers them, will also say, "I have no demon but I honor my
Father." Who, being among the dead and dwelling in tombs, could possibly say, “I
do not have a demon”? Or who, honoring anything other than God and His word and
the commands given by the Word, giving honor to another when it should be
rendered to Him who deserves the honor, would as a disciple of Jesus say, “But I
honor my father”? Following this is the statement, “And you dishonor Me,” spoken
to those who dishonored Him and said to Him, “Do we not rightly say that You are
a Samaritan and have a demon?” thinking that their evil statement was spoken
correctly; for by wrongly judging, they declared the Savior to be a Samaritan
and demon-possessed. It should be assumed that the statement “And you dishonor
Me” was not just spoken to those at that time, but also to those who always
dishonor Him by doing things contrary to the right reasoning of God, and who
dishonor Him by wronging Christ, who is justice, and dishonor Him by performing
acts of weakness and infirmity against the power of God, which is the Savior;
“For Christ is the power of God.” And to everyone who disregards wisdom could it
be said, “You dishonor Me,” since Christ is also wisdom. But even if it were
necessary for someone to be at peace with all men, so as to be able to say that
prophetic phrase, “I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war,” and if
it were necessary to take up the peace of God which surpasses all understanding,
guarding the heart and the thoughts of the one who has taken it up. If someone
is warlike, biting, accusing, and consuming their neighbor, and filled with the
stirring of passions within their dominant part, to them as well could it be
said, “You dishonor Me.” For Christ is our peace. Further, “Everyone who does
evil hates the light and does not come to the light,” and the light is He who
said, “I am the light of the world”; clearly, the one who does evil, dishonoring
the light, dishonors Christ, and will also hear, “And you dishonor Me.” And why
do I need to extend the discourse further, unfolding and showing who are those
reproved by Jesus and hearing from him “You dishonor me,” being clear from the
stated facts and those that can be logically connected to them? After these
things, let us see what is the meaning of “I do not seek my own glory; there is
one who seeks and judges.” God seeks, having given us his Son, in each of those
who have received him the glory of Christ; which he will indeed find in those
who care for themselves and work out the virtues implanted in them; he will not
find it in those who are not such, and in those whom he does not find the glory
of his Son, he will judge them, saying to them: “Because of you, my name is
blasphemed among the nations continuously.” But one might be puzzled about the
statement “There is one who seeks and judges,” if it should be referred to God,
clearly the Savior having said: “For not even the Father judges anyone, but he
has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they
honor the Father.” But see if you can use this: “I can do nothing on my own
initiative; as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my
own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” For if as he hears, our Savior
judges according to the Father, not seeking his own will but the will of the
Father who sent him, and therefore his judgment is just, perhaps the authority
of judgment, which the hearing one executes, is not of the hearer but of the one
who speaks to him. And even if he says that “My judgment is just,” hear in the
same Gospel it is being said: “All that is mine is yours.” For if what the
Savior says is true, “All that is mine is yours,” it is clear that even the
judgment about which he says “My judgment is just” is the Father’s judgment. But
if it is the Father’s judgment, the puzzle concerning “I do not seek my own
glory; there is One who seeks and judges” can be resolved. Moreover, the
statement “I do not seek my own glory” holds a certain significance of humility
appropriate to the Savior; for it would not be fitting for him to demand his own
glory and judge those who have not given it, but the Father who gave glory to
the Son should demand it from those who withhold it and judge them for it.
Moreover, the Savior, as an imitator of the Father, seeks the glory of God from
those who learn about God; and if he does not find the Father’s glory in some,
he would judge them, having received authority to execute judgment because he is
the Son of Man.

However, Heracleon does not attribute the phrase “There is one who seeks and
judges” to the Father, saying such things: The one who seeks and judges is the
avenger of me, the servant appointed for this, not bearing the sword in vain,
the avenger of the king; this is Moses, according to what he had previously said
to them: “In whom you have hoped.”

Then he adds that the one who judges and punishes is Moses, that is, the
lawgiver himself. And after this Heracleon is perplexed within himself, saying:
How then does he not say that all judgment has been given to him? And thinking
to resolve the objection, he says these things: He speaks correctly; for the
judge, acting as a servant, carrying out the will of this one, judges, just as
it is seen happening among men. But how does he attribute the judgment to
someone else as inferior to the Savior, as he considers the Creator, nor can he
demonstrate it this way, clearly written that "For the Father judges no one, but
has given all judgment to the Son"; and that "He has given him authority to
execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man."

[John 8:51] Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never
see death.

Just as there is a sort of indifferent life, which is neither good nor evil, in
which we say that both the impious and the irrational animals live; and another
different, but good life, about which Paul says: "Our life is hidden with Christ
in God"; and our Lord himself about himself: "I am the life," thus you would
call the death opposite to the indifferent life indifferent; but the enemy of
the one who says, "I am the life," you would call a certain evil and grievous
death, in which the one who dies is in death; about which it is written: "The
last enemy to be destroyed is death." And concerning this death, the apostle
must surely mean these things: "Therefore, just as by one man sin entered into
the world and by sin death, so also death passed upon all men, for which all
sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world (for sin is not imputed when
there is no law), but death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did
not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression"; and soon after: "For if by one
man's trespass death reigned through that one, much more will those who receive
the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the
one, Jesus Christ." For what is the death that came into the world through sin,
but the last enemy of Christ to be destroyed? And what is the death that passed
unto all men, by which all sinned, but this very one which also reigned from
Adam to Moses? But Moses, that is, the law, was until the manifestation of our
Lord Jesus, and it reigned in one man's trespass through the one, until those
who received the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life
through the one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, this death will not be seen forever by
the one who keeps the word of the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation,
as it naturally prevents death from being seen. In this way, therefore, one must
understand the saying, "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death," as if
the one who said this, having granted light to those who hear, were saying to
them: if anyone keeps this light of mine, he will never see darkness. For it is
impossible for darkness to be to the one who keeps the light; but if one loses
this light, it follows immediately that he sees the darkness who has lost it. So
also, then, in the beginning with the Word, which was with God, life came into
being. Hence the beginning (that is, the wisdom that says, “God created me as
the beginning of his ways for his works”) regarding the Word in her, in which
came into being the life, will teach and say: “If anyone keeps my word, he will
never see death.” For one will keep the word and the life inseparable from it,
which also is the light of men, shining in the darkness and the darkness not
overcoming it. If, then, the prophet asks, as it were, “Who is the man who will
live and not see death?” we answer, having learned from our Savior, and we say
that the man who “will live and will not see death” is the one who keeps the
word of the one who said, “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”
Together in the same place, I inquire whether “for eternity” ought to be taken
generally, so that the whole should be such: if anyone keeps my word for
eternity, he will never see death. For, indeed, it seems that one does not see
death as long as he keeps the word of Jesus; for as soon as one loses it, he
sees death.

If one also can go back to deeper words and understand how it might be said by a
man, “You have brought me down to the dust of death,” and by Paul, “Who will
deliver me from this body of death?” he will see in what way, as long as the
word was kept, death was not seen by the one keeping it. But when one, being
weary in attention and keeping the word, or having been careless in keeping it,
no longer has kept it, then he saw death by none other than himself. And this
must be considered a doctrine and an eternal law, always to be spoken to us who
receive the word of “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” Just as,
if the darkness might be observed to flow over, it obliterates the sight of the
one observing, so also, observed death kills and deadens the sight that saw it
and blinds, as therefore needing the one who opens the eyes of the blind. And I
think, indeed, because of this the blind, of whom the blind in the gospel were a
symbol, have lost their sight, since not keeping the word, they saw death.

[John 8:52] The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon."

Many, even among the wise, think that every kind of sin, including sin in word,
arises from evil judgments; but those who trust in the holy scriptures as divine
believe that what is done by men contrary to reason is not without the influence
of demons or some other opposing powers. So the Jews attributed the saying of
Jesus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he shall never see
death," to the influence of a demon. They did not understand this because they
neither kept his word nor understood its power. For Jesus, knowing of a certain
kind of death as an enemy to his word, which sinners experience, said that this
death would never be seen by anyone who kept his word. However, they, thinking
he spoke of the physical death experienced by common people, believed that he
was insane, considering that Abraham and the prophets had died, and so did not
understand that anyone who keeps his word would never experience death in the
eternal sense.

[John 8:52-53] Abraham died, and the prophets, and you say: "If anyone keeps my
word, he will never taste death." Are you greater than our father Abraham, who
died? And the prophets died; whom do you make yourself out to be?

If, according to the simpler interpretation, as we ourselves too have delivered,
it seems clear the understanding of the Jews, answering the word of the Savior
about Abraham and the prophets as having died, nevertheless, it does not permit
the examination without comparison to other similar ones. For did they think
without any reason that the Savior had said, "If anyone keeps my word, he will
never see death," and for this reason replied clearly to his word? Or did they
understand that he was not speaking about common death, and considering Abraham
and the prophets, as also having once died the worse death, they did not accept
his word nor thought him to be as great as he claimed to be, saying: "Now we
know that you have a demon"? The same is examined in other statements of his and
their responses in the above instances; as with the Samaritan woman, when Jesus
said to her, "Give me a drink," and added other such words: "If you knew the
gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would
have asked him, and he would have given you living water." And the woman said to
him, "Lord, you have no vessel, and the well is deep; where do you get that
living water?" And again, "Lord, give me this water, so that I will not be
thirsty or come here to draw." For it is not likely that the Samaritan woman
would respond to him concerning perceptible water and ask him for physical water
so as not to thirst anymore or come to draw from the perceptible well of Jacob.
But also when the Lord said, "The bread that I will give for the life of the
world is my flesh," when the Jews were disputing among themselves, saying, "How
can this man give us his flesh to eat?" we showed that the listeners would not
be so foolish as to think that the speaker was inviting them to come and eat his
flesh. And it is likely that the Jews, referring to the words being examined by
us now, said, “Abraham died and the prophets,” having learned how “through one
man sin entered the world, and through sin, death; and so death passed to all
men, for all sinned,” and they saw that “death reigned over those who had sinned
in the likeness of Adam’s transgression,” and the word was about how, because of
sin, death passed to all men, since all have sinned. But having learned these
things following, as they did not accept the words of Jesus, they did not know
that “the gift is not like the transgression.” Neither could they reason that
“if by the transgression of one many died, much more the grace of God and the
gift in grace by the one man Jesus Christ abounded to many.” They also did not
understand how the gift was not like the death resulting from one who sinned;
because they had not yet learned that the gift came from many transgressions
into justification. Nor did they see that “those who receive the abundance of
grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus
Christ.” And they focused on the death of Abraham and the prophets, hearing that
even Samuel, as being under the earth because of death, was brought up by the
witch, thinking that there were gods somewhere under the earth and saying, “I
have seen gods ascending from the earth”; but they did not grasp the life of
Abraham and the prophets, nor that the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob was
not the God of the dead but of the living. And assuming the prophets to be dead,
they built their tombs, and thus were punished. Even if Abraham died, he lived
and no longer saw death, since he rejoiced and was glad upon seeing Jesus’ day.
I think this is why the Savior, in response to “Abraham died,” declared,
teaching that Abraham lived, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he
saw it and was glad.” But if anyone wishes not to accept this concerning
Abraham, let them tell us whether he who saw the day of our Savior and rejoiced
and was glad, still sees death, or if he who saw the Savior’s day and rejoiced
and was glad, being deemed worthy of such a vision as worthy of it, later was
deprived of what he had seen. For if either of these is absurd, having seen
Jesus’ day, Abraham, upon seeing it, also heard His word and kept it and no
longer sees death; and the Jews were not correctly saying that “Abraham died” as
though he were still in death. Similarly, you will say the same about the
prophets. For if God is not the God of the dead but of the living, and He is the
God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, so He is also the God of the rest of the
prophets, and the prophets live. For they have kept the word of the Son of God,
when the word of the Lord came to Hosea, or the word came to Jeremiah, or the
word came to Isaiah; for no other word of God came to any of these, but the one
who was in the beginning with God, His Son, God the Word. And this Word, if any
other, the prophets have kept, and from whom they received the word, they no
longer saw death. Likewise, it is false as the Jews said, "Now we know that you
have a demon," when they said "Abraham died, and the prophets" because they did
not recognize that the one who commanded demons had a demon (for no one
recognizes what does not exist), nor were Abraham and the prophets still in
death when the Jews said, "Abraham died, and the prophets." After these things,
we seek why, when the Savior said about everyone who keeps His word that "he
shall never see death forever," the Jews, after the discussions, ought properly
to have said about "he shall never see death forever"; "And you say: If anyone
keeps my word, he shall never see death forever"; but they did not say this,
rather they said what was not said by the Savior; for He did not say, "If anyone
keeps my word, he shall never taste death forever," which they bring forth as
said by our Lord. Observe if it were not said with a difference between not
seeing death and not tasting death by the rest of the evangelists about those
standing near Jesus, until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, by
Matthew: "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste
death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"; by Mark: "Truly I
say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they
see the kingdom of God come with power"; and by Luke: "Truly there are some
standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man in His
glory." For just as in the body there are different sensations, taste and sight,
so according to what is said by Solomon about divine sensations, there would be
another seeing power and contemplation of the soul, and another tasting and
perception of the quality of the intellectual foods. And since the Lord, on one
hand, is the living bread from heaven and is tasted, being nourishment to the
soul, and on the other hand, is wisdom and visible, whose beauty the lover
confesses to be saying, "I became a lover of her beauty," and commands us
saying, "Love her, and she will keep you," therefore in the Psalms it is said,
"Taste and see that the Lord is good." Just as the Lord is tasted and seen, so
also His enemy, death, is tasted and seen. And His tasting is demonstrated by
the saying, "There are some standing here who will not taste death," and what
follows; and His sight by the saying, "If anyone keeps My word, he will never
see death forever." One tastes death, and not only tastes it but also bears it
as food of death, who contradicts the words of eternal life. And there is a
promise that some of those standing in the place shown by Jesus will not taste
death; for note that the three sayings, "There are some standing here," or
"There are some of those standing here," have been spoken of in connection with
the statement, "They will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming
in His kingdom," or "in His glory," or "until they see the kingdom of God coming
with power." And since it is possible for the one standing to fall—it has been
said, "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall"—therefore, it is
written not concerning all who are standing but concerning some: "Amen, I say to
you, there are some standing here." Therefore, someone standing does not taste
death by maintaining their standing; and the one who receives and keeps the word
will not see death. If indeed there is any difference between tasting death and
seeing death, as the Jews, who were not wise listeners and confused the Lord's
words, said, instead of "He will not see death," they said, "He will not taste
death," falling upon the inferior sense of the word. You might inquire whether,
just as there is seeing death and tasting death, so in the other senses there is
either hearing death or smelling death or touching death; for if the hands of
the apostles handled concerning the word of life, perhaps the hands of the false
apostles and deceitful workers, transforming themselves into angels of
righteousness, handle concerning the word of death; and if the sheep of Christ
hear His voice, perhaps the sheep that are not His, to whom He might say, "You
are not of My sheep," hear the voice of death. But see if the smell of death is
not in the wounds from sin, about which it has been said: "My wounds stink and
are corrupt," and the smell of death in Lazarus before he was raised from the
dead, which the apostles did not desire to smell and said to the Savior, "Lord,
by now he stinks, for he has been dead four days." Regarding the intellectual
scent of death or the scent of life, the apostolic saying should be observed as
follows: "We are the sweet aroma of Christ to God among those who are being
saved and those who are perishing; to some, a scent from death to death, and to
others, a scent from life to life." For those in Christ are a sweet aroma of
Christ and in no way a stench in every place. But as physical fragrance is said
to kill some animals, so also the fragrance of Christ, because of prior
wickedness, could become for some a scent from death to death, but to others it
results in life. These matters seemed relevant to our examination of tasting
death and seeing or not seeing death. After these things, not seeing how much
Christ surpasses the patriarchs and prophets, and not even believing that
Christ, who teaches such great things, is greater, they question, saying: "Are
you greater than our father Abraham, who died?" But they do not see that not
only is he greater than Abraham but also greater than anyone born of women,
being born of a virgin, and the greatest of all prophets, who was prophesied by
them, and the one who gives life to the dead, not making himself such but
receiving from the Father. "Just as the Father has life in himself, so also he
has granted the Son to have life in himself," who can do nothing by himself and
seeks not his own will but the will of the one who sent him. And the question,
"Who do you make yourself out to be?" was voiced without understanding that
Jesus did not make himself what he is. Therefore, it seems to me he replies to
this by teaching who made him what he is, saying, "If I glorify myself, my glory
is nothing. It is the Father who glorifies me." And let this also be understood
here, having received ample consideration in the twentieth volume of the
commentary on the Gospel of John, so that by God's revelation to us we may
contemplate the subsequent passages in what follows from Jesus' response, "If I
glorify myself, my glory is nothing."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 28
========================================================================

Volume 28 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by
ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca

Those who have first investigated the nature of numbers have called six perfect,
as being equal to its parts, both from the combination of the doubling from one,
one and two, which is three, a prime number, and of that number to which the
doubling reached, I mean two; for two multiplied by three makes six. Secondly,
they say that twenty-eight is perfect, being composed from the combination of
those doubled from one until a prime number is formed, and of that number to
which the doubling reached. For four is the product of the doubling from one to
two, and seven is the prime number measured only by one; four multiplied by
seven makes twenty-eight, and it is equal to its parts. Therefore, I think, it
is readily understood from what was learned by Moses, "in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians", for the construction of the tabernacle; for the curtains were
twenty-eight cubits in length. And it was fitting that the tabernacle, which was
made for the glory of God, should contain the number twenty-eight among the
select numbers. Hence, holy brother Ambrose, arriving at the twenty-eighth of
the commentaries on the Gospel according to John (for this will be, by God's
grace, the twenty-eighth volume on the Gospel), we invoke the perfect and
completion-giving God through our perfect high priest Jesus Christ, so that He
may give our mind to find the truth concerning what is to be examined and its
construction, and thus may we proceed further.

[John 11:39] Jesus says, "Remove the stone."

Since here the stone placed upon the cave was not lifted by Jesus himself but he
says, "Remove the stone," while in Genesis, when "a large stone was upon the
mouth of the well, and all the flocks were gathered there," they would roll away
the stone from the mouth of the well, and after watering the sheep, they would
replace the stone on the mouth of the well in its place. And because this had
not yet happened due to the livestock not being gathered, Jacob, seeing Rachel,
the daughter of Laban, his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban, his
mother's brother, approached and rolled the stone away from the mouth of the
well and watered the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother. We wish to compare
the two stones with each other, so that we may understand the reasoning for why
Jesus himself did not lift the stone from the cave but said, "Remove the stone,"
while in Genesis, Jacob himself rolled away the stone from the mouth of the
well. Consider if we might say that in the case of the stone on the cave, since
the cave was a tomb, Jesus did not need to touch it but only commanded those
suitable for the task to remove the stone, while in the case of the stone on the
mouth of the well that hindered the watering of the sheep, which were to become
Jacob's possession, Jacob himself had to take it, approach the stone, and roll
it away from the mouth of the well so that the sheep of Laban, his mother's
brother, could be watered. It was necessary in the case of the well for Jacob to
approach, but Jesus stood outside the cave. Understand if you can why the stone
lying upon the cave is not rolled away but lifted, while on the well the stone
is not totally lifted but only rolled away; it was proper that the stone upon
the tomb be entirely lifted and not to be rolled back again, whereas the stone
on the well was to be only rolled away. For it is said, because of the
estimation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * seeing the glory of God,
understanding the magnitude of faith reckoned for righteousness, let us believe.
And if someone has not yet seen the glory of God despite thinking to have
believed, let him understand that he is shown not to have believed through the
things he has not yet seen of the glory of God; for He is truthful who said not
only to Martha but to everyone, "If you believe, you will see the glory of God."

[John 11:41] So they took away the stone. The slowness of lifting the stone
lying upon the cave was caused by the sister of the deceased; as if she delayed
those whom Jesus commanded, saying, "Take away the stone," by saying, "Already
there is a stench, for he has been dead four days." And had it not been for
Martha’s disbelief, when Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you
believe, you will see the glory of God?” those who heard "Take away the stone"
would not have taken away the stone. Just suppose that when Jesus said, “Take
away the stone,” the sister of the deceased did not answer, nor said, “Already
there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.” What then would have
followed rightly written after “Jesus says: Take away the stone” but “So they
took away the stone”? Yet now, between “Take away the stone” and “So they took
away the stone,” the things spoken by the sister of the deceased delayed the
lifting of the stone. And it wouldn’t have been lifted even with some delay, if
Jesus had not responded to her disbelief, by saying “Did I not tell you that if
you believe, you will see the glory of God?” Therefore, it is good for nothing
to happen between Jesus' command and the work done by those whom Jesus
commanded. And I think it suits to say that one has become a follower of Christ.
For just as to Him God said and it was done, He commanded and they were created,
so Christ said to the believer, and the latter did it; and the Son of God
commanded and he fulfilled the command without any delay, not harming himself by
disobedience in the time between the command and the work; for we must consider
that to delay in doing what is commanded is a time of disobedience regarding the
command during the time of postponement. Because of this, even the one in the
parable of the Gospel who was commanded by the father to go into the field and
work, did not do the father's will in the time before he repented even though
later he did go. Therefore, it is necessary to remember, "Do not delay to turn
to the Lord, nor postpone day by day" and "Do not say: I will return and give,
and tomorrow I will give, being able to do good today." Therefore, one must
consider Martha to have been accused of causing delay when it is written, "So
they took away the stone," which should have been written immediately following
“Jesus says: Take away the stone."

[John 11:41] And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said the written things.

Concerning Jesus' eyes and their relationship to certain ones, it must be
diligently observed and examined; for instance, in Luke, when he was about to
speak the blessings and the teaching that followed them: "Lifting up his eyes to
his disciples, he said"; but now it says, "He lifted up his eyes above and
said." We are taught from the former that Jesus' disciples are not below; hence,
the teacher's eyes are lifted up to them, who were worthy for him to lift his
eyes to them; and from the latter being examined, we learn that he transferred
his mind from the conversation with those below and raised and lifted it,
addressing it to the prayer to the Father above all. But if Paul and those
similar to him are imitators of Christ, it is necessary for the one who prays
according to the zeal and imitation of Christ's prayer, to lift up the eyes of
his soul above and raise them from the matters and thoughts and contemplations
here, thus to say the words of prayer to God about great and heavenly things,
great and heavenly. And if someone objects to this, pointing out the tax
collector who didn't want to lift up his eyes but struck his chest and said,
"God, be merciful to me a sinner," it should be said to him that just as it is
not for everyone nor always to embrace the godly sorrow leading to repentance
without regret for salvation, but for the one who has done things worthy of such
sorrow and repents for them, and to embrace it in measure and not excessively,
so that he may not be swallowed up by excessive sorrow by Satan, thus it may not
always be appropriate for everyone to not want to lift their eyes, just as it is
not appropriate for everyone to stand at a distance. Each one should judge
himself about these things, and "Examine himself, and thus not only eat of the
bread and drink from the cup," but also lift up his eyes and turn them above
according to the prayer, submitting himself to God and humbling himself before
Him, he should say. And if we think it appropriate for every way of life, just
like the tax collector, not to want to lift the eyes, it is time to say likewise
that it is necessary to not want to lift the eyes and to stand afar off from the
temple. But what temple could it be other than the Church of the living God?
Which is also called the house of God by Paul saying, "If I delay, you may know
how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Therefore, just as it is not for
everyone to not make use of the bread and not drink from the cup and [not] be
far from the house of God and the church, so it is not for everyone to not want
to lift up his eyes. One errs if, when it is appropriate to lift up one's eyes,
one does not lift them, and likewise, one errs if, when it is appropriate not to
lift up one's eyes, one lifts them. The tax collector in the gospel did not want
to lift up his eyes, acting appropriately; the disciple who was present with
Jesus could reasonably lift up his eyes, to whom the command is given, saying:
"Lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are white already to harvest."
The prophet also says: "Lift up your eyes on high." And in the hundred and
twenty-second psalm, the fourth of the songs of ascents, as the prophet
appropriately lifted up his eyes to God, he says: "To you I lift up my eyes, O
you who dwell in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hands
of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes
look to the Lord our God, until he has mercy on us." If it is necessary to show
more clearly to whom it is appropriate already to imitate Jesus, lifting up his
eyes on high, in that he also lifts up his own eyes, and to whom it is not
appropriate, similarly to the tax collector not only to stand far off from the
temple but also not to want to lift up his eyes, we shall set forth from the
story of Susanna concerning the wicked elders who were in love with her thus;
"They perverted their minds and turned away their eyes, not to see the heavens
nor remember righteous judgments," and concerning Susanna, it is said in this
manner, "And she, weeping, looked up at heaven, for her heart trusted in the
Lord." Observe in these cases that those who perverted their own minds turned
their eyes away, not to see the heavens, but she who trusted in the Lord
followed that trust by looking up at heaven. It was fitting, then, for her in
the boldness concerning her chastity, about to pray, to look up at heaven and
lift her eyes on high. But for the elders (if hypothetically, after perverting
their own minds and turning their eyes away, not to see the heavens, nor
remember righteous judgments, they repented, making an attempt toward the woman
and not obtaining what they desired, and after this prayed), and not wanting to
lift their eyes or even standing far off like the tax collector and beating
their breasts and saying: "God, be merciful to me, the sinner." As for the one
lifting his eyes on high and appropriately lifting them to heaven, it would also
be fitting to lift up holy hands, especially when the prayer is sent up without
anger and thinking. Thus, the eyes being lifted up on high through the intent
and contemplation, and the hands being lifted in actions raising and exalting
the soul, as Moses lifted his hands, so it could be said: "Let my uplifted hands
be as an evening sacrifice." The Amalekites and all invisible enemies will be
defeated, and the Israelite thoughts within us will conquer. These things are
analogous to "Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said," which appears to us as
fitting in this context.

[John 11:41-42] Father, I thank you that you have heard me; I knew that you
always hear me; but for the sake of the crowd standing around I said it, so that
they may believe that you sent me.

If indeed such a promise concerning their prayer is spoken by God to those
deserving among those who live in the flesh and do not wage war according to the
flesh: "And while you are yet speaking, I will say; 'Behold, I am here'", what
must we think concerning the Savior and Lord: "Before you speak, I will say;
'Behold, I am here'"? For he lifted up his eyes and said. What did he say? If it
is possible to surmise in such matters accordingly to "Before you speak, I will
say; 'Behold, I am here'", it would be more than what is said concerning the
Savior compared to what is written in the promise to the righteous: "While you
are yet speaking, I will say; 'Behold, I am here'". So, what did he say? He
intended to speak a prayer; but before his prayer the one who would have said to
him, "Before you speak, I will say; 'Behold, I am here'", anticipates his
prayer, he gives thanks instead of the usual prayer that would have been spoken;
and as one who has been heard concerning what he intended but did not
specifically express in prayer, he says: "Father, I thank you that you have
heard me." So, he was going to pray about the resurrection of Lazarus, and the
only good God and Father anticipated his prayer and heard the things that were
to be said in the prayer, for which the Savior, in the hearing of the crowd
surrounding him, offers thanks instead of prayer, doing two things at the same
time, giving thanks for what happened concerning Lazarus and confirming the
crowd surrounding him; for he wanted them to accept that he was sent by God and
had come into life. He knew he was heard, since he saw in the spirit that the
soul of Lazarus had been restored to his body, having been sent back from the
place of souls. For it must not be thought that the soul of Lazarus was with his
body after departure and, as present, it quickly heard when Jesus cried out and
said: "Lazarus, come out". But if anyone asserts this concerning the soul of
Lazarus and accepts the absurd notion of the soul having departed from the body,
as if it sat with the dead, let him explain how Jesus was heard by the Father
while Lazarus' body was still dead and the soul, though separated, as one of
these might think, sat with the body. For if this is granted, we would not say
that Jesus was heard before the soul entered the body again. A similar thing, I
believe, occurred when He raised the daughter of the synagogue ruler, having
prayed concerning her. For He requested her soul to return and indwell the body
again. Whether this is similar in the case of the widow's son who was being
carried out or not, you will seek for yourself to find what accords with all the
circumstances. It is not our place to make such digressions.

Perhaps also, our great Jesus saw even the soul of Lazarus itself, either being
led by those appointed for this task or having responded to the Father’s will,
and seeing it enter through the place where the stone was removed, He said,
“Father, I thank You that You have heard Me.” Since He had previously asked for
numerous other things and received them, He is giving thanks not only for
Lazarus but also for the preceding events, saying for Lazarus, “Father, I thank
You that You have heard Me”; and regarding the previous matters, “I knew that
You always hear Me,” and He said this, He claims, “for the sake of the crowd
standing by, that they may believe that You sent Me.” These things we have
rendered concerning the statement and the resurrection of Lazarus. The allegory
on the place from the previously established context is not difficult; for He
asked that someone who had sinned after becoming a friend to Him and was dead to
God might return to life through divine power, and He succeeded, and He saw in
such a one vital movements, upon which He gave thanks to the Father. A crowd
stood around such a dead person, not yet believing that God had sent Jesus and
that this word had come from God to men. And this crowd, having stood around,
marveled that one who had become foul from sins leading to death and dead in
virtue had returned to it; and marveling, they might eventually believe the word
that gave him life, as it had come from God to men.

[John 11:43-44] And having said these things, he cried out in a loud voice,
"Lazarus, come out." The one who had died came out, bound hand and foot with
linen strips, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind
him, and let him go."

Jesus lifted his eyes upward, and before he prayed, he was heard, and instead of
a prayer, he gave thanks, perceiving that the soul of Lazarus had entered into
the body and required the vigor from the command of Jesus to go forth from the
tomb. Therefore, after giving thanks to the Father, he used a loud voice,
imparting strength to Lazarus, who needed it greatly as he had not yet become
keen-hearted to the cry that called him out of the tomb. And it should indeed be
considered a worthy work of Jesus, not only to pray for the dead to live but
also to shout to him and call the one imprisoned inside the cave and tomb to
come out of it. Moreover, one should know that there are even now some
Lazaruses, who after the friendship of Jesus became sick and died, and remained
in the tomb and the place of the dead among the dead, and thereafter were made
alive by the prayer of Jesus and were called out of the tomb by the great voice
of Jesus. The one who obeys him comes out, still bound with the worthy bonds of
deadness from earlier sins and having his face wrapped, being neither able to
see, nor to walk, nor to do anything due to the bonds of deadness, until Jesus
commands those who can unbind him and let him go. And let everyone who is able
to speak attempt to say, "Or do you seek a proof of the Christ who speaks in
me?" to become such as to whom Christ may say in a loud voice, having cried out
to the one weakened after dying and needing Jesus' cry, "Lazarus, come out." And
consider the one after receiving the knowledge of truth and being enlightened,
having tasted the heavenly gift and having become a partaker of the Holy Spirit
and having tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age, who has
apostatized from Christ and returned to a worldly life, as being in Hades among
the shadows and the dead and in the place of the dead, or in tombs. When,
therefore, He comes to such a one and enters into the tomb and, standing outside
of it, Jesus prays and is heard, asking that power be given to His voice and His
words, He cries out with a loud voice, calling forth to the outside of the life
of the Gentiles and their tomb and their cave, to the one thus beloved being
called. It is then to see how the one who follows Jesus comes forth due to the
voice of Jesus, yet still bound and tied with the cords of his own sins, living
due to repentance and having heard the voice of Jesus, but not yet loosed from
the bonds of sin nor able to tread with free feet, nor able to perform freely
what is noble, being bound by the cords and bands of the deceased. And such a
one, due to the deadness that has come upon him along with the bonds upon his
hands and feet, and the face being covered and bound by ignorance.

Then, when Jesus wishes that not only he live but also that he remain not in the
tomb, he comes to the outside of the tomb, bound, as said before, from life. And
at his having come forth from the tomb and yet unable to move as long as he is
bound, Jesus says to those able to serve him, "Loose him and let him go." I
think that unless he concurs with the discourse about returning after having
sinned, still weakened in living by it, holding back the souls' powers of
locomotion, action, and contemplation, such a one has come out of the tomb but
is still bound by the cords and bands of the deceased, and his face is bound
with a napkin. But when Jesus, having spoken to those able to loose him, by the
command of Christ as Lord, says, "Loose him and let him go," and when his feet
and hands are loosed, and the cover laid on his face is removed, he proceeds in
such a walk as to arrive at being at one and the same to recline with Jesus.
After this, because of "The dead man came out bound hand and foot with grave
clothes," it must be said that there is a difference even among those bound hand
and foot; it is not the same incurrence of binding from that of being dead, so
that the bonds bear the name of deadness (for these bands are bonds of the
dead), since the binding happens by the judgment of the Lord, the one having
entered to see the guests and having seen the one not wearing the wedding
garment, and having said about him: "Bind his feet and hands and cast him out
into the outer darkness." There is something in this place that requires
discernment, in the "And his face was wrapped with a cloth" and in the veil that
lay upon the face of Moses when he spoke to the people; for the cloth that was
wrapped around the face of Lazarus covered his dead eyes, but the veil of Moses
was laid upon his face as a dispensation because of those among the people
unable to gaze upon his glory. You will inquire about the one without a wedding
garment, concerning whom it is said, "Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into
outer darkness," whether he remains bound and in outer darkness forever (for it
is not added "for eternity" or "for the ages"), or whether he will be loosed at
some point. For it does not clearly appear from the text concerning him that
anything has been written about his release. It does not seem safe to me, having
not understood anything about him, especially since it is not written about him,
to make a pronouncement. You will inquire about the "Jesus said to them, Loose
him," to whom he said it; for it is neither written that he said it to the
disciples nor to the crowd standing around, nor even to the Jews who were with
Mary and consoling her. But one might surmise, because of "the angels came and
ministered to him" and the typology of the place, that perhaps the words "Loose
him and let him go" could also be said to them. I still consider whether Jesus
fulfilled what was said of "Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep," "But I go to
wake him." I note then whether, in having cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus,
come forth" (for the loud voice and the cry could not be said without reason to
awaken him), he already fulfills "I go to wake him," rather than that fulfilled
in the prayer of the Son having been heard by the Father, having made the soul
of Lazarus return to his body lying in the tomb; for someone might say that the
Father, having heard the prayer of the Son, raised Lazarus from the dead; but he
who cried out with a loud voice and shouted, "Lazarus, come forth," fulfilled
what he had declared, "But I go to wake him." And if one establishes this,
giving a distinction between "Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep" and "Lazarus
is dead," he will say that, in regard to "fallen asleep," he declared, "But I go
to wake him"; but regarding "died," he did not say, "I go to raise him from the
dead." But the one who resolves the seeming difference in these statements,
granting that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was a joint work of the Son
who prayed and the Father who heard, will also use what was said by the Lord to
Martha: "I am the resurrection and the life," and will add also, "For as the
Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom
he will."

[John 11:45] Many therefore of the Jews, who had come to Mary and had seen what
he had done, believed in him. And indeed who would not be moved to believe in
the preaching of Jesus truly, as if from a state of death and stench, those
utterly overwhelmed by wickedness, with the supreme change they cast off by the
command and cooperation of the word not only the great ill smell from sin but
also the bonds holding the moving and working power of the soul, and even apart
from these also the contemplative? For those who saw Jesus having such great
power in such things were astonished, those boasting about being engaged in the
word of God but not yet receiving the fullness of the word, and especially those
who had come as for a dead person and completely despaired, also having
despaired of such a one, to console the sorrowing sister for the fall of her
brother; for whom perhaps more than for the one suffering these things he had
come to the cave of the dead, "He lifted up his eyes and said, 'Father, I thank
you that you have heard me. And I knew that you always hear me.' For it was for
their sake more than for Lazarus that he proclaimed this thanksgiving to the
Father, it is clearly from "But for the sake of the crowd standing around I said
this, that they may believe that you sent me." Therefore he dealt with Lazarus
for the sake of the surrounding crowd, that many of the Jews who had come to
Mary and had seen what he had done might believe in him. But hear the words
about these things, not only in the literal sense.

[John 11:46] "But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus
had done." The statement has some ambiguity, whether those who went to the
Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done were from the many Jews who had seen
what he had done and believed in him, wishing to appease those who were hostile
towards him by announcing the matter concerning Lazarus; or the rest apart from
the many and believing ones, as not moved by what happened to faith in Jesus, as
far as depended on themselves and arouse the wicked zeal against him in the
Pharisees by announcing the matter concerning Lazarus. And it seems to me that
this is rather what the evangelist intends to mean. Therefore, the high priests
and the Pharisees gathered, and the following events took place. Many,
therefore, believed because they saw what happened concerning Lazarus. He spoke
of many who believed because they saw, as opposed to saying there were few who
did not. He mentioned, "But some of them went" and the following. Consider also
what is about to be said if it can move us to agreement, for it is written:
"Many of the Jews who had come to Mary and seen what He did, believed in Him."
It is written: "Many of the Jews who had come to Mary and seen what He did,
believed in Him." I am particularly moved by the conjecture whether all who saw,
that is, understood what Jesus did, believed in Him. But those who went to the
Pharisees and told them what Jesus did, since it is not attested that they saw,
may not have the commendation meant for those who believed and saw. It could be
that, if even they saw, it would have been written that some of them went to the
Pharisees and told them what Jesus did or saw and what He did. Now, it is not
said of them that they saw, but it is said of those who believed, who had come
to Mary and seen what Jesus did. For those, it seems to me, He also said, "But
because of the crowd standing around, I said it, that they may believe that you
sent me." Also, consider whether those who came to Mary and saw what Jesus did
and believed in Him alone, being many, were those around Jesus, for whom He
said, "Father, I thank you that you heard me. I knew that you always hear me."
For if He said this because of the crowd standing around so that they may
believe that the Father sent Him, and saying this, He said it that the crowd
standing around might believe. But if anyone from them did not believe, He would
not have spoken to the Father in this manner, like someone ignorant of future
events, "But because of the crowd standing around, that they may believe that
you sent me." Perhaps those who came to Mary and saw what He did and believed in
Him alone were the crowd around Jesus. The rest neither saw what He did nor
stood around Him.

[John 11:47-48] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and
said, "What are we doing? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on
like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away
both our place and our nation."

Regarding what has been said, the Pharisees and chief priests saw that because
of the magnitude of the wondrous powers that Jesus had performed, it was
possible that all the Jewish people could be drawn to faith in him and, being
thus drawn, might despise the physical Levitical and priestly worship in their
place, so that this situation might become a pretext for the Romans to come and
take away the so-called holy place and the entire Jewish nation, as the Jews
themselves, no longer having the place, would not wish to retain their identity.
Thus, since they preferred above all else the worship, the place, and the
constitution of the nation, which they considered more important than these
things, they plotted against Jesus, so that they might not let him live. And as
I think, also for the purpose of destroying his glory, they said "This man"; for
they disbelieved the things said previously about him being God, as when they
wanted to stone him for blasphemy, saying to him, "You, being a man, make
yourself God," when according to his philanthropy, he answered, teaching that
everyone to whom the word of God came is called a god by God, as the prophetic
scripture declaring this cannot be broken or destroyed. It is possible to
understand from the words spoken by the Pharisees and the chief priests both
their acknowledged wickedness and their blindness; acknowledged, because they
testified that he had performed many signs and yet plotted against him who had
done such signs, showing that they could achieve nothing for themselves in
plotting against him; and blindness no less, for it was more fitting to release
him who was doing many signs rather than to plot against him, unless they
believed that he did the signs, but thought they did not come from divine power,
and thus did not think he could do everything, nor that he could save himself
from their plot against him. They indeed were observing not to let him go,
thinking by this to obstruct the believers in him and the Romans, who are about
to take away their place and their nation. But since “the Lord disperses the
counsels of nations and nullifies the thoughts of peoples,” they did not cease
and did not let him go, and God raised him and let him go, and all the nations
served him, and coming the Romans took away their place. For where, they say, is
their sanctuary? And they took away the nation, expelling them from the place
and scarcely permitting them to be where they wished, even in the dispersion.
And if indeed it is necessary to venture even into the interpretation of these
words, we will say that the nations took the place of those of the circumcision;
“for by their trespass salvation has come to the nations, to arouse them to
jealousy”; and to the nations, the Romans were delivered, the ruled being called
rulers. And the nation, too, was taken by those from the nations; for the people
became no people, and those from Israel are no longer Israel, and the seed did
not reach to make them children; and the cause of these things is the many signs
of Jesus, and that the Father let him go, being greater than the conspiracy of
the chief priests and Pharisees sitting against him. Chief priests and all
carnal worship among the Jews and Pharisees and all teaching according to the
letter of the law conspire against Jesus, the truth, and wish that the type, in
order to subsist, obstruct the revelation of the truth, and as the flesh desires
against the Spirit. But the Spirit desiring against the flesh, being stronger,
and the true high priesthood of our Savior and his spiritual teaching dissolve
the council of the chief priests and Pharisees conspiring against him. This must
also be understood to be happening even now, which is to be seen in those of the
constitution of carnal Judaism who wish to overthrow the spiritual teaching of
Christ.

[John 11:49-52] One of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said
to them: "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for
us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should
perish." Now this he did not say on his own authority, but being high priest
that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the
nation only, but also that he might gather together in one the children of God
scattered abroad.

It is not the case that if someone prophesies, that person is necessarily a
prophet. Thus, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, prophesied that Jesus
would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also that he might
gather together the children of God who were scattered abroad, although he was
not a prophet. If Balaam also prophesied what is recorded in Numbers, saying:
“The word that God puts in my mouth, that I will speak,” and said from “Balak
the king of Moab brought me from Aram,” and what follows, it is clear that he
was not a prophet; for he is recorded as being a diviner. Thus, if anyone is a
prophet, he certainly prophesies; but if anyone prophesies, he is not
necessarily a prophet. Just as in the case of another superior, one might say:
if someone is righteous, he pursues justice; but if someone pursues justice,
that person is not necessarily righteous, as you will understand from the phrase
"Pursue justice righteously," since "righteously" is prefixed to "pursue
justice" not in vain. For it is possible, I think, to pursue justice, but not
righteously; for those who do what is appropriate, for example, distribute to
the poor to be praised by people, have done something just, but not from the
habit of justice, but out of vanity. And I think it may be analogous to say
"Pursue temperance temperately," and "Pursue courage courageously," and "Pursue
wisdom wisely," and similarly with the other virtues. These things were said in
order to draw a parallel similar to prophesying something but not being a
prophet. For this reason, I think it is consistently said in the prophecies
regarding the prophets, “Jeremiah the prophet said,” and similar expressions.
Those skillful in names say that if someone performs a medical task or something
conducive to health, that person is not necessarily a physician, nor if someone
builds something, that person is necessarily a builder. From what is recorded
about Caiaphas, who prophesied about the Savior, it can be made clear that even
a wicked soul sometimes receives the gift of prophecy. For the wickedness of
Caiaphas, who was the high priest of that year when our Savior accomplished His
dispensation in suffering for mankind, is accused by the evangelists. For
Matthew says: "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief
priests and said, 'What are you willing to give me, and I will deliver Him to
you?' And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver." And a little later:
"Behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with
swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people." In these
texts, therefore, we understand Caiaphas to be among the chief priests, since he
is attested to be the high priest of that year. Clearly after this, Matthew
says: "And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high
priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled." And a little further,
he adds: "The chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against
Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, though many false witnesses came
forward. Finally, two came forward and said, 'This fellow said, I am able to
destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.' And the high priest
arose and said to Him, 'Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify
against you?' But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, 'I put you
under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.'
Jesus said to him, 'It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you
will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on
the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, 'He has
spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have
heard His blasphemy! What do you think?' They answered and said, 'He is
deserving of death.'" Then again, a little later: "And while He was being
accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing." And again,
shortly thereafter: "The chief priests and elders persuaded the crowds that they
should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus." Then after the resurrection of the
Savior, with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary going, "Behold, some of the guard
came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had
happened. When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they
gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, 'Tell them, His disciples
came at night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the
governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure.'" Luke wrote that
"Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve,
and he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers, how he might
betray him to them." Then a little later: "Jesus said to those who had come
against him, the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, 'Have you
come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?'" And a little later: "They
seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house." And
again a little later: "The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently
accusing him." And once more a little later: "When it was day, the council of
the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led
him into their council." Mark, however, says that "Judas Iscariot, one of the
twelve, went to the chief priests to betray him to them. And when they heard it,
they were glad and promised to give him money." And a little later: "While Jesus
was still speaking, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, came, and with him a
great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and
the elders." And a little later: "They led Jesus to Caiaphas the high priest,
and all the chief priests and the scribes and the elders were assembled." And
again a little later: "The high priest arose and questioned Jesus, saying, 'Do
you answer nothing? What is it that these testify against you?' But Jesus kept
silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the
Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' Jesus said, 'I am, and you will see the Son of
Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'
The high priest tore his garments immediately." Then a little later: "Early in
the morning, the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole council
consulted together, bound Jesus, led him away, and delivered him to Pilate." And
later: "The chief priests accused him of many things, but he answered nothing."
John says that "They led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium." We have set
these things forth in detail to show, by many testimonies of all the
evangelists, the malignity of Caiaphas, and that even as he strove against
Jesus, he nonetheless prophesied; that he prophesied, John has clearly taught
us. You may question whether, if anyone prophesies, it is by the Holy Spirit
that he prophesies, even if what is said seems to the hearer to be of no
significance. How, indeed, is it not worth questioning, seeing that David, after
his sin with Uriah, feared to have the Holy Spirit taken from him, saying: "Do
not take your Holy Spirit from me"? And some accept that even "the Holy Spirit
of discipline will flee deceit and will withdraw from thoughts that are without
understanding." It will seem to be clear enough that it flees from a soul that
has been deceived, even if it happened to be there before deceit and sin, the
Holy Spirit. Thus, it is worthy of investigation regarding the Holy Spirit,
whether it can be in a sinful soul, so that someone might say that if indeed "No
one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit"; and many of the sinners
regard Jesus as Lord, and among them, the Holy Spirit might be. Perhaps, since
those who sin after having received it would not attain forgiveness, it is said
concerning those who sin before receiving the Holy Spirit, “Every sin and
blasphemy will be forgiven the sons of men”; but concerning those who stumble
after receiving the Holy Spirit, it is said, "Whoever blasphemes against the
Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come.”
For he sins against the present Holy Spirit by works and words of sin, even
while it is present in the soul. Thus, someone might say the words written in
this manner in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "For it is impossible for those who
were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become
partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the
powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance,
since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put Him to an open
shame." Notice in these the phrase, "have become partakers of the Holy Spirit."
On the other hand, it was said that, although Caiaphas prophesied, he did not
have the Holy Spirit in him, told by the phrase, "For the Spirit had not yet
come because Jesus was not yet glorified." And since there was no spirit even in
the apostles before Jesus was glorified, how much more was it not in Caiaphas?
But after rising, the Savior "breathed on the disciples and said to them,
'Receive the Holy Spirit'" and so forth. Someone boldly might say that Caiaphas
did not prophesy by the Holy Spirit; yet, it might be stated that even evil
spirits can bear witness to Jesus and prophesy about Him or bear witness to Him,
such as when they said, "We know who you are, the Holy One of God," and those
calling upon Him not to command them to go into the abyss and saying, "Have you
come to destroy us?" Also, in the Acts of the Apostles, it is written: "It
happened as we were praying, a certain slave girl having a spirit of Python met
us, who brought much profit to her masters by fortune-telling. This one followed
Paul and us and cried out, saying, 'These men are the servants of the Most High
God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.'" So, someone interpreting these
texts may say that the word of the spirit of Python does not lack prophecy,
bearing witness to the apostles and inciting those who hear to believe in the
proclaimed way of salvation. Since we have also introduced the case of Balaam,
observe whether it can also be said about him that he did not speak from God,
but from an angel: "For," it says, "the angel of God stood in the way to oppose
him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. And
when the donkey saw the angel of God standing in the way, with his sword drawn
in his hand, the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. And
Balaam struck the donkey to turn her onto the path; and the angel of God stood
in the narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on
that side." A little further on it says: "When the donkey saw the angel of God,
she lay down under Balaam." And again, shortly after: "The angel of God said to
him, 'Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I came to
oppose you, because your way is perverse before me. And the donkey saw me and
turned aside from me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me,
surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.' And Balaam said to
the angel, 'I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the way against
me. Now, therefore, if it displeases you, I will turn back.' And the angel of
God said to Balaam, 'Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you,
that you shall speak.'" Notice that it is the angel who says, "Only the word
that I speak to you, that you shall speak." But you might say that a little
later God appeared to Balaam and said to him, "I have prepared seven altars, and
I have offered a bull and a ram on each altar." And God put a word in Balaam's
mouth and said, "Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak." Consider how both
are true: the one spoken by the angel, "Only the word that I speak to you, that
you shall speak," and the one recorded in the scripture, "God put a word in
Balaam's mouth and said." As for the phrase, "And the spirit of God came upon
him," we have marked it with an obelus, not finding this or anything similar in
the remaining versions. Again, a little further on: "God met Balaam, put a word
in his mouth, and said, 'Return to Balak and thus you shall speak.'" On all
these matters, the bold one will say that it is also said about Saul, "An evil
spirit from God oppressed him." But also, a lying spirit went out and became a
lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets of Ahab, as the Lord said, "Who
will deceive Ahab?" And a lying spirit came out and said, "I will deceive him."
These matters, therefore, should be examined in their places, as anyone is able
to consider on their own how Caiaphas prophesied about these things following
what has been set out. Perhaps these also should be referred to his prophecy,
that since he was not holy, even if he prophesied, . Just as it is worthy of
investigation how Caiaphas prophesied, so also in the first book of Kings you
should examine how the messengers of Saul, sent to David, prophesied, and after
them Saul himself. For it is written: "And it was reported to Saul, saying:
Behold, David is in Naioth in Ramah. And Saul sent messengers to take David, and
they saw the congregation of prophets, and Samuel standing as head over them.
And the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul’s messengers, and they also
prophesied. And it was reported to Saul, and he sent other messengers, and they
also prophesied. And Saul was filled with wrath, and he himself went to Ramah,
and came to the great well that is in Secu. And he asked and said, 'Where are
Samuel and David?' And one said, 'Behold, they are in Naioth in Ramah.' And he
went thither to Naioth in Ramah, and the Spirit of God came upon him also, and
he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he stripped off
his clothes, and also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day
and all that night. Therefore they say: Is Saul also among the prophets?". It is
necessary, I think, to include these passages to show how sinners prophesy, and
whether it is from the Holy Spirit or from another power, as far as the witness
to the truth is concerned, not lying. Again, in the first book of Kings, the
idol diviners are found indicating concerning the ark, and that if cows that had
never borne calves should take the road to Beth-shemesh, it would be a sign that
the plague upon the Philistines was from God. Nor should we leave unmentioned
what is said concerning the witch and Samuel in these passages, from which Saul
learned that he and his sons would be slain the following day. Those who can
distinguish concerning different powers, inferior and superior, and whether
there are any intermediate ones, will see the precise meaning in these
instances. Again, someone wishing to say that Caiaphas prophesied from an
inferior power will say that it is not at all surprising for an evil power to
have said these things, wherefore even the devil is found not completely
ignorant, calling Jesus the Son of God, as is recorded by the Evangelists, when
he speaks with the Lord. He will say that even there was some wickedness in the
power at work to prophesy these things about the Savior; for its purpose was not
to confirm the listeners but to provoke the high priests and Pharisees in the
council against Jesus so they would kill him, which was not according to the
Holy Spirit to accomplish. For see whether it is not to provoke the listeners,
whether it is Caiaphas or the one causing him to prophesy to kill Jesus through
the statement "You neither know anything nor consider that it is expedient for
us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish
not." Is the one saying "It is expedient for us," which was part of his
prophecy, speaking truth or falsehood? For if he speaks the truth, Caiaphas and
those in the council who struggled against Jesus are saved, with Jesus having
died for the people, and they attain the expediency; but if it is absurd to say
that Caiaphas and those in the council against Jesus are saved and attained the
expediency with Jesus having died, it is clear that it was not the Holy Spirit
who accomplished these sayings; for the Holy Spirit does not lie. And the one
wanting to say that even in this Caiaphas was induced to speak the truth, I mean
by saying, "It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people," will
understand more deeply the "It is expedient for us" because of the discourse
about the end and will associate it with "So that by the grace (or without) of
God he should taste death for every one," and will consider the "For every one"
or the "Without God for every one." He will also associate it with "Who is the
Savior of all men, especially of those who believe;" for hearing He is "the Lamb
of God that takes away the sin of the world" in particular, and not of a part of
it. The one saying it is true "It is expedient for us that one man should die"
will assert that all the prophecies concerning the place are true, starting from
"You know nothing at all;" for they did not know anything, the Pharisees and
high priests who did not recognize Jesus, who was truth and wisdom and
righteousness and peace. "For he himself is our peace." Nor did they consider
how it was expedient even for them that this one man, insofar as he was a man,
should die for the people; for the man Jesus died. Therefore he also says, "But
now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth." And since the one
who died was a man, but truth and wisdom and peace and righteousness were not a
man, and concerning Him it is written, "The Word was God," the divine Word and
truth and wisdom did not die; for the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of all creation, is incapable of death. For the people, this man died, the
purest of all living beings, who took away our sins and weaknesses, being able
to take upon himself all the sin of the entire world and to dissolve, consume,
and obliterate it, since he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth,
nor did he know sin. Paul, I believe, spoke of it this way: “He who knew no sin
was made to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in
him.” For he was made to be sin, though he knew no sin, by taking up the sins of
all, and, if I may so bold to say, he became much more than the apostles the
purification and refuse of the world, those apostles saying: “We have become as
the refuse of the world, the scum of all things, up to this point.” Concerning
the often prevailing severe calamities within the human race, such as plagues or
damaging calms or famines, stories abound among the Greeks and barbarians that
these things are resolved, as if the active evil spirit causing them is
nullified, due to someone offering themselves for the common good, and they do
not reject or repudiate the concept. Whether these things are true or not is not
the present time to examine. Nevertheless, the one able to take up on behalf of
the whole world, so that the whole world may be cleansed, by taking upon himself
to die for it, lest it perish, has never been recorded nor could be recorded,
except Jesus alone who took upon himself the burden of all sin in the cross
without God for the sake of all, able to bear it by his great strength. For this
one alone was knowledgeable to bear infirmity, as the prophet Isaiah says: “A
man accustomed to suffering and knowing how to bear infirmity.” And this one
indeed took our sins and was weakened for our transgressions, and the punishment
for our learning and peace fell upon him. So I hear it as: “The correction of
our peace was upon him.” Perhaps because “by his bruises we are healed,” we
should, as those healed from the cross by the coming bruise, say: “But may it
never be that I boast except in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
the world is crucified to me and I to the world.” This Jesus the Father gave for
our sins, and for them “he was led like a sheep to slaughter, and as a lamb
before its shearer is silent.” In his humility, which “he humbled himself
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross,” judgment was lifted. So I
hear it as: “In his humility, his judgment was lifted.” So it follows: In his
humility, his judgment was lifted. He was led to death because of the iniquities
of the people of God. So this man died for the people, and through him, the
whole nation was not destroyed. Consider if you can take the name "people" to
mean those of circumcision and "nation" to mean the rest. For this man died not
only for the people but also so that the whole nation would not perish, as if he
said the reigning nation and all Gentiles would perish. Next to this is the
saying, "He did not say this on his own authority." From which I think we learn
that some things we humans say on our own, with no power working in us to speak,
while other things are as if some power echoes and suggests to us what is to be
spoken, and even if we do not stand back and keep ourselves absolutely away, but
seem to be following what we say. It is possible, while we follow ourselves in
saying something, not to follow the intention of the words spoken; just as now
Caiaphas the high priest did not say from himself and did not understand what he
said as a prophecy. And with Paul also there are some teachers of the law "not
understanding what they are saying or the things about which they make confident
assertions." But the wise is not like this, concerning whom Solomon says in
Proverbs, "A wise person will understand from his own mouth, and on his lips
will carry discernment." Thus I think that sometimes circumstances cause
prophecy, just as now the being a high priest for Caiaphas that year, in which
Jesus was about to die for the people so that the whole nation might not perish;
for although there were other high priests, as is clear from what we have
discussed earlier, none prophesied except the high priest of the year in which
Jesus was about to suffer. Circumstances also made Saul's angels who were sent
to David, and Saul himself, prophesy; for seeking David caused the prophecy, but
of the kind recorded. Similarly, Balaam would not have taken up his oracle and
said, “From Aram Balaam has brought me,” and following words, had he not seen
Israel encamped; and always, seeing another part of the camp he was moved to
speak about Israel. Jesus was therefore about to die for the nation, which was
different from the scattered children of God, as is evident from the “Jesus was
about to die, not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children
of God who are scattered abroad.” But who the scattered children of God are now
is timely to seek. Concerning these things, those who introduce the natures will
claim that their spiritual ones are the children of God, spiritually not judging
all things; for this follows what the nature believers say, and it is contrary
to the will of the apostle to understand the spiritual ones, teaching that "The
spiritual man judges all things, and he is judged by no one." From this it
follows that the one who does not judge all things is not spiritual or not yet
spiritual. Moreover, if someone is judged by anyone, since the spiritual person
is judged by no one, he is not spiritual or not yet spiritual. Therefore, isn't
it better to say that someone becomes spiritual, not previously being so, who
already and truly is a son of God? What then are the so-called children of God
now, if they are not those the nature introducers call spiritual, should be
considered; and see if you can understand the children of God scattered as
different from the nation, those already righteous in God at the time these were
spoken, whether the patriarchs who have passed away or prophets or any other
chosen ones of God, or also those who were already strong at that time; for, as
it is said of those being strong and not sick, "Those who are well have no need
of a physician, but those who are sick," and as there are righteous ones, he
says, "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Jesus
was about to die for the nation so that it would not perish, but for the
children of God who are scattered, so that they might be gathered into one and
in him become one flock, one shepherd; which, I think, fulfills the prayer of
the Savior, saying, "As I and you are one, that they also may be one in us." But
if there is something deeper concerning Israel, not of nature but of race, about
which it is written, "Israel is my firstborn son," being in dispersion, you will
understand that these are the children of God who are scattered, for whom Jesus
was about to die, so that he might gather them into one.

[John 11:53] From that day forward, they planned to put him to death. The chief
priests and Pharisees, gathering a council, deliberated about our Savior what
should be done to him. Caiaphas, the high priest, having previously spoken,
they, provoked by his words, planned to kill the Lord. Therefore, you inquire
from which spirit he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation, and
whether the Holy Spirit acted even in such a man and was the cause of the
counsel against Jesus, or whether it was something else that could speak even in
the godless and stir up those like him against Jesus. Just as we had previously
examined, anyone wishing to apologize regarding the Holy Spirit seeming to be
the cause for them to counsel to kill Jesus due to the words of Caiaphas, the
chief priests and Pharisees say that such a work is not alien to holiness, since
Jesus made no unworthy action of Himself for the fall and rise of many in
Israel, saying: "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not
see may see, and those who see may become blind." For just as we need a wise
word to answer how He who confessed to have come for judgment into this world
did not make an unworthy action of Himself, likewise regarding the fact that
from the words of Caiaphas the Holy Spirit counseled the chief priests and
Pharisees to kill Jesus. Concerning "For judgment I have come into this world,"
we have said much as we could in the appropriate context. But concerning the
present matter, it may be said similarly that just as the sacred mind of the
scriptures, said for the benefit of those seeking to benefit from it, is
misinterpreted by those inclined to the worse, so as to provide material for the
construction of impious teaching by those preaching injustice to the heights,
they misrepresent it. Likewise, the prophecy made by Caiaphas concerning our
Savior, being true for our benefit that one man should die for the people, lest
the whole nation perish, was not rightly understood by the Pharisees and chief
priests. Rather, thinking it to be a different intention of Caiaphas’s counsel,
from that day forward they planned to kill Jesus. I say these things following
the understanding that the spirit which prophesied through Caiaphas was holy,
but not absolutely asserting this to be the case. Rather, I leave it to those
engaging with it to judge either way regarding Caiaphas and as moved by the
spirit.

[John 11:54] So Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from
there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and there he
stayed with the disciples.

These and similar things, I think, are recorded with the intention that we turn
away from more impetuously and irrationally striving unto death in defense of
the truth and witnessing for it. For it is indeed good, having fallen into the
contest concerning confessing Jesus, not to recant the confession, nor to delay
regarding dying for the truth. But it is no less good to avoid giving occasion
to such a great trial, and to evade it by every means, not only because the
outcome of it for us is uncertain, but also so that we may not become a pretext
for those becoming more sinful and impious, who would not have been guilty of
shedding our blood if we had not done what was in our power to avoid those
plotting against us unto death, but who will be in greater and graver punishment
than us if, out of love for self and without considering those, we give
ourselves to being killed when necessity has not forced us into this. For if
even the one who becomes an occasion of sin by having incited the sinner to it
will pay the penalty for the offenses committed by someone because of him, how
shall not also the one who had the opportunity to turn aside, so that someone
should not become a betrayer of Christians and a plotter against the piety
towards Jesus, but did not turn aside and thereby provoked him, give account
also for that one's sin, even if, as far as the zeal for witnessing and the
courage for it is concerned, he is worthy of honor and acceptance by the God who
is worshipped and confessed as savior? But that such things were written for our
sake, so that we, having Jesus as an example, may become imitators of him also
in such matters, will be demonstrated by the saying scripture: "So they were
seeking to arrest him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not
yet come." For just as, according to this saying, for this reason no one laid a
hand on him, being present and not fleeing, since his hour had not yet come,
neither would we have been detained without taking our leave, in the time when
his hour had not yet arrived. Therefore, we must listen not only to the command
"If they persecute you in this city, flee to another," and what follows, but
also to the fact that when the chief priests and the Pharisees took counsel to
kill Jesus, He, observing what was reasonable, no longer walked openly among the
Jews, but did not retire to another city full of people. Instead, He withdrew to
a secluded place. For it is written: "Jesus therefore no longer walked openly
among the Jews, but went away from there to the countryside near the desert, to
a town called Ephraim." And He did not go there alone, but without giving any
opportunity to those seeking Him, He took the disciples with Himself and "there
He stayed with the disciples." This is also the case with what is written in the
Gospel of Matthew, when "Hearing that John was delivered up, He withdrew into
Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the
borders of Zebulon and Naphtali." And when the time came for Him to be seized,
He took care not to be found either in Jerusalem or in the temple, where He
often taught, or in another such place. "For He went out with His disciples over
the brook Kidron, where there was a garden, into which He entered, along with
His disciples." Thus, He withdrew at that time and did not make it public, so
much so that the chief priests and the Pharisees, wanting to seize Him, needed
Judas because of his familiarity with Him and his knowledge of His places of
retreat. Therefore, at that time, "Judas, having received a cohort and from the
chief priests and the Pharisees servants, comes there with lanterns and torches
and weapons." From this point of the gospel, it is clear that if He had wanted
not to be seized, He would not have been. But He was seized, humbling Himself
and being obedient to those who took Him, even unto the cross. Therefore, when
He went out and said to those who came to the garden, "Whom do you seek?" they
answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." And when He said to them, "I am He," they
withdrew and fell to the ground. Then, after this, because He wished to take on
the economy of suffering, He asked them again, "Whom do you seek?" And they
said, "Jesus the Nazarene." And shortly after, "The cohort and the commander and
the servants of the Jews seized Jesus" willingly and "bound Him," offering
Himself to the bonds. For if He had not wished to suffer, He would have said
again, "I am He," and all these would have withdrawn and fallen to the ground.
Just as He teaches us by these examples to withdraw in persecutions and plots
against us, so in other cases you will find Him withdrawing even from what are
considered good things in the world, to teach us through these to flee worldly
honors and preeminence. For once Jesus, "knowing that they meant to come and
seize Him to make Him king, withdrew to the mountain," but not with the
disciples, but alone, giving no occasion even to them, loving Him and perhaps
wishing to side with those who wanted to make Him king so that He might become
their worldly king. These things pertain to the stated and the teaching on
departure from the letter of the Gospel. Concerning the allegorical
interpretation, it might be said as follows: Jesus once walked openly among the
Jews when the word of God through the prophets was with them; for Jesus’ bold
proclamation was “Thus says the Lord.” But now, Jesus no longer walks openly
among the Jews, and He has departed from them, and there is no word of God among
the Jews. And having departed from them (I mean from the Jews), He went to the
region near the desert, about which it is said: “Many are the children of the
desolate more than of her who has a husband,” and to which it is said: “Rejoice,
O barren one who does not give birth; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not
in labor.” Now, the city near the desert is Ephraim, to which Jesus went, no
longer walking openly among the Jews. Ephraim is interpreted as "fruitfulness,"
being the brother of Manasseh, who is the elder of the "people of
forgetfulness." After the people left "in oblivion," the fruitfulness of the
nations arose, when God "turned rivers in Israel into desert and the
watercourses there into thirst and their fruitful land into brine, due to the
wickedness of those who dwelled there." But from among the nations, "He turned
the desert into lakes of water, and their dry land into watercourses." And He
settled there the hungry, and they established a city for habitation, the
church. There He sowed fields according to the fallen seed into good and rich
land yielding a hundredfold, and planted vineyards. For the vines are the
disciples of the Lord, who also bore fruit of birth. And He blessed them and
they multiplied greatly. But the Lord, who saves both humans and animals, did
not deem the smallest among them to be insignificant; for it is written: "And He
did not diminish their cattle." And the Jews "diminished and were afflicted by
troubles, evil, and pain; and contempt spread over them because of the leaders
on account of Abraham, and He led them astray in a pathless place, not on a
way." After them, God helped the poor people from the nations out of poverty and
"set them as a flock." The righteous angels will see them and rejoice, and all
iniquity will stop its mouth. To those mystically prophesied in the hundred and
sixth Psalm it applies: "Who is wise and will observe these things, and they
will understand the mercies of the Lord?" For since the Lord shows mercy to the
nations, the wise observe these things, understanding the mercies of the Lord.
Therefore, Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there to
the land of the whole world, "near the desert church," to a city called Ephraim,
the fruitful, and there He stayed with His disciples. And until now, Jesus is
with His disciples near the desert, in the city called Ephraim; for He is
present with fruitfulness. And on the birth of this Ephraim, our Lord, who
humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross, would
say: "God made me fruitful in the land of my affliction."

[John 11:55-56] Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up from the
country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. So they were
looking for Jesus and were saying to one another as they stood in the temple:
"What do you think? Will he not come to the festival?"

It is not the same to consider the Passover of the Lord and the Passover of the
Jews as the same; for one is according to the law, the Passover of the Lord, but
the other is the Passover of the Jews, who are lawless. Therefore, it must be
observed when the Passover of the Lord and other days are mentioned, and when it
is not of the Lord but of those accused of sins. For example, in Exodus, it is
written after other things in the first account of the Passover: "And you shall
eat it in haste; it is the Passover of the Lord," and in the second account: "If
your sons say to you: What is this service to you? You shall say: It is the
Passover sacrifice of the Lord, who protected the houses of the sons of Israel
in Egypt." But in Isaiah, the Lord says that the new moons, Sabbaths, fasting,
and holidays are not his, but of those who sin. And if the holidays, it is clear
that also the Passover, for it is one of the holidays. It is written thus: "Your
new moons and your Sabbaths and the great day I cannot endure; fasting and
feasting, and your new moons and your feasts my soul hates." And in one of the
twelve [prophets], it is written: "I hate, I despise your festivals." Therefore,
according to the presented word, the Passover was not "of the Lord" but "of the
Jews"; for our Savior was plotted against during it. And for this reason, I
think the Passover is said about them prophetically, "I hate, I despise your
festivals"; for they did not celebrate the feast of God but committed an
abomination in it by killing Jesus. However, before this Passover of the Jews,
many went up from the country to Jerusalem to purify themselves. But I would say
beforehand that many did not understand how to purify themselves; therefore,
thinking they were offering their celebration to God, they lacked so much
purification that they became more unclean than they were before purifying
themselves. For those who were delivering Jesus to Pilate said, "It is not
lawful for us to kill anyone." To whom he said to the Savior, "Am I a Jew? Your
own nation and the chief priests have delivered you to me." And they who claimed
to go up in order to purify themselves cried out, saying to Pilate, "Do not
release this man, but Barabbas." Barabbas was a robber. And again, "The Jews
answered, 'We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he
made himself the Son of God.'" And again, "The Jews cried out, saying to Pilate,
'If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; everyone who makes
himself a king opposes Caesar.'" And again, "The Jews cried out, 'Take him away,
take him away, crucify him.'" And those who went up before the Passover to
purify themselves said within the Passover, "We have no king but Caesar." But as
the Savior said, prophesying to the disciples, "The hour is coming when everyone
who kills you will think he is offering service to God," this has been fulfilled
starting from him. For those who deemed him worthy of death thought they were
offering service to God, and they had gone up to Jerusalem before the Passover
to purify themselves. But the true purification was not before the Passover, but
in the Passover, when Jesus died for those being purified as the Lamb of God,
and took away the sin of the world. And these Jews sought Jesus, not to benefit
from him, but to kill him, to whom he might say, "Now you seek to kill me, a man
who has told you the truth which I heard from God." And standing in the temple,
they said to one another concerning Jesus, "What do you think? That he will not
come to the feast?" But Jesus was not celebrating where they were standing, but
in the large upper room, having been prepared and decorated, where he earnestly
desired to eat the Passover with the disciples before suffering. You might say
that even now they are standing in the temple seeking Jesus, relying on the
Scriptures as priests, but seeking him because they do not know the one who has
come. They dishonor this one, yet confess another Christ. But consider if you
can also call other Jews who are going up to Jerusalem and coming to the city of
God from the region outside Jerusalem, and coming to purify themselves, so that
they might, when Christ the Passover is sacrificed, celebrate not with "old
leaven," not with the "leaven of malice and wickedness," but with the unleavened
bread of "sincerity and truth." And such ones will seek Jesus standing in the
temple of the Scriptures and will wonder among themselves if Jesus will come to
the feast.

[John 11:57] The chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone
knew where he was, they should inform them, so that they might seize him.

See how it has been testified that he had withdrawn, so that we also might learn
to do the same in due time. And take note that neither the chief priests nor the
Pharisees knew where he was, and not knowing, they gave orders that if anyone
should know where he was, they should inform them so they might arrest him. And
otherwise you would say that those plotting against Jesus did not know where he
was. Therefore, they gave orders other than those of God, "teaching as doctrines
the commandments of men." And their orders, which the Pharisees and chief
priests gave, who belonged to the physical Jews, were against Jesus; for they
wished that some might inform them about Jesus, so that having taken him into
their power, they might betray him. And you might say that everyone who is
meddling with matters concerning Christianity for the purpose of overturning it
and accusing it is a kind of Pharisee and not a good chief priest, giving other
commands by which he thinks he might instruct himself about matters concerning
Jesus, so that having informed him, he might catch and, after insulting, kill
him. But indeed, since it has obtained an adequate description from both the
eighth and the twenty-seventh volumes of the exegesis on the Gospel according to
John, we will end our discourse here, beginning the next, God willing, in the
twenty-ninth.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 32
========================================================================

Volume 32 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by
ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca From God through Jesus Christ, being
guided, we venture upon the great and living path of the gospel. We are
encouraged to know and walk upon it, as if to reach its end. But now indeed we
attempt to embark, as it were, on the thirty-second stage, on the things to be
said. And may the pillar of the shining cloud, Jesus, be with us, leading us
when necessary, and stopping when required, until we thoroughly and with the
dictation of the gospel, O holy brother and man of God, Ambrose, may traverse
the gospel, not fainting because of the length of the journey or wearying
because of our weakness, but forcing ourselves to walk in the footprints of the
pillar of truth. Whether he wills to complete our minds' journey through the
dictations of the entire writing of John's gospel or not, God himself might
know. Only, whether being at home in the body or away from it in order to be at
home with the Lord, let us not go outside the gospel, so that we might partake
of the works and words bearing the blessings in the paradise of God's delight.

[John 13:2-5] And during supper, the devil had already put it into the heart of
Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him. Knowing that the Father had
given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going
back to God, he rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and took a towel and
girded himself. Then he poured water into the basin, and began to wash the
disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. In
the homilies on the Gospel according to Luke, we compared the parables to one
another, and sought to understand what the best means according to the divine
scriptures, and what the dinner signifies according to them. And now, therefore,
let it be said that the best is the first and before the completion of the
spiritual day in this life, the food that is suitable for those who are being
initiated; the dinner, however, is the last and provided according to reason for
those who have already advanced further. And otherwise one might say that the
best is the meaning of the old writings, and the dinner is the hidden mysteries
in the New Testament. These things have been said as a preface, examining how
Jesus, during supper, rose from the supper, and after pouring water into the
basin, he began to wash the disciples' feet. For I think that those who dine
with Jesus and partake of food with him on the day at the end of this life need
some kind of purification, not concerning the primary part of the soul's body,
if I may so call it, but, as one might say, they need to wash away the last and
the lowest parts that necessarily come into contact with the earth. And this
purification can first of all happen by no one but Jesus alone, and secondly
[also by] his disciples, to whom he said: "You also ought to wash one another's
feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to
you." And the evangelist seems to me in these matters to be arousing our mind to
the spiritual understanding of the spatial things, not having retained the
bodily sequence concerning the washing, when before the supper and the reclining
at the meal, those who needed to wash their feet washed. But in passing over
that time, he speaks that Jesus, already reclining at the supper, rose from the
dinner, so that, having dined, the teacher and the Lord would begin to wash the
disciples' feet. For before the supper they had been washed, and having become
wholly clean according to the saying, “Wash yourselves, be clean, remove the
evils from your souls from before my eyes,” and the like; but after that washing
they needed a second water only for the feet, that is, the lower parts of the
body. For it is impossible, I think, that the soul can be fouled in nothing, not
even in its last and lower parts, even if one seems to be perfect as among men.
Therefore many, even after washing, are filled with the dust of sins up to the
head, or a little lower; but those genuinely taught by Jesus, so as even to
reach dining together with Him, have need only of the washing of their feet by
the Logos. Observing differences in sins and considering what to the exact and
strong Logos are sins, but to the many are not even considered sins, you will
see which are those things for which the feet need washing by Jesus. And if such
are the defilements concerning the feet, what shall we do who have never arrived
to supping with Jesus, and who are defiled not only in the feet? Jesus says to
Peter, who did not then understand but would know after the mystery of the
washing of the feet that are cleansed by Jesus, “If I do not wash you, you have
no part with Me.” Which you should ask what it means; whether that you have no
part at all if I do not wash you with good, or not with Me the teacher and Lord
but with lesser than Me, among whom are those who, after washing, have neither
dined with Me nor been washed by Me, or have dined but not been washed. But I
attenuate due to “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man opens the
door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me,” perhaps Jesus
neither dines with someone (for He does not need introduction and first
teachings), nor does anyone dine with Him, but the one eating with Him only
banquets; “For greater than Solomon is here,” about whom it is written, “And the
feast of Solomon was this,” which is cited in the third of the Kings. And this I
would dare to say as consistent with "If I do not wash you, you have no share
with me," that he did not wash the feet of Judas, because the devil had already
put it into his heart to betray the teacher and lord, finding him not clothed
with the whole armor of God and not having the shield of faith, with which one
can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one. For having written "The
devil has already put it in," I hear as also the seventh Psalm of scripture
teaches about this, the archer and having prepared flaming weapons for those who
do not guard their hearts with all vigilance. And the wording of the Psalm is
thus: "If you do not turn back, he will sharpen his sword; he has bent his bow
and made it ready; he prepared his deadly weapons against the burning arrows he
has made. Behold, he labored with iniquity, and conceived mischief, and brought
forth falsehood." Thus everyone will confess that "Behold, he labored with
iniquity, conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood" can be referred to
the devil; but it is absurd not to think that these words are equally said for
him: “If you do not turn back, he will sharpen his sword; he has bent his bow
and made it ready; he prepared his deadly weapons.” For no one else has prepared
deadly weapons in his bow with which he has bent back, except the one whose
jealousy brought death into the world. Now from these arrows, which the devil
prepared for the burning ones, he shot into the heart of Judas, Simon Iscariot,
already at the supper, not, however, so as to please him, since the food of this
supper and the wine therein could not be in a heart that had received a dart
from the devil about to betray his host, as it is not clearly stated who the
host was even though it says, "They made him a supper there, and Martha served,
but Lazarus was one of those reclining with him." But concerning Judas, it is
written, "The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, Simon Iscariot
to betray him.” And similarly, you might say this about each of those pierced in
heart by the devil: the devil has already put it into his heart to commit
fornication, or to rob someone, or to embrace idolatry in his exaltation, or
other remaining sins which the devil casts into a heart that is not shielded by
the shield of faith; with the shield of faith, one can extinguish not one or two
but all the flaming arrows of the evil one. As the arrangement of the passion
was drawing near, on which Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, wounded by the
devil, was about to betray him, while the supper was already taking place, it
says, "Knowing, Jesus, that the Father had given all things into his hands, and
that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from the supper."
Therefore, the things that were not previously in the hands of Jesus are given
by the Father into his hands, and not some but all; which David also seeing in
spirit says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies your footstool." For the enemies of Jesus were part of all those whom he
knew, as far as foreknowledge goes, to be given by the Father to Jesus. To
understand more clearly what it means that "The Father has given all things into
his hands," let us consider, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be
made alive." But even though the Father has given all things into his hands, and
all shall be made alive in Christ, God's justice is not confused and each is
governed according to merit; this is made clear by following "Thus in Christ all
shall be made alive" with "Each in his own order." And again you will understand
the different orders of those made alive in Christ when it is fulfilled that
"The Father has given all things into his hands," with "Christ the firstfruits,
afterward those who are Christ's at his coming, then the end," which end will
come after Christ's coming when "He will deliver the kingdom to God the Father,"
having first abolished all rule and all authority and power. These I believe are
against which the struggle exists, so no longer there will be rule, authority,
or power, and thus there will no longer be a struggle, with all rule and
authority and power abolished. I am moved to think that the abolishing of "all
rule and all authority and power" is against which the struggle is referenced by
Paul saying, "For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet."
Then, "The last enemy to be abolished is death." And this agrees with "the
Father has given all things into his hands," which the apostle more clearly
expounds: "When he says all things are put under him, it is evident that he who
put all things under him is excepted." If all things are put under him, it is
also clear that "All things are put under him except him who put all things
under him"; and the one about whom it is written, "Before the Lord Almighty he
shall prostrate himself," will be among those who are subjected to him, defeated
in yielding to the word and subjected to the image of God, becoming a footstool
for Christ's feet. Thus, seeing the plan progressing toward its good end on
account of the "already having put into the heart by the devil that Judas
Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him," knowing that the Father had given
all things into his hands and had given all things into his functioning hands so
that everything might be subject to him, or the Father had given everything into
his hands, that is, into his actions and noble deeds; for "My Father," he said,
"is working until now, and I am working." Because what came out from God came
out from God, having been outside God and not having wished previously to come
out from the Father, so that what came out might come into the hands through the
way and order of Jesus, and might be managed to follow God, following him, on
account of those to follow him shall be towards God. Peter indeed had once been
told, "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you shall follow
afterward" (for Peter still had what did not permit him to follow the Word at
that time); but you should understand the similar in a just proportion, it being
said to each of those to whom the Father had given all things into the Son’s
hands; to each of all it will be said, "But you shall follow me afterward." But
if they do not follow at the same time, it refers not to the same moment the
fitting "afterward" in "But you shall follow afterward" of each of the
followers. Understand this also concerning all rulers, whether when he shall put
down all rule, all authority, all power, simply "until he put all enemies under
his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Knowing then that Jesus,
"the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God
and was going to God," and knowing † concerning which we have been moved, as we
have related presenting what seemed evident to us in "He had come from God" and
in "He was going to God," "he rises from the supper," he says, which we must
understand next according to what follows. And see if you can say in these
things that it brought him joy in a detached manner to dine with the disciples;
in a specific and necessary manner for the disciples, he rises from the supper,
and desists from dining for a time until he cleanses the disciples' feet, who
could have no part with him unless he washes them. After "He rises from the
supper," what then follows we must understand. "He lays aside his garments, and
taking a towel, girded himself." And in these we might say to those not wishing
to rise from the literal and intellectually perceive the things set before them
as nourishment of the soul: for what harm was there in washing the feet of his
disciples while he was clothed? But perhaps if we rightly consider the garments
of Jesus, which he was wearing while dining and rejoicing with his disciples, we
might understand what sort of adornment the Word made flesh is clothed in. This,
being comprised of a certain fabric of words woven together with words and
sounds woven together with sounds, is laid aside, and being more naked, he
becomes as one with a servant's form, which is signified by "He took a towel and
girded himself," so that he might not be entirely naked and might, after
washing, dry the feet of his disciples with a more familiar fabric. And see how
in these matters the great and glorified Word, made flesh, humbles himself to
wash the feet of his disciples; "For, it says, he pours water into the basin."
Therefore Abraham, when "He looked up and saw, and behold, three men stood
before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of the tent
and bowed down to the ground, and said, Lord, if I have found favor in your
sight, do not pass your servant by," did not himself carry water or promise to
wash their feet as strangers who came to him, but said, "Let a little water be
fetched, and wash your feet." Nor did Joseph bring water to wash the feet of his
eleven brothers, but the man over Joseph's house "brought Simeon out to them,
and brought water to wash their feet." But he who said, "I have come not to be
served but to serve," and rightly said, "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble
in heart," he himself pours water into the basin; for he knew that no one could
wash the feet of the disciples so that they might have a share with him, as he
himself. As for the water, it seems to me to be such a word that, washing the
feet of the disciples, brought them upon the basin set by Jesus for them. Then I
inquire why it is not written that "he washed the feet of the disciples," but it
is said, "And he began to wash the feet of the disciples." Is this perhaps a
common way of expression in the Scriptures, by which it seems not reasonable
beforehand, according to the customs of many, to prefix "he began"? Or is it
that Jesus then "began to wash the feet of the disciples," but did not cease
washing their feet? For later he did wash and complete the washing, since they
were defiled according to "You will all be scandalized in me this night," and
the saying to Peter, "The cock will not crow, till you have denied me three
times." For after these sins happened, the defiled feet of the disciples needed
washing again, those whom he began to wash when he rose from the supper, and he
completed the washing by cleansing them so that they would no longer be defiled.
Thus at that time, he began to wipe the feet of his disciples, and completed
wiping, when he also completed washing.

[John 13:6-11] He comes therefore to Simon Peter; Peter says to him, “Lord, do
you wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not
understand now, but you shall know hereafter.” Peter says to him, “You shall
never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part
with me.” Simon Peter says to him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands
and my head.” Jesus says to him, “He who is washed needs only to wash his feet,
but is clean every whit; and you are clean, but not all.” For he knew who would
betray him; therefore he said, “You are not all clean.”

We will use Peter's present words in time as an example, if ever there is need,
that it is possible for someone, despite a very good intention, to say things
due to ignorance that are not at all beneficial to themselves. For if it was
beneficial towards having a part with Jesus to have one's feet washed by him,
and Peter, not knowing that this was beneficial, first said almost baffled in
supplication the “Lord, do you wash my feet?” then the second “You shall never
wash my feet,” the things being said were hindering the act which brought him to
have the part with the savior. It is clear that even if he spoke this with a
good and reverent intention towards the teacher, he was speaking harmfully to
himself. Life is filled with such kinds of errors from those who, while
believing, propose the better things, but due to ignorance, say or even do
things leading to the opposite result. Such as those who say, “Touch not, taste
not, handle not” concerning all things meant for human consumption and use,
through some doctrine far below the divine teaching of “As a man dies.” What
need is there to speak of those tossed and carried about by the waves in
heresies, blown around by every wind, according to the sleight of men,
proclaiming as salvific things destructive, and as venerating Jesus things false
concerning him? Often the scripture has marked Peter such as this, more fervent
in promising what seemed to him better; just as in the unexamined and
contradictory words concerning Jesus' prophecy about the disciples: “All of you
will be offended because of me this night,” and presenting the cause in “For it
is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be
scattered.” For without examination and contradicting Jesus' prediction, he
said, “Though all shall be offended because of you, I will never be offended.”
And this, being still rash in his soul at that time, I think became the cause of
him sinning beyond the measure of the scandalizing of the others, as he denied
Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. Therefore, knowing his former
rashness, he was greatly benefited, so as to become most stable and patient;
which is shown by Paul saying to him in front of everyone, "If you, being a Jew,
live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to live
as Jews?" and the following things. And he, after that path, kept silent and did
not present anything reasonably or most patiently, about which someone would
more familiarly discuss in the letter to the Galatians. And in the Acts of the
Apostles, his established condition, transformed into the same image, will
appear to those who oversee and heed each. And here, then, when Jesus rose from
the supper, and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself,
and poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to
wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded, all indeed offered their feet,
observing concurrently in regard to Jesus that such a great one would not wash
their feet uselessly, as most would say, wishing to burden the disciples, but
accomplishing something useful which they expected to know later, contemplating
whether perhaps these things were done as a symbol. But Peter alone, seeing
beforehand unfavorably and not attributing any other reasoning to that, revering
Jesus, did not offer his feet for washing, but first tried to dissuade him with
"Lord, you wash my feet?" After that, when he had to be persuaded by "What I do
you do not know now, but you will understand later," he said "You will never
wash my feet." Besides, with the other disciples entrusting themselves to Jesus
and not contradicting him at all, he, through what he says, even if it seemed
healthy to prefer, not only blames Jesus, as if starting to wash their feet
without reason, but also his fellow students. For if he thought that he did the
proper thing in wanting to prevent, the others not seeing it, he accused them of
not doing their proper duty by offering their feet to Jesus; and if he thought
logically that it was not right to contradict and he considered it reasonable to
be done in Jesus washing the disciples' feet, he would not have contradicted the
act. It therefore appears to be absurd not to consider the intention concerning
Jesus washing the disciples' feet as reasonable. But if it is necessary to
scrutinize the Scripture even in the minutest details, one might ask why Peter,
who was counted first among the twelve, perhaps as more esteemed than the
others, while Judas, truly the last of all, was cast to the last place by his
wicked disposition. When Jesus began to wash the feet of the disciples and to
wipe them with the towel with which he was girded, he did not begin with Peter.
And it must be said on this point that just as a physician, ministering to many
sick persons according to medical art, begins treatment with the most urgent and
those suffering worse, so he who washes the dirty feet of the disciples begins
with those more soiled, and perhaps came to Peter last, as needing the washing
of the feet the least of all. Perhaps even the close-to-clean state of his feet
contributed to his reaction of seeming to object. Considering what Jesus said,
"He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely
clean; and you are clean, but not every one of you," perhaps this would suggest
the meaning that the disciples, already having had their feet washed by Jesus,
and thus no longer needing to wash, with even Peter already being clean before
Jesus washed his feet. If someone were to ask, regarding this, "He who has
bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean," why
Jesus would wash their feet when the disciples needed no washing, it must be
said to him, "To everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an
abundance." Since the disciples had the quality of being clean, Jesus adds to
their cleanliness by washing their feet. He would not wash the feet of those not
bathed or not completely clean, but so as to speak of those pure in such a way;
for even if one is perfect among the sons of men, without the cleanliness from
Jesus, he will not be considered clean. And I expound on this later, after what
was previously commanded, maintaining also the order of the thoughts
interjected, as first he saw the soiled feet of the disciples needing cleansing
from Jesus, now because he washed their feet since they were, as among men,
clean but not before God; for without Jesus, no one is clean before God, even if
previously thought to have made themselves clean through some care. But to those
who already have been made pure as humans, and have washed in the baptism of
Jesus, and have had their feet washed by Him, the Holy Spirit and the power from
on high can dwell within them. Thus, Peter, not understanding the word of Jesus’
purpose, when he began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the
towel with which He was girded, said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?”
speaking doubtfully and imploringly. But Jesus answered and said to him,
teaching that this was a mystery, "What I am doing you do not understand now,
but you will know after this." What then was Jesus doing by washing the
disciples' feet? Was He making them beautiful by washing their feet and wiping
them with the towel with which He was girded, as they were about to preach the
good news? For when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, then, I think, the
prophetic saying about His apostles was fulfilled: "How beautiful are the feet
of those who announce the good news." If by washing the disciples' feet He makes
them beautiful, what shall we say of the true beauty that comes to those who
have been baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit and fire? Then the feet of those
who announce the good news become beautiful, so that, being washed, cleansed,
and wiped by Christ’s hands, they may be able to tread the holy path and to
follow the one who said, "I am the Way." Only he who has had his feet washed by
Jesus can tread this living path that leads to the Father, for this path does
not permit polluted and still unclean feet. Moses was told to remove the sandals
from his feet because the place where he stood was holy ground; and likewise for
Joshua, the son of Nun. But for the disciples of Jesus, to tread the living and
lively path, it was not enough to be without sandals on the way, as Jesus had
commanded His apostles, but it was also necessary for them to have their feet
washed by Jesus, who had laid aside His garments. Perhaps this was to cleanse
their feet even more thoroughly, or perhaps to take the dirt of their feet into
His own body through the towel with which He was girded. For He Himself bears
our weaknesses. Notice, then, that when He was about to wash the disciples'
feet, He chose no other time than when the devil had already put it into the
heart of Judas, Simon’s son Iscariot, to betray Him, and when the divine plan
for humanity was about to unfold. Before this, it was not the right time for
Jesus to wash the disciples' feet. For who would have washed off the dirt of
their feet accumulated until the time of His passion? And not during the time of
His passion either, for there was no other Jesus to wash their feet. But not
even after the dispensation; for the hour had already come when the Holy Spirit
had visited the disciples, having been made pure and having washed their feet,
and were now ready and beautiful to preach the good news in the spirit. Such is
the "What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will understand after
this." It is a symbol of the washing of your feet by me, to cleanse the bases of
your souls, so that they may become beautiful, as you are about to preach the
good news and tread the souls of men with clean feet. This mystery you do not
understand now, as you are not yet capable of comprehending it, but it will
become clearer to you when I have washed your feet; after this, you shall
understand it as your understanding is illuminated by the knowledge of something
neither insignificant nor brief. As Jesus said these things to Peter, the
disciple answered not with a knowledgeable reply but with a response giving rise
to an unverified imagination aimed at honoring and revering Jesus. Therefore,
since Peter’s response was not advantageous to him, He who appropriately
prevents harmful truths with His own goodness did not allow it to become real.
For Peter says, "You shall never wash my feet," and he declared, since Jesus
decided to wash his feet, that he shall not be washed by Him and not be washed
for all eternity. But Jesus, seeing that it was more beneficial for Peter to be
proven false in this than to be proven true, indicated the benefit of not
letting this utterance be true, saying, "If I do not wash you, you have no part
with me." Therefore, if Peter would have, after declaring "You shall never wash
my feet," and this being true, not have a part with Jesus, but would have a part
by not being truthful, driven to a hasty statement, what else was there for him
to do but not to be truthful? So that being truthful in this would make him not
have a part with Jesus, who showed him to be false in washing his feet. For it
is written, "Every man is a liar," and sometimes we will appropriately use this
saying for those who rashly and incoherently declare that they will do something
not beneficial to them, adhering to a poorly judged statement. For, showing them
that they will not have a share with Jesus if they adhere to their rash promise,
they will be able to keep good hope if the aforementioned is annulled. We will
separate them from persisting in wrongly decided matters, even if at some time
through much rashness this happens with an oath. And we will say that just as
Peter, when he said, "You shall never wash my feet," was prevented from
persisting in the stated confession so that he might have a share with Jesus, so
also you, O someone who has sinned, rashly and indiscriminately promising this,
would do better to change and act more reasonably rather than persist in the
wrongly decided matter. And addressing "What I am doing you do not understand
now, but afterward you will understand," and "If I do not wash you, you have no
share with me," those who are not willing to adapt this and similar things out
of reverence should receive this kind of evangelical examination; or those who
are not willing should show how it is reasonable for someone, as they would say,
out of reverence for Jesus, to hear from the teacher that he will not have a
share with the Son of God as a result of the greatest sin of not wanting to have
his feet washed by Him. For the statement "If you commit this fault, you will
have no share with me" would have fit if spoken of obvious sins; but "If I do
not wash you, you have no share with me" has no reasonable case against one who
did not want Peter to wash his physical feet. But when He was washing the feet,
the teacher answering his honoring disciple most calmly (something it is not
lawful to speak), which is most absurd. Therefore, let us also now give our feet
to Jesus rising from the supper, laying aside his garments, taking a towel and
girding himself, and pouring water into the basin, and beginning to wash our
feet as His disciples, and to dry them with the towel with which He girds
Himself for serving us. For if we do not do this, we will not have a share with
Him, neither will our feet be lovely, especially when desiring the higher gifts
we wish to be among those who preach the good news. But because Peter is rash,
hearing "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me," asking in providing
his feet to Jesus, he wishes exceedingly beyond the measure of his request, and
he provided to be washed by Jesus not only his feet any longer, but now also his
hands, which Jesus did not intend to wash, whenever they eat bread, disregarding
the saying that "Your disciples do not wash their hands when they eat bread,"
and besides his hands, his head, which Jesus no longer wished to cover, upon
which the image and glory of God already was. For it is enough for us, when we
come to the same time as the disciples of Jesus, to provide only the feet to him
who washes and wipes them: "For he who has bathed has no need to wash, but is
completely clean"; if anyone is not completely clean, he has not bathed. One
might ask, if he who has bathed has no need to wash but is clean, and the
disciples of Jesus were clean, as if they had bathed, why did Jesus pour water
into the basin and begin to wash the disciples' feet? To this, we have partly
already said in advance and now will add these things to those. The saying "We
need" applies to the necessary things, without which one cannot live, set forth;
so that, if in bodily matters man needs not many, but only these, about which
Paul says: "But having food and covering, with these we shall be content";
things that contribute to wealth and luxury accrue to the luxurious from
abundance, not as necessary and indispensable, but as surplus; so also in divine
matters, we need those that lead to life and ensure being in the one who says:
"I am the life"; what is beyond these, about which it is said: "Delight yourself
in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart," and what is
understood concerning the paradise of delight and wealth and glory, in the left
hand of wisdom, according to the one who says: "Length of days is in her right
hand, in her left hand are riches and honor," could be said to be beyond need.
And perhaps such is the washing of the feet after bathing by such a great
teacher and savior; for the gift of God surpasses need, just as being in the
glory of the sun or moon or stars in the holy resurrection of the dead.
Therefore, the clean and bathed one has no need to wash; but he is washed,
according to the prior offering, since "To everyone who has, more will be
given"; and as John says: "Let the one who is clean become cleaner still, and
the holy become more holy." The phrase "You are clean" refers to the eleven, to
whom it is said "Not all" because of the Iscariot; for he knew the one betraying
him, already not clean, first because he did not care for the poor, but because
he was a thief and having the money box he used to take what was put in it; and
later, "During the supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of
Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray him," he did not reject what was put.
Therefore, the bathed and clean eleven became still cleaner, having had their
feet washed by Jesus; but Judas, already not clean ("Let the filthy still be
filthy"), became filthier and unclean when, after the morsel, Satan entered into
him.

[John 13:12-15] When therefore he had washed their feet, and taken his garments,
and reclined again, he said to them: Do you understand what I have done to you?
You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your
Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's
feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have
done to you.

It is fitting for those who understand the greatness of Jesus' power and have
comprehended what he did by washing the disciples' feet, that he might cleanse
also their last and accidental defilements, washing away even those worldly
physical impurities, of which their bodies were a symbol, to marvel at the act
of washing and would not dare to themselves do such a great thing, thinking
themselves too inferior to wash the feet of the inner and hidden man, or of
those who embrace the same doctrines of God, unless Jesus by performing this act
encouraged them to do so, taking the form of the one dining, when he was about
to teach them having dined about the things said. Very persuasively and inviting
towards understanding what was done he has spoken the words "Do you understand
what I have done to you?" which should either be read questioningly, to show the
greatness of what was done, or commandingly, to awaken their minds to comprehend
the act and gain knowledge of it. And very instructively together with the
persuasive he said "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash
one another's feet." Jesus then washed the disciples' feet, as their teacher,
and the feet of the servants, as their Lord. For by teaching, the dust and dirt
from earthly matters, reaching only the less significant and lower parts of the
disciples, are wiped away, but also by the authority of the ruler, having power
over those who still have the spirit of servitude and still accept any
pollution, the things polluting the feet are removed. And no one with right mind
would say that Jesus, as the door, or as the shepherd, or as the physician,
washed the feet of the disciples and servants. But I think that the feet of the
disciples, which still haven't received sufficient cleansing, but are still
short of the “It is enough for the disciple that he should be as his teacher”
require the washing from the teacher. And this is the end which pertains to the
teacher’s student, as a teacher, to make the student like himself, so that he no
longer needs the teacher, as a teacher, even if he otherwise needs him. For just
as the end of the doctor, whom those in poor health need, but those who are
healthy do not need a doctor, is to stop the sick from being ill, so that they
no longer need him, thus the end of the teacher is to make the student
sufficient, in the sense of "It is sufficient for the student to become like his
teacher." But regarding the Savior, being a Lord, it is vastly more evident than
with other lords, who do not wish their slave to become like their lord. Such
indeed is the son of the Father’s goodness and his love; for being Lord, he
worked to make the slaves to become like their Lord, when they will no longer
have the spirit of slavery again to fear, but will receive the spirit of
adoption, in which they cry out, “Abba, Father.” Therefore, before they become
like the teacher and the Lord, they need the washing of their feet, as needing
the washing like the students, and still having the spirit of slavery unto fear;
but when any of them, according to the “It is sufficient for the student to
become like his teacher, and the slave like his lord” becomes like their teacher
and their lord, then they may imitate the one who washed the feet of the
disciples, and wash the feet of the disciples like the teacher, who God has
placed in the church after those who have taken the first place in it, apostles
and secondly prophets. But if the “You will serve your brother” can apply to the
lesser, and “Be the lord of your brother” to the greater like Jacob, it is clear
that becoming the slave like the Lord washes the feet of those who serve the
teaching given by him, since the “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you
speak rightly, for so I am” does not claim to hold anything deeper and beyond
what is understood by the many; for not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will hear
from Jesus the “You call me ‘Lord’ and you speak rightly.” Thus, those who say
on that day “Lord, Lord, did we not eat in your name, and drink in your name,
and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works?” will not say rightly
“Lord.” Therefore, Jesus will say to them, “Depart from me, for I never knew
you, workers of iniquity.” Thus, the “Depart from me” will be told rightly to
those. And also, the “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the
kingdom of heaven” shows that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” would be
testified by him as the apostles now are, to whom he said, “You speak rightly,
for so I am.” Indeed, their wickedness was no longer sovereign, but the word,
and simply the Lord, was the whole living and animate virtue. But also, if "No
one can say: Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit," we understand by this
what it means to say: "Jesus is Lord"; the one who says "Jesus is Lord" in the
Holy Spirit says it well. And if the one who says it well necessarily says it in
the Holy Spirit, you seek through the now "And you speak well" jointly examined
with "For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet
glorified." Therefore, it is the work of serving the word genuinely to say well:
"Jesus is Lord," and for the disciple who corresponds to this, to say well to
the Savior, "The teacher"; to whom it would be said "I am," which would not be
said by the word to the one who serves sin and is a disciple of lies. Yet even
the holy one might need the washing of the feet, since the widow appointed to
ecclesiastical honor is examined among other good deeds, and by the "If she has
washed the saints' feet"; for I think it ridiculous that one who has all the
marks of the holy widow and lacks this alone should not be included in
ecclesiastical honor, having often treated servants and handmaids kindly, during
the time she had resources, the strangers or those simply in need who sought
some charitable work from her. And do not marvel if it leads you to the "If she
has washed the feet of the saints," where it is commanded that the older women
be employed as elders and good teachers. But see if it is not laborious for
anyone learning from Christ, wishing to fulfill the commandment that says: "You
also should wash each other's feet," to want to do this as a due work, washing
the physical and perceptible feet of the brothers, so that the believers in any
condition of life do this, whether those seeming to be in ecclesiastical office,
bishops and elders, or in other worldly positions; so that in this way, even the
master comes to wash the feet of the believing servant, and the parents for the
child; a custom which either does not take place or is extremely rare and among
the very simplest and most rustic. But it is necessary to remember also what was
said regarding "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me," as well as "Do
you know what I have done to you?" For indeed, it is fitting that Jesus has
given us an example of washing feet, corresponding to the things said
allegorically by the bride in the Song of Songs with "I have washed my feet, how
shall I defile them?" Attend also to "So that as I have done to you, you should
do also," examining it in connection with "If I do not wash you, you have no
part with me." But if someone says concerning these things that even if
allegorized, it has still happened literally, it must be said, along with the
allegory and the literal word: "If then I, the Lord and Master, have washed your
feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an
example, that you should do as I have done to you." It must be said to such a
person: "Since it has happened literally regarding what was said to Peter, who
said, 'You shall never wash my feet,' 'If I do not wash you, you have no part
with me'; and we will also literally say to those who, out of piety, do not
present their feet to us for washing, 'If I do not wash you, you have no part
with me.'" And if it does not persuade you here, consider what you must say
regarding the investigation of whether it is necessary to observe the word in
every way. For indeed, at some time, it will be appropriate to wash the feet of
a certain disciple of Jesus, and for another to offer them to be washed by him,
and I myself would admit that it is out of love and goodwill that one should do
this and another should present them. But if we shall say that each of those who
are not conscious of having done this, and have thus washed the feet of the
saints, has not fulfilled a certain owed commandment, the one stating "You ought
to wash one another's feet," it is perhaps time to say that nearly everyone is
in debt to this commandment.

[John 13:16-18] Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his
master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these
things, blessed are you if you do them. I do not speak of all of you; I know
whom I have chosen. But the scripture will be fulfilled: 'He who eats my bread
has lifted his heel against me.'

Besides this, it seems to me necessary to interpret the washing of feet in this
manner: for the statement, 'If you know these things, blessed are you if you do
them,' pertains to the washing of feet. To understand how the disciples' feet
are soiled after they have bathed, and in what way they are washed, as the word
intends, and to do as Jesus wishes, is truly the work of the blessed. For it
would not be fitting to use the term “blessed” lightly, or to say that a servant
washing the feet of his master is blessed by this deed alone, and thus a
flatterer or hypocrite; for what we do in washing the feet of the disciples is
something great and truly blessed, as it is having Jesus within oneself. This
must be known, that similar words are placed alongside: in Matthew, 'The
disciple is not above the teacher, nor the servant above his master. It is
enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his
master;' and in Luke, 'A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is
fully trained will be like his teacher.' Next, it is required to consider the
statement 'I do not speak of all of you' to what it refers. Some will say it
refers to 'Blessed are you if you do them;' for Judas was not blessed. But I do
not think this is the correct interpretation. The statement 'Blessed are you if
you do them' is true of Judas and anyone else, no matter how wicked, for if they
act rightly, they are blessed. Just as I might say to a profligate person, even
if he will not listen to what is said or act prudently: 'Blessed are you if you
act prudently;' and to someone who despises wisdom, even if he remains in his
choice: 'Blessed are you if you embrace wisdom and instruction.' Therefore, the
statement 'I do not speak of all of you' perhaps refers to 'A servant is not
greater than his master.' For since "Everyone who commits sin is a slave to
sin," and Judas committed sin, as the devil had cast into his heart to betray
the Savior, Judas was a slave of sin. And being a slave of sin, he was not a
servant of the word of God. Thus, he was no longer an apostle of Jesus; for he
belonged already to the devil, who had cast into his heart to betray the Savior.
Therefore, the Savior, denying him as His servant and apostle, said after "A
servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one
who sent him," "I am not speaking of all of you." After this, let us examine "I
know whom I have chosen," which in simpler terms means, I know who each of those
I have chosen is; so I also know who Judas is and he does not escape me, as the
devil had already cast into his heart things against me. And the meaning is
confirmed by certain usages of the scripture about the "I know" and similar
expressions; such as "I knew". The Savior says somewhere to those who will say,
"We ate and drank in your name, and cast out demons," "I never knew you" and "I
do not know where you come from"; if this is understood simply, we might think
it contrary to the dignity of the Savior. But perhaps, as "The Lord knows those
who are His", those who are not His, He has not known, and about some, He says,
"I never knew you," thus He might also say about Judas, if indeed he was never
known; but if he fell after being among His own, it might be said to him, "I do
not know where you come from". And now, as the devil had already cast into his
heart things against Jesus, Jesus did not know him. Thus, He did not say, "Now I
know all who are present," but "I know whom I have chosen," as if saying "My
elect". Therefore, the "I know whom I have chosen" does not apply to all who are
present and what ensues by one of you betraying me, to fulfill the scripture
that says, "He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me". The
quoted saying is paraphrased from the fortieth Psalm, thus stated: "And even the
man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has magnified against me
his heel". Therefore the Savior says that this statement was made concerning
Judas and Himself. In which you will ask, how was Judas a man of peace and the
Savior had trusted him. It is shown through these things, I think, that he had
genuinely once believed; for He would not have sent him, never having been a son
of peace, along with the other apostles and said to him also: for it is written
that He said to the twelve, “Say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ And if a son of
peace is there, your peace will rest upon Him; but if not, it will return to
you.” And although the devil had put so many things into his heart against the
Savior, even shortly before he is testified to have been a thief. I do not think
that he was trusted with the money box from the beginning being a thief; thus,
being worthy to be trusted if he, although foreknown to fall, was trusted. And
such a man of peace he was, that Jesus had once held good hopes in him, as a
good apostle; for He says, “Upon whom I hoped.” And I think that he partook of
the most secret words along with the apostles, having received them from Jesus,
concerning which He said, “He who eats my bread.” And the phrase “He has lifted
his heel against me” is translated to “He has raised his heel against me,” with
the same meaning. And if it is necessary to explain the phrase “He has raised
his heel against me,” we will say that this is said of one who strikes with the
heel; and Judas was such a one, trampling the Son of God. And he was eating
bread with Jesus, when Jesus took the piece of bread, dipped it, and gave it to
Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And Judas raised his heel against the teacher
when, after the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. And if the phrase “The
iniquity of my heel will surround me” can also be understood with “He has raised
his heel against me” referring to Judas, being in the portion of Jesus, having
been His property and an apostle, and being called a heel because of his final
actions, he himself will examine it together.

[John 13:19] From now I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you
may believe that I am he. This phrase refers to what was previously said, "I am
not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the scripture will be
fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me'; for this will
happen so that the scripture concerning him who lifts his heel against me—who
eats my bread with me—may be fulfilled. From now on I tell you, and I tell you
before it happens, so that when the foretold prophecy in the scripture is
fulfilled, you may believe that I am he about whom these prophecies were
made—about the one who eats bread with him and lifts his heel against him." One
might ask how Jesus could say to his disciples, whose feet he washed, that they
had not yet believed that he himself was the Christ with the words, "From now I
tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am
he," referring to the prophesied Christ. And see if we can, without accusing
such great disciples of Jesus as not yet believing, also hold the intention of
the speaker to save: "So that you may believe when it happens that I am he." The
one who receives visions of wisdom sometimes, upon previous matters through
which he is already wise, perceives further things upon which he was not
previously wise, and becomes wiser. It is also said, "For hearing these things,
the wise will become wiser." Just as if someone were saying to a wise person
certain things and adding, "These will make you wise;" we would not certainly
understand this to mean making the unwise wise, but rather making the wise
wiser, progressing towards perfection. Understand, then, that the believer can
become more faithful. For the apostles, approaching the Lord not accusing
themselves of disbelief, said to him, "Lord, increase our faith." For in the
word "increase" it is clearly indicated that they had faith capable of receiving
addition. If we understand this, then understand that the additions of those who
believed after previously believing add to faith; thus the disciples, who had
faith, also received this seeing of the scripture being fulfilled—"He who eats
my bread has lifted his heel against me"—indicating that he about whom this was
prophesied was he. And listen to the "So that you may believe" as being
equivalent to "So that by believing you may act," remaining steadfast in faith
and having no pretext for being moved away. And if indeed faith was not great in
magnitude or numerous in quantity, Paul would not have said, "Even if I have all
faith." For just as he who is perfect and possesses all virtues, having acquired
each perfectly, has perfect wisdom and perfect prudence, and likewise piety and
the rest, thus one might speak of having all faith as being perfect in the
virtue of believing. But I say these things because incomplete wisdom or
prudence or piety or the rest of the virtues would not properly be called
perfect, but only in a figurative sense, and those advancing in each virtue are
named in likeness to the perfect. For thus someone is called wise who errs in
some respect as needing correction, yet not hating those who correct but rather
loving them, as it is written: "Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." Thus
also a wise man is said, who being receptive to other insights of wisdom and not
yet having even the second insights, as it is also said: "Give instruction to a
wise man, and he will be still wiser." But we have come this far, showing that
it is possible for one who already believes to learn something more, so that he
may believe again, and by the addition of teachings to add to faith. And if we
wish to know who has all faith, let us take by example those things in believing
that save the believer, let’s say being numbered at one hundred, and let us say
that the one who accepts without hesitation the aforementioned one hundred and
firmly believes in each of them has all faith; but the one who falls short in
some number of those saving beliefs, or in the certainty concerning what is
believed, falls short of having all faith by the number he lacks belief or by as
much as he falls short in certainty about the beliefs, whether in all or in
some: so that for the present it is given for some to be able to believe
something firmly, and for others to believe but not firmly. Nevertheless, it is
commonly agreed that it is impossible to prove that he who is deficient in one
thing has certainty in nothing, because not everyone has the same degree of
falling short in certainty about what is believed, so that we may call as the
Scripture names them, the little-faith ones who have not yet grasped certainty
about the things believed. To these things is added due to "According to your
faith be it done to you" and due to "Your faith has saved you", each will
receive a reward according to the just judgment of God, proportionate to such
faith and salvation. For if there is any difference among those being saved, as
in "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you" applies both to the
measures of faith and to the measures of reward and salvation from God. The one
who understands this reasoning will perceive how it is reasonably said to men,
as they are not able to judge: "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" and
"Do not judge anything before the time until the Lord comes". Again, since I
spoke by way of example, of a hundred being saved in the faith, some may indeed
believe completely with the faith of the hundred, but some may be deficient in
their faith towards some of the hundred or in their certainty towards what is
believed, and thus do not have the whole faith. Let me set forth for clarity
such examples. "First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and
arranged everything, making all things from non-being into being". One must also
believe that Lord Jesus Christ, in all truths concerning Him in His divinity and
humanity. One must also believe in the Holy Spirit, and that being free agents,
we are punished for what we sin, and honored for what we do right. So if someone
seems to believe in Jesus but does not believe that the God of the law and the
Gospel is one, whose glory the heavens declare as being made by Him, and the
firmament proclaims His handiwork, he would lack the chief article of faith. Or
again, if someone believing that He who was crucified under Pontius Pilate was a
sacred and saving thing for the world, but does not accept that He was born from
the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, but from Joseph and Mary, this one too
would lack the essentials of full faith. Again, if someone accepts His divinity
but, stumbling at His humanity, does not believe that He took on anything human
or a human nature, he would lack full faith not in trivial matters. Or if
someone conversely accepts the human aspects about Him, but denies the substance
of the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, he also would not be able to
claim to have the whole faith. And thus follow me in understanding, so that we
may see how great it is to hold the entire faith unfailingly and firmly, being
so powerful when it is entirely within a person's soul, that they can move
mountains, whatever mountains there may be. For all people are capable of moving
the mountain demonstrated by Jesus, and those shown to him; but if anyone lacks
the entire faith, they lack the power to move mountains. And I shall use a
similar example for this: just as those with such power, first of all, drag a
ship into the sea, but if they lack even one helper or some strength, the ship
would not be dragged; thus many as if it were so are moving the mountains with
the complete faith; they lack the power to move the mountains to the extent that
they lack complete faith. And observe if not everything has been usefully
examined for the sake of the disciples whose feet Jesus washed, to whom he said,
just as one might assume without having examined, as not yet believing what he
said, "From now I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may
believe that I am he"; at the same time the explanation shows how great the
virtue is according to complete faith, and that it is rarely found; and to what
extent each of us lacks having complete faith, so as to move mountains. Yet it
is not easily considered for doing or believing, according to the present
matters, that the prophets foretold the things concerning Jesus, and according
to their word, they were fulfilled in the Savior regarding what was foretold.

[John 13:20] Amen, amen I say to you, whoever receives anyone I send receives
me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

Jesus sends not only saints, but also saints and angels; and he sends those who
are called apostles because they are sent by him. Now, of these, some are
humans, and others are greater powers. For we will not err in calling them
apostles, concerning whom it is written: "All are ministering spirits, sent for
service on behalf of those about to inherit salvation." For if apostles are
sent, all are sent for ministry by the one who makes "his angels spirits, and
his ministers a flame of fire." Being ministering spirits, they too would be
apostles of the one sending them. And each of those being sent by someone, is an
apostle of the one sending them. Therefore, it is also said in the higher
statement, after "A servant is not greater than his master, nor an apostle
greater than the one who sent him." In this regard, one does not err in calling
even John an apostle of God because "There was a man sent from God, whose name
was John," and even Isaiah for "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" when
he answered saying, "Here I am, send me." What am I saying concerning these,
when even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, our great savior is called an apostle
of the Father? For it is written: "Having then a great high priest and apostle
Jesus Christ." And now then, whoever the savior sends to minister for the
salvation of some, the one being sent is an apostle of Jesus Christ. But the
apostle, just as he is an apostle of the one sending, is only an apostle to
certain ones to whom he is sent. Paul, considering this, used to say: "Even if I
am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you; for you are the seal of
my apostleship in the Lord." It is possible, therefore, for someone to be an
apostle of Jesus Christ, sent to only one person, if he has ministered the word
by the providence of God to that one person. And we say these things to again
point out the superiority of those who were accounted apostles of Jesus Christ:
"For," he says, "they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we should go to the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision." Therefore,
Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles only, and Peter to the entire circumcision.
If any one of us is deemed worthy to become an apostle to one or a few, as the
apostle declared, let him become an apostle. And if he becomes one, let him not
be lifted up, remembering "Moreover, it is required in stewards that one be
found faithful"; for not necessarily because a thing is sought, it is found.
These things are said because of "He who receives whomever I send"; for as many
as can be sent by Jesus, even if not, those whom we are accustomed to call
apostles, if they are such, and since it is also possible for one who is
superior to human nature to be sent by Jesus. Therefore, the one who receives
whom Jesus sends, receives Jesus who was sent; and he who receives Jesus
receives the Father; thus, he who receives whom Jesus sends receives the Father
who sent Jesus. And this word can also be understood in this way: The one who
receives whomever I send receives me, and he reaches unto receiving me; but the
one who receives me not through some apostle of mine, but comes directly to me
not ministered by men nor through men, but revealed to the souls of those
prepared for my reception, receives the Father who sent me, as not only I, the
Christ, may be in him but also the Father. From these things also we may
understand what is contrary to it: For the one who receives whomever the son of
the evil one sends, receives the antichrist; and he who receives the son of the
evil one and accepts the word of the antichrist, pretending to be truth and
falsely professing to be righteousness, receives the evil one himself.
Therefore, let us be careful, so that as good bankers we may examine the true
servant and reject the false one. Here indeed, "He who receives whoever I send,
receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me," and "He who sees
me, sees him who sent me"; but neither is it said, "He who believes in you,
believes in me," nor "He who sees you, sees me." For he desires us to receive
his apostles, but not to believe in them. Therefore, let us receive those sent
to us by the word and the very word of God; but let us never receive an apostle
of the antichrist and a false word.

[John 13:21] Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit and
testified and said, "Truly, truly I say to you that one of you will betray me."

Earlier He had said, "Now my soul is troubled"; but now it is said, "Having said
these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit." And I seek such things in the
place: why in any way was it not said, corresponding to "Now my soul is
troubled," that "the spirit of Jesus was troubled," or corresponding to "He was
troubled in spirit" that "Now my soul is troubled"? And I ventured to ask these
things moderately, having observed throughout all Scripture the difference
between soul and spirit, and seeing that the soul is something intermediate and
capable of virtue and vice, but the spirit of man in him is incapable of the
worse things; for the best fruits are said to be of the spirit, not as one might
suppose, of the Holy Spirit, but of the human spirit. For in contrast to this,
the works of the flesh are said to be evident, all of which are blameworthy,
since not a single work of the flesh is praiseworthy. But once even to this
point I found the spirit of the wicked to be said to be hardened by the Lord
God. For it is written thus in Deuteronomy: "And Sihon king of Heshbon would not
allow us to pass through him, because the Lord your God hardened his spirit, and
made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hands, as is the
case this day." But these matters would be more fittingly examined in those
concerning Deuteronomy. Now, however, it is intended to say how the previously
mentioned "Having said these things, Jesus was troubled" is not concerning the
soul nor the soul, nor yet spirit, but "in spirit." Therefore, so that the
observation concerning the spirit does not escape, it must be said that in "Now
my soul is troubled," the trouble was a passion of the soul, but in "Jesus was
troubled in spirit," which is the human, the passion was coming upon the
dominance of the spirit. For just as the holy man lives by the Spirit, which
comes before all things in life, every action, every prayer, and every hymn to
God, so too does everything he does, he does by the Spirit. But even if he
suffers, he suffers by the Spirit. And if this is true of a holy man, how much
more should these things be said about Jesus, the leader of the saints, whose
human spirit, in being fully human, moved and shook the rest of his human parts
within him? Therefore, "he was troubled in spirit" so that he might bear witness
and say with a kind of divine oath of "Amen" that "One of you will betray me."
For the Spirit, I think, seeing that what had already been cast into the heart
of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, by the devil, to betray the teacher, became
troubled, enlightened by what was about to happen. And since the disturbance was
due to the knowledge in the Spirit, that also happened in the disturbance, it is
said, "Jesus was troubled in spirit." Perhaps also according to one
interpretation "The flesh is weak" and the flesh was troubled. But this was
Jesus, about whom Gabriel spoke to Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your
womb, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and called Son of the
Most High." Note also in what way the examination of "One of you will betray me"
is referred to as a testimony. For this prophecy concerning Judas, one of them,
was a testimony like, I think, the one about bearing witness and dying for
godliness. For I do not think the same things are signified in the "He bore
witness," when the word is disclosed, from which the term "martyr" is formed of
God and His Christ, and now when referring to "One of you will betray me".
Still, to the best of my ability, I apply myself also to the phrase "One of
you," referring to Judas, in case it means what is from the apostolic order, in
which he too exalted himself at one time, having a disposition similar to the
remaining apostles, but fell away. For thus I heard also the phrase "Behold,
Adam has become like one of us," since it is not said there "like us" or "like
me," but because one fell from blessedness, "like one of us"; the phrase "like
one" also seems to align with the phrase "You shall die like men," and "And like
one of the princes you shall fall." For since many princes were made, one fell,
imitating whose fall the sinners fall. For as he, possessing deity, fell, thus
also those to whom the word says "I said, You are gods, and all of you are
children of the Highest," having fallen from blessedness, not being men before,
die as men and fall like one of the princes. I also think it is wondrously
spoken with such a thought: the one betraying me is not a stranger from my
disciples, but neither is he one of the many disciples, but one of those
apostles honored by me in selection. Many, indeed, condemning Jesus, say,
"Crucify, crucify him" and "Remove such a one from the earth." But to betray him
was a deed of one who had seen and understood him; for knowing him as a teacher
of such and so many lessons, which he had heard privately with the apostles, and
knowing him as the Lord, surrendering him, what greatness he knew, he
surrendered, which no one having not observed his greatness would have done. For
he surrendered the great one, not as he is great, since he did not see as he is
great; but he who also learned how great he was and became a listener of the
greatness of the wisdom and word and grace in him and betrayed him, surrendered
him entirely as he saw greatness. Therefore, it would have been better for him
if he had not been born, whether one hears this as the generation of
regeneration, as someone might more deeply understand it, or even as the more
commonly understood generation; concerning which the one wanting to be rid of
things for himself, and having sought out that for which he would be benefited,
knowing for whom it is beneficial, also suspecting that it would not have
benefited him if he had not existed, descending into the second narrative, will
accept that one more.

[John 13:22] The disciples were looking at one another, unsure of whom he was
speaking about.

If the evil of Judas had been obvious to Jesus' disciples, it would have been
known when the Savior said, "One of you will betray me," who it was that would
betray the teacher. But now the disciples were looking at one another, unsure of
whom he was speaking about. For indeed, perhaps Judas had previously appeared
righteous to the apostles so as to prevent them from suspecting anything evil
about him; perhaps also, though, the devil had already entered into his heart,
that Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, would betray him, yet he was not entirely
wicked; for with a remnant of a good intention remaining in him, seeing that he
was condemned, when "they bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate
the governor," "he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood';
but they said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the
silver pieces in the temple, the avaricious Judas went and hanged himself," not
even waiting to see the end of the judgment concerning Jesus before Pilate. His
repentance was neither pure of sin nor was his wickedness entirely turned to
something better. For if he had repented purely, then like the thief who said,
"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom," he would have approached
the Savior to do what was necessary to appease Him for the betrayal he had
committed. But if entirely he had driven out the notion of good from his own
soul, neither would he have regretted seeing that Jesus was condemned; but he
would have also added words accusing Him related to the betrayal; but also
enjoying as a lover of money the thirty pieces of silver he received, "the price
of the esteemed one," he neither would have resolved to reject the silver nor
turned them over to the chief priests and elders, nor would he have confessed
over those very ones, accusing himself and praising the teacher by saying, "I
have sinned by betraying innocent blood." Moreover, no one but himself could
have brought about the hanging of himself, having cast into his heart the act of
betraying the savior; and he provided a place for the devil on both sides. These
things I have elaborated to the best of my ability, both showing to those who
think him by nature unfit for salvation that he was not such, and narrating that
the disciples reasonably looked at each other, being at a loss regarding whom He
spoke. It suffices to also present the prophetic word from the fortieth Psalm,
showing that though he was holy, he fell away, for it is written: "And indeed
the man of my peace, in whom I hoped, who eats my bread, has lifted his heel
against me." But also the statement "If an enemy had reviled me, I could have
endured it" referring to him indicates that he was not an enemy from the
beginning. But also the statement "If he who hates me had spoken greatly against
me, I would have hidden from him" shows that he once loved Jesus, having even
reached the point of being of one mind with Him, for it is written: "But you, a
man of like soul, my guide, and my acquaintance." You could find countless other
such things from which you would understand that it was reasonable for the
disciples to look at each other, puzzled about whom He spoke. And Luke records
that the savior said: "But behold, the hand of the one betraying me is with me
on the table." The Son of Man indeed goes as it is determined for him, but woe
to that man through whom he is betrayed. The disciples began to question among
themselves who it might be among them who was going to do this. For they were
discussing and wondering about whom he was speaking. But according to Luke, it
does not appear that each was suspecting himself. However, according to Matthew
and Mark, this is depicted. For Matthew says: "And being very sorrowful, they
began to say to him, each one, 'Is it I, Lord?'" And Mark says: "They began to
be sorrowful and to say to him one by one, 'Is it I?' and another, 'Is it I?'"
For they remembered, I suppose, being human, that the inclination of those still
advancing is variable and subject to wanting the opposite of what was previously
intended. Perhaps also, having learned what our struggle is against, they were
cautious because of the uncertainty in humans, lest being overcome they might
also accept the betrayal of the teacher. For Peter too had the intention when he
emphatically said, "Even if all are offended because of you, I will never be
offended," not to deny Jesus; but being overcome by the spirit of cowardice, he
denied him three times before the rooster crowed. From such words, indeed, we
are taught: "Let the one who stands be careful not to fall," and "Do not boast
about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth." Perhaps also
the saying "The disciples were looking at one another" along with the simpler
meaning, signifies something like this, that each, as much as human nature
allows, was looking into the intention of the other, wondering if a soul capable
of doing such things and being so disposed towards the truthful teacher, who has
testified by saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me,"
could so much deviate and forget the teacher's lessons, as to reach the point of
betraying him. For the saying about the disciples "wondering whom he spoke of"
is indeed emphatic; for they were not able to easily grasp about whom it had
been said, but were perplexed about this and found nothing clear to understand
or say.

[John 13:23-29] One of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on Jesus'
bosom. Simon Peter therefore gestured to him and said to him, "Tell us who it is
of whom He speaks." Leaning back on Jesus' breast, he said to Him, "Lord, who is
it?" Jesus then answered, "It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I
have dipped it." And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the
son of Simon. Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said
to him, "What you do, do quickly." But no one at the table knew for what reason
He said this to him. For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that
Jesus had said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast," or that he
should give something to the poor. The one reclining on Jesus' bosom, one of the
disciples whom Jesus loved, appears to be John, the writer of the Gospel; for at
the end of the Gospel it is written how "Peter, turning around, saw the disciple
whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and
said, 'Lord, who is the one who betrays You?'" When Peter saw him, he said to
Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I will that he
remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." Then this saying went
out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say
to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what
is that to you?" It is clear that this disciple who wrote the Gospel is John
from what is brought forward, stating, "This is the disciple who testifies of
these things, and wrote these things." Note in both places of the Gospel how
Peter, trusting and leaning more on himself, where "He gestured to him and said,
'Tell us who it is of whom He speaks,'" and when he saw him following, as
concerned more about him than the rest said to Jesus about him, "But Lord, what
about this man?" wanting to learn about John's end similarly to having known
about his own, that when he grows old he will stretch out his hands, and another
will gird him and carry him where he does not wish. If what Jesus spoke are
words that are spirit and not letter, they are life through and through and in
no way death. And the disciple whom He loved, imitating Him, writes spirit and
life. To hear "One of His disciples was lying close to the breast of Jesus" is
worthy of the honor that should be given to the Son of God and received by the
one loved by Him. And I think that even if symbolically, at that time John was
lying on the breast of Jesus, being deemed worthy of this privilege due to the
exceptional love shown to him by the teacher, this symbolically indicates that
John, lying on the Word and resting in the most mystical things, was lying in
the bosom of the Word, which corresponds to him being also in the bosom of the
Father, according to "The only begotten deity, who is in the bosom of the
Father, has made Him known." If we do not hear more humbly also the "The poor
man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom," we shall understand
something similar about the bosom of Abraham. If this were so, we would resolve
the perplexity regarding the scripture as mentioned by the one who wished to
cancel the story about the rich man and the poor man. For if Lazarus was carried
to Abraham's bosom, then another before leaving this life would have been in
Abraham's bosom, and before him another. But also, when another righteous person
departs, the poor man will rise up; one who questions this matter fails to see
that it is possible for countless people to rest simultaneously in Abraham's
bosom, sharing in the revelations given to him. If we need to provide another
scriptural passage on the topic of the bosom, let's examine how the Lord said to
Moses, "Again put your hand into your bosom." And he put his hand into his
bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. And He
said, "Put your hand back into your bosom." And he put his hand back into his
bosom, and when he took it out, it was restored like the rest of his flesh." It
is difficult even for us to see what might be the symbol of this sign. But since
we must not stop seeking and should deliver what occurs to us as suitable for
judgment to the reader, we will say that the hand is often a symbol of actions;
the bosom of Moses has two powers, the former according to the apparent meanings
of the letter, making the action of the doer like snow as far as the Hebrew
speech goes, possibly even leprous; the latter according to the spiritual law,
showing the way of life clean and being restored to the intention of the nature
of the Word. And keep in mind that it is added to these, "If they do not believe
you or listen to the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the
second sign," for the one who did not believe in the interpretation of the
letter, through pride, believes in the spiritual narration of the law. And if
someone does not believe the two signs, the first that makes the action leprous,
and the second that restores it to its natural state, for this person the water
becomes blood. For it is written, "And if they do not believe you with these two
signs or listen to your voice, you shall take water from the river and pour it
on the dry land, and the water which you take from the river will become blood
on the dry land." And notice that in this sign it does not say "they will
believe you" or they will not believe. For it is shown that to the one who does
not believe the two signs, the water taken from the river becomes blood, not
able to taste the word because of disbelief. But let us return, having gone
further than necessary into the bosom of Jesus, and knowing that the one whom
Jesus loved was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, let us do all things to be
approved by his exceptional love; for thus we too shall recline in the bosom of
Jesus. Peter signals to the beloved disciple, and not being content with the
signal, he says to him, "Tell who it is about whom he speaks." Since signaling
is interpreted maliciously in the Proverbs; for the wicked "winks with his eye,
signals with his feet, teaches with his fingers, with a perverse heart he
devises evil," and "He who winks with his eyes maliciously gathers bitterness
for men," it must be said that wickedness is not in signaling but in winking
with the eye, that is, in squinting and not looking straight, and malicious
signaling is blameworthy; but signaling eagerly was Peter's task, and
accordingly, saying to his companion, as having more confidence with the
teacher, "Tell who it is about whom he speaks." For he perhaps wished to see the
mystery about the betrayal that Judas delivers Jesus, which to learn Peter,
John, reclining in the bosom of Jesus, leaned back and lay on the chest. And
perhaps, if he had not reclined on the breast, but had remained in the bosom,
John or Peter would not have handed over the word that he desired to learn. Even
though reclining, therefore, he was previously in the bosom of Jesus, later he
reclined on the breast of Jesus, by the latter in the latter part of the gospel
is characterized as the genuine and distinguished disciple of Jesus. For it is
written that "Turning around, Peter sees the disciple whom Jesus loved
following, who also had leaned on his breast at the supper and said, 'Lord, who
is it that will betray you?'" For it does not say, "who was reclining in the
bosom of Jesus." What the Lord answered, let us consider. "He," he says, "is to
whom I will give the morsel after I have dipped it." So Jesus said this, and
having dipped the morsel, he takes it and gives it to Judas, son of Simon
Iscariot. And after the morsel, then Satan entered into him, being unable to
enter before, nor immediately upon his having put it into the heart that Judas,
son of Simon Iscariot, should betray him. For it was necessary, I think, through
the giving of the morsel to take it away from the unworthy, to have the better
thing that he seemed to have; for from the one who does not have, even what he
seems to have will be taken away from him. Therefore Judas, being deprived as
unworthy of the better thing he received, gave place for Satan to enter into
him. And as an example, so that it may be understood how the Lord gave the
morsel to Judas, and then he cast off the better thing that was in him, and
perhaps peace, retreating from the one who heard and did not accept it to the
one who spoke, according to what is said, "If a son of peace is there, your
peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you." Additionally, we
relate these words from the second epistle to the Corinthians: "Your abundance
for their need, that their abundance may also supply your need." For considering
the exchange of earthly things for spiritual, you will be able to see how he
gave the morsel to the unworthy of bread, that through the morsel he might take
away from him, as unworthy to hear still; "For the man of my peace," peace ("let
the filthy be filthy still"), when taken away from him, the observer of times
for the entrance into the soul, and the one giving him place to enter, Satan
entered into Judas. And also observe that previously Satan did not enter into
Judas, but merely cast into his heart "that Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, should
betray the teacher"; but now under review, after the morsel, Satan entered into
him. Therefore, let us also be on guard, lest the devil ever cast any of his
fiery darts into our hearts; for if he casts, he then watches for an opportunity
to enter himself. But one might ask why it is not written: "He to whom I shall
give the morsel," but rather with the addition of "I dip": "I shall dip the
morsel and give it." And "after dipping the morsel, he took it and gave it to
Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot." In such contexts, notice if you can assert
that the sincere bread is undipped and nourishing in itself; but what is given
to Judas was neither bread nor an undipped morsel, but one dipped in what could
detach from his soul the dye that had come upon it through reason, so that after
the morsel Satan might enter into him. As for myself, I would seek something
akin to this from what is written in Matthew: "He who has dipped his hand with
me in the dish, he will betray me," and from Mark: "The one dipping with me in
the dish," and from Luke, even though it does not name the "dipping," it does
say: "But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." The
true word about this might be found among those much wiser than I am; but I
conjecture that Judas' shamelessness may be displayed even in this, for not
honoring the teacher in dining nor allowing him the dipping in the dish, as the
rest allowed. Thus, none of them dipped their hands in the dish with him; but
he, not deeming it worthy to dip with them, dipped with him, wanting to have
equality with him, ought to have yielded to his superiority. So perhaps this
also pertains to the saying, "But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with
me on the table." And at one time, jesting to encourage young men about the
reverence due to elders at a feast, he used the phrase, so that they would not
crush the hand of the [two] elders. For it is also written, "Do not crush with
him 'in the dish'." However, they did not ignore the reputation of a meticulous
investigation which cannot persuade the listener and receive a defense from
those who hear these things. We dared these, considering it better to test
everything than to pass by any of the written things untested. When, however,
Satan entered Judas, Jesus said to him, "What you are doing, do quickly." To
whom "to him" is ambiguous, since it can mean either to Judas himself or to
Satan: "What you are doing, do quickly," prompting the adversary to the
struggle, or urging the traitor to a service that was to bring about the world's
salvation, which should not delay or procrastinate, but hasten as much as
possible. Jesus did not fear, as some of those who did not understand the way He
said, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," but courageously
undressed for the struggle, so to speak. And I think that the twenty-sixth Psalm
is prophesied from the perspective of the Savior at the time of passion, and the
evil one fought against Him with all his forces. Seeing them armed against Him
and scattering when "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered
together against the Lord and against His Christ," He says, "The Lord is my
light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life,
of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked come against me to eat up my flesh,
my enemies and my foes, they stumbled and fell. Though an army encamp against
me, my heart shall not fear; though war rise against me, in this I will be
confident." However, the saying "What you are doing, do quickly," whether spoken
to Satan or to Judas by Jesus, none of those reclining knew for what purpose it
was said. For some thought, because the Passover feast was imminent, that He
told the one who had the money box of the expenses and the giving to the
necessities of the poor that he would buy what was needed for the feast, or that
he would give something from the collected money to the poor. But Jesus was not
saying this, but seeing both the one who entered and the one who received him,
and all the plot against Him, stripping for the struggle and to excel for the
salvation of men against the evil one, He said, "What you are doing, do
quickly."

[John 13:30] So after receiving the morsel, he went out immediately; and it was
night. The Savior said to Judas, "What you do, do quickly," and the traitor
obeyed his teacher for the first time in this alone. For having received the
morsel, he did not delay nor linger, but as it is written, "He went out
immediately", to quickly accomplish the deed of betrayal according to the
command of Jesus. And indeed "he went out": not only did he go out of the house
where the supper was taking place, but he completely left Jesus, corresponding
to "They went out from us." I think that even Satan, who entered into Judas
after the morsel, could not bear to be in the same place with Jesus; for there
is no concord of Christ with Belial. If, however, we do not scrupulously
investigate why the phrase "And he ate" is not added to "having received the
morsel", you will discern it yourself. For where it is intended, the text adds
also the eating to the receiving; as it is written concerning the bread of
blessing, Jesus said to the disciples, "Take, eat." So, did Judas not eat the
morsel when he took it? Therefore, if something seems not to agree with what has
been previously said, let us analyze the passage, and let the reader judge which
interpretation to accept. "Having dipped the morsel," says Jesus, and it is
clear that he left it in the dish and took it again; for thus you should
understand the phrase "having dipped the morsel" so as not to confuse it with
taking. Then it is said, "He gives it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And
after the morsel, Satan then entered into him." "After the morsel" then, perhaps
not eaten by Judas, Satan who entered into Judas beforehand prevented the use of
the morsel, so that Judas would not benefit from the giving of the bread by
Jesus. For it had beneficial power for the one who used it; but he who had once
resolved in his heart to betray the teacher, fearing that the resolved might
fall apart through the use of the bread, Satan anticipated and entered into
Judas along with his receiving the morsel, when it was said, "What you do, do
quickly", and having taken the morsel, Judas immediately went out. And thus it
might not be unlikely to say in that place: just as the one who eats the bread
of the Lord or drinks His cup unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself,
because of the singular greater power found in the bread and in the cup, which
when conditioned to a better disposition produces good, but when taken with a
worse disposition, creates judgment; so the bread from Jesus was identical to
that given to the other apostles in the phrase "Take, eat," but for them it was
for salvation, while for Judas it was for judgment, as Satan entered into him
after the bread. Let the bread and the cup be understood by the simpler ones
according to the common interpretation concerning the Eucharist, but by those
who have learned to listen more deeply according to the more divine promise
concerning the food of truth; as if, by way of example, one might say that
physical food, when received with a fever present, increases it, but leads to
health and well-being when received healthily. Therefore, often a true word
given to a sick soul not in need of such food distresses it and becomes an
occasion for worse; and thus it is dangerous to speak the truth. These things I
have said about the bread which, after dipping, He "gave to Judas, the son of
Simon Iscariot," and we have touched upon the matter regarding both
possibilities, whether he took it and then ate it, or was interrupted by Satan
entering into Judas. But if it is necessary to investigate the phrase "It was
night" as not having been cast carelessly by the evangelist, it must be said
that at that time it was literally night, symbolizing the night that occurred in
the soul of Judas, when the darkness descending upon the abyss, Satan, entered
into him. For God called the darkness "night," of this night Paul says, we are
not children of the night nor of the darkness, saying, "We are not of the night
nor of the darkness;" but "Let us who are of the day be sober." Therefore, it
was not night for those whose feet were being washed by Jesus, but the clearest
of days for those being cleansed and rid of the filth on the feet of their soul.
And moreover, it was not night for the one reclining in the bosom of Jesus, for
Jesus loved him and dispelled all darkness with his love. Nor was it night for
Peter, who confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," which had
been revealed to him by the heavenly Father. But while denying, it was night for
him. And now, when Judas took the bread and went out immediately, at that moment
it was night for him. For the man called Dawn was no longer with him, having
left the sun of righteousness in his departure. And Judas pursued Jesus, filled
with darkness, but the darkness and the one who took it up could not grasp the
light pursued. Therefore, even when he said, as a word of righteousness, "I have
sinned in betraying innocent blood," and then went and hanged himself, Satan in
him had guided him to the noose and hung him on it, and then grasped his soul,
unlike with Job as the Lord said to Satan, "But do not touch his soul."

[John 13:31-32] When Jesus had gone out, he said, "Now is the Son of Man
glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will
also glorify him in himself, and immediately glorify him." The beginning of the
glorification of the Son of Man after the glories through signs and wonders and
the glory at the Transfiguration is Judas leaving, with Satan having entered
into him, from the place where Jesus was. Therefore, the Lord said, "Now is the
Son of Man glorified." And also the saying, "When I am lifted up from the earth,
I will draw all people to myself," was said by the Savior, signifying by what
kind of death he would glorify God; for he also glorified God in his dying.
Therefore, when the beginning of the economy of the eventual death of Jesus was
being set in motion, Judas having gone out after receiving the morsel to make
plans against Jesus, it was said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified." Then, as it
is impossible for Christ to be glorified without the Father also being glorified
in him, it is added to "Now is the Son of Man glorified" the phrase "and God is
glorified in him." However, the glory due to the death for mankind is not that
of the only-begotten Word, wisdom, and truth, and the other divine aspects
attributed to Jesus, but that of the man who was also the Son of Man, descended
from the seed of David according to the flesh. Thus, he previously said, "Now
you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth," and in the examination
he says, "Now is the Son of Man glorified." This one, I believe, was also highly
exalted by God, being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for the
Word, in the beginning with God, the God-Word, did not accept being highly
exalted. The exaltation of the Son of Man, accomplished by him glorifying God in
his own death, was this: no longer to be distinct from the Word but to be the
same as it. For if "The one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" so that in
this case neither could it be said "They are two," how could we not rather say
that the human nature of Jesus became one with the Logos, with the exaltation of
the one who did not consider "being equal to God" a thing to be grasped,
remaining in his own exaltation or even being restored to the Logos, when again
he was with God, being God and man at once? And if by the death of Jesus,
glorifying God, both "He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a
public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in the cross," and "He made peace
through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven,"
for in all these things was the Son of Man glorified, and God was glorified in
him. Since the one who is glorified is glorified by someone, you will ask in
"The Son of Man was glorified" by whom? Similarly, you will ask in "God was
glorified in him" by whom? For the sake of the clarity of these words, let us
first consider the saying "Now the Son of Man was glorified"; second, "And God
was glorified in him"; third, what is joined to this, "If God was glorified in
him, God will also glorify him in himself"; fourth, "And immediately glorify
him." Unless someone wishes to take this phrase to refer to the context of the
concluding part of the clause, so that the clause begins with "God was glorified
in him" and ends with "And God will glorify him in himself, and immediately
glorify him," we must necessarily consider the name of glory, not as it lies in
the middle premise of the Greeks, according to which they define glory as the
praise from many, evidently it lies on a different premise from this, from the
one spoken in Exodus; "And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And
Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud overshadowed
it and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." And in the third book of
Kings, it is written in this way, "And it came to pass, when the priests came
out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house of the Lord." "And the priests
could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord
filled the house." And concerning the glory of Moses in Exodus, it is said thus:
"As Moses descended from the mountain, and the two tablets of the covenant were
in Moses' hands; as he descended from the mountain, Moses did not know that the
skin of his face shone because he had spoken with Him. And Aaron and all the
sons of Israel saw Moses, and the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid
to come near him." This concerning the glory is also indicated in the Gospel
according to Luke through the following: "And as he was praying, the appearance
of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two
men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and
spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." And Paul
also, see to whom he attributes the name of glory; for where he says, "But if
the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came with glory, so that
the sons of Israel could not look at Moses' face because of the glory of his
face, which was fading, how much more will the ministry of the Spirit be in
glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of
righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had
glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the surpassing glory. For if
what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is
permanent have glory." And again, "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the
glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of
glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." And a little
further on: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are
perishing. In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God." And again after a little: "For God, who said,
'Light will shine out of darkness,' is the one who shone in our hearts to give
the light of the knowledge of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ." Now the
present narrative of the evangelical word does not demand a detailed explanation
of each of these things; however, it must be said briefly: Insofar as a more
divine manifestation happened in the tent and in the temple and in the face of
Moses, who conversed with the divine nature; and insofar as, by means of an
understanding that is especially pure, the things about God that are known
accurately and seen in the understanding that is suitable to consider by the
extraordinary purity, this might be called the glory of God seen. Since the mind
purified and ascended above all material things, in order to understand the
vision of God, is deified in what it beholds. It must be said that such is the
face that has glorified, which has seen God and conversed with Him and spent
time with such a sight, that this is metaphorically the glorified face of Moses,
whose mind was deified by Him. On this account, the Apostle also said, "But we
all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed
into the same image." And just as the light of the night fades away when the sun
has risen, so too the glory in the presence of Moses is overshadowed by that in
Christ. For the distinction between the transcendent glory in Christ, knowing
the Father, glorified Him concerning Himself, compared to that known by Moses
and glorifying the countenance of his soul, did not hold the comparison.
Therefore, the glory in Moses was said to be abolished by the surpassing glory
in Christ. Having said these things of ours briefly to the extent that we set
forth, let us return to the "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is
glorified in Him." Knowing then the Father through the Son, by the very act of
knowing Him, which is the greatest good and leads to the perfect knowledge, the
Son was glorified. I also think that in knowing Himself—which also itself falls
not far from the former case—He was glorified from knowing Himself. If indeed
the knowledge of all things completes the magnitude of His glory, revealing both
hidden and visible things, we might inquire whether this could be the essence of
wisdom, or in what way the Son of Man might be said to be glorified from being
united with wisdom. And all this glory with which the Son of Man was glorified,
being a gift from the Father, He was glorified. Among the many things completing
all of the glory of man, God is the most preeminent of all, who, in being known
by the Son, is not only simply glorified but is glorified in the Son. Therefore,
it is indeed daring and greater than our capacity to undertake the examination
of a discourse of such magnitude; yet, nevertheless, one must dare to attempt
what is possible to investigate in this place. I seek to determine whether it is
possible for God to be glorified other than through being glorified in the Son,
as we have indicated, more magnificently glorified in Himself, when He is in His
own highest regard, through His own knowledge and His own contemplation, which
is greater than the contemplation in the Son, as one must conceive such things
concerning God, to say that He delights in some unspeakable satisfaction and joy
and gladness, delighting in Himself and rejoicing. I use these terms not as they
could be properly spoken of God but being at a loss for words, if I may so call
them, for the ineffable expressions, which He alone can say or think about
Himself, and, after Him, His only-begotten Son can say or think properly about
Him. Since we have reached the point of glorifying God in Christ, we may
appropriately inquire how He might be glorified also in the Holy Spirit and in
all those where the glory of the Lord has been seen or will be seen. I think,
therefore, that the entire glory of God radiates from the Son, according to Paul
who said, "He being the radiance of the glory", yet from this radiance partial
rays of the entire glory may reach the remaining rational creation; for I do not
think that anyone can encompass the full radiance of the entire glory of God
except His Son. Thus now, the economy of the suffering of the Son of Man for all
is not without God, "for which reason God greatly exalted Him." "The Son of Man
was glorified," it says, "not alone"; and "God was glorified in Him," and thus
one might recount the things according to the place. It is written, "No one
knows the Son except the Father," and it was said, "Blessed are you, Simon son
of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in
heaven." Therefore, as much as the Son was not known to the world ("He was in
the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him"),
He was not yet glorified in the world, and the loss of not glorifying Him in the
world was not of the one not glorified but of the world not glorifying Him. But
when the Heavenly Father revealed the knowledge of Jesus to those who were
revealed to them from the world, then the Son of Man was glorified among those
who knew him, and through the glory by which he was glorified among those who
knew him, he granted glory to those who knew him; for those who, with unveiled
faces, contemplating the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same
image. Notice from where "from glory" he says, and to where "to glory"; from the
glory of the one being glorified, to the glory of those glorifying. Therefore,
when he came to the dispensation, from which he was about to rise on the world
and be glorified by being known among those who glorified him, he said, "Now the
Son of Man is glorified" and also "No one knows the Father except the Son and
anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him"; the Son was about to reveal the
Father through the dispensation, for this reason: "And God is glorified in him."
Or you may consider the statement "And God is glorified in him" together with
"He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me"; for the Father who begot
him is seen in the word, being God and the image of the invisible God, able to
be directly perceived in the image of the invisible God, and to the primary
model of the image, the Father. Additionally, thus the words in this passage may
be taken more clearly; just as the name of God is blasphemed among the nations
because of some, so through the saints, whose good works are plainly seen before
men, the name of the Father who is in the heavens is glorified. Then in whom was
he so glorified as in Jesus, since he committed no sin nor was deceit found in
his mouth, nor did he know sin? Therefore, the Son, being such, was glorified,
and God was glorified in him. If God was glorified in him, the Father
reciprocates to him the greater thing for which the Son of Man has done; for it
is greater for the one glorifying God than for the lesser one, according to "The
Father who sent me is greater than I am," the Son of Man being glorified in God,
the lesser in the greater. And indeed the glory exceeds much in the Son when the
Father glorifies him, than in the Father when the Father was glorified in the
Son. And it was fitting that the greater one, repaying the glory that the Son
glorified him with, would grant to the Son to glorify him in himself, so that
the Son may be glorified in God. Then since it was about to happen shortly (I
mean the glorification of the Son in God), for this reason, he adds "And
immediately he will glorify him." We do not ignore that these things are far
less than what this examined place can hold, revealing of God, and his word
dwelling in to make known the glory of God, and to whom the Father bestows the
grace to be known the entire glory of God. Therefore, being far shorter and much
less worthy than the merit of these matters, we confess our thanks to God for
the things spoken, which are much greater than our worth.

[John 13:33] Little children, I am with you a little while longer; you will seek
me, and as I said to the Jews, 'Where I am going, you cannot come,' so now I say
to you.

Gathering from the Gospels the sayings of our Savior, spoken as if by a father
to his children, take courage in saying that the Savior is the father of some;
for to the paralytic he says, 'Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven,' and
to the woman with the hemorrhage, 'Daughter, your faith has saved you,' and now
to the disciples he says, 'Little children,' implying, I think, something
affectionate and also teaching the still immature state of the apostles' souls
at that time. But if anyone should ask, 'Was the paralytic, hearing "child,"
more complete than those to whom the word says "little children?"' he will hear
that if anyone is a little child, he is certainly a child; therefore, it does
not preclude the paralytic, called 'child,' from being also a little child;
hence, it is not necessary that the one called 'child,' the paralytic, be more
complete than those to whom the word said 'little children.' But one should know
that just as among men a child cannot later become a brother of one who once was
a child, so it is impossible for one to change from being a child of Jesus to
becoming his brother. Therefore, those to whom he said ‘little children’ after
the resurrection of the Savior, as if changed from the resurrection of Jesus,
become brothers to the one who formerly said ‘little children.’ Thus, it is
written, 'Go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your
Father, and my God and your God.’ And perhaps just as it is possible to change
from being a slave of Jesus—they were slaves before being little children,
evident from 'You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am' and
from 'A slave is not greater than his master,’ which was written before ‘Little
children, I am with you a little while longer,’—you may understand whether a
slave first becomes a disciple, then a little child, then a brother of Christ
and a son of God. Disciples in this case should be considered those who, by
their presence, partake in the comprehension of the word, learning the wisdom of
God from such a teacher. The expression 'I am with you a little while longer,’
in its simplest understanding, means that he would soon no longer be with the
disciples; first, he was arrested by the cohort and the tribune and the Jewish
servants, who bound him and led him to Annas first; after this he was handed
over to Pilate and subsequently condemned to the crucifixion; then he spent
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. But regarding the deeper
searches, perhaps after the "little while", he was no longer with them; not
because he wasn't present with them in the flesh and because his soul had
descended into Hades (for on this account he was not prevented from being with
his disciples, the one who said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name,
there I am in the midst of them" and "Behold, I am with you all the days until
the end of the age"), but since the saying, "You will all fall away because of
me this night; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of
the flock will be scattered'", had been fulfilled, he was no longer with them,
who is present with those worthy only. To this one might bring up, "In your
midst stands one whom you do not know," saying that he was also with those not
recognizing him. But see if it is not the same to be with someone, which is
given as a promise to those worthy, as it is to be standing and unrecognized in
the midst of those who do not know him. For in the promise he says, "Where two
or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them," and "Behold,
I am with you all the days until the completion of the age"; but not like this
is the one who says, "In your midst stands one whom you do not know." And in the
passage now under consideration, the one who says, "Behold, I am with you," says
also, "Yet a little while I am with you." The one saying, "Yet a little while I
am with you," would not have said to Judas, present to the senses and now having
the devil cast into his heart to betray the Savior, "I am with you" (for he was
no longer with him), nor when he dipped the bread and gave it to him, but when
after the bread Satan entered into him, much more was Christ not with Judas, who
distanced himself from the Savior; "For what accord has Christ with Belial?" And
even though the father Jesus was still to be with the little children for a
little while, it must be known that after that little while, even if he was not
with them, they would still be seeking Jesus, just as Peter, after his denial,
wept bitterly, I think, seeking Jesus. Now then, the phrase "A little while
longer I am with you" has been spoken, and shortly after: "A little while, he
says, and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me,"
when the disciples were saying, "What is this he says, 'a little while'? We do
not know what he means." Jesus, knowing they wanted to ask him, said to them,
"Are you inquiring among yourselves about what I said, 'A little while and you
will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me'? Truly, truly, I
say to you that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will
be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy." For that "little while"
in which they did not see him, they sought Jesus; therefore, they wept and
lamented, their sorrow turning into joy when the saying was fulfilled, "And
again a little while and you will see me." In the matters of examination, if one
does not see him in a little while, whether he will see him thereafter, he will
surely see him soon, understanding the saying, "And again a little while and you
will see me." Seeking Jesus is seeking the Word, and the Wisdom, and the
Righteousness, and the Truth, and the Power of God, all of which are Christ.
Some seek him having seen signs, and having received bread from him and eaten,
the reason for seeking him being that they were nourished by the Word; "You seek
me, he says, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and
were filled." Then, since he had previously said to the Jews, "I go away and you
will seek me, and you will die in your sin; where I go you cannot come,"
referring to that preceding statement, he says, "And as I said to the Jews,
'Where I go you cannot come,' so now I say to you." For as he said this to them,
so too to you; but I say this to you not for a longer time. Thus, I hear the
saying, "And I say to you now," which is not the same as "And I say to you"
without the addition of "now." For the Jews, whom he foresaw would die in their
own sin, could not come where Jesus was going for a short time; but the
disciples, after whom he would no longer be with them for a little while,
because of the things previously spoken, could not follow the Word departing to
his own arrangements. And if it had not been prefaced with "Where I am going,
you cannot come," the phrase "As I said to the Jews" might have seemed simpler,
referring to the departure of the soul of Jesus from life; but now both the Jews
were about to die, and Jesus, having died, was about to descend into Hades. How
is it that where Jesus was going, they could not go? But someone might say,
since he was also going to be in the paradise of God, where those who were dying
in their sins were not going to be, but the disciples of Jesus then indeed could
not be there, later for this reason it was said to those dying in their sins,
the Jews, "Where I am going, you cannot come," but to the disciples, "Where I am
going, you cannot come now." For the following statement is of this kind: "As I
said to the Jews, so I say to you now: Where I am going, you cannot come now."
And yet this passage carries no small difficulty because of "The Son of Man will
be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." For how will he
be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, who at the same
time of his departure was to be in the paradise of God, according to "Today you
will be with me in the paradise of God"? Thus what was said troubled some
because it seemed contradictory, so much so that they dared to suspect the
addition to the gospel by certain schemers of the very phrase "Today you will be
with me in the paradise of God." But we say more simply that perhaps before
going into the so-called heart of the earth, he restored the one who said to
him, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom," into the paradise of God.
And more profoundly, we say that the "today" in Scripture often extends over the
entire present age, just as in "This word has been spread among the Jews to this
day," and "He is the father of the Moabites to this day," and "Today if you hear
his voice, do not harden your hearts." The promise is made to him on this day,
to the one worthy of being remembered in the kingdom of God, that he would be
made to be with him in the kingdom of God in the present age before the future.
But this is said in passing as a parenthesis to the aforementioned matter. To
the disciples, wishing to follow Jesus, not as the simpler ones might assume,
physically, but as it is indicated, "Whoever does not take up their cross and
follow me is not worthy to be my disciple," the Lord now says, "Where I go, you
cannot come now." For if they wished to follow the word and confess him without
being scandalized by him, but they could not yet do this, "for the Spirit had
not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified," and "No one can
say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." The word goes on its own ways,
and the one who follows it does so, but the one who is not prepared cannot
follow, in order to walk earnestly in its footsteps, the word leading to its own
Father those who do all things so that they may be able to follow it and do
follow it, until they say to Christ, "My soul clings to you." Having now taken a
sufficient account of the thirty-two chapters of the exegesis of the Gospel of
John, we shall here conclude the discourse.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 4
========================================================================

Fragments of the Fourth Book1 (Three Leaves from the Beginning.) [Then, After
Speaking of the Rudeness of Style of the Gospel, He Proceeds: ] Fragments of the
Fourth Book1 (Three Leaves from the Beginning.)

1. He who distinguishes in himself voice and meaning and things for which the
meaning stands, will not be offended at rudeness of language if, on enquiry, he
finds the things spoken of to be sound. The more may this be so when we remember
how the holy men acknowledge their speech and their preaching to be not in
persuasion of the wisdom of words, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power....

[Then, After Speaking of the Rudeness of Style of the Gospel, He Proceeds: ]

2. The Apostles are not unaware that in some things they give offence, and that
in some respects their culture is defective, and they confess themselves2
accordingly to be rude in speech but not in knowledge; for we must consider that
the other Apostles would have said this, too, as well as Paul. As for the text,3
"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power
may be of God and not of us," we interpret it in this way. By "treasures" we
understand here, as in other passages, the treasure of knowledge (gnosis) and of
hidden wisdom. By "earthen vessels" we understand the humble diction of the
Scriptures, which the Greek might so readily be led to despise, and in which the
excellency of God's power appears so clearly. The mystery of the truth and the
power of the things said were not hindered by the humble diction from travelling
to the ends of the earth, nor from subduing to the word of Christ, not only the
foolish things of the world, but sometimes its wise things, too. For we see our
calling,4 not that no wise man according to the flesh, but that not many wise
according to the flesh. But Paul, in his preaching of the Gospel, is a debtor5
to deliver the word not to Barbarians only, but also to Greeks, and not only to
the unwise, who would easily agree with him, but also to the wise. For he was
made sufficient6 by God to be a minister of the New Covenant, wielding the
demonstration of the spirit and of power, so that when the believers agreed with
him their belief should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
For, perhaps, if the Scripture possessed, like the works the Greeks admire,
elegance and command of diction, then it would be open to suppose that not the
truth of them had laid hold of men, but that the apparent sequence and splendour
of language had carried off the hearers, and had carried them off by guile.

1: From the Philocalia.

2: 2 Cor. xi. 6.

3: 2 Cor. iv. 7.

4: 1 Cor. i. 26, 27.

5: Rom. i. 14.

6: 2 Cor. iii. 6.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 5
========================================================================

From the Fifth Book. From the Preface.1 2. How Scripture Warns Us Against Making
Many Books.

3. The Apostles Wrote Little.4 From the Fifth Book. From the Preface.1

You are not content to fulfil the office, when I am present with you, of a
taskmaster to drive me to labour at theology; even when I am absent you demand
that I should spend most of my time on you and on the task I have to do for
you.2 I, for my part, am inclined to shrink from toil, and to avoid that danger
which threatens from God those who give themselves to writing on divinity; thus
I would take shelter in Scripture in refraining from making many books. For
Solomon says in Ecclesiastes,3 "My son, beware of making many books; there is no
end of it, and much study is a weariness of the flesh." For we, except that text
have some hidden meaning which we do not yet perceive, have directly
transgressed the injunction, we have not guarded ourselves against making many
books.

[Then, after saying that this discussion of but a few sentences of the Gospel
have run to four volumes, he goes on: ] 2. How Scripture Warns Us Against Making
Many Books.

For, to judge by the words of the phrase, "My son, beware of making many books,"
two things appear to be indicated by it: first, that we ought not to possess
many books, and then that we ought not to compose many books. If the first is
not the meaning the second must be, and if the second is the meaning the first
does not necessarily follow. In either case we appear to be told that we ought
not to make many books. I might take my stand on this dictum which now confronts
us, and send you the text as an excuse, and I might appeal in support of this
position to the fact that not even the saints found leisure to compose many
books; and thus I might cry off from the bargain we made with each other, and
give up writing what I was to send to you. You, on your side, would no doubt
feel the force of the text I have cited, and might, for the future, excuse me.
But we must treat Scripture conscientiously, and must not congratulate ourselves
because we see the primary meaning of a text, that we understand it altogether.
I do not, therefore, shrink from bringing forward what excuse I think I am able
to offer for myself, and to point out the arguments, which you would certainly
use against me, if I acted contrary to our agreement. And in the first place,
the Sacred History seems to agree with the text in question, inasmuch as none of
the saints composed several works, or set forth his views in a number of books.
I will take up this point: when I proceed to write a number of books, the critic
will remind me that even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.

3. The Apostles Wrote Little.4 But he who was made fit to be a minister of the
New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, Paul, who fulfilled the
Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum,5 did not write epistles to all
the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a
few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the
gates of hell shall not prevail6 left only one epistle of acknowledged
genuineness. Suppose we allow that he left a second; for this is doubtful. What
are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast, namely, John, who left one
Gospel, though confessing7 that he could make so many that the world would not
contain them? But he wrote also the Apocalypse, being commanded to be silent and
not to write the voices of the seven thunders.8 But he also left an epistle of
very few lines. Suppose also a second and a third, since not all pronounce these
to be genuine; but the two together do not amount to a hundred lines.

[Then, after enumerating the prophets and Apostles, and showing how each wrote
only a little, or not even a little, he goes on: ]9

4. I feel myself growing dizzy with all this, and wonder whether, in obeying
you, I have not been obeying God, nor walking in the footsteps of the saints,
unless it be that my too great love to you, and my unwillingness to cause you
any pain, has led me astray and caused me to think of all these excuses. We
started from the words of the preacher, where he says: "My son, beware of making
many books." With this I compare a saying from the Proverbs of the same
Solomon,10 "In the multitude of words thou shall not escape sin; but in sparing
thy lips thou shalt be wise." Here I ask whether speaking many words of whatever
kind is a multitude of words (in the sense of the preacher), even if the many
words a man speaks are sacred and connected with salvation. If this be the case,
and if he who makes use of many salutary words is guilty of "multitude of
words," then Solomon himself did not escape this sin, for "he spoke11 three
thousand proverbs, and five thousand songs, and he spoke of trees from the cedar
that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall, he spoke
also of beasts and of fowl, and of creeping things and of fishes." How, I may
ask, can any one give any course of instruction, without a multitude of words,
using the phrase in its simplest sense? Does not Wisdom herself say to those who
are perishing,12 "I stretched out my words, and ye heeded not"? Do we not find
Paul, too, extending his discourse from morning to midnight,13 when Eutychus was
borne down with sleep and fell down, to the dismay of the hearers. who thought
he was killed? If, then, the words are true, "In much speaking thou wilt not
escape sin," and if Solomon was yet not guilty of great sin when he discoursed
on the subjects above mentioned, nor Paul when he prolonged his discourse till
midnight, then the question arises, What is that much speaking which is referred
to? and then we may pass on to consider what are the many books. Now the entire
Word of God, who was in the beginning with God, is not much speaking, is not
words; for the Word is one, being composed of the many speculations
(theoremata), each of which is a part of the Word in its entirety. Whatever
words there be outside of this one, which promise to give any description and
exposition, even though they be words about truth, none of these, to put it in a
somewhat paradoxical way, is Word or Reason, they are all words or reasons. They
are not the monad, far from it; they are not that which agrees and is one in
itself, by their inner divisions and conflicts unity has departed from them,
they have become numbers, perhaps infinite numbers. We are obliged, therefore,
to say that whoever speaks that which is foreign to religion is using many
words, while he who speaks the words of truth, even should he go over the whole
field and omit nothing, is always speaking the one word. Nor are the saints
guilty of much speaking, since they always have the aim in view which is
connected with the one word. It appears, then, that the much speaking which is
condemned is judged to be so rather from the nature of the views propounded,
than from the number of the words pronounced. Let us see if we cannot conclude
in the same way that all the sacred books are one book, but that those outside
are the "many books" of the preacher. The proof of this must be drawn from Holy
Scripture, and it will be most satisfactorily established if I am able to show
that it is not only one book, taking the word now in its commoner meaning, that
we find to be written about Christ. Christ is written about even in the
Pentateuch; He is spoken of in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and, in
a word, as the Saviour Himself says, in all the Scriptures. He refers us to them
all, when He says:14 "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have
eternal life, and these are they which testify of Me." And if He refers us to
the Scriptures as testifying of Him, it is not to one that He sends us, to the
exclusion of another, but to all that speak of Him, those which, in the Psalms,
He calls the chapter of the book, saying,15 "In the chapter of the book it is
written of Me." If any one proposes to take these words, "In the chapter of the
book it is written of Me," literally, and to apply them to this or that special
passage where Christ is spoken of, let him tell us on what principle he warrants
his preference for one book over another. If any one supposes that we are doing
something of this kind ourselves. and applying the words in question to the book
of Psalms, we deny that we do so, and we would urge that in that case the words
should have been, "In this book it is written of Me." But He speaks of all the
books as one chapter, thus sum-ruing up in one all that is spoken of Christ for
our instruction. In fact the book was seen by John,16 "written within and
without, and sealed; and no one could open it to read it, and to loose the seals
thereof, but the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, who has the key
of David,17 he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none
shall open." For the book here spoken of means the whole of Scripture; and it is
written within (lit. in front), on account of the meaning which is obvious, and
on the back, on account of its remoter and spiritual sense. Observe, in addition
to this, if a proof that the sacred writings are one book, and those of an
opposite character many. may not be found in the fact that there is one book of
the living from which those who have proved unworthy to be in it are blotted
out, as it is written:18 "Let them be blotter out of the book of the living,"
while of those who are to undergo the judgment, there are books in the plural,
as Daniel says:19 "The judgment was set, and the books were opened." But Moses
also bears witness to the unity of the sacred book, when he says:20 "If Thou
forgive the people their sins, forgive, but if not, then wipe me out of the book
which Thou hast written." The passage in Isaiah,21 too, I read in the same way.
It is not peculiar to his prophecy that the words of the book should be sealed,
and should neither be read by him who does not know letters, because he is
ignorant of letters, nor by him who is learned, because the book is sealed. This
is true of every writing, for every written work needs the reason (Logos) which
closed it to open it. "He shall shut, and none shall open,"22 and when He opens
no one can cast doubt on the interpretation He brings. Hence it is said that He
shall open and no man shall shut. I infer a similar lesson from the book spoken
of in Ezekiel,23 in which was written lamentation, and a song, and woe. For the
whole book is full of the woe of the lost, and the song of the saved, and the
lamentation of those between these two. And John, too, when he speaks of his
eating the one roll,24 in which both front and back were written on, means the
whole of Scripture, one book which is, at first, most sweet when one begins, as
it were, to chew it, but bitter in the revelation of himself which it makes to
the conscience of each one who knows it. I will add to the proof of this an
apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion,
who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says:25 "According to my
Gospel in Christ Jesus; "he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence,
they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there
was only one in existence. But they fail to see that, as He is one of whom all
the evangelists write, so the Gospel, though written by several hands, is, in
effect, one. And, in fact, the Gospel, though written by four, is one. From
these considerations, then, we learn what the one book is, and what the many
books, and what I am now concerned about is, not the quantity I may write, but
the effect of what I say, lest, if I fail in this point, and set forth anything
against the truth itself, even in one of my writings, I should prove to have
transgressed the commandment, and to be a writer of "many books." Yet I see the
heterodox assailing the holy Church of God in these days, under the pretence of
higher wisdom, and bringing forward works in many volumes in which they offer
expositions of the evangelical and apostolic writings, and I fear that if I
should be silent and should not put before our members the saving and true
doctrines, these teachers might get a hold of curious souls, which, in the
absence of wholesome nourishment, might go after food that is forbidden, and, in
fact, unclean and horrible. It appears to me, therefore, to be necessary that
one who is able to represent in a genuine manner the doctrine of the Church, and
to refute those dealers in knowledge, falsely so-called, should take his stand
against historical fictions, and oppose to them the true and lofty evangelical
message in which the agreement of the doctrines, found both in the so-called Old
Testament and in the so-called New, appears so plainly and fully. You yourself
felt at one time the lack of good representatives of the better cause, and were
impatient of a faith which was at issue with reason and absurd, and you then,
for the love you bore to the Lord, gave yourself to composition from which,
however, in the exercise of the judgment with which you are endowed, you
afterwards desisted. This is the defence which I think admits of being made for
those who have the faculty of speaking and writing. But I am also pleading my
own cause, as I now devote myself with what boldness I may to the work of
exposition; for it may be that I am not endowed with that habit and disposition
which he ought to have who is fitted by God to be a minister of the New
Covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit.

1: From the Philocalia.

2: This is addressed to Ambrose, who was at the time absent from Alexandria. Cf.
book i. chap. 6, p. 299.

3: This is addressed to Ambrose, who was at the time absent from Alexandria. Cf.
book i. chap. 6, p. 299.

4: From Eusebius, Hist Eccl vi 25

5: Rom. xv. 19.

6: Matt. xvi. 18.

7: John i. 20, 25.

8: Apoc. x. 4.

9: The following fragments is found in Philocalia, pp. 27-30.

10: x. 19.

11: 1 Kings iv. 32.

12: Prov. i. 24.

13: Acts xx. 7-9.

14: John v. 39.

15: xl. 7.

16: Apoc. v. 1-5.

17: Apoc. iii. 7.

18: Ps. lxix. 28.

19: Dan. vii. 10.

20: Exod. xxxii. 32.

21: xxix. 11, 12.

22: Isa. xxii. 22.

23: ii 10.

24: Apoc. x. 9, 10.

25: Rom. ii. 16.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: COMMENTARY ON JOHN - BOOK 6
========================================================================

Sixth Book

1. The Work is Taken Up After a Violent Interruption, Which Has Driven the
Writer from Alexandria. He Addresses Himself to It Again, with Thanks for His
Deliverance, and Prayer for Guidance.

2. How the Prophets and Holy Men of the Old Testament Knew the Things of Christ.

3. "Grace and Truth Came Through Jesus Christ." These Words Belong to the
Baptist, Not the Evangelist. What the Baptist Testifies by Them.

4. John Denies that He is Elijah or "The" Prophet. Yet He Was "A" Prophet.

5. There Were Two Embassies to John the Baptist; The Different Characters of
These.

6. Messianic Discussion with John the Baptist.

7. Of the Birth of John, and of His Alleged Identity with Elijah. Of the
Doctrine of Transcorporation.

8. John is a Prophet, But Not the Prophet.

9. John I 22.

10. Of the Voice John the Baptists is.

11. Of the Way of the Lord, How It is Narrow, and How Jesus is the Way.

12. Heracleon's View of the Voice, and of John the Baptist.

13. John I 24, 25. Of the Baptism of John, that of Elijah, and that of Christ.

14. Comparison of the Statements of the Four Evangelists Respecting John the
Baptist, the Prophecies Regarding Him, His Addresses to the Multitude and to the
Pharisees, Etc.

15. How the Baptist Answers the Question of the Pharisees and Exalts the Nature
of Christ. Of the Shoe-Latchet Which He is Unable to Untie.

16. Comparison of John's Testimony to Jesus in the Different Gospels.

17. Of the Testimony of John to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel, 18. Of the Testimony
in Mark. What is Meant by the Saviour's Shoes and by Untying His Shoe-Latchets.

19. Luke and John Suggest that One May Loose the Shoe-Latchets of the Logos
Without Stooping Down.

20. The Difference Between Not Being "Sufficient" And Not Being "Worthy."

21. The Fourth Gospel Speaks of Only One Shoe, the Others of Both. The
Significance of This.

22. How the Word Stands in the Midst of Men Without Being Known of Them.

23. Heracleon's View of This Utterance of John the Baptist, and Interpretation
of the Shoe of Jesus.

24. The Name of the Place Where John Baptized is Not Bethany, as in Most Copies,
But Bethabara. Proof of This. Similarly "Gergesa" Should Be Read for "Gerasa,"
In the Story of the Swine. Attention is to Be Paid to the Proper Names in
Scripture, Which are Often Written Inaccurately, and are of Importance for
Interpretation.

25. Jordan Means "Their Going Down." Spiritual Meanings and Application of This.

26. The Story of Israel Crossing Jordan Under Joshua is Typical of Christian
Things, and is Written for Our Instruction.

27. Of Elijah and Elisha Crossing the Jordan.

28. Naaman the Syrian and the Jordan. No Other Stream Has the Same Healing
Power.

29. The River of Egypt and Its Dragon, Contrasted with the Jordan.

30. Of What John Learned from Jesus When Mary Visited Elisabeth in the Hill
Country.

31. Of the Conversation Between John and Jesus at the Baptism, Recorded by
Matthew Only.

32. John Calls Jesus a "Lamb." Why Does He Name This Animal Specially? of the
Typology of the Sacrifices, Generally.

33. A Lamb Was Offered at the Morning and Evening Sacrifice. Significance of
This.

34. The Morning and Evening Sacrifices of the Saint in His Life of Thought.

35. Jesus is a Lamb in Respect of His Human Nature.

36. Of the Death of the Martyrs Considered as a Sacrifice, and in What Way It
Operates to the Benefit of Others.

37. Of the Effects of the Death of Christ, of His Triumph After It, and of the
Removal by His Death of the Sins of Men.

38. The World, of Which the Sin is Taken Away, is Said to Be the Church. Reasons
for Not Agreeing with This Opinion.

Sixth Book

1. The Work is Taken Up After a Violent Interruption, Which Has Driven the
Writer from Alexandria. He Addresses Himself to It Again, with Thanks for His
Deliverance, and Prayer for Guidance. When a house is being built which is to be
made as strong as possible, the building takes place in fine weather and in
calm, so that nothing may hinder the structure from acquiring the needed
solidity. And thus it turns out so strong and stable that it is able to
withstand the rush of the flood. and the dashing of the river, and all the
agencies accompanying a storm which are apt to find out what is rotten in a
building and to show what parts of it have been properly put together. And more
particularly should that house which is capable of sheltering the speculations
of truth, the house of reason, as it were, in promise or in letters, be built at
a time when God can add His free co-operation to the projector of so noble a
work, when the soul is quiet and in the enjoyment of that peace which passes all
understanding, when she is turned away from all disturbance and not buffeted by
any billows. This, it appears to me, was well understood by the servants of the
prophetic spirit and the ministers of the Gospel message; they made themselves
worthy to receive that peace which is in secret from Him who ever gives it to
them that are worthy and who said,1 "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give
unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you." And look if some similar
lesson is not taught under the surface with regard to David and Solomon in the
narrative about the temple. David, who fought the wars of the Lord and stood
firm against many enemies, his own and those of Israel, desired to build a
temple for God. But God, through Nathan, prevents him from doing so, and Nathan
says to him,2 "Thou shalt not build me an house, because thou art a man of
blood." But Solomon, on the other hand, saw God in a dream, and in a dream
received wisdom, for the reality of the vision was kept for him who said,
"Behold a greater than Solomon is here." The time was one of the profoundest
peace, so that it was possible for every man to rest under his own vine and his
own fig-tree, and Solomon's very name was significant of the peace which was in
his days, for Solomon means peaceful; and so he was at liberty to build the
famous temple of God. About the time of Ezra, also, when "truth conquers wine
and the hostile king: and women,"3 the temple of God is restored again. All this
is said by way of apology to you, reverend Ambrosius. It is at your sacred
encouragement that I have made up my mind to build up in writing: the tower of
the Gospel; and I have therefore sate down to count the cost,4 if I have
sufficient to finish it, lest I should be mocked by the beholders, because I
laid the foundation but was not able to finish the work. The result of my
counting, it is true, has been that I do not possess what is required to finish
it; yet I have put my trust in God, who enriches us5 with all wisdom and all
knowledge. If we strive to keep His spiritual laws we believe that He does
enrich us; He will supply what is necessary so that we shall get on with our
building, and shall even come to the parapet of the structure. That parapet it
is which keeps from falling those who go up on the house of the Word; for people
only fall off those houses which have no parapet, so that the buildings
themselves are to blame for their fall and for their death. We proceeded as far
as the fifth volume in spite of the obstacles presented by the storm in
Alexandria, and spoke what was given us to speak, for Jesus rebuked the winds
and the waves of the sea. We emerged from the storm, we were brought out of
Egypt, that God delivering us who led His people forth from there. Then, when
the enemy assailed us with all bitterness by his new writings, so directly
hostile to the Gospel, and stirred up against us all the winds of wickedness in
Egypt, I felt that reason called me rather to stand fist for the conflict, and
to save the higher part in me, lest evil counsels should succeed in directing
the storm so as to overwhelm my soul, rather to do this than to finish my work
at an unsuitable season, before my mind had recovered its calm. Indeed, the
ready writers who usually attended me brought my work to a stand by failing to
appear to take down my words. But now that the many fiery darts directed against
me have lost their edge, for God extinguished them, and my soul has grown
accustomed to the dispensation sent me for the sake of the heavenly word, and
has learned from necessity to disregard the snares of my enemies, it is as if a
great calm had settled on me, and Idefer no longer the continuation of this
work. I pray that God will be with me, and will speak as a teacher in the porch
of my soul, so that the building I have begun of the exposition of the Gospel of
John may arrive at completion. May God hear my prayer and grant that the body of
the whole work may now be brought together, and that no interruption may
intervene which might prevent me from following the sequence of Scripture. And
be assured that it is with great readiness that I now make this second beginning
and enter on my sixth volume, because what I wrote before at Alexandria has not,
I know not by what chance, been brought with me. I feared I might neglect this
work, if I were not engaged on it at once, and therefore thought it better to
make use of this present time and begin without delay the part which remains. I
am not certain if the part formerly written will come to light, and would be
very unwilling to waste time in waiting to see if it does. Enough of preamble,
let us now attend to our text.

2. How the Prophets and Holy Men of the Old Testament Knew the Things of Christ.

"And this is the witness of John."6 This is the second recorded testimony of
John the Baptist to Christ. The first begins with "This was He of whom I said,
He that cometh after me," and goes down to "The only-begotten Son of God who is
in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared him." Heracleon supposes the words,
"No one has seen God at any time," etc., to have been spoken, not by the
Baptist, but by the disciple. But in this he is not sound. He himself allows the
words, "Of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace; for the law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," to have been spoken
by the Baptist. And does it not follow that the person who received of the
fulness of Christ, and a second grace in addition to that he had before, and who
declared the law to have been given by Moses, but grace and truth to have come
through Jesus Christ, is it not clear that this is the person who understood,
from what he received from the fulness of Christ, how "no one hath seen God at
any time," and how "the only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father" had
delivered the declaration about God to him and to all those who had received of
His fulness? He was not declaring here for the first time Him that is in the
bosom of the Father, as if there had never before been any one fit to receive
what he told His Apostles. Does he not teach us that he was before Abraham, and
that Abraham rejoiced and was glad to see his day? The words "Of his fulness all
we received," and "Grace for grace," show, as we have already made clear, that
the prophets also received their gift from the fulness of Christ and received a
second grace in place of that they had before; for they also, led by the Spirit,
advanced from the introduction they had in types to the vision of truth. Hence
not all the prophets, but many of them,7 desired to see the things, which the
Apostles saw. For if there was a difference among the prophets, those who were
perfect and more distinguished of them did not desire to see what the Apostles
saw, but actually beheld them, while those who rose less fully than these to the
height of the Word were filled with longing for the things which the Apostles
knew through Christ. The word "saw" we have not taken in a physical sense, and
the word "heard" we have taken to refer to a spiritual communication; only he
who has ears is prepared to hear the words of Jesus-a thing which does not
happen too frequently. There is the further point, that the saints before the
bodily advent of Jesus had an advantage over most believers in their insight
into the mysteries of divinity, since the Word of God was their teacher before
He became flesh, for He was always working , in imitation of His Father, of whom
He says, "My father worketh hitherto." On this point we may adduce the words He
addresses to the Sadducees, who do not believe the doctrine of the resurrection.
"Have you not read," He says,8 "what is said by God at the Bush, I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not the God of the
dead but of the living." If, then, God is not ashamed to be called the God of
these men, and if they are counted by Christ among the living, and if all
believers are sons of Abraham,9 since all the Gentiles are blessed with faithful
Abraham, who is appointed by God to be a father of the Gentiles, can we hesitate
to admit that those living persons made acquaintance with the learning of living
men, and were taught by Christ who was born before the daystar,10 before He
became flesh? And for this cause they lived, because they had part in Him who
said, "I am the life," and as the heirs of so great promises received the
vision, not only of angels, but of God in Christ. For they saw, it may be, the
image of the invisible God,11 since he who hath seen the Son hath seen the
Father, and so they are recorded to have known God, and to have heard God's
words worthily, and, therefore, to have seen God and heard Him. Now, I consider
that those who are fully and really sons of Abraham are sons of his actions,
spiritually understood, and of the knowledge which was made manifest to him.
What he knew and what he did appears again in those who are his sons, as the
Scripture teaches those who have ears to hear,12 "If ye were the children of
Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham." And if it is a true proverb13 which
says, "A wise man will understand that which proceeds from his own mouth, and on
his lips he will bear prudence," then we must at once repudiate some things
which have been said about the prophets, as if they were not wise men, and did
not understand what proceeded from their own mouths. We must believe what is
good and true about the prophets, that they were sages, that they did understand
what proceeded from their mouths, and that they bore prudence on their lips. It
is clear indeed that Moses understood in his mind the truth (real meaning) of
the law, and the higher interpretations of the stories recorded in his books.
Joshua, too, understood the meaning of the allotment of the land after the
destruction of the nine and twenty kings, and could see better than we can the
realities of which his achievements were the shadows. It is clear, too, that
Isaiah saw the mystery of Him who sat upon the throne, and of the two seraphim,
and of the veiling of their faces and their feet, and of their wings, and of the
altar and of the tongs. Ezekiel, too, understood the true significance of the
cherubim and of their goings, and of the firmament that was above them, and of
Him that sat on the throne, than all which what could be loftier or more
splendid? I need not enter into more particulars; the point I aim at
establishing is clear enough already, namely, that those who were made perfect
in earlier generations knew not less than the Apostles did of what Christ
revealed to them, since the same teacher was with them as He who revealed to the
Apostles the unspeakable mysteries of godliness. I will add but a few points,
and then leave it to the reader to judge and to form what views he pleases on
this subject. Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans,14 "Now, to him who is able
to establish you according to my Gospel, according to the revelation of the
mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but is now made
manifest by the prophetic Scriptures and the appearance of our Lord Jesus
Christ." For if the mystery concealed of old is made manifest to the Apostles
through the prophetic writings, and if the prophets, being wise men, understood
what proceeded from their own mouths, then the prophets knew what was made
manifest to the Apostles. But to many it was not revealed, as Paul says,15 "In
other generations it was not made known to the sons of men as it hath now been
revealed unto His holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles
are fellow-heirs and members of the same body." Here an objection may be raised
by those who do not share the view we have propounded; and it becomes of
importance to define what is meant by the word "revealed." It is capable of two
meanings: firstly, that the thing in question is understood, but secondly, if a
prophecy is spoken of, that it is accomplished. Now, the fact that the Gentiles
were to be fellow-heirs and members of the same body, and partakers of the
promise, was known to the prophets to this extent, that they knew the Gentiles
were to fellow-heirs and members of the same body, and partakers of the promise
in Christ. When this should be, and why, and what Gentiles were spoken of, and
how, though strangers from the covenants. and aliens to the promises, they were
yet to be members of one body and sharers of the blessings; all this was known
to the prophets, being revealed to them. But the things prophesied belong to the
future, and are not revealed to those who know them, but do not witness their
fulfilment, as they are to those who have the event before their eyes. And this
was the position of the Apostles. Thus, I conceive. they knew the events no more
than the fathers and the prophets did; and yet it is truly said of them that
"what to other generations was not revealed was now revealed to the Apostles and
prophets, that the Gentiles were fellow-heirs and members of the same body, and
partakers in the promise of Christ." For, in addition to knowing these
mysteries, they saw the power at work in the accomplished fact. The passage,
"Many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things ye see and did not
see them; and to hear the things ye hear and did not hear them," may be
interpreted in the same way. They also desired to see the mystery of the
incarnation of the Son of God, and of His coming down to carry out the design of
His suffering for the salvation of many, actually put in operation. This may be
illustrated from another quarter. Suppose one of the Apostles to have understood
the "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter,"16 but not to
witness the glorious bodily appearing of Jesus to the faithful. which is
promised, although He desired to see it and suppose another had not only not17
marked and seen what that Apostle marked and saw, but had a much feebler grasp
of the divine hope, and yet is present at the second coming of our Saviour,
which the Apostle, as in the parallel above, had desired, but had not seen. We
shall not err from the truth if we say that both of these have seen what the
Apostle, or indeed the Apostles, desired to see, and yet that they are not on
that account to be deemed wiser or more blessed than the Apostles. In the same
way, also, the Apostles are not to be deemed wiser than the fathers, or than
Moses and the prophets, than those in fact who, for their virtue, were found
worthy of epiphanies and ofdivine manifestations and of revelations of
mysteries.

3. "Grace and Truth Came Through Jesus Christ." These Words Belong to the
Baptist, Not the Evangelist. What the Baptist Testifies by Them.

We have lingered rather long over these discussions, but there is a reason for
it. There are many who, under the pretence of glorifying the advent of Christ,
declare the Apostles to be wiser than the fathers or the prophets; and of these
teachers some have invented a greater God for the later period, while some, not
venturing so far, but moved, according to their own account of the matter, by
the difficulty connected with doctrine, cancel the whole of the gift conferred
by God on the fathers and the prophets, through Christ, through whom all things
were made. If all things were made through Him, clearly so must the splendid
revelations have been which were made to the fathers and prophets, and became to
them the symbols of the sacred mysteries of religion. Now the true soldiers of
Christ must always be prepared to do battle for the truth, and must never, so
far as lies with them, allow false convictions to creep in. We must not,
therefore, neglect this matter. It may be said that John's earlier testimony to
Christ is to be found in the words. "He who cometh after me exists before me,
for He was before me," and that the words, "For of His fulness we all received,
and grace for grace," are in the mouth of John the disciple. Now, we must show
this exposition to be a forced one, and one which does violence to the context;
it is rather a strong proceeding to suppose the speech of the Baptist to be so
suddenly and, as it were, inopportunely interrupted by that of the disciple, and
it is quite apparent to any one who can judge, in whatever small degree, of a
context, that the speech goes on continuously after the words, "This is He of
whom I spoke, He that cometh after me exists before me, for He was before me."
The Baptist brings a proof that Jesus existed before him because He was before
him, since He is the first-born of all creation; he says, "For of His fulness
all we received." That is the reason why he says, "He exists before me, for He
was before me." That is how I know that He is first and in higher honour with
the Father, since of His fulness both I and the prophets before me received the
more divine prophetic grace instead of the grace we received at His hands before
in respect of our election. That is why I say, "He exists before me, for He was
before me," because we know what we have received from His fulness; namely, that
the law was given through Moses, not by Moses, while grace and truth not only
were given but came into existence18 through Jesus Christ. For His God and
Father both gave the law through Moses, and made grace and truth through Jesus
Christ, that grace and truth which came to man. If we give a reasonable
interpretation to the words, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," we
shall not be alarmed at the possible discrepancy with them of that other saying,
"I am the way and the truth and the life." If it is Jesus who says, "I am the
truth," then how does the truth come through Jesus Christ, since no one comes
into existence through himself? We must recognize that this very truth, the
essential truth, which is prototypal, so to speak, of that truth which exists in
souls endowed with reason, that truth from which, as it were, images are
impressed on those who care for truth, was not made through Jesus Christ, nor
indeed through any one, but by God;-just as the Word was not made through any
one which was in the beginning with the Father;-and as wisdom which God created
the beginning of His ways was not made through any one, so the truth also was
not made through any one.That truth, however, which is with men came through
Jesus Christ, as the truth in Paul and the Apostles came through Jesus Christ.
And it is no wonder, since truth is one, that many truths should flow from that
one. The prophet David certainly knew many truths, as he says,19 "The Lord
searcheth out truths," for the Father of truth searches out not the one truth
but the many through which those are saved who possess them. And as with the one
truth and many truths, so also with righteousness and righteousnesses. For the
very essential righteousness is Christ, "Who was made to us of God wisdom and
righteousness and sanctification and redemption." But from that righteousness is
formed the righteousness which is in each individual. so that there are in the
saved many righteousnesses, whence also it is written,20 "For the Lord is
righteous, and He loved righteousnesses." This is the reading in the exact
copies, and in the other versions besides the Septuagint, and in the Hebrew.
Consider if the other things which Christ is said to be in a unity admit of
being multiplied in the same way and spoken of in the plural. For example,
Christ is our life as the Saviour Himself says,21 "I am the way and the truth
and the life." The Apostle, too, says,22 "When Christ our life shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with Him in glory." And in the Psalms again we find,23
"Thy mercy is better than life; "for it is on account of Christ who is life in
every one that there are many lives. This, perhaps, is also the key to the
passage,24 "If ye seek a proof of the Christ that speaketh in me." For Christ is
found in every saint, and so from the one Christ there come to be many Christs,
imitators of Him and formed after Him who is the image of God; whence God says
through the prophet,25 "Touch not my Christs." Thus we have explained in passing
the passage which we appeared to have omitted from our exposition, viz.: "Grace
and truth came through Jesus Christ; "and we have also shown that the words
belong to John the Baptist and form part of his testimony to the Son of God.

4. John Denies that He is Elijah or "The" Prophet. Yet He Was "A" Prophet.

Now let us consider John's second testimony. Jews from Jerusalem,26 kindred to
John the Baptist, since he also belonged to a priestly race, send priests and
levites to ask John who he is. In saying, "I am not the Christ," he made a
confession of the truth. The words are not, as one might suppose, a negation;
for it is no negation to say, in the honour of Christ, that one is not Christ.
The priests and levites sent from Jerusalem, having there heard in the first
place that he is not the expected Messiah, put a question about the second great
personage whom they expected, namely, Elijah, whether John were he, and he says
he is not Elijah, and by his "I am not" makes a second confession of the truth.
And, as many prophets had appeared in Israel, and one in particular was looked
for according to the prophecy of Moses, who said,27 "A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up to you of your brethren, like unto me, him shall ye hear; and
it shall come to pass that every soul that shall not hear that prophet shall be
destroyed from among the people," they, therefore, ask a third question, not
whether he is a prophet, but whether he is the prophet. Now, they did not apply
this name to the Christ, but supposed the prophet to be a second figure beside
the Christ. But John, on the contrary, who knew that He whose forerunner he was
was both the Christ and the prophet thus foretold, answered "No; "whereas, if
they had asked if he was a prophet, he would have answered "Yes; "28 for he was
not unconscious that he was a prophet. In all these answers John's second
testimony to Christ was not yet completed; he had still to give his questioners
the answer they were to take back to those who sent them, and to declare himself
in the terms of the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, "The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord."

5. There Were Two Embassies to John the Baptist; The Different Characters of
These.

Here the enquiry suggests itself whether the second testimony is concluded, and
whether there is a third, addressed to those who were sent from the Pharisees.
They wished to know why he baptized, if he was neither the Christ, nor Elijah,
nor the prophet; and he said:29 "I baptize with water; but there standeth one
among you whom you know not, He that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe
I am not worthy to unloose." Is this a third testimony, or is this which they
were to report to the Pharisees a part of the second? As far as the words allow
me to conjecture I should say that the word to the emissaries of the Pharisees
was a third testimony. It is to be observed, however, that the first testimony
asserts the divinity of the Saviour, while the second disposes of the suspicion
of those who were in doubt whether John could be the Christ, and the third
declares one who was already present with men although they saw Him not, and
whose coming was no longer in the future. Before going on to the subsequent
testimonies in which he points out Christ and witnesses to Him, let us look at
the second and third, word for word, and let us, in the first place, observe
that there are two embassies to the Baptist, one "from Jerusalem" from the Jews,
who send priests and levites, to ask him, "Who art thou? "the second sent by the
Pharisees,30 who were in doubt about the answer which had been made to the
priests and levites. Observe how what is said by the first envoys is in keeping
with the character of priests and levites, and shows gentleness and a
willingness to learn. "Who art thou? "they say, and "What then? art thou Elijah?
"and "Art thou that prophet? "and then, "Who art thou, that we may give an
answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? "There is nothing
harsh or arrogant in the enquiries of these men; everything agrees well with the
character of true and careful servants of God; and they raise no difficulties
about the replies made to them. Those, on the contrary, who are sent from the
Pharisees assail the Baptist, as it were, with arrogant and unsympathetic words:
"Why then baptizest thou if thou be not the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?
"This mission is sent scarcely for the sake of information, as in the former
case of the priests and levites, but rather to debar the Baptist from baptizing,
as if it were thought that no one was entitled to baptize but Christ and Elijah
and the prophet. The student who desires to understand the Scripture must always
proceed in this careful way; he must ask with regard to each speech, who is the
speaker and on what occasion it was spoken. Thus only can we discern how speech
harmonizes with the character of the speaker, as it does all through the sacred
books.

6. Messianic Discussion with John the Baptist.

Then the Jews sent priests and levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou
And he confessed and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ.31 What
legates should have been sent from the Jews to John, and where should they have
been sent from? Should they not have been men held to stand by the election of
God above their fellows, and should they not have come from that place which was
chosen out of the whole of the earth, though it is all called good, from
Jerusalem where was the temple of God? With such honour, then, do they enquire
of John. In the case of Christ nothing of this sort is reported to have been
done by the Jews; but what the Jews do to John, John does to Christ, sending his
own disciples to ask him,32 "Art thou He that should come, or do we look for
another? "John confesses to those sent to him, and denies not, and he afterwards
declares, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness; "but Christ, as
having a greater testimony than John the Baptist, makes His answer by words and
deeds, saying. "Go and tell John those things which ye do hear and see; the
blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the
deaf hear, and the poor have the Gospel preached to them." On this passage I
shall, if God permit, enlarge in its proper place. Here, however, it might be
asked reasonably enough why John gives such an answer to the question put to
him. The priests and levites do not ask him, "Art thou the Christ? "but "Who art
thou? "and the Baptist's reply to this question should have been, "I am the
voice of one crying in the wilderness." The proper reply to the question, "Art
thou the Christ? "is, "I am not the Christ; "and to the question, "Who art thou?
"-"The voice of one crying in the wilderness." To this we may say that he
probably discerned in the question of the priests and levites a cautious
reverence, which led them to hint the idea in their minds that he who was
baptizing might be the Christ, but withheld them from openly saying so, which
might have been presumptuous. He quite naturally, therefore, proceeds in the
first place to remove any false impressions they might have taken up about him,
and declares publicly the true state of the matter, "I am not the Christ." Their
second question, and also their third, show that they had conceived some such
surmise about him. They supposed that he might be that second in honour to whom
their hopes pointed, namely, Elijah, who held with them the next position after
Christ; and so when John had answered, "I am not the Christ," they asked, "What
then? Art thou Elijah? "And he said, "I am not." They wish to know, in the third
place, if he is the prophet, and on his answer," No," they have no longer any
name to give the personage whose advent they expected, and they say, "Who art
thou, then, that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of
thyself? "Their meaning is: "You are not, you say, any of those personages whose
advent Israel hopes and expects, and who you are, to baptize as you do, we do
not know; tell us, therefore, so that we may report to those who sent us to get
light ripen this point." We add, as it has some bearing on the context, that the
people were moved by the thought that the period of Christ's advent was near. It
was in a manner imminent in the years from the birth of Jesus and a little
before, down to the publication of the preaching. Hence it was, in all
likelihood, that as the scribes and lawyers had deduced the time from Holy
Scripture and were expecting the Coming One, the idea was taken up by Theudas,
who came forward as the Messiah and brought together a considerable multitude,
and after him by the famous Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing.33 Thus
the coming of the Messiah was more warmly expected and discussed, and it was
natural enough for the Jews to send priests and levites from Jerusalem to John,
to ask him, "Who art thou? "and learn if he professed to be the Christ.

7. Of the Birth of John, and of His Alleged Identity with Elijah. Of the
Doctrine of Transcorporation.

"And34 they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? and he said, I am not." No
one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John,35 "If ye
will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come." How, then, does John come to
say to those who ask him, "Art thou Elijah? "-"I am not." And how can it be true
at the same time that John is Elijah who is to come, according to the words of
Malachi,36 "And behold I send unto you Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and
notable day of the Lord come, who shall restore the heart of the father to the
Sod, and the heart of a man to his neighbour, lest I come, and utterly smite the
earth." The words of the angel of the Lord, too, who appeared to Zacharias, as
he stood at the right hand of the altar of incense, are somewhat to the same
effect as the prophecy of Malachi: "And37 thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a
son, and thou shalt call his name John." And a little further on:38 "And he
shall go before His face in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of
the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to
make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him." As for the first point, one
might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the
explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of
transcorporation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not
quite remember its former lives. These thinkers will also point out that some of
the Jews assented to this doctrine when they spoke about the Saviour as if He
was one of the old prophets, and had risen not from the tomb but from His birth.
His mother Mary was well known, and Joseph the carpenter was supposed to be His
father, add it could readily be supposed that He was one of the old prophets
risen from the dead. The same person will adduce the text in Genesis.39 "I will
destroy the whole resurrection," and will thereby reduce those who give
themselves to finding in Scripture solutions of false probabilities to a great
difficulty in respect of this doctrine. Another, however, a churchman, who
repudiates the doctrine of transcorporation as a false one, and does not admit
that the soul of John ever was Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of
the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at
John's birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah. "He shall go before him," it
is said, "in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers
to the children." Now it can be shown from thousands of texts that the spirit is
a different thing from the soul, and that what is called the power is a
different thing from both the soul and the spirit. On these points I cannot now
enlarge; this work must not be unduly expanded. To establish the fact that power
is different from spirit. it will be enough to cite the text,40 "The Holy Spirit
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." As
for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God, and are spoken
of as being in a manner their property (slaves), as "The spirits of the prophets
are subject to the prophets."41 and "The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha."42
Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, "in the spirit
and power of Elijah," turned the hearts of the fathers to the children, and that
it was on account of this spirit that he was called "Elijah who was to come."
And to reinforce this view it may be argued that if the God of the universe
identified Himself with His saints to such an extent as to be called the God of
Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, much more might the Holy
Spirit so identify Himself with the prophets as to be called their spirit, so
that when the spirit is spoken of it might be the spirit of Elijah or the spirit
of Isaiah. Our churchman, to go on with his views, may further say that those
who supposed Jesus to be one of the prophets risen from the dead were probably
misled, partly by the doctrine above mentioned, and partly by supposing Him to
be one of the prophets, and that as for this misconception that He was one of
the prophets, these persons probably fell into their error from not knowing
about Jesus' supposed father and actual mother, and considering that He had
risen from the tombs. As for the text in Genesis about the resurrection, the
churchman will rejoin with a text to an opposite effect, "God hath raised up for
me another seed in place of Abel whom Cain slew; "43 showing that the
resurrection occurs in Genesis. As for the first difficulty which was raised,
our churchman will meet the view of the believers in transcorporation by saying
that John is no doubt, in a certain sense, as he has already shown, Elijah who
is to come; and that the reason why he met the enquiry of the priests and
levites with "I am not," was that he divined the object they had in view in
making it. For the enquiry laid before John by the priests and levites was not
intended to bring out whether the same spirit was in both, but whether John was
that very Elijah who was taken up, and who now appeared according to the
expectation of the Jews without being born (for the emissaries, perhaps, did not
know about John's birth); and to such all enquiry he naturally answered, "I am
not; "for he who was called John was not Elijah who was taken up, and had not
changed his body for his present appearance. Our first scholar, whose view of
transcorporation we have seen based upon our passage, may go on with a close
examination of the text, and urge against his antagonist, that if John was the
son of such a man as the priest Zacharias, and if he was born when his parents
were both aged, contrary to all human expectation, then it is not likely that so
many Jews at Jerusalem would be so ignorant about him, or that the priests and
levites whom they sent would not be acquainted with the facts of his birth. Does
not Luke declare44 that "fear came upon all those who lived round
about,"-clearly round about Zacharias and Elisabeth-and that "all these things
were noised abroad throughout the whole hill country of Judaea"? And if John's
birth from Zacharias was a matter of common knowledge, and the Jews of Jerusalem
yet sent priests and levites to ask, "Art thou Elijah? "then it is clear that in
saying this they assumed the doctrine of transcorporation to be true, and that
it was a current doctrine of their country, and not foreign to their secret
teaching. John therefore says, I am not Elijah, because he does not know about
his own former life. These thinkers, accordingly, entertain an opinion which is
by no means to be despised. Our churchman, however, may return to the charge,
and ask if it is worthy of a prophet, who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, who
is predicted by Isaiah, and whose birth was foretold before it took place by so
great an angel, one who has received of the fulness of Christ, who shares in
such a grace, who knows truth to have come through Jesus Christ, and has taught
such deep things about God and about the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of
the Father, is it worthy of such a one to lie, or even to hesitate, out of
ignorance of what he was. For with respect to what was obscure, he ought to have
refrained from confessing, and to have neither affirmed nor denied the
proposition put before him. If the doctrine in question really was widely
current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul
had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and
will bid his antagonists ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews, if
they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do
not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless.
Our churchman, however, is still free to have recourse to the solution given
before, and to insist that attention be paid to the meaning with which the
question was put. For if, as I showed, the senders knew John to be the child of
Zacharias and Elisabeth, and if the messengers still more, being men of priestly
race, could not possibly be ignorant of the remarkable manner in which their
kinsman Zacharias had received his son, then what could be the meaning of their
question, "Art thou Elijah? "Had they not read that Elijah had been taken up
into heaven, and did they not expect him to appear? Then, as they expect Elijah
to come at the consummation before Christ, and Christ to follow him, perhaps
their question was meant less in a literal than in a tropical sense: Are you he
who announces beforehand the word which is to come before Christ, at the
consummation? To this he very properly answers, "I am not." The adversary,
however, tries to show that the priests could not be ignorant that the birth of
John had taken place in so remarkable a manner, because "all these things had
been much spoken of in the hill country of Judaea; "and the churchman has to
meet this. He does so by showing that a similar mistake was widely current about
the Saviour Himself; for "some said that He was John the Baptist, others Elijah,
others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."45 So the disciples told the Lord when
He was in the parts of Caesarea Philippi, and questioned them on that subject.
And Herod, too, said,46 "John whom I beheaded, he is risen from the dead; "so
that he appears not to have known what was said about Christ, as reported in the
Gospel,47 "Is not this the son of the carpenter, is not His mother called Mary,
and His brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are
they not all with us? "Thus in the case of the Saviour, while many knew of His
birth from Mary, others were under a mistake about Him; and so in the case of
John, there is no wonder if, while some knew of his birth from Zacharias, others
were in doubt whether the expected Elijah had appeared in him or not. There was
not more room for doubt about John, whether he was Elijah, than about the
Saviour, whether He was John. Of the two, the question of the outward form of
Elijah could be disposed of from the words of Scripture, though not from actual
observation, for we read,48 "He was a hairy man, and girt with a leather girdle
about his loins." John's outward appearance, on the contrary, was well known,
and was not like that of Jesus; and yet there were those who surmised that John
had risen from the dead, and taken the name of Jesus. As for the change of name,
a thing which reminds us of mysteries, I do not know how the Hebrews came to
tell about Phinehas, son of Eleazar, who admittedly prolonged his life to the
time of many of the judges, as we read in the Book of Judges,49 to tell about
him what I now mention. They say that he was Elijah, because he had been
promised immortality (in Numbers50 ), on account of the covenant of peace
granted to him because he was jealous with a divine jealousy, and in a passion
of anger pierced the Midianitish woman and the Israelite, and stayed the wrath
of God as it is called, as it is written, "Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son
of Aaron, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was
jealous with my jealousy among them." No wonder, then, if those who conceived
Phinehas and Elijah to be the same person, whether they judged soundly in this
or not. for that is not now the question, considered John and Jesus also to be
the same. This, then, they doubted, and desired to know if John and Elijah were
the same. At another time than this, the point would certainly call for a
careful enquiry, and the argument would have to be well weighed as to the
essence of the soul, as to the principle of her composition, and as to her
entering into this body of earth. We should also have to enquire into the
distributions of the life of each soul, and as to her departure from this life,
and whether it is possible for her to enter into a second life in a body or not,
and whether that takes place at the same period, and after the same arrangement
in each case, or not; and whether she enters the same body, or a different one,
and if the same, whether the subject remains the same while the qualities are
changed, or if both subject and qualities remain the same, and if the soul will
always make use of the same body or will change it. Along with these questions,
it would also be necessary to ask what transcorporation is, and how it differs
from incorporation, and if he who holds transcorporation must necessarily hold
the world to be eternal. The views of these scholars must also be taken into
account, who consider that, according to the Scriptures, the soul is sown along
with the body, and the consequences of such a view must also be looked at. In
fact the subject of the soul is a wide one, and hard to be unravelled, and it
has to be picked out of scattered expressions of Scripture. It requires,
therefore, separate treatment. The brief consideration we have been led to give
to the problem in connection with Elijah and John may now suffice; we go on to
what follows in the Gospel.

8. John is a Prophet, But Not the Prophet.

"Art thou that prophet? And he answered No."51 If the law and the prophets were
until John,52 what can we say that John was but a prophet? His father Zacharias,
indeed, says, filled with the Holy Ghost and prophesying,53 "And thou, child,
shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the Lord to
prepare His ways." (One might indeed get past this passage by laying stress on
the word called: he is to be called, he is not said to be, a prophet.) And still
more weighty is it that the Saviour said to those who considered John to be a
prophet,54 "But what went ye out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and
more than a prophet." The words, Yea, I say unto you, manifestly affirm that
John is a prophet, and that is nowhere denied afterwards. If, then, he is said
by the Saviour to be not only a prophet but "more than a prophet," how is it
that when the priests and levites come and ask him, "Art thou the Prophet? "he
answers No! On this we must remark that it is not the same thing to say, "Art
thou the Prophet? "and "Art thou a prophet? "The distinction between the two
expressions has already been observed, when we asked what was the difference
between the God and God, and between the Logos and Logos.55 Now it is written in
Deuteronomy,56 "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like me;
Him shall ye hear, and it shall be that every soul that will not hear that
prophet shall be cut off from among His people," There was, therefore, an
expectation of one particular prophet having a resemblance to Moses in mediating
between God and the people and receiving a new covenant from God to give to
those who accepted his teaching; and in the case of each of the prophets, the
people of Israel recognized that he was not the person of whom Moses spoke. As,
then, they doubted about John, whether he were not the Christ,57 so they doubted
whether he could not be the prophet. And there is no wonder that those who
doubted about John whether he were the Christ, did not understand that the
Christ and the prophet are the same person; their doubt as to John necessarily
implied that they were not clear on this point. Now the difference between "the
prophet" and "a prophet" has escaped the observation of most students; this is
the case with Heracleon, who says, in these very words: "As, then, John
confessed that he was not the Christ, and not even a prophet, nor Elijah." If he
interpreted the words before us in such a way, he ought to have examined the
various passages to see whether in saying that he is not a prophet nor Elijah he
is or is not saying what is true. He devotes no attention, however, to these
passages, and in his remaining commentaries he passes over such points without
any enquiry. In the sequel, too, his remarks, of which we shall have to speak
directly, are very scanty, and do not testify to careful study.

9. John I 22.

"They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them
that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? "This speech of the emissaries
amounts to the following: We had a surmise what you were and came to learn if it
was so, but now we know that you are not that. It remains for us, therefore. to
hear your account of yourself, so that we may report your answer to those who
sent us.

10. Of the Voice John the Baptists is.

"He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way
of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet." As He who is peculiarly the Son of
God, being no other than the Logos, yet makes use of Logos (reason)-for He was
the Logos in the beginning, and was with God, the Logos of God-so John, the
servant of that Logos, being, if we take the Scripture to mean what it says, no
other than a voice, yet uses his voice to point to the Logos. He, then,
understanding in this way the prophecy about himself spoken by Isaiah the
prophet, says he is a voice, not crying in the wilderness, but "of one crying in
the wilderness," of Him, namely, who stood and cried,58 "If any man thirst, let
him come unto Me and drink." He it was. too, who said,59 "Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make His paths straight. Every valley shall be filled and every
mountain and hill shall be brought low; and all the crooked shall be made
straight." For as we read in Exodus that God said to Moses,60 "Behold I have
given thee for a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet; "so
we are to understand-the cases are at least analogous if not altogether
similar-it is with the Word in the beginning, who is God, and with John. For
John's voice points to that word and demonstrates it. It is therefore a very
appropriate punishment that falls on Zacharias on his saying to the angel,61
"Whereby shall I know this? For I am an old man and my wife well stricken in
years." For his want of faith with regard to the birth of the voice, he is
himself deprived of his voice, as the angel Gabriel says to him, "Behold, thou
shall be silent and not able to speak until the day that these things shall come
to pass, because thou hast not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in
their season." And afterwards when he had "asked for a writing tablet and
written, His name is John; and they all marvelled," he recovered his voice; for
"his mouth was opened immediately and his tongue, and he spake, blessing God."
We discussed above how it is to be understood that the Logos is the Son of God,
and went over the ideas connected with that; and a similar sequence of ideas is
to be observed at this point. John came for a witness; he was a man sent from
God to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe; he was
that voice, then, we are to understand, which alone was fitted worthily to
announce the Logos. We shall understand this aright if we call to mind what was
adduced in our exposition of the texts: "That all might believe through Him,"
and "This is he of whom it is written, Behold I send My messenger before thy
face, who shall prepare thy way before thee."62 There is fitness, too, in his
being said to be the voice, not of one saying in the wilderness, but of one
crying in the wilderness. He who cries, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," also
says it; but he might say it without crying it. But he cries and shouts it, that
even those may hear who are at a distance from the speaker, and that even the
deaf may understand the greatness of the tidings, since it is announced in a
great voice; and he thus brings help, both to those who have departed from God
and to those who have lost the acuteness of their hearing. This, too, was the
reason why "Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto
Me and drink." Hence, too,63 "John beareth witness of Him, and cried, saying,"
"Hence also God commands Isaiah to cry, with the voice of one saying, Cry. And I
said, What shall I cry? "The physical voice we use in prayer need not be great
nor startling; even should we not lift up any great cry or shout, God will yet
hear us. He says to Moses,64 "Why criest thou unto Me? "when Moses had not cried
audibly at all. It is not recorded in Exodus that he did so; but Moses had cried
mightily to God in prayer with that voice which is heard by God alone. Hence
David also says,65 "With my voice I cried unto the Lord, and He heard me." And
one who cries in the desert has need of a voice, that the soul which is deprived
of God and deserted of truth-and what more dreadful desert is there than a soul
deserted of God and of all virtue, since it still goes crookedly and needs
instruction-may be exhorted to make straight the way of the Lord. And that way
is made straight by the man who, far from copying the serpent's crooked journey:
while he who is of the contrary disposition perverts his way. Hence the rebuke
directed to a man of this kind and to all who resemble him, "Why pervert ye the
right ways of the Lord? "66 11. Of the Way of the Lord, How It is Narrow, and
How Jesus is the Way.

Now the way of the Lord is made straight in two fashions. First, in the way of
contemplation, when thought is made clear in truth without any mixture of
falsehood; and then in the way of conduct, after the sound contemplation of what
ought to be done, when action is produced which harmonizes with sound theory of
conduct. And that we may the more clearly understand the text, "Make straight
the way of the Lord," it will be well to compare with it what is said in the
Proverbs,67 "Depart not, either to the right hand or to the left." For he who
deviates in either direction has given up keeping his path straight, and is no
longer worthy of regard, since he has gone apart from the straightness of the
journey, for "the Lord68 is righteous, and loves righteousness, and His face
beholds straightness." Hence he who is the object of regard, and receives the
benefit that comes from this oversight, says,69 "The light of Thy countenance
was shown upon us, O Lord." Let us stand, then, as Jeremiah70 exhorts, upon the
ways, and let us see and ask after the ancient ways of the Lord, and let us see
which is the good way, and walk in it. Thus did the Apostles stand and ask for
the ancient ways of the Lord; they asked the Patriarchs and the Prophets,
enquiring into their writings, and when they came to understand these writings
they saw the good way, namely, Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the way." and they
walked in it. For it is a good way that leads the good man to the good father,
the man who, from the good treasure of his heart, brings forth good things, and
who is a good and faithful servant. This way is narrow, indeed, for the many
cannot bear to walk in it and are lovers of their flesh; but it is also
hard-pressed71 by those who use violence72 to walk in it, for it is not called
afflicting, but afflicted.73 For that way which is a living way, and feels the
qualities of those who tread it, is pressed and afflicted, when he travels on it
who has not taken off his shoes from off his feet.74 nor truly realized that the
place on which he stands. or indeed treads, is holy ground. And it will lead to
Him who is the life, and who says, "I am the life." For the Saviour, in whom all
virtues are combined, has many aspects. To him who, though by no means near the
end, is yet advancing, He is the way; to him who has put off all that is dead He
is the life. He who travels on this way is told to take nothing with him on it,
since it provides bread and all that is necessary for life, enemies are
powerless on it, and he needs no staff, and since it is holy, he needs no shoes.

12. Heracleon's View of the Voice, and of John the Baptist. The words, however,
"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness," etc., may be taken as
equivalent to "I am He of whom the 'voice in the wilderness' is written." Then
John would be the person crying, and his voice would be that crying in the
wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord." Heracleon, discussing John and
the prophets, says, somewhat slanderously, that "the Word is the Saviour; the
voice, that in the wilderness which John interpreted; the sound is the whole
prophetic order." To this we may reply by reminding him of the text,75 "If the
trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle," and
that which says that though a man have knowledge of mysteries, or have prophecy
but wants love, he is a sounding or a tinkling cymbal.76 If the prophetic voice
be nothing but sound, how does our Lord come to refer us to it as where He
says,77 "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and
these are they which bear witness," and78 "If ye believed Moses, ye would
believe Me," and79 "Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, saying, This people
honours me with their lips"? I do not know if any one can reasonably admit that
the Saviour thus spoke in praise of an uncertain sound, or that there is any
preparation to be had from the Scriptures to which we are referred as from the
voice of a trumpet, for our war against opposing powers, should their sound give
an uncertain voice. If the prophets had not love, and if that is why they were
sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, then how does the Lord send us to their
sound, as these writers will have it, as if we could get help from that? He
asserts, indeed, that a voice, when well fitted to speech, becomes speech, as if
one should say that a woman is turned into a man; and the assertion is not
supported by argument. And, as if he were in a position to put forth a dogma on
the subject and to get on in this way, he declares that sound can be changed in
a similar way into voice, and the voice, which is changed into speech, he says,
is in the position of a disciple, while sound passing into voice is in that of a
slave. If he had taken any kind of trouble to establish these points we should
have had to devote some attention to refuting them; but as it is, the bare
denial is sufficient refutation. There was a point some way back which we
deferred taking up, that, namely, of the motive of John's speeches. We may now
take it up. The Saviour, according to Heracleon, calls him both a prophet and
Elijah, but he himself denies that he is either of these. When the Saviour,
Heracleon says, calls him a prophet and Elijah, He is speaking not of John
himself, but of his surroundings; but when He calls him greater than the
prophets and than those who are born of women, then He is describing the
character of John himself. When John, on the other hand, is asked about himself,
his answers relate to himself, not to his surroundings. This we have examined as
carefully as possible, comparing each of the terms in question with the
statements of Heracleon, lest he should not have expressed himself quite
accurately. For how it comes that the statements that he is Elijah and that he
is a prophet apply to those about him, but the statement that he is the voice of
one crying in the wilderness, to himself, no attempt whatever is made to show
Heracleon only gives an illustration, namely, this: His surroundings were, so to
speak, his clothes, and other than himself, and when he was asked about his
clothes, if he; were his clothes, he could not answer "Yes." Now that his being
Elijah, who was to come, was his clothes, is scarcely consistent, so far as I
can see, with Heracleon's views; it might consist, perhaps, with the exposition
we ourselves gave of the words, "In the spirit and power of Elijah; "it might,
in a sense, be said that this spirit of Elijah is equivalent to the soul of
John. He then goes on to try to determine why those who were sent by the Jews to
question John were priests and levites, and he answers by no means badly, that
it was incumbent on such persons, being devoted to the service of God, to busy
themselves and to make enquiries about such matters. When he goes on, however,
to say that it was "because John was of the levitical tribe, this is less well
considered. We raised the question ourselves above, and saw that if the Jews who
were sent knew John's birth, it was not open to them to ask if he was Elijah.
Then, again, in dealing with the question, "Art thou the prophet? "Heracleon
does not regard the addition of the article as having any special force, and
says, "They asked him if he were a prophet, wishing to know this more general
fact." Again, not Heracleon alone, but, so far as I am informed, all those who
diverge from our views, as if they had not been able to deal with a trifling
ambiguity and to draw the proper distinction, suppose John to be greater than
Elijah and than all the prophets. The words are, "Of those born of women there
is none greater than John; "but this admits of two mean-lugs, that John is
greater than they all, or again, that some of them are equal to him. For though
many of the prophets were equal to him, still it might be true ill respect of
the grace bestowed on him, that none of them was greater than he. He regards it
as confirming the view that John was greater, that "he is predicted by Isaiah;
"for no other of all those who uttered prophecies was held worthy by God of this
distinction. This, however, is a venturesome statement anti implies some
disrespect of what is called the Old Testament, and total disregard of the fact
that Elijah himself was the subject of prophecy. For Elijah is prophesied by
Malachi, who says,80 "Behold, I send unto you Elijah, the Tishbite, who shall
restore the heart of the father to the son." Josiah, too, as we read in third
Kings,81 was predicted by name by the prophet who came out of Judah; for he
said, Jeroboam also being present at the altar, "Thus saith the Lord, Behold a
son is born to David, his name is Josiah." There are some also who say that
Samson was predicted by Jacob, when he said,82 "Dan shall judge his own people,
he is as one tribe in Israel," for Samson who judged Israel was of the tribe of
Dan. So much by way of evidence of the rashness of the statement that John alone
was the subject of prophecy, made by Heracleon in his attempted explanation of
the words, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness."

13. John I 24, 25. Of the Baptism of John, that of Elijah, and that of Christ.
And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto
him,83 "Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the
prophet? "Those who sent from Jerusalem the priests and levites who asked John
these questions, having learned who John was not, and who he was, preserve a
decent silence, as if tacitly assenting and indicating that they accepted what
was said, and saw that baptism was suited to a voice crying in the wilderness
for the preparing of the way of the Lord. But the Pharisees being, as their name
indicates, a divided and seditious set of people, show that they do not agree
with the Jews of the metropolis and with the ministers of the service of God,
the priests and levites. They send envoys who deal in rebukes, and so far as
their power extends debar him from baptizing; their envoys ask, Why baptizest
thou, then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? And if we
were to stitch together into one statement what is written in the various
Gospels, we should say that at this time they spoke as is here reported, but
that at a later time, when they wished to received baptism, they heard the
address of John:84 "Generations of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance." This is what
the Baptist says in Matthew, when he sees many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to his baptism, without, it is clear, having the fruits of repentance,
and pharisaically boasting in themselves that they had Abraham for their father.
For this they are rebuked by John, who has the zeal of Elijah according to the
communication of the Holy Spirit. For that is a rebuking word, "Think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father," and that is the word of a
teacher, when he speaks of those who for their stony hearts are called
unbelieving stones, and says that by the power of God these stones may be
changed into children of Abraham; for they were present to the eyes of the
prophet and did not shrink from his divine glance. Hence his words: "I say unto
you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." And since
they came to his baptism without having done fruits meet for repentance, he says
to them most appropriately, "Already is the axe laid to the root of the tree;
every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the
fire." This is as much as to say to them: Since you have come to baptism without
having done fruits meet for repentance, you are a tree that does not bring forth
good fruit and which has to be cut down by the most sharp and piercing axe of
the Word which is living and powerful and sharper than every two-edged sword.
The estimation in which the Pharisees held themselves is also set forth by Luke
in the passage:85 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and
the other a publican. And the Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself: God,
I thank Thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers,
or even as this publican." The result of this speech is that the publican goes
down to his house justified rather than the Pharisee, and the lesson is drawn,
that every one who exalts himself is abased. They came, then, in the character
in which the Saviour's reproving words described them, as hypocrites to John's
baptism, nor does it escape the Baptist's observation that they have the poison
of vipers under their tongue and the poison of asps, for "the poison of asps is
under their tongue,"86 The figure of serpents rightly indicates their temper,
and it is plainly revealed in their better question: "Why baptizest thou then,
if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? "To these I would fain
reply, if it be the case that the Christ and Elijah and the prophet baptize, but
that the voice crying in the wilderness has no authority to do so, "Most
harshly, my friends, do you question the messenger sent before the face of
Christ to prepare His way before Him. The mysteries which belong to this point
are all hidden to you; for Jesus being, whether you will or not, the Christ, did
not Himself baptize but His disciples, He who was Himself the prophet. And how
have you come to believe that Elijah who is to come will baptize? "He did not
baptize the logs upon the altar in the times of Ahab,87 though they needed such
a bath to be burned up, what time the Lord appeared in fire. No, he commands the
priests to do this for him, and that not only once; for he says, "Do it a second
time," upon which they did it a second time, and "Do it a third time," and they
did it a third time. If, then, he did not at that time himself baptize but left
the work to others, how was he to baptize at the time spoken of by Malachi?
Christ, then, does not baptize with water, but His disciples. He reserves for
Himself to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Now Heracleon accepts the
speech of the Pharisees as distinctly implying that the office of baptizing
belonged to the Christ and Elijah and to every prophet, for he uses these words,
"Whose office alone it is to baptize." He is refuted by what we have just said,
and especially by the consideration that he takes the word "prophet" in a
general sense;88 for he cannot show that any of the prophets baptized. He adds,
not incorrectly, that the Pharisees put the question from malice, and not from a
desire to learn.

14. Comparison of the Statements of the Four Evangelists Respecting John the
Baptist, the Prophecies Regarding Him, His Addresses to the Multitude and to the
Pharisees, Etc.

We deem it necessary to compare with the expression of the passage we are
considering the similar expressions found elsewhere in the Gospels. This we
shall continue to do point by point to the end of this work, so that terms which
appear to disagree may be shown to be in harmony, and that the peculiar meanings
present in each may be explained. This we shall do in the present passage. The
words, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the
Lord," are placed by John, who was a disciple, in the mouth of the Baptist. In
Mark, on the other hand, the same words are recorded at the beginning of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, in accordance with the Scripture of Isaiah, as thus:
"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the
prophet, Behold, I send My messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way
before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make His paths straight." Now the words, "Make straight the way of the
Lord," added by John, are not found in the prophet.Perhaps John was seeking to
compress the "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our
God," and so wrote, "Make straight the way of the Lord; "while Mark combined two
prophecies spoken by two different prophets in different places, and made one
prophecy out of them, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send My
messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." The
words, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness," are written immediately
after the narrative of Hezekiah's recovery from his sickness,89 while the words,
"Behold I send My messenger before thy face," are written by Malachi.90 What
John does here, abbreviating the text he quotes, we find done by Mark also at
another point. For while the words of the prophet are, "Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make straight the paths of our God," Mark writes, "Prepare ye the way
of the Lord, make His paths straight." And John practises a similar abbreviation
in the text, "Behold I send My messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy
way before thee," when he does not add the words "before thee," as in the
original. Coming now to the statement, "They were sent from the Pharisees and
they asked Him,"91 we have been led by our examination of the passage to prefix
the enquiry of the Pharisees-which Matthew does not mention-to the occurrence
recorded in Matthew, when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to
his baptism, and said to them, "Ye generations of vipers," etc. For the natural
sequence is that they should first enquire and then come. And we have to observe
how, when Matthew reports that there went out to John Jerusalem and all Judaea,
and all the region round about Jordan, to be baptized by him in Jordan,
confessing their sins, it was not these people who heard from the Baptist any
word of rebuke or refutation, but only those many Pharisees and Sadducees whom
he saw coming. They it was who were greeted with the address, "Ye offspring of
vipers," etc.92 Mark, again, does not record any words of reproof as having been
used by John to those who came to him, being all the country of Judaea and all
of them of Jerusalem, who were baptized by him in the Jordan and confessed their
sins. This is because Mark does not mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as
having come to John. A further circumstance which we must mention is that both
Matthew and Mark state that, in the one case, all Jerusalem and all Judaea, and
the whole region round about Jordan, in the other, the whole land of Judaea and
all they of Jerusalem, were baptized, confessing their sins; but when Matthew
introduces the Pharisees and Sadducees as coming to the baptism, he does not say
that they confessed their sins, and this might very likely and very naturally be
the reason why they were addressed as "offspring of vipers." Do not suppose,
reader, that there is anything improper in our adducing m our discussion of the
question of those who were sent from the Pharisees and put questions to John,
the parallel passages from the other Gospels too. For if we have indicated the
proper connection between the enquiry of the Pharisees, recorded by the disciple
John, and their baptism which is found in Matthew, we could scarcely avoid
inquiring into the passages in question, nor recording the observations made on
them. Luke, like Mark, remembers the passage, "The voice of one crying in the
wilderness," but lie for his part treats it as follows:93 "The word of God came
unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness. And he came into all the
region round about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of
sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, The voice
of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths
straight." Luke, however, added the continuation of the prophecy: "Every valley
shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the
crooked shall become straight, and the rough ways smooth, and all flesh shall
see the salvation of God." He writes, like Mark, "Make His ways straight;
"curtailing, as we saw before, the text, "Make straight the ways of our God." In
the phrase, "And all the crooked shall become straight," he leaves out the
"all," and the word "straight" he converts from a plural into a singular.
Instead of the phrase, moreover, "The rough laud into a plain," he gives, "The
rough ways into smooth ways," and he leaves out "And the glory of the Lord shall
be revealed," and gives what follows, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of
God." These observations are of use as showing how the evangelists are
accustomed to abbreviate the sayings of the prophets. It has also to be observed
that the speech, "Offspring of vipers," etc., is said by Matthew to have been
spoken to the Pharisees and Sadducees when coming to baptism, they being a
different set of people from those who confessed their sins, and to whom no
words of this kind were spoken. With Luke, on the contrary, these words were
addressed to the multitudes who came out to be baptized by John, and there were
not two divisions of those who were baptized, as we found in Matthew. But
Matthew, as the careful observer will see, does not speak of the multitudes in
the way of praise, and he probably means the Baptist's address, Offspring of
vipers, etc., to be understood as addressed to them also. Another point is, that
to the Pharisees and Sadducees he says, "Bring forth a fruit," in the singular,
"worthy of repentance," but to the multitudes he uses the plural, "Bring forth
fruits worthy of repentance." Perhaps the Pharisees are required to yield the
special fruit of repentance, which is no other than the Son and faith in Him,
while the multitudes, who have not even a beginning of good things, are asked
for all the fruits of repentance, and so the plural is used to them. Further, it
is said to the Pharisees, "Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham
for our father." For the multitudes now have a beginning, appearing as they do
to be introduced into the divine Word, and to approach the truth; and thus they
begin to say within themselves, "We have Abraham for our father." The Pharisees,
on the contrary, are not beginning to this, but have long held it to be so. But
both classes see John point to the stones aforesaid and declare that even from
these children can be raised up to Abraham, rising up out of unconsciousness and
deadness. And observe how it is said to the Pharisees,94 according to the word
of the prophet,95 "Ye have eaten false fruit," and they have false fruit,-"
Every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the
fire," while to the multitudes which do not bear fruit at all,96 "Every tree
which bringethnot forth fruit is hewn down." For that which has no fruit at all
has not good fruit, and, therefore, it is worthy to be hewn down. But that which
bears fruit has by no means good fruit, whence it also calls for the axe to lay
it low. But, if we look more closely into this about the fruit, we shall find
that it is impossible that that which has just begun to be cultivated, even
should it not prove fruitless, should bear the first good fruits. The husbandman
is content that the tree just coming into cultivation should bear him at first
such fruits as it may; afterwards, when he has pruned and trained it according
to his art, he will receive, not the fruits it chanced to bear at first, but
good fruits. The law itself favours this interpretation, for it says97 that the
planter is to wait for three years, having the trees pruned and not eating the
fruit of them. "Three years." it says, "the fruit shall be unpurified to you,
and shall not be eaten, but in the fourth year all the fruit shall be holy, for
giving praise unto the Lord." This explains how the word "good" is omitted from
the address to the multitudes, "Every tree, therefore, which bears not fruit is
hewn down and cast into the fire." The tree which goes on bearing such fruit as
it did at first, is a tree which does not bear good fruit, and is, therefore,
cut down, and cast into the fire, since, when the three years have passed and
the fourth comes round, it does not bear good fruit, for praise unto the Lord.
In thus adducing the passages from the other Gospels I may appear to be
digressing, but I cannot think it useless, or without bearing on our present
subject. For the Pharisees send to John, after the priests and levites who came
from Jerusalem, men who came to ask him who he was, and enquire, Why baptizest
thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? After making
this enquiry they straightway come for baptism, as Matthew records, and then
they hear words suited to their quackery and hypocrisy. But the words addressed
to them were very similar to those spoken to the multitudes, and hence the
necessity to look carefully at both speeches, and to compare them together. It
was while we were so engaged that various points arose in the sequence of the
matter, which we had to consider. To what has been said we must add the
following. We find mention made in John of two orders of persons sending: the
one, that of the Jews from Jerusalem sending priests and levites; the other,
that of the Pharisees who want to know why he baptizes. And we found that, after
the enquiry, the Pharisees present themselves for baptism. May it not be that
the Jews, who had sent the earlier mission from Jerusalem, received John's words
before those who sent the second mission, namely, the Pharisees, and hence
arrived before them? For Jerusalem and all Judaea, and, in consequence, the
whole region round about Jordan, were being baptized by him in the river Jordan,
confessing their sins; or, as Mark says. "There went out to him the whole land
of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the river
Jordan, confessing their sins." Now, neither does Matthew introduce the
Pharisees and Sadducees, to whom the words, "Offspring of vipers," etc., are
addressed; nor does Luke introduce the multitudes who meet with the same rebuke,
as confessing their sins. And the question may be raised how, if the whole city
of Jerusalem, and the whole of Judaea, and the whole region round about Jordan,
were baptized of John in Jordan, the Saviour could say,98 "John the Baptist came
neither eating nor drinking, and ye say he hath a devil; "and how could He say
to those who asked Him,99 "By what authority doest thou these things? I also
will ask you one word, which if ye tell me, I also will tell you by what
authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or
of men? And they reason, and say, If we shall say, From heaven, He will say, Why
did ye not believe him? "The solution of the difficulty is this. The Pharisees,
addressed by John, as we saw before, with his "Offspring of vipers," etc., came
to the baptism, without believing in him, probably because they feared the
multitudes, and, with their accustomed hypocrisy towards them, deemed it right
to undergo the washing, so as not to appear hostile to those who did so. Their
belief was, then, that he derived his baptism from men, and not from heaven,
but, on account of the multitude, lest they should be stoned, they are afraid to
say what they think. Thus there is no contradiction between the Saviour's speech
to the Pharisees and the narratives in the Gospels about the multitudes who
frequented' John's baptism. It was part of the effrontery of the Pharisees that
they declared John to have a devil, as, also, that they declared Jesus to have
performed His wonderful works by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.

15. How the Baptist Answers the Question of the Pharisees and Exalts the Nature
of Christ. Of the Shoe-Latchet Which He is Unable to Untie.

John100 answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but in the midst of you
standeth one whom ye know not, even He who cometh after me, the latchet of whose
shoe I am not worthy to unloose." Heracleon considers that John's answers to
those sent by the Pharisees refer not to what they asked, but to what he wished,
not observing that he accuses the prophet of a want of manners, by making him,
when asked about one thing, answer about another; for this is a fault to be
guarded against in conversation. We assert, on the contrary, that the reply
accurately takes up the question. It is asked," Why baptizest thou then, if thou
art not the Christ? "And what other answer could be given to this than to show
that his baptism was in its nature a bodily thing? I, he says, "baptize with
water; "this is his answer to, "Why baptizest thou." And to the second part of
their question, "If thou art not the Christ," he answers by exalting the
superior nature of Christ, that He has such virtue as to be invisible in His
deity, though present to every man and extending over the whole universe. This
is what is indicated in the words, "There standeth one among you." The
Pharisees, moreover, though expecting the advent of Christ, saw nothing in Him
of such a nature as John speaks of; they believed Him to be simply a perfect and
holy man. John, therefore, rebukes their ignorance of His superiority, and adds
to the words, "There standeth one among you," the clause, "whom ye know not."
And, lest any one should suppose the invisible One who extends to every man, or,
indeed, to the whole world, to be a different person from Him who became man,
and appeared upon the earth and con versed with men, he adds to the words,
"There standeth one among you whom you know not," the further words, "Who cometh
after me," that is, He who is to be manifested after me. By whose surpassing
excellence he well understood that his own nature was far surpassed, though some
doubted whether he might be the Christ; and, therefore, desiring to show how far
he is from attaining to the greatness of the Christ, that no one should think of
him beyond what he sees or hears of him, he goes on: "The latchet of whose shoe
I am not worthy to unloose." By which lie conveys, as in a riddle, that he is
not fit to solve and to explain the argument about Christ's assuming a human
body, an argument tied up and hidden (like a shoe-tie) to those who do not
understand it,-so as to say anything worthy of such an advent, compressed, as it
was, into so short a space.

16. Comparison of John's Testimony to Jesus in the Different Gospels.

It may not be out of place, as we are examining the text, "I baptize with
water," to compare the parallel utterances of the evangelists with this of John.
Matthew reports that the Baptist, when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees coming to his baptism, after the words of rebuke which we have already
studied, went on:101 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." This agrees with the
words in John, in which the Baptist declares himself to those sent by the
Pharisees, on the subject of his baptizing with water. Mark, again, says,102
"John preached, saying, There cometh after me He that is mightier than I, the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized you
with water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." And Luke says103
that, as the people were in expectation, and all were reasoning in their hearts
concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ, John answered them all,
saying. "I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh one mightier than I,
whose shoe-latchet I am not worthy to unloose; He shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost, and with fire."

17. Of the Testimony of John to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel,

These, then, are the parallel passages of the four; let us try to see as clearly
as we can what is the purport of each and wherein they differ from each other.
And we will begin with Matthew, who is reported by tradition to have published
his Gospel before the others, to the Hebrews, those, namely, of the circumcision
who believed. I, he says, baptize you with water unto repentance, purifying you,
as it were, and turning you away from evil courses and calling you to
repentance; for I am come to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him,
and by my baptism of repentance to prepare the ground for Him who is to come
after me, and who will thus benefit you much more effectively and powerfully
than my strength could. For His baptism is not that of the body only; He fills
the penitent with the Holy Ghost, and His diviner fire does away with everything
material and consumes everything that is earthy, not only from him who admits it
to his life, but even from him who hears of it from those who have it. So much
stronger than I is He who is coming after me, that I am not able to bear even
the outskirts of the powers round Him which are furthest from Him (they are not
open and exposed, so that any one could see them), nor even to bear those who
support them. I know not of which I should speak. Should I speak of my own great
weakness, which is not able to bear even these things about Christ which in
comparison with the greater things in Him are least, or should I speak of His
transcendent Deity, greater than all the world? If I who have received such
grace, as to be thought worthy of prophecy predicting my arrival in this human
life, in the words," The voice of one crying in the wilderness," and "Behold I
send my messenger before thy face; "if I whose birth Gabriel who stands before
God announced to my father so advanced in years, so much against his
expectation, I at whose name Zacharias recovered his voice and was enabled to
use it to prophesy, I to whom my Lord bears witness that among them that are
born of women there is noble greater than I, I am not able so much as to bear
His shoes l And if not His shoes, what can be said about His garments? Who is so
great as to be able to guard His coat? Who can suppose that He can understand
the meaning contained in His tunic which is without seam from the top because it
is woven throughout? It is to be observed that while the four represent John as
declaring himself to have come to baptize with water. Matthew alone adds the
words "to repentance," teaching that the benefit of baptism is connected with
the intention of the baptized person; to him who repents it is salutary, but to
him who comes to it without repentance it will turn to greater condemnation. And
here we must note that as the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures
He wrought, which are symbolical of those who at any time are set free by the
word of God from ally sickness or disease, though they were done to the body and
brought a bodily relief, yet also called those who were benefited by them to an
exercise of faith, so the washing with water which is symbolic of the soul
cleansing herself from every stain of wickedness, is no less in itself to him
who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the Adorable
Trinity, the beginning and source of divine girls; for "there are diversities of
gifts." This view receives confirmation from the narrative recorded in the Acts
of the Apostles, which shows the Spirit to have descended so manifestly on those
who receive baptism, after the water had prepared the way for him in those who
properly approached the rite. Simon Magus, astonished at what he saw, desired to
receive from Peter this gift, but though it was a good thing he desired, he
thought to attain it by the mammon of unrighteousness. We next remark in passing
that the baptism of John was inferior to the baptism of Jesus which was given
through His disciples. Those persons in the Acts104 who were baptized to John's
baptism and who had not heard if there was any Holy Ghost are baptized over
again by the Apostle, Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus
through His disciples it does so, and what is called the layer of regeneration
takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now comes in addition
since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all
after the water. So hr, then, our examination of the statements in the Gospel
according to Matthew.

18. Of the Testimony in Mark. What is Meant by the Saviour's Shoes and by
Untying His Shoe-Latchets.

Now let us consider what is stated by Mark. Mark's account of John's preaching
agrees with the other. The words are, "There cometh after me He that is mightier
than I," which amounts to the same thing as "He that cometh after me is mightier
than I." There is a difference, however, in what follows, "The latchets of His
shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and untie." For it is one thing to bear a
person's shoes,-they must, it is evident, have been untied already from the feet
of the wearer,-and it is another thing to stoop down and untie the latchet of
his shoes. And it follows, since believers cannot think that either of the
Evangelists made any mistake or misrepresentation, that the Baptist must have
made these two utterances at different times and have meant them to express
different things. It is not the case, as some suppose. that the reports refer to
the same incident and turned out differently because of a loose-ness of memory
as to some of the facts or words. Now it is a great thing to bear the shoes of
Jesus, a great thing to stoop down to the bodily features of His mission, to
that which took place in some lower region, so as to contemplate His image in
the lower sphere, and to untie each difficulty connected with the mystery of His
incarnation, such being as it were His shoe-latchets. For the fetter of
obscurity is one as the key of knowledge also is one; not even He who is
greatest among those born of women is sufficient of Himself to loose such things
or to open them, for He who tied and locked at first, He also grants to whom He
will to loose His shoe-latchet and to unlock what He has shut. If the passage
about the shoes has a mystic meaning we ought not to scorn to consider it. Now I
consider that the inhumanisation when the Son of God assumes flesh and bones is
one of His shoes, and that the other is the descent to Hades, whatever that
Hades be, and the journey with the Spirit to the prison. As to the descent into
Hades, we read in the sixteenth Psalm, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,"
and as for the journey in prison with the Spirit we read in Peter in his
Catholic Epistle,105 "Put to death," he says, "in the flesh, but quickened in
the Spirit; in which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which
at one time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God once waited in the
days of Noah while the ark was a preparing." He, then, who is able worthily to
set forth the meaning of these two journeys is able to untie the latchet of the
shoes of Jesus; he, bending down in his mind and going with Jesus as He goes
down into Hades, and descending from heaven and the mysteries of Christ's deity
to the advent He of necessity made with us when He took on man (as His shoes).
Now He who put on man also put on the dead, for106 "for this end Jesus both died
and revived, that He might be Lord both of dead and living." This is why He put
on both living and dead, that is, the inhabitants of the earth and those of
Hades, that He might be the Lord of both dead and living. Who, then, is able to
stoop down and untie the latchet of such shoes, and having untied them not to
let them drop, but by the second faculty he has received to take them up and
bear them, by bearing the meaning of them in his memory?

19. Luke and John Suggest that One May Loose the Shoe-Latchets of the Logos
Without Stooping Down.

We must not, however, omit to ask how it comes that Luke and John give the
speech without the phrase "to stoop down." He, perhaps, who stoops down may be
held to unloose in the sense which we have stated. On the other hand, it may be
that one who fixes his eyes on the height of the exaltation of the Logos, may
find the loosing of those shoes which when one is seeking them seem to be bound,
so that He also looses those shoes which are separable from the Logos, and
beholds the Logos divested of inferior things, as He is, the Son of God.

20. The Difference Between Not Being "Sufficient" And Not Being "Worthy."

John records that the Baptist said he was not worthy, Mark that he was not
sufficient, and these two are not the same. One who was not worthy might yet be
sufficient, and one who was worthy might not be sufficient. For even if it be
the case that gifts are bestowed to profit withal and not merely according to
the proportion of faith, yet it would seem to be the part of a God who loves men
and who sees before what harm must come from the rise of self-opinion or
conceit, not to bestow sufficiency even on the worthy. But it belongs to the
goodness of God by conferring bounties to conquer the object of His bounty,
taking in advance him who is destined to be worthy, and adorning him even before
he becomes worthy with sufficiency, so that after his sufficiency he may come to
be worthy; he is not first to be worthy and then to anticipate the giver and
take His gifts before the time and so arrive at being sufficient. Now with the
three the Baptist says he is not sufficient, while in John he says he is not
worthy. But it may be that he who formerly declared that he was not sufficient
became sufficient afterwards, even though perhaps he was not worthy, or again
that while he was saying he was not worthy, and was in fact not worthy, he
arrived at being worthy, unless one should say that human nature can never come
to perform worthily this loosing or this bearing, axed that John, therefore,
says truly that he never became sufficient to loose the latchets of the
Saviour's shoes, nor worthy of it either. However much we take into our minds
there are still left things not yet understood; for, as we read in the wisdom of
Jesus, son of Sirach,107 "When a man hath done, then he beginneth, and when he
leaveth off, then he shall he doubtful."

21. The Fourth Gospel Speaks of Only One Shoe, the Others of Both. The
Significance of This. As to the shoes, too, which are spoken of in the three
Gospels, we have a question to consider; we must compare them with the single
shoe named by the disciple John. "I am not worthy," we read there, "to untie the
latchet of His shoe." Perhaps he was conquered by the grace of God, and received
the gift of doing that which of himself he would not have been worthy to do, of
untying, namely, the latchet of one of the shoes, namely, after he had seen the
Saviour's sojourn among men, of which he bears witness. But he did not know the
things which were to follow, namely, whether Jesus was to come to that place
also, to which he was to go after being beheaded in prison, or whether he was to
look for another; and hence he alludes enigmatically to that doubt which was
afterwards cleared up to us, and says, "I am not worthy to untie His
shoe-latchet." If any one considers this to be a superfluous speculation, he can
combine in one the speech about the shoes and that about the shoe, as if John
said, I am by no means worthy to loose His shoestring, not even at the
beginning, the string of one of His shoes. Or the following may be a way to
combine what is said in the Four. If John understands about Jesus sojourn here,
but is in doubt about the future, then he says with perfect truth that he is not
worthy to loose the latchet of His shoes; for though he loosed that of one shoe,
he did not loose both. And on the other hand, what he says about the latchet of
the shoe is quite true also; since as we saw he is still in doubt whether Jesus
is He that was to come, or whether another is to be looked for, in that other
region.

22. How the Word Stands in the Midst of Men Without Being Known of Them. As for
the saying, "There standeth one among you whom you know not," we are led by it
to consider the Son of God, the Word, by whom all things were made, since He
exists in substance throughout the underlying nature of things, being the same
as wisdom. For He permeated, from the beginning, all creation, so that what is
made at any time should be made through Him, and that it might be always true of
anything soever, that "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not
anything made that was made; "and this saying also, "By wisdom didst thou make
them all." Now, if He permeates all creation, then He is also in those
questioners who ask, "Why baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor
Elijah, nor the prophet? "In the midst of them stands the Word, who is the same
and steadfast, being everywhere established by the Father. Or the words, "There
standeth among you," may he understood to say, In the midst of you men, because
you are reasonable beings, stands He who is proved by Scripture to be the
sovereign principle in the midst of every body, and so to be present in your
heart. Those, therefore, who have the Word in the midst of them, but who do not
consider His nature, nor from what spring and principle He came, nor how He gave
them the nature they have,108 these, while having Him in the midst of them, know
Him not. But John knew Him: for the words, "Whom you know not," used in reproach
to the Pharisees, show that he well knew the Word whom they did not know. And
the Baptist, therefore, knowing Him, saw Him coming after himself, who was now
in the midst of them, that is to say, dwelling after him and the teaching he
gave in his baptism, in those who, according to reason (or the Word), submitted
to that purifying rite. The word "after," however, has not the same meaning here
as it has when Jesus commands us to come "after" Him; for in this case we are
bidden to go after Him, so that, treading in His steps, we may come to the
Father; but in the other case, the meaning is that after the teachings of John
(since "He came in order that all men through Him might believe"), the Word
dwells with those who have prepared themselves, purified as they are by the
lesser words for the perfect Word. Firstly, then, stands the Father, being
without any turning or change; and then stands also His Word, always carrying on
His work of salvation, and even when He is in the midst of men, not
comprehended, and not even seen. He stands, also, teaching, and inviting all to
drink from His abundant spring, for109 "Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any
man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink."

23. Heracleon's View of This Utterance of John the Baptist, and Interpretation
of the Shoe of Jesus. But Heracleon declares the words, "There standeth one
among you," to be equivalent to "He is already here, and He is in the world and
in men, and He is already manifest to you all." By this He does away with the
meaning which is also present in the words, that the Word had permeated the
whole world. For we must say to him, When is He not present, and when is He not
in the world? Does not this Gospel say, "He was in the world, and the world was
made by Him, and the world knew Him not." And this is why those to whom the
Logos is He "whom you know not," do not know Him: they have never gone out of
the world, but the world does not know Him. But at what time did He cease to be
among men? Was He not in Isaiah, when He said,110 "The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me, because He hath anointed me," and111 "I became manifest to those who
sought me not." Let them say, too, if He was not in David when he said, not from
himself,112 "But I was established by Him a king in Zion His holy hill," and the
other words spoken in the Psalms in the person of Christ. And why should I go
over the details of this proof, truly they are hard to be numbered, when I can
show quite clearly that He was always in men? And that is enough to show
Heracleon's interpretation of "There standeth in the midst of you," to be
unsound, when he says it is equivalent to "He is already here, and He is in the
world and in men." We are disposed to agree with him when he says that the
words, "Who cometh after me," show John to be the forerunner of Christ, for he
is in fact a kind of servant running before his master. The words, however,
"Whose shoe-latchet I am not worthy to unloose," receive much too simple an
interpretation when it is said that "in these words the Baptist confesses that
he is not worthy even of the least honourable ministration to Christ." After
this interpretation he adds, not without sense, "I am not worthy that for my
sake He should come down from His greatness and should take flesh as His
footgear, concerning which I am not able to give any explanation or description,
nor to unloose the arrangement of it." In understanding the world by his shoe,
Heracleon shows some largeness of mind, but immediately after he verges on
impiety in declaring that all this is to be understood of that person whom John
here has in his mind. For he considers that it is the demiurge of the world who
confesses by these words that he is a lesser person than the Christ; and this is
the height of impiety. For the Father who sent Him, He who is the God of the
living as Jesus Himself testifies, of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, and He
who is greater than heaven and earth for the reason that He is the Maker of
them, He also alone is good and is greater than He who was sent by Him. And even
if, as we said, Heracleon's idea was a lofty one, that the whole world was the
shoe of Jesus, yet I think we ought not to agree with him. For how can it be
harmonized with such a view, that "Heaven is My throne and the earth My
footstool," a testimony which Jesus accepts as said of the Father?113 "Swear not
by heaven," He says, "for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is the
footstool of His feet." How, if he takes the whole world to be the shoe of
Jesus, can he also accept the text,114 "Do not I fill heaven and earth? "saith
the Lord. It is also worth while to enquire, whether as the Word and wisdom
permeated the whole world, and as the Father was in the Son, the words are to be
understood as above or in this way, that He who first of all was girded about
with the whole creation, in addition to the Son's being in Him, granted to the
Saviour, as being second after Him and being God the Word, to pervade the whole
creation. To those who have it in them to take note of the uninterrupted
movement of the great heaven, how it carries with it from East to West so great
a multitude of stars, to them most of all it will seem needful to enquire what
that force is, how great and of what nature, which is present in the whole
world. For to pronounce that force to be other than the Father and the Son, that
perhaps might be inconsistent with piety.

24. The Name of the Place Where John Baptized is Not Bethany, as in Most Copies,
But Bethabara. Proof of This. Similarly "Gergesa" Should Be Read for "Gerasa,"
In the Story of the Swine. Attention is to Be Paid to the Proper Names in
Scripture, Which are Often Written Inaccurately, and are of Importance for
Interpretation.

"These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was
baptizing."115 We are aware of the reading which is found in almost all the
copies, "These things were done in Bethany." This appears, moreover, to have
been the reading at an earlier time; and in Heracleon we read "Bethany." We are
convinced, however, that we should not read "Bethany," but "Bethabara." We have
visited the places to enquire as to the footsteps of Jesus and His disciples,
and of the prophets. Now, Bethany, as the same evangelist tells us,116 was the
town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; it is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem,
anti the river Jordan is about a hundred and eighty stadia distant from it. Nor
is there any other place of the same name in the neighbourhood of the Jordan,
but they say that Bethabara is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that
John is said to have baptized there. The etymology of the name, too, corresponds
with the baptism of him who made ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him;
for it yields the meaning "House of preparation," while Bethany means "House of
obedience." Where else was it fitting that he should baptize, who was sent as a
messenger before the face of the Christ, to prepare His way before Him, but at
the House of preparation? And what more fitting home for Mary, who chose the
good part,117 which was not taken away from her, and for Martha, who was
cumbered for the reception of Jesus, and for their brother, who is called the
friend of the Saviour, than Bethany, the House of obedience? Thus we see that he
who aims at a complete understanding of the Holy Scriptures must not neglect the
careful examination of the proper names in it. In the matter of proper names the
Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by
their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep
place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the
country of the Gerasenes.118 Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it
neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so
obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves
carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have
found, "into the country of the Gadarenes; "and, on this reading, it is to be
stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the
well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks,
nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old
town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it
there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that
the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling
of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct
towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart
out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to
be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at
pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have
the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and
Theodotion and Symmachus. We add a few instances to encourage students to pay
more attention to such points. One of the sons of Levi,119 the first, is called
Geson in most copies, instead of Gerson. His name is the same as that of the
first-born of Moses;120 it was given appropriately in each case, both children
being born, because of the sojourn in Egypt, in a strange land. The second son
of Juda,121 again, has with us the name Annan, but with the Hebrews Onan, "their
labour." Once more, in the departures of the children of Israel in Numbers,122
we find, "They departed from Sochoth and pitched in Buthan; "but the Hebrew,
instead of Buthan, reads Aiman. And why should I add more points like these,
when any one who desires it can examine into the proper names and find out for
himself how they stand? The place-names of Scripture are specially to be
suspected where many of them occur in a catalogue, as in the account of the
partition of the country in Joshua, and in the first Book of Chronicles from the
beginning down to, say, the passage about Dan,123 and similarly in Ezra. Names
are not to be neglected, since indications may be gathered from them which help
in the interpretation of the passages where they occur. We cannot, however,
leave our proper subject to examine in this place into the philosophy of names.

25. Jordan Means "Their Going Down." Spiritual Meanings and Application of This.

Let us look at the words of the Gospel now before us. "Jordan" means "their
going down." The name "Jared" is etymologically akin to it, if I may say so; it
also yields the meaning "going down; "for Jared was born to Maleleel, as it is
written in the Book of Enoch-if any one cares to accept that book as sacred-in
the days when the sons of God came down to the daughters of men.Under this
descent some have supposed that there is an enigmatical reference to the descent
of souls into bodies, taking the phrase "daughters of men" as a tropical
expression for this earthly tabernacle. Should this be so, what river will
"their going down" be, to which one must come to be purified, a river going
down, not with its own descent, but "theirs," that, namely, of men, what but our
Saviour who separates those who received their lots from Moses from those who
obtained their own portions through Jesus (Joshua)? His current, flowing in the
descending stream, makes glad, as we find in the Psalms,124 the city of God, not
the visible Jerusalem-for it has no river beside it-but the blameless Church of
God, built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord
being the chief corner-stone. Under the Jordan, accordingly, we have to
understand the Word of God who became flesh and tabernacled among us, Jesus who
gives us as our inheritance the humanity which He assumed, for that is the head
corner-stone, which being taken up into the deity of the Son of God, is washed
by being so assumed, and then receives into itself the pure and guileless dove
of the Spirit, bound to it and no longer able to fly away from it. For "Upon
whomsoever," we read, "thou shall see the Spirit descending and abiding upon
Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit." Hence, he who receives
the Spirit abiding on Jesus Himself is able to baptize those who come to him in
that abiding Spirit. But John baptizes beyond Jordan, in the regions verging on
the outside of Judaea, in Bethabara, being the forerunner of Him who came to
call not the righteous but sinners, and who taught that the whole have no need
of a physician, but they that are sick. For it is for forgiveness of sins that
this washing is given.

26. The Story of Israel Crossing Jordan Under Joshua is Typical of Christian
Things, and is Written for Our Instruction.

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the
Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because
John says, "I baptize with water, but He that cometh after me is stronger than
I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." To this we reply that, as the
Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men
water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood,
since it is said,125 "Except ye drink My blood, ye have no life in you," and as
in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh,
so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and
of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold,
that He speaks in the words,126 "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how
am I straitened till it be accomplished? "And it agrees with this that the
disciple John speaks in his Epistle127 of the Spirit, and the water, and the
blood, as being one. And again He declares Himself to be the way and the door,
but clearly He is not the door to those to whom He is the way, and He is no
longer the way to those to whom He is the door. All those, then, who are being
initiated in the beginning of the oracles of God, and come to the voice of him
who cries in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord," the voice
which sounds beyond Jordan at the house of preparation, let them prepare
themselves so that they may be in a state to receive the spiritual word, brought
home to them by the enlightenment of the Spirit. As we are now, as our subject
requires, bringing together all that relates to the Jordan, let us look at the
"river." God, by Moses, carried the people through the Red Sea, making the water
a wall for them on the right hand and on the left, and by Joshua He carried them
through Jordan. Now, Paul deals with this Scripture, and his warfare is not
according to the flesh of it, for he knew that the law is spiritual in a
spiritual sense. And he shows us that he understood what is said about the
passage of the Red Sea; for he says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians,128
"I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, how that our fathers were all under
the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in
the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the
same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them,
and the rock was Christ." In the spirit of this passage let us also pray that we
may receive from God to understand the spiritual meaning of Joshua's passage
through Jordan. Of it, also, Paul would have said, "I would not, brethren, have
you ignorant, that all our fathers went through Jordan, and were all baptized
into Jesus in the spirit and in the river." And Joshua, who succeeded Moses, was
a type of Jesus Christ, who succeeds the dispensation through the law, and
replaces it by the preaching of the Gospel. And even if those Paul speaks of
were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, there is something harsh and salt in
their baptism. They are still in fear of their enemies, and crying to the Lord
and to Moses, saying,129 "Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou
brought us forth to slay us in the wilderness? Why hast thou dealt thus with us,
to bring us forth out of Egypt? "But the baptism to Joshua, which takes place in
quite sweet and drinkable water, is in many ways superior to that earlier one,
religion having by this time grown clearer and assuming a becoming order. For
the ark of the covenant of the Lord our God is carried in procession by the
priests and levites, the people following the ministers of God, it, also,
accepting the law of holiness. For Joshua says to the people,130 "Sanctify
yourselves against tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among you." And he
commands the priests to go before the people with the ark of the covenant,
wherein is plainly showed forth the mystery of the Father's economy about the
Son, which is highly exalted by Him who gave the Son this office; "That at the
name of Jesus131 every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth
and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is pointed out by what we
find in the book called Joshua,132 "In that day I will begin to exalt thee
before the children of Israel." And we hear our Lord Jesus saying to the
children of Israel,133 "Come hither and hear the words of the Lord your God.
Hereby ye shall know that the living God is in (among) you; "for when we are
baptized to Jesus, we know that the living God is in us. And, in the former
case, they kept the passover in Egypt, and then began their journey, but with
Joshua, after crossing Jordan on the tenth day of the first month they pitched
their camp in Galgala; for a sheep had to be procured before invitations could
be issued to the banquet after Joshua's baptism. Then the children of Israel,
since the children of those who came out of Egypt had not received circumcision,
were circumcised by Joshua with a very sharp stone; the Lord declares that He
takes away the reproach of Egypt on the day of Joshua's baptism, when Joshua
purified the children of Israel. For it is written:134 "And the Lord said to
Joshua, the son of Nun, This day have I taken away the reproach of Egypt from
off you." Then the children of Israel kept the passover on the fourteenth day of
the month, with much greater gladness than in Egypt, for they ate unleavened
bread of the corn of the holy land, and fresh food better than manna. For when
they received the land of promise God did not entertain them with scantier food,
nor when such a one as Joshua was their leader do they get inferior bread. This
will be plain to him who thinks of the true holy land and of the Jerusalem
above. Hence it is written in this same Gospel:135 Your fathers did eat bread in
the wilderness, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
For the manna, though it was given by God, yet was bread of travel, bread
supplied to those still under discipline, well fitted for those who were under
tutors and governors. And the new bread Joshua managed to get from corn they cut
in the country, in the land of promise, others having laboured and his disciples
reaping,-that was bread more full of life, distributed as it was to those who,
for their perfection, were able to receive the inheritance of their fathers.
Hence, he who is still under discipline to that bread may receive death as far
as it is concerned, but he who has attained to the bread that follows that,
eating it, shall live for ever. All this has been added, not, I conceive,
without appropriateness, to our study of the baptism at the Jordan, administered
by John at Bethabara.

27. Of Elijah and Elisha Crossing the Jordan.

Another point which we must not fail to notice is that when Elijah was about to
be taken up in a whirlwind, as if to heaven,136 he took his mantle and wrapped
it together and smote the water, which was divided hither and thither, and they
went over both of them, that is, he and Elisha. His baptism in the Jordan made
him fitter to be taken up, for, as we showed before, Paul gives the name of
baptism to such a remarkable passage through the water. And through this same
Jordan Elisha receives, through Elijah, the gift he desired, saying, "Let a
double portion of thy spirit be upon me." What enabled him to receive this gift
of the spirit of Elijah was, perhaps, that he had passed through Jordan twice,
once with Elijah, and the second time, when, after receiving the mantle of
Elijah, he smote the water and said, "Where is the God of Elijah, even He? And
he smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither."

28. Naaman the Syrian and the Jordan. No Other Stream Has the Same Healing
Power. Should any one object to the expression "He smote the water," on account
of the conclusion we arrived at above with respect to the Jordan, that it is a
type of the Word who descended for us our descending, we rejoin that with the
Apostle the rock is plainly said to be Christ, and that it is smitten twice with
the rod, so that the people may drink of the spiritual rock which follows them.
The "smiting" in this new difficulty is that of those who are fond of suggesting
something that contradicts the conclusion even before they have learned what the
question is which is in hand. From such God sets us free, since, on the one
hand, He gives us to drink when we are thirsty, and on the other He prepares for
us, in the immense and trackless deep, a road to pass over, namely, by the
dividing of His Word, since it is by the reason which distinguishes (divides)
that most things are made plain to us. But that we may receive the right
interpretation about this Jordan, so good to drink, so full of grace, it may be
of use to compare the cleansing of Naaman the Syrian from his leprosy, and what
is said of the rivers of religion of the enemies of Israel. It is recorded of
Naaman137 that he came with horse and chariot, and stood at the door of the
house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go, wash seven
times in the Jordan, and thy flesh shall come again unto thee, and thou shalt be
cleansed." Then Naaman is angry; he does not see that our Jordan is the cleanser
of those who are impure from leprosy, from that impurity, and their restorer to
health; it is the Jordan that does this, and not the prophet; the office of the
prophet is to direct to the healing agency. Naaman then says, not understanding
the great mystery of the Jordan, "Behold, I said that he will certainly come out
to me, and will call upon the name of the Lord his God, and lay his hand upon
the place, and restore the leper." For to put his hand on the leprosy138 and
cleanse it is a work belonging to our Lord Jesus only; for when the leper
appealed to Him with faith, saying, "If Thou wilt Thou canst make me clean," He
not only said, "I will, be thou clean," but in addition to the word He touched
him, and he was cleansed from his leprosy. Naaman, then, is still in error, and
does not see how far inferior other rivers are to the Jordan for the cure of the
suffering; he extols the rivers of Damascus, Arbana, and Pharpha, saying, "Are
not Arbana and Pharpha, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of
Israel? Shall I not wash in them and be clean? "For as none is good139 but one,
God the Father, so among rivers none is good but the Jordan, nor able to cleanse
from his leprosy him who with faith washes his soul in Jesus. And this, I
suppose, is the reason why the Israelites are recorded to have wept when they
sat by the rivers of Babylon and remembered Zion; those who are carried captive,
on account of their wickedness, when they taste other waters after sacred
Jordan, are led to remember with longing their own river of salvation. Therefore
it is said of the rivers of Babylon, "There we sat down," clearly because they
were unable to stand, "and wept." And Jeremiah rebukes those who wish to drink
the waters of Egypt, and desert the water which comes down from heaven, and is
named from its so coming down-namely, the Jordan. He says,140 "What hast thou to
do with the way of Egypt, to drink the water of Geon, and to drink the water of
the river," or, as it is in the Hebrew, "to drink the water of Sion."Of which
water we have now to speak.

29. The River of Egypt and Its Dragon, Contrasted with the Jordan. But that the
Spirit in the inspired Scriptures is not speaking mainly of rivers to be seen
with the eyes, may be gathered from Ezekiel's prophecies against Pharaoh, king
of Egypt:141 "Behold I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great
dragon, seated in the midst of rivers, who sayest, Mine are the rivers, and I
made them. And I will put traps in thy jaws, and I will make the fishes of the
river to stick to thy fins, and I will bring thee up from the midst of thy
river, and all the fish of the river, and I will cast thee down quickly and all
the fish of the river; thou shalt fall upon the face of thy land, and thou shalt
not be gathered together, and thou shalt not be adorned." For what real bodily
dragon has ever been reported as having been seen in the material river of
Egypt? But consider if the river of Egypt be not the dwelling of the dragon who
is our enemy, who was not even able to kill the child Moses. But as the dragon
is in the river of Egypt, so is God in the river which makes glad the city of
God; for the Father is in the Son. Hence those who come to wash themselves in
Him put away the reproach of Egypt, and become more fit to be restored. They are
cleansed from that foulest leprosy, receive a double portion of spiritual gifts,
and are made ready to receive the Holy Spirit, since the spiritual dove does not
light on any other stream. Thus we have conside


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 1
========================================================================

From the First Book of the Commentary on Matthew163

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God
under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew,
who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was
written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for
the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who
wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle,
acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect
together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son."164 And third, was
that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by165 Paul, which he composed for
the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

163: This fragment is found in Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25.

164: 1 Pet. v. 13.

165: Or, who is commended by Paul.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 10
========================================================================

Book X.

1. The Parable of the Tares: the House of Jesus.

2. Exposition of the Parable.

3. The Shining of the Righteous. Its Interpretation.

4. Concerning the Parable of the Treasure Hidden in the Field. The Parable
Distinguished from the Similitude.

5. The Field and the Treasure Interpreted.

6. The Exposition Continued.

7. The Parable of the Pearl of Great Price. The Formation and Difference of
Pearls.

8. The Parable Interpreted is the Light of These Views.

9. Christ the Pearl of Great Price.

10. The Pearl of the Gospel in Relation to the Old Testament.

11. The Parable of the Drag-Net.

12. The Divine Scriptures Compared to a Net.

13. Relation of Men to Angels.

14. The Disciples as Scribes.

15. The Householder and His Treasury.

16. Parables in Relation to Similitudes, Jesus in His Own Country 17. The
Brethren of Jesus.

18. Prophets in Their Country.

19. Relation of Faith and Unbelief to the Supernatural Powers of Jesus.

20. Different Conceptions of John the Baptist.

21. Herod and the Baptist.

22. The Dancing of Herodias. The Keeping of Oaths.

23. The Withdrawal of Jesus.

24. The Diverse Forms of Spiritual Sickness.

25. Healing Precedes Papticipation in the Loaves of Jesus.

Book X.

1. The Parable of the Tares: the House of Jesus.

"Then He left the multitudes and went into His house, and His disciples came
unto Him saying, Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field"1 When
Jesus then is with the multitudes, He is not in His house, for the multitudes
are outside of the house, and it is an act which springs from His love of men to
leave the house and to go away to those who are not able to come to Him. Now,
having discoursed sufficiently to the multitudes in parables, He sends them away
and goes to His own house, where His disciples, who did not abide with those
whom He had sent away, come to Him. And as many as are more genuine hearers of
Jesus first follow Him, then having inquired about His abode, are permitted to
see it, and, having come, see and abide with Him, all for that day, and perhaps
some of them even longer. And, in my opinion, such things are indicated in the
Gospel according to John in these words, "On the morrow again John was standing
and two of his disciples.2 And in order to explain the fact that of those who
were permitted to go with Jesus and see His abode, the one who was more eminent
becomes also an Apostle, these words are added: "One of the two that heard John
speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother."3 And if then, unlike
the multitudes whom He sends away, we wish to hear Jesus and go to the house and
receive something better than the multitudes, let us become friends of Jesus, so
that as His disciples we may come to Him when He goes into the house, and having
come may inquire about the explanation of the parable, whether of the tares of
the field, or of any other. And in order that it may be more accurately
understood what is represented by the house of Jesus, let some one collect from
the Gospels whatsoever things are spoken about the house of Jesus, and what
things were spoken or done by Him in it; for all the passages collected together
will convince any one who applies himself to this reading that the letters of
the Gospel are not absolutely simple as some suppose, but have become simple to
the simple by a divine concession;4 but for those who have the will and the
power to hear them more acutely there are concealed things wise and worthy of
the Word of God.

2. Exposition of the Parable.

"After these things He answered and said to them, He that soweth the good seed
is the Son of man."5 Though we have already, in previous sections, according to
our ability discussed these matters, none the less shall we now say what is in
harmony with them, even if there is reasonable ground for another explanation.
And consider now, if in addition to what we have already recounted, you can
otherwise take the good seed to be the children of the kingdom, because
whatsoever good things are sown in the human soul, these are the offspring of
the kingdom of God and have been sown by God the Word who was in the beginning
with God,6 so that wholesome words about anything are children of the kingdom.
But while men are asleep who do not act according to the command of Jesus,
"Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation,"7 the devil on the watch sows
what are called tares-that is, evil opinions-over and among what are called by
some natural conceptions, even the good seeds which are from the Word. And
according to this the whole world might be called a field, and not the Church of
God only, for in the whole world the Son of man sowed the good seed, but the
wicked one tares,-that is, evil words,-which, springing from wickedness, are
children of the evil one. And at the end of things, which is called "the
consummation of the age,"8 there will of necessity be a harvest, in order that
the angels of God who have been appointed for this work may gather up the bad
opinions that have grown upon the soul, and overturning them may give them over
to fire which is said to burn, that they may be consumed. And so the angels and
servants of the Word will gather from all the kingdom of Christ all things that
cause a stumbling-block to souls and reasonings that create iniquity, which they
will scatter and cast into the burning furnace of fire. Then those who become
conscious that they have received the seeds of the evil one in themselves,
because of their having been asleep, shall wail and, as it were, be angry
against themselves; for this is the "gnashing of teeth."9 Wherefore, also, in
the Psalms it is said, "They gnashed upon me with their teeth."10 Then above all
"shall the righteous shine," no longer differently as at the first, but all "as
one sun in the kingdom of their Father."11 Then, as if to indicate that there
was indeed a hidden meaning, perhaps, in all that is concerned with the
explanation of the parable, perhaps most of all in the saying, "Then shall the
righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father," the Saviour adds,
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,"12 thereby teaching those who think
that in the exposition, the parable has been set forth with such perfect
clearness that it can be understood by the vulgar,13 that even the things
connected with the interpretation of the parable stand in need of explanation.

3. The Shining of the Righteous. Its Interpretation. But as we said above in
reference to the words, "Then shall the righteous shine as the sun," that the
righteous will shine not differently as formerly, but as one sun, we will, of
necessity, set forth what appears to us on the point. Daniel, knowing that the
intelligent are the light of the world, and that the multitudes of the righteous
differ in glory, seems to have said this, "And the intelligent shall shine as
the brightness of the firmament, and from among the multitudes of the righteous
as the stars for ever and ever."14 And in the passage, "There is one glory of
the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one
star differeth from another star in glory: so also is the resurrection of the
dead,"15 the Apostle says the same thing as Daniel, taking this thought from his
prophecy. Some one may inquire how some speak about the difference of light
among the righteous, while the Saviour on the contrary says, "They shall shine
as one sun." I think, then, that at the beginning of the blessedness enjoyed by
those who are being saved (because those who are not such are not yet purified),
the difference connected with the light of the saved takes place: but when, as
we have indicated, he gathers from the whole kingdom of Christ all things that
make men stumble, and the reasonings that work iniquity are cast into the
furnace of fire, and the worse elements utterly consumed, and, when this takes
place, those who received the words which are the children of the evil one come
to self-consciousness, then shall the righteous having become one light of the
sun shine in the kingdom of their Father. For whom will they shine? For those
below them who will enjoy their light, after the analogy of the sun which now
shines for those upon the earth? For, of course, they will not shine for
themselves. But perhaps the saying," Let your light shine before men,"16 can be
written "upon the table of the heart,"17 according to what is said by Solomon,
in a threefold way; so that even now the light of the disciples of Jesus shines
before the rest of men, and after death before the resurrection, and after the
resurrection "until all shall attain unto a full-grown man,"18 and all become
one sun. Then shall they shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

4. Concerning the Parable of the Treasure Hidden in the Field. The Parable
Distinguished from the Similitude.

"Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field, which
a man found and hid."19 The former parables He spoke to the multitudes; but this
and the two which follow it, which are not parables but similitudes in relation
to the kingdom of heaven, He seems to have spoken to the disciples when in the
house. In regard to this and the next two, let him who "gives heed to reading"20
inquire whether they are parables at all. In the case of the latter the
Scripture does not hesitate to attach in each case the name of parable; but in
the present case it has not done so; and that naturally. For if He spoke to the
multitudes in parables, and "spake all these things in parables, and without a
parable spake nothing to them,"21 but on going to the house He discourses not to
the multitudes but to the disciples who came to Him there, manifestly the things
spoken in the house were not parables: for, to them that are without. even to
those to whom "it is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven,"22 He speaks in parables. Some one will then say, If they are not really
parables, what are they? Shall we then say in keeping with the diction of the
Scripture that they are similitudes (comparisons)? Now a similitude differs from
a parable; for it is written in Mark, "To what shall we compare the kingdom of
God, or in what parable shall we set it forth? "23 From this it is plain that
there is a difference between a similitude and a parable. The similitude seems
to be generic, and the parable specific. And perhaps also as the similitude,
which is the highest genus of the parable, contains the parable as one of its
species, so it contains that particular form of similitude which has the same
name as the genus. This is the case with other words as those skilled in the
giving of many names have observed; who say that "impulse"24 is the highest
genus of many species, as, for example, of "disinclination"25 and "inclination."
and say that, in the case of the species which has the same name as the genus,
"inclination" is taken in opposition to and in distinction from
"disinclination."

5. The Field and the Treasure Interpreted. And here we must inquire separately
as to the field, and separately as to the treasure hidden in it, and in what way
the man who has found this hidden treasure goes away with joy and sells all that
he has ill order to buy that field; and we must also inquire-what are the things
which he sells. The field, indeed, seems to me according to these things to be
the Scripture, which was planted with what is manifest in the words of the
history, and the law, and the prophets, and the rest of the thoughts; for great
an


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 11
========================================================================

Book XI.

1. Introduction to the Feeding of the Five Thousand.

2. Exposition of the Details of the Miracle.

3. The Exposition of Details Continued. The Sitting Down on the Grass. The
Division into Companies.

4. The Multitudes and the Disciples Contrasted.

5. The Disciples in Conflict. Jesus Walks Upon the Waters.

6. Interpretation of the Details in the Narrative. Application Thereof to All
Disciples.

7. The Healing of the Sick on the Other Side. The Method of Healing.

8. Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Who Came and Inquired, Why Do Thy
Disciples Transgress the Tradition of the Elders?

9. Explanation of "Corban."

10. The Traditions of the Elders in Collision with Divine Law.

11. Exposition of the Prophecy of Isaiah Quoted by Jesus.

12. Things Clean and Unclean According to the Law and the Gospel.

13. The Offence of the Pharisees.

14. Why the Pharisees Were Not a Plant of God. Teaching of Origen on the "Bread
of the Lord."

15. Eating with Unwashed Heart Defiles the Man.

16. Concerning the Canaanitish Woman. Meaning of the "Borders of Tyre and
Sidon."

17. Exposition of the Details in the Narrative.

18. Concerning the Multitudes Who Were Healed. Comparison of the Mountain Where
Jesus Sat to the Church.

19. Concerning the Seven Loaves. The Narrative of the Feeding of the Four
Thousand Compared with that of the Five Thousand.

Book XI.

1. Introduction to the Feeding of the Five Thousand.

"And when even was come His disciples came to Him, "1 that is, at the
consummation of the age in regard to which we may fitly say what is found in the
Epistle of John, "It is the last hour."2 They, not yet understanding what the
Word was about to do, say to Him, "The place is desert,"3 seeing the desert
condition of the masses in respect of God and the Law and the Word; but they say
to Him, "The time is past,"4 as if the fitting season of the law and prophets
had passed. Perhaps they spoke this saying, in reference to the word of Jesus,
that because of the beheading of John both the law and the prophets who were
until John had ceased.5 "The time is past," therefore they say, and no food is
at hand, because the season of it is no longer present, that those who have
followed Thee in the desert may serve the law and the prophets. And, further,
the disciples say, "Send them away,"6 that each one may buy food, if he cannot
from the cities, at least from the villages,-places more ignoble. Such things
the disciples said, because, after the letter of the law had been abrogated and
prophecies had ceased, they despaired of unexpected and new food being found for
the multitudes. But see what Jesus answers to the disciples though He does not
cry out and plainly say it: "You suppose that, if the great multitude go away
from Me in need of food, they will find it in villages rather than with Me, and
among bodies of men, not of citizens but of villagers, rather than by abiding
with Me. But I declare unto you, that in regard to that of which you suppose
they are in need they are not in need, for they have no need to go away; but in
regard to that of which you think they have no need-that is, of Me-as if I could
not feed them, of this contrary to your expectation they have need. Since, then,
I have trained you, and made you fit to give rational food to them who are in
need of it, give ye to the crowds who have followed Me to eat; for ye have the
power, which ye have received from Me, of giving the multitudes to eat; and if
ye had attended to this, ye would have understood that I am far more able to
feed them, and ye would not have said, 'Send the multitudes away that they may
go and buy food for themselves.'"7 2. Exposition of the Details of the Miracle.

Jesus, then, because of the power which He gave to the disciples, even the power
of nourishing others, said, Give ye them to eat.8 But (not denying that they can
give loaves, but thinking that there were much too few and not sufficient to
feed those who followed Jesus, and not considering that when Jesus takes each
loaf-the Word-He extends it as far as He wills, and makes it suffice for all
whomsoever He desires to nourish), the disciples say, We have here but five
loaves and two fishes.9 Perhaps by the five loaves they meant to make a veiled
reference to the sensible words of the Scriptures, corresponding in number on
this account to the five senses, but by the two fishes either to the word
expressed10 and the word conceived,11 which are a relish, so to speak, to the
sensible things contained in the Scriptures; or, perhaps, to the word which had
come to them about the Father and the Son. Wherefore also after His resurrection
He ate of a broiled fish,12 having taken a part from the disciples, and having
received that theology about the Father which they were in part able to declare
to Him. Such is the contribution we have been able to give to the exposition of
the word about the five loaves and the two fishes; and probably those, who are
better able than we to gather together the five loaves and the two fishes among
themselves, would be able to give a fuller and better interpretation of their
meaning. It must be observed, however, that while in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,13
the disciples say that they have the five loaves and the two fishes, without
indicating whether they were wheaten or of barley, John alone says, that the
loaves were barley loaves.14 Wherefore, perhaps, in the Gospel of John the
disciples do not acknowledge that the loaves are with them, but say in John,
"There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fishes."15 And so long
as these five loaves and two fishes were not carried by the disciples of Jesus,
they did not increase or multiply, nor were they able to nourish more; but, when
the Saviour took them, and in the first placed looked up to heaven, with the
rays of His eyes, as it were, drawing down from it power which was to be mingled
with the loaves and the fishes which were about to feed the five thousand; and
after this blessed the five loaves and the two fishes, increasing and
multiplying them by the word and the blessing; and in the third place dividing
and breaking He gave to the disciples that they might set them before the
multitudes, then the loaves and the fishes were sufficient, so that all ate and
were satisfied, and some portions of the loaves which had been blessed they were
unable to eat. For so much remained over to the multitudes, which was not
according to the capacity of the multitudes but of the disciples who were able
to take up that which remained over of the broken pieces, and to place it in
baskets filled with that which remained over, which were in number so many as
the tribes of Israel. Concerning Joseph, then, it is written in the Psalms, "His
hands served in the basket,"16 but about the disciples of Jesus that they took
up that which remained over of the broken pieces twelve baskets, twelve baskets,
I take it, not half-full but filled. And there are, I think, up to the present
time, and will be until the consummation of the age with the disciples of Jesus,
who are superior to the multitudes, the twelve baskets, filled with the broken
pieces of living bread which the multitudes cannot eat. Now those who ate of the
five loaves which existed before the twelve baskets that remained over, were
kindred in nature to the number five; for those who ate had reached the stage of
sensible things, since also they were nourished by Him who looked up to heaven
and blessed and brake them, and were not boys nor women, but men. For there are,
I think, even in sensible foods differences, so that some of them belong to
those who "have put away childish things,"17 and some to those who are still
babes and carnal in Christ.

3. The Exposition of Details Continued. The Sitting Down on the Grass. The
Division into Companies.

We have spoken these things because of the words, "They that did eat were five
thousand men, beside children and women, "18 which is an ambiguous expression;
for either those who ate were five thousand men, and among those who ate there
was no child or woman; or the men only were five thousand, the children and the
women not being reckoned. Some, then, as we have said by anticipation, have so
understood the passage that neither children nor women were present, when the
increase and multiplication of the five loaves and the two fishes took place.
Bat some one might say that, while many ate and according to their desert and
capacity participated in the loaves of blessing, some worthy to be numbered,
corresponding to the men of twenty years old who are numbered in the Book of
Numbers,19 were Israelitish men, but others who were not worthy of such account
and numbering were children and women. Moreover, interpret with me allegorically
the children in accordance with the passage, "I could not speak unto you as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ; "20 and the women in
accordance with the saying, "I wish to present you all as a pure virgin to
Christ; "21 and the men according to the saying, "When I am become a man I have
put away childish things."22 Let us not pass by without exposition the words,
"He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass, and He look the five
loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, He blessed, and brake, and
gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. And they
did all eat."23 For what is meant by the words, "And He commanded all the
multitudes to sit down on the grass? "And what are we to understand in the
passage worthy of the command of Jesus? Now, I think that He commanded the
multitudes to sit down on the grass because of what is said in Isaiah, "All
flesh is grass; "24 that is to say, He commanded them to put the flesh under,
and to keep in subjection "the mind of the flesh,"25 that so any one might be
able to partake of the loaves which Jesus blesses. Then since there are
different orders of those who need the food which Jesus supplies and all are not
nourished by equal words, on this account I think that Mark has written, "And He
commanded them that they should all sit down by companies upon the green grass;
and they sat down in ranks by hundreds and by fifties; "26 but Luke, "And He
said unto His disciples, Make them sit down in companies about fifty each."27
For it was necessary that those who were to find rest in the food of Jesus
should either be in the order of the hundred-the sacred number-which is
consecrated to God, because of the unit, (in it) or in the order of the
fifty-the number which embraces the remission of sins, in accordance with the
mystery of the Jubilee which took place every fifty years, and of the feast at
Pentecost. And I think that the twelve baskets were in the possession of the
disciples to whom it was said "Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel."28 And as the throne of him who judges the tribe of
Reuben might be said to be a mystery, and the throne of him who judges the tribe
of Simeon, and another of him who judges the tribe of Judah, and so on with the
others; so there might be a basket of the food of Reuben, and another of Simeon,
and another of Levi. But it is not in accordance with our present discourse now
to digress so far from the subject in hand as to collect what is said about the
twelve tribes, and separately what is said about each of them, and to say what
each tribe of Israel may signify.

4. The Multitudes and the Disciples Contrasted.

"And straightway He constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go
before Him unto the other side, till He should send the multitudes away."29 It
should be observed how often in the same passages is mentioned the word, "the
multitudes," and another word, "the disciples," so that by observing and
bringing together the passages about this matter it may be seen that the aim of
the Evangelists was to represent by means of the Gospel history the differences
of those who come to Jesus; of whom some are the multitudes and are not called
disciples, and others are the disciples who are better than the multitudes. It
is sufficient, however, for the present, for us to set forth a few sayings, so
that any one who is moved by them may do the like with the whole of the Gospels.
It is written then-as if the multitudes were below, but the disciples were able
to come to Jesus when He went up into the mountain, where the multitudes were
not able to be-as follows: "And seeing the multitudes He went up into the
mountain, and when He had sat down His disciples came unto Him; and He opened
His mouth and taught them saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit," etc.30 And
again in another place, as the multitudes stood in need of healing, it is said,
"Many multitudes followed Him and He healed them."31 We do not find any healing
recorded of the disciples; since if any one is already a disciple of Jesus he is
whole, and being well he needs Jesus not as a physician but in respect of His
other powers. Again in another place, when He was speaking to the multitudes,
His mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him; this was
made known to Him by some one to whom He answered, stretching forth His hand not
towards the multitudes but towards the disciples, and said, "Behold My mother
and My brethren."32 and bearing testimony to the disciples as doing the will of
the Father which is in heaven, He added, "He is My brother and sister and
mother."33 And again in another place it is written, "All the multitude stood on
the beach and He spake to them many things in parables."34 Then after the
parable of the Sowing, it was no longer the multitudes but the disciples who
came and said to Him, not "Why speakest thou to us in parables," but, "Why
speakest thou to them in parables."35 Then also He answered and said, not to the
multitudes but to the disciples, "To you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of heaven, but to the rest in parables."36 Accordingly; of those who
come to the name I of Jesus some, who know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, would be called disciples; but those to whom such a privilege is not
given would be called multitudes, who would be spoken of as inferior to the
disciples. For observe carefully that He said to the disciples, "To you it is
given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," but about the multitudes,
"To them it is not given."37 And in another place He dismisses the multitudes
indeed, and goes into the house,38 but He does not dismiss the disciples; and
there came to Him into His house, not the multitudes but His disciples, saying,
"Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field."39 Moreover, also, in
another place when Jesus heard the things concerning John and withdrew in a boat
to a desert place apart, the multitudes followed Him; when He came forth and saw
a great multitude He had compassion on them and healed their sick-the sick of
the multitudes, not of the disciples.40 "And when even was come there came to
Him," not the multitudes, but the disciples, as being different from the
multitudes, saying, "Send the multitudes away that they may go into the villages
and buy themselves food."41 And, further, when Jesus took the five loaves and
the two fishes, and looking up to heaven He blessed and brake the loaves, He
gave not to the multitudes but to the disciples,42 that the disciples might give
to the multitudes who were not able to take from Him, but received with
difficulty at the hands of the disciples the loaves of the blessing of Jesus,
and did not eat even all these; for the multitudes were filled and left that
which remained over in twelve baskets which were full.

5. The Disciples in Conflict. Jesus Walks Upon the Waters. The reason why we
have taken up this subject is the passage under discussion which tells that
Jesus separated the disciples from the multitudes, and constrained them to enter
into the boat and to go before Him unto the other side until He Himself should
send the multitudes away;43 for the multitudes were not able to go away to the
other side, as they were not in the mystic sense Hebrews, which are by
interpretation, "dwelling on the other side." But this was the work of the
disciples of Jesus-I mean togo away to the other side, and to pass beyond things
seen and material, as temporal, and to go on to things unseen and eternal. To be
dismissed by Jesus was a sufficient act of kindness bestowed on the multitudes
by Jesus; for just because they were multitudes they were not able to go away to
the other side; and this kind of dismissal no one has the power to effect save
Jesus only, and it is not possible for any one to be dismissed unless he has
first eaten of the loaves which Jesus blesses. Nor is it possible for any one to
eat of the loaves of blessing of Jesus unless he has done as Jesus commanded and
sat down upon the grass as we have told. Nor again was it possible for the
multitudes to do this unless they had followed Jesus from their own cities, when
He withdrew into a desert place apart. And at first, when He was asked by the
disciples to send away the multitudes, He did not send them away until He had
fed them with the loaves of blessing; but now He sends them away, having first
constrained the disciples to enter into the boat; and He sends them away, while
they were somewhere below,-for the desert was below,-but He Himself went up into
the mountain to pray.44 And you must observe this, that immediately after the
five thousand had been fed, Jesus constrained the disciples to embark into the
boat, and to go before Him unto the other side. Only, the disciples were not
able to go before Jesus to the other side; but, when they had got as far as the
middle of the sea, and the boat was distressed "because the wind was contrary to
them,"45 they were afraid when about the fourth watch of the night Jesus came to
them. And if Jesus had not gone up into the boat neither would the wind which
was contrary to the disciples who were sailing have ceased, nor would those who
were sailing have gone across and come to the other side. And, perhaps, wishing
to teach them by experience that it was not possible apart from Him to go to the
other side He constrained them to enter into the boat and go before Him to the
other side; but, when they were not able to advance farther than the middle of
the sea, He appeared to them, and did what is written,46 and showed that he who
arrives at the other side reaches it because Jesus sails along with him. But
what is the boat into which Jesus constrained the disciples to enter? Is it
perhaps the conflict of temptations and difficulties into which any one is
constrained by the Word, and goes unwillingly, as it were, when the Saviour
wishes to train by exercise the disciples in this boat which is distressed by
the waves and the contrary wind? But since Mark has made a slight change in the
reading, and for "Straightway He constrained the disciples to enter lute the
boat and to go before Him to the other side," has written, "And straightway He
constrained His disciples to enter into the boat and to go before Him unto the
other side unto Bethsaida,"47 we must attend to the word, "He constrained," when
first we have seen to the slight variation in Mark who indicates something more
definite by the addition of the pronoun; for the same thing is not expressed by
the words, straightway "He constrained the disciples." Something more than "the"
disciples simply is written in Mark, namely, "His" disciples. Perhaps,
therefore, to attend to the expression, the disciples who found it hard to tear
themselves away from Jesus, and could not be separated from Him by any ordinary
cause, wished to be present with Him; but He having judged that they should make
trial of the waves and of the contrary wind, which would not have been contrary
if they had been with Jesus, put on them the necessity of being separated from
Him and entering into the boat. The Saviour then compels the disciples to enter
into the boat of temptations and to go before Him to the other side, and through
victory over them to go beyond critical difficulties; but when they had come
into the midst of the sea, and of the waves in the temptations, and of the
contrary winds which prevented them from going away to the other side, they were
not able, struggling as they were without Jesus, to overcome the waves and the
contrary wind and reach the other side. Wherefore the Word, taking compassion
upon them who had done all that was in their power to reach the other side, came
to them walking upon the sea, which for Him had no waves or wind that was able
to oppose if He so willed; for it is not written, "He came to them walking upon
the waves," but, "upon the waters; "48 Just as Peter, who at first when Jesus
said to him, "Come," went down from the boat and walked not upon "the waves,"
but upon "the waters"49 to come to Jesus; but when he doubted he saw that the
wind was strong, which was not strong to him who laid aside his little faith and
his doubting. But, when Jesus went up with Peter into the boat, the wind ceased,
as it had no power to energise against the boat when Jesus had gone up into it.

6. Interpretation of the Details in the Narrative. Application Thereof to All
Disciples. And then the disciples "having crossed over came to the land
Gennesaret, "50 of which word, if we knew the interpretation, we might gain some
assistance in the exposition of the present passage. And observe, since God is
faithful, and will not suffer the multitudes to be tempted above that they are
able,51 in what way the Son of God constrained the disciples to enter into the
boat, as being stronger and able to get as far as the middle of the sea, and to
endure the trials by the waves, until they became worthy of divine assistance,
and saw Jesus and heard Him when He had gone up, and to cross over and come to
the land Gennesaret; but as for the multitudes who, because they were weaker,
did not make trial of the boat and the waves and the contrary wind, them He sent
away, and went up into the mountain apart to pray.52 To pray for whom? Was it
perhaps to pray for the multitudes that, when they were dismissed after the
loaves of blessing, they might do nothing opposed to their dismissal by Jesus?
And for the disciples that, when they were constrained by Him to enter into the
boat and to go before Him unto the other side, they might suffer nothing in the
sea nor from the contrary wind? And I would say with confidence, that, because
of the prayer of Jesus to the Father for the disciples, they suffered nothing
when sea and wave and contrary wind were striving against them. The simpler
disciple, then, may be satisfied with the bare narrative; but let us remember,
if ever we fall into distressful temptations, that Jesus has constrained us to
enter into their boat, wishing us to go before Him unto the other side; for it
is not possible for us to reach the other side, unless we have endured the
temptations of waves add contrary wind. Then when we see many difficulties
besetting us, and with moderate struggle we have swum through them to some
extent, let us consider that our boat is in the midst of the sea, distressed at
that time by the waves which wish us to make shipwreck concerning faith or some
one of the virtues; but when we see the spirit of the evil one striving against
us, let us conceive that then the wind is contrary to us. When then in such
suffering we have spent three watches of the night-that is, of the darkness
which is in the temptations-striving nobly with all our might and watching
ourselves so as not to make shipwreck concerning the faith or some one of the
virtues,-the first watch against the father of darkness and wickedness, the
second watch against his son "who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that
is called God or thing that is worshipped,"53 and the third watch against the
spirit54 that is opposed to the Holy Spirit, then we believe that when the
fourth watch impendeth, when "the night is far spent, and the day is at hand,"55
the Son of God will come to us, that He may prepare the sea for us, walking upon
it. And when we see the Word appearing unto us we shall indeed be troubled
before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us,
supposing that we are still beholding an apparition, and for fear shall cry out;
but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, "Be of good cheer; it is I;
be not afraid."56 And if, warmly moved by His "Be of good cheer," any Peter be
found among us, who is on his way to perfection but has not yet become perfect,
having gone down from the boat, as if coming out of that temptation in which he
was distressed, he will indeed walk at first, wishing to come to Jesus upon the
waters; but being as yet of little faith, and as yet doubting, will see that the
wind is strong and will be afraid and begin to sink; but he will not sink
because he will call upon Jesus with loud voice, and will say to Him, "Lord,
save me; "57 then immediately while such a Peter is yet speaking and saying,
"Lord save me," the Word will stretch forth His hand, holding out assistance to
such an one, and will take hold of him when he is beginning to sink, and will
reproach him for his little faith and doubting.58 Only, observe that He did not
say, "O thou without faith," but, "O thou of little faith," and that it was
said, "Wherefore didst thou doubt." as he had still a measure of faith, but also
had a tendency towards that which was opposed to faith.

7. The Healing of the Sick on the Other Side. The Method of Healing. But after
this both Jesus and Peter will go up into the boat, and the wind will cease; and
those in the boat, perceiving the great dangers from which they have been saved,
will worship Him, saying, not simply, "Thou art the Son of God," as also the two
demoniacs said, but, "Of a truth, Thou art the Son of God."59 This the disciples
in the boat say, for I do not think that others than the disciples said so. And
when we have undergone all these experiences, having crossed over, we shall come
to the land where Jesus commanded us to go before Him. And perhaps, also, some
secret and occult mystery with reference to some who were saved by Jesus is
indicated by the words, "And when the men of that place knew Him,"-plainly of
the place on the other side,-"they sent into all that region round about,"-round
about the other side, not on the other side itself, but round about it,-"and
they brought unto Him all that were sick."60 And here observe that they brought
unto Him not only many that were sick, but all in that region round about; and
the sick who were brought to Him besought Him that they might touch if it were
only the border of His garment,61 beseeching this grace from Him, since they
were not like "the woman who had an issue of blood twelve years, and who came
behind Him and touched the border of His garment, saying within herself, If I do
but touch His garment, I shall be made whole."62 For observe in what is said
about the border of His garment, on account of what the flowing of her blood
ceased at once. But those from the country round the land of Gennesaret, to
which Jesus and His disciples crossed over and came, did not come of themselves
to Jesus, but were brought by those who had sent the tidings, inasmuch as they
were not able because of their extreme weakness to come of themselves. Nor did
they merely touch the garment, like the woman who had an issue of blood, but
they touched after that they had besought Him. Only, of these, "as many as
touched were made whole."63 And whether there be any difference between the
"They were made whole,"64 which is said in their case, and the "being saved,"65
-for it was said to the woman with the issue of blood, "Thy faith hath saved
thee,"66 you may yourself consider.

8. Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Who Came and Inquired, Why Do Thy
Disciples Transgress the Tradition of the Elders?

"Then there came to Him from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, Why do Thy
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands
when they eat bread."67 He who observes at what time the Pharisees and scribes
came from Jerusalem to Jesus, saying, "Why do Thy disciples transgress the
tradition of the eiders," etc., will perceive that Matthew of necessity wrote
not simply that Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to the Saviour to
inquire of Him the matters before us, but put it thus, "Then come to Him from
Jerusalem." What time, therefore, are we to understand by "then"? At the time
when Jesus and His disciples crossed over and came in the boat to the land of
Gennesaret, when the wind ceased from the time that Jesus entered into the boat,
and when "the men of that place knowing Him sent into all that region round
about, and brought unto Him all that were sick, and besought Him that they might
touch if it were only the border of His garment, and as many as touched were
made whole."68 At that time came to Him from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes,
not struck with admiration at the power which was in Jesus, which healed those
who only touched even the border of His garment, but in a censorious spirit,
accusing the disciples before their Teacher, not concerning the transgression of
a commandment of God, but of a single tradition of the Jewish elders. And it is
probable that this very charge of these censorious persons is a proof of the
piety of the disciples of Jesus, who gave to the Pharisees and scribes no
opportunity of censure with reference to the transgression of the commandments
of God, as they would not have brought the charge of transgression against the
disciples, as transgressing the commandment of the elders, if they had had it in
their power to censure those whom they accused, and to show that they were
transgressing a commandment of God. But do not suppose that these things go to
establish the necessity of keeping the law of Moses according to the letter,
because the disciples of Jesus up to that time kept it; for not before He
suffered did He "redeem us from the curse of the law,"69 who in suffering for
men "became a curse for us." But just as fittingly Paul became a Jew to the Jews
that he might gain Jews,70 what strange thing is it that the Apostles, whose way
of life was passed among the Jews, even though they understood the spiritual
things in the law, should have used a spirit of accommodation, as Paul also did
when he circumcised Timothy,71 and offered sacrifice in accordance with a
certain legal vow, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles?72 Only, again,
they appear fond of bringing accusations, as they have no charge to bring
against the disciples of Jesus with reference to a commandment of God, but only
with reference to one tradition of the elders. And especially does this love of
accusation become manifest in this, that they bring the charge in presence of
those very persons who had been healed from their sickness; in appearance
against the disciples, but in reality purposing to slander their Teacher, as it
was a tradition of the elders that the washing of hands was a thing essential to
piety. For they thought that the hands of those who did not wash before eating
bread were defiled and unclean, but that the hands of those who had washed them
with water became pure and holy, not in a figurative sense, in due relation to
the law of Moses according to the letter. But let us, not according to the
tradition of the elders among the Jews, but according to sound reason, endeavour
to purify our own actions and so to wash the hands of our souls, when we are
about to eat the three loaves which we ask from Jesus, who wishes to be our
friend;73 for with hands that are defiled and unwashed and impure, we ought not
to partake of the loaves.

9. Explanation of "Corban."

Jesus, however, does not accuse them with reference to a tradition of the Jewish
elders, but with regard to two most imperative commandments of God, the one of
which was the fifth in the decalogue, being as follows: "Honour thy father and
thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be long on the
land which the Lord thy God giveth thee; "74 and the other was written thus in
Leviticus, "If a man speak evil of his father or his mother, let him die the
death; he has spoken evil of his father or mother, he shall be guilty."75 But
when we wish to examine the very letter of the words as given by Matthew, "He
that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death,"76 consider
whether it was taken from the place where it was written, "Whoso striketh his
father or mother, let him die the death; and he that speaketh evil of father or
mother let him die the death."77 For such are the exact words taken from the Law
with regard to the two commandments; but Matthew has quoted them in part and in
an abridged form, and not in the very words. But what the nature of the charge
is which the Saviour brings against the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem,
when He says that they transgress the commandment of God because of their
tradition we must consider. And God said, "Honour thy father and thy mother,"78
teaching that the child should pay the honour which is due to his parents. Of
this honour to parents one part was to share with them the necessaries of life,
such as food and clothing, and if there was any other thing in which it was
possible for them to show favour towards their own parents. But the Pharisees
and scribes promulgated in opposition to the law a tradition which is found
rather obscurely in the Gospel, and which we ourselves would not have thought
of, unless one of the Hebrews had given to us the following facts relating to
the passage. Sometimes, he says, when money-lenders fell in with stubborn
debtors who were able but not willing to pay their debts, they consecrated what
was due to the account of the poor, for whom money was cast into the treasury by
each of those who wished to give a portion of their goods to the poor according
to their ability. They, therefore, said sometimes to their debtors in their own
tongue, "That which you owe to me is Corban,"-that is, a gift-"for I have
consecrated it to the poor, to the account of piety towards God." Then the
debtor, as no longer in debt to men but to God and to piety towards God, was
shut up, as it were, even though unwilling, to payment of the debt, no longer to
the money-lender, but now to God for the account of the poor, in name of the
money-lender. What then the money-lender did to the debtor, that sometimes some
sons did to their parents and said to them, "That wherewith thou mightest have
been profited by me, father or mother, know that you will receive this from
Corban,"79 from the account of the poor who are consecrated to God. Then the
parents, hearing that that which should have been given to them was
Corban,-consecrated to God,-no longer wished to take it from their sons, even
though they were in extreme need of the necessaries of life. The elders, then,
declared to the people a tradition of this kind, "Whosoever said to his father
or mother, that which should be given to any of them is Corban and a gift, that
man was no longer a debtor to his father or mother in respect of giving to them
the necessaries of life." The Saviour censures this tradition, as not being
sound but opposed to the commandment of God. For if God says, "Honour thy father
and thy mother," but the tradition said, he is not bound to honour his father or
mother by a gift, who has consecrated to God, as Corban, that which would have
been given to his parents, manifestly the commandment of God concerning the
honour due to parents was made void by the tradition of the Pharisees and
scribes which said, that he was no longer bound to honour his father or mother,
who had, once for all, consecrated to God that which the parents would have
received. And the Pharisees, as lovers of money, in order that under pretext of
the poor they might receive even that which would have been given to the parents
of any one, gave such teaching. And the Gospel testifies to their love of money,
saying, "But the Pharisees who were lovers of money heard these things and they
scoffed at Him."80 If, then, any one of those who are called elders among us, or
of those who are in any way rulers of the people, profess to give to the poor
under the name of the commonweal, rather than to be of those who give to their
kindred if they should chance to be in need of the necessaries of life, and
those who give cannot do both, this man might with justice be called a brother
of those Pharisees who made void the word of God through their own tradition,
and were accused by the Saviour as hypocrites. And as a very powerful deterrent
to any one from being anxious to take from the account of the poor, and from
thinking that "the piety of others is a way of gain,"81 we have not only these
things, but also that which is recorded about the traitor Judas, who in
appearance championed the cause of the poor, and said with indignation, "This
ointment might have been sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor,"82
but in reality "was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put
therein."83 If, then, any one in our time who has the bag of the Church speaks
likes Judas on behalf of the poor, but takes away what is put therein, let there
be assigned to him the portion along with Judas who did these things; on account
of which things eating like a gangrene into his soul, the devil cast it into his
heart to betray the Saviour; and, when he had received the "fiery dart,"84 with
reference to this end, the devil afterwards himself entered into his soul and
took full possession of him. And perhaps, when the Apostle says, "The love of
money is a root of all evils,"85 he says it because of Judas' love of money,
which was a root of all the evils that were committed against Jesus.

10. The Traditions of the Elders in Collision with Divine Law. But let us return
to the subject before us, in which the Saviour abridged and expounded two
commandments from the law, the one from the decalogue from Exodus, and the other
from Leviticus, or the other from some one of the books of the Pentateuch. Then
since we have explained in what way they made void the word of God which said,
"Honour thy father and thy mother," by saying, "Thou shalt not honour thy father
or thy mother," whosoever shall say to his father or mother, "It is a gift that
wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me," some one may inquire whether
the words, "He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death,"86
are not extraneous. For, granted that he does not honour his father and mother,
who consecrates to what is called Corban that which would have been given in
honour of father and mother, in what way, therefore, does the tradition of the
Pharisees make void the word which said, "He that speaketh evil of father or
mother, let him die the death.? But, perhaps, when any one said to his father or
his mother, "It is a gift, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by
me,"87 he, as it were, casts abuse on his father or mother as if he were calling
his parents sacrilegious, in taking that which was consecrated to Corban from
him who had consecrated it to Corban. The Jews then punish their sons88
according to the law, as speaking evil of father or mother, when they say to
their father or mother, "It is a gift, that wherewith thou mightest have been
profited by me," but you by one of your traditions make void two commandments of
God. And then you are not ashamed to accuse My disciples who transgress no
commandment; for they walk "in all His commandments and ordinances
blamelessly,"89 but transgress a tradition of the elders, so as not to
transgress a commandment of God. And if you had held this aim before you, you
would have kept the commandment about the honour due to father and mother, and
that which said, "He that speaketh evil of father and mother, let him die the
death; "but the tradition of the elders which is opposed to these commandments
you would not have kept.

11. Exposition of the Prophecy of Isaiah Quoted by Jesus.

And, after this, wishing to refute completely from the words of the prophets all
these traditions of the elders among the Jews, He brought before them a saying,
from Isaiah, which in the exact words is as follows: "And the Lord said, This
people draws nigh to Me with their mouth," etc.;90 and, as we said before,
Matthew has not written out the prophetical saying in the very words. And, if it
be necessary because of its use in the Gospel to interpret it according to our
ability, we will take in addition the preceding passage which is, in my
judgment, noted with advantage by us for the exposition of that passage in the
Gospel which was taken from the prophet. The passage in Isaiah from the
beginning is thus. "Be ye faint, and be maddened: be ye drunken, but not with
strong drink nor with wine: for the Lord hath given you to drink of the spirit
of stupor, and He will close their eyes, both of their prophets, and of their
rulers who see things secret. And all these sayings shall be to you as the words
of the book, which has been sealed, which if they give to a man who knows
letters, saying, Read this, he shall answer, I cannot read, for it is sealed.
And this book will be given into the hands of a man who does not know letters,
and one will say to him, Read this, and he will say, I know not letters. And the
Lord said, This people is nigh to Me," etc., down to the words, "Woe unto them
that form counsel in secret, and their works shall be in darkness."91 Taking up
then the passage before us in the Gospel, I have put some of the verses which
come before it, and some which follow it, in order to show in what way the Word
threatens to close the eyes of those of the people who are astonished and
drunken, and have been made to drink of the spirit of deep sleep. And it
threatens also to close the eyes of their prophets and their rulers who profess
to see things secret,-which things, I think, took place after the advent of the
Saviour among that people; for all the words of the whole of the Scriptures, and
of Isaiah also, have become to them as the words of a sealed book. Now the
expression "sealed" is used of a book closed in virtue of its obscurity and not
open in virtue of its lucidity, which is equally obscure to those who are not
able to read it at all because they do not know letters, and to those who
profess to know letters but do not understand the meaning in the things which
have been written. Well, then, does he add to this, that when the people,
fainting because of their sins and being in a state of madness rage against Him
through those sins wherewith they shall be drunken against Him with the spirit
of stupor, which shall be given to them to drink by the Lord when He closes
their eyes, as unworthy to see, and the eyes of their prophets and of their
rulers who profess to see the hidden things of the mysteries in the Divine
Scriptures; and, when their eyes are closed, then shall the prophetic words be
sealed to them and hidden, as has been the case with those who do not believe in
Jesus as the Christ. And when the prophetic sayings have become as the words of
a sealed book, not only to those who do not know letters but to those who
profess to know, then the Lord said, that the people of the Jews draw nigh to
God with their mouth only, and He says that they honour Him with their lips,
because their heart by reason of their unbelief in Jesus is far from the Lord.
And now, especially, from the time at which they denied our Saviour, it might be
said about them by God, "But in vain do they worship Me; "92 for they no longer
teach the precepts of God but of men, and doctrines which are human and no
longer of the Spirit of wisdom. Wherefore, when these things happen to them, God
has removed the people of the Jews, and has caused to perish the wisdom of the
wise men among them; for there is no longer wisdom among them, just as there is
no prophecy; but God has utterly destroyed the prudence of the prudent and
concealed it,93 and no longer is it splendid and conspicuous. Wherefore,
although they may seem to form some counsel in a deep fashion, because they do
it not through the Lord they are called miserable; and even though they profess
to tell some secrets of the Divine counsel they lie, since their works are not
works of light, but of darkness and night.94 I have thought it right briefly to
set forth the prophecy, and to a certain extent elucidate its meaning, seeing
that Matthew made mention of it. And Mark also made mention of it, from whom we
may usefully set down the following words in the place, with reference to the
transgression of the elders who held that it was necessary to wash hands when
the Jews ate bread, "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their
hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they
come from the market-place except they wash themselves they eat not. And there
are some other things which they have received to hold, washings of cups and
pots and brazen vessels and couches."95 12. Things Clean and Unclean According
to the Law and the Gospel.

"And He called to Him the multitude and said unto them, Hear and understand, "
etc.96 We are clearly taught in these words by the Saviour that, when we read in
Leviticus and Deuteronomy the precepts about meat clean and unclean, for the
transgression of which we are accused by the material Jews and by the Ebionites
who differ little from them, we are not to think that the scope of the Scripture
is found in any superficial understanding of them. For if "not that which
entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which proceedeth out of the
mouth,"97 and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things
"making all meats clean,"98 manifestly we are not defiled when we eat those
things which the Jews who desire to be in bondage to the letter of the law
declare to be unclean, but we are then defiled when, whereas our lips ought to
be bound with perception and we ought "to make for them what we call a balance
and weight,"99 we speak offhand and discuss matters we ought not, from which
there comes to us the spring of sins. And it is indeed becoming to the law of
God to forbid those things which arise from wickedness, and to enjoin those
things which tend to virtue, but as for things which are in their own nature
indifferent to leave them in their own place, as they may, according to our
choice and the reason which is in us, be done ill if we sin in them, but if
rightly directed by us be done well. And any one who has carefully thought on
these matters will see that, even in those things which are thought to be good,
it is possible for a man to sin who has taken them up in an evil way and under
the impulse of passion, and that these things called impure may be considered
pure, if used by us in accordance with reason. As, then, when the Jew sins his
circumcision shall be reckoned for uncircumcision, but when one of the Gentiles
acts uprightly his uncircumcision shall be reckoned for circumcision,100 so
those things which are thought to be pure shall be reckoned for impure in the
case of him who does not use them fittingly, nor when one ought, nor as far as
he ought, nor for what reason he ought. But as for the things which are called
impure, "All things become pure to the pure," for, "To them that are defiled and
unbelieving nothing is pure, since both their minds and their conscience are
defiled."101 Andwhen these are defiled, they make all things whatsoever they
touch defiled; as again on the contrary the pure mind and the pure conscience
make all things pure, even though they may seem to be impure; for not from
intemperance, nor from love of pleasure, nor with doubting which draws a man
both ways, do the righteous use meats or drinks, mindful of the precept,
"Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever other thing ye do, do all to the glory of
God."102 And if it be necessary to delineate the foods which are unclean
according to the Gospel, we will say that they are such as are supplied by
covetousness, and are the result of base love of gain, and are taken up from
love of pleasure, and from deifying the belly which is treated with honour, when
it, with its appetites, and not reason, rules our souls. But as for us who know
that some things are used by demons, or if we do not know, but suspect, and are
in doubt about it, if we use such things, we have used them not to the glory of
God, nor in the name of Christ; for not only does the suspicion that things have
been sacrificed to idols condemn him who eats, but even the doubt concerning
this; for "he that doubteth," according to the Apostle, "is condemned if he eat,
because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin."103 He
then eats in faith who believes that that which is eaten has not been sacrificed
in the temples of idols, and that it is not strangled nor blood;104 but he eats
not of faith who is in doubt about any of these things. And the man who knowing
that they have been sacrificed to demons nevertheless uses them, becomes a
communicant with demons, while at the same time, his imagination is polluted
with reference to demons participating in the sacrifice. And the Apostle,
however, knowing that it is not the nature of meats which is the cause of injury
to him who uses them or of advantage to him who refrains from their use, but
opinions and the reason which is in them, said, "But meat commendeth us not to
God, for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the
worse."105 And since he knew that those who have a loftier conception of what
things are pure and what impure according to the law, turning aside from the
distinction about the use of things pure and impure, and superstition, I think,
in respect of things being different, become indifferent to the use of meats,106
and on this account are condemned by the Jews as transgressors of law, he said
therefore, somewhere, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink,"
etc.,107 teaching us that the things according to the letter are a shadow, but
that the true thoughts of the law which are stored up in them are the good
things to come, in which one may find what are the pure spiritual meats of the
soul, and what are the impure foods in false and contradictory words which
injure the man who is nourished in them, "For the law had a shadow of the good
things to come."108 13. The Offence of the Pharisees. And as in many cases we
have to consider the astonishment of the Jews at the words of the Saviour,
because they were spoken with authority, so also in regard to the words in this
place. Having called the multitudes therefore, He said unto them, "Hear and
understand,"109 etc. And He said this, the Pharisees being offended at this
saying, as, because of their evil opinions and their worthless interpretation of
the law, they were not the plant of his own Father in heaven, and on this
account were being rooted up;110 for they were rooted up as they did not receive
the true vine, which was cultivated by the Father, even Jesus Christ.111 For how
could they be a plant of His Father who were offended at the words of Jesus,
words which turn men away from the precept, "Handle not, nor taste, nor
touch,-all which things were to perish in the using-after the precepts and
doctrines of men,"112 but induce the intelligent hearer of them to seek in
regard to them the things which are above and not the things upon the earth as
the Jews do?113 And since, because of their evil opinions, the Pharisees were
not the plant of His Father in heaven, on this account, as about such as were
incorrigible, He says to the disciple, "Let them alone; "114 "Let them alone,"
He said for this reason, that as they were blind they ought to become conscious
of their blindness and seek guides; but they, being unconscious of their own
blindness, profess to guide the blind, not reckoning that they would fall into a
pit, about which it is written in the Psalms, "He hath made a pit, and digged
it, and will fall into the ditch which he hath marie."115 Again, elsewhere it is
written, "And seeing the multitudes, He went up into the mountain, and when He
had sat down His disciples came unto Him; "116 but here He stretches forth His
hand to the multitude, calling them unto Him, and turning their thoughts away
from the literal interpretation of the questions in the law, when He in the
first place said to them, who did not yet understand what they heard, "Hear and
understand," and thereafter as in parables said to them, "Not that which
entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which proceedeth out of the
mouth."117 14. Why the Pharisees Were Not a Plant of God. Teaching of Origen on
the "Bread of the Lord."

After this, it is worth while to look at the phrase which has been assailed in a
sophistical way by those who say118 that the God of the law and the God of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same; for they say that the heavenly Father of
Jesus Christ is not the husbandman of those who think that they worship God
according to the law of Moses. Jesus Himself said that the Pharisees, who were
worshipping the God who created the world and the law, were not a plant which
His heavenly Father had planted, and that for this reason it was being rooted
up.119 But you might also say this, that even if it were the Father of Jesus who
"brought in and planted the people," when it came out of Egypt, "to the mountain
of His own inheritance, to the place which He had prepared for Himself to dwell
in,"120 yet Jesus would have said, in regard to the Pharisees, "Every plant
which My heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up." Now, to this we will
say, that as many as on account of their perverse interpretation of the things
in the law were not a plant of His Father in heaven, were blinded in their
minds, as not believing the truth, but taking pleasure in unrighteousness,121 by
him who is deified by the sons of this world, and on this account is called by
Paul the god of this world.122 And do not suppose that Paul said that he was
truly God; for just as the belly, though it is not the god of those who prize
pleasure too highly, being lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, is said
by Paul to be their god,123 so the prince of this world, in regard to whom the
Saviour says, "Now has the prince of this world been judged,"124 though he is
not God, is said to be the god of those who do not wish to receive the spirit of
adoption, in order that they may become sons of that world, and sons of the
resurrection from the dead,125 and who, on this account, abide in the sonship of
this world. I have deemed it necessary to introduce these matters, even though
they may have been spoken by way of digression, because of the saying, "They are
blind guides of the blind."126 Who are such? The Pharisees, whose minds the god
of this world hath blinded as they are unbelieving, because they have not
believed in Jesus Christ; and he hath blinded them so that the "light of the
Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ should not dawn upon them."127
But not only must we avoid being guided by those blind ones who are conscious
that they are in need of guides, because they have not yet received the power of
vision of themselves; but even in the case of all who profess to guide us in
sound doctrine, we must hear with care, and apply a sound judgment to what is
said, lest being guided according to the ignorance of those who are blind, and
do not see the things that concern sound doctrine, we ourselves may appear to be
blind because we do not see the sense of the Scriptures, so that both he who
guides and he who is guided will fall into the ditch of which we have Spoken
before. Next to this, it is written in what way Peter answered and said to the
Saviour, as if he had not understood the saying, "Not that which cometh into the
mouth defileth the man, but that which goeth out of the mouth," "Declare unto us
the parable."128 To which the Saviour says, "Are ye also, even yet, without
understanding? "129 As if He had said, "Having been so long time with Me, do ye
not yet understand the meaning of what is said, and do ye not perceive that for
this reason that which goeth into his month does not defile the man, because it
passeth into the belly, and going out from it is cast into the draught? "130 It
was not in respect of the law in which they appeared to believe, that the
Pharisees were not a plant of the Father of Jesus, but in respect of their
perverse interpretation of the law and the things written in it. For since there
are two things to be understood in regard to the law, the ministration of death
which was engraven in letters131 and which had no kinship with the spirit, and
the ministration of life which is understood in the spiritual law. those who
were able with a sincere heart to say, "We know that the law is spiritual,"132
and therefore "the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and
good,"133 were the plant which the heavenly Father planted; but those who were
not such, but guarded with care the letter which killeth only, were not a plant
of God but of him who hardened their heart, and put a veil over it, which veil
had power over them so long as they did not turn to the Lord; "for if any one
should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit."134
Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as "not that
which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,"135 of even though it may be
thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth
sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be
thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to
be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to
be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt
which defiles him that eateth, for "he that doubteth is condemned if he eat,
because he eateth not of faith,"136 and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled
and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so
that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer137 does not, in its
own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify
even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of
this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul
represented in saying, "For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and
not a few sleep."138 And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly,
there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure
conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the
very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word
of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the
better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins,
and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such
is the meaning of what is said by Paul, "For neither if we eat are we the
better, nor if we eat not are we the worse."139 Now, if "everything that
entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the
drought,"140 even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and
prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and
is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it,
according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of
clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not
the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of
advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed
are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about
the Word Himself who became flesh,141 and true meat of which he that eateth
shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if
it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh.
who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that
"every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever."142 15. Eating with
Unwashed Heart Defiles the Man.

Next to this let us see how the things which proceed out and defile the man do
not defile the man because of their proceeding out of the mouth, but have the
cause of their defilement in the heart, when there come forth out of it, before
those things which proceed through the mouth, evil thoughts, of which the
species are-murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness.
railings.143 For these are the things which defile the man, when they come forth
out of the heart, and going out from it proceed through the mouth; so that, if
they did not come out of the heart, but were retained there somewhere about the
heart, and were not allowed to be spoken through the mouth, they would very
quickly disappear, and a man would be no more defiled. The spring and source,
then, of every sin are evil thoughts; for, unless these gained the mastery,
neither murders nor adulteries nor any other such thing would exist. Therefore,
each man must keep his own heart with all watchfulness;144 for when the Lord
comes in the day of judgment. "He will bring to light the hidden things of
darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts,"145 "all the
thoughts of men meanwhile accusing or else excusing them,"146 "when their own
devices have beset them about."147 But of such a nature are the evil thoughts
that sometimes they make worthy of censure even those things which seem good,
and which, so far as the judgment of the masses is concerned, are worthy of
praise. Accordingly, if we do alms before men, having in our thoughts the design
of appearing to men philanthropic, and of being honoured because of
philanthropy, we receive the reward from men;148 and, universally, everything
that is done with the consciousness in the doer that he will be glorified by
men, has no reward from Him who beholds in secret, and renders the reward to
those who are pure, in secret. So, too, therefore, is it with apparent purity if
it is influenced by considerations of vain glory or love of gain; and the
teaching which is thought to be the teaching of the Church, if it becomes
servile through the word of flattery, either when it is made the excuse for
covetousness, or when any one seeks glory from men because of his teaching, is
not reckoned to be the teaching of those "who have been set by God in the
Church: first, apostles; secondly, prophets; and thirdly, teachers."149 And you
will say the like in the case of him who seeks the office of a bishop for the
sake of glory with men, or of flattery from men, or for the sake of the gain
received from those who, coming over to the word, give in the name of piety; for
a bishop of this kind at any rate does not "desire a good work,"150 nor can he
be without reproach, nor temperate, nor sober-minded, as he is intoxicated with
glory and intemperately satiated with it. And the same also you will say about
the elders and deacons. And if we seem to some to have made a digression in
speaking of these things, consider if it were not necessary that they should be
said, because that evil thoughts are the spring of all sins, and can pollute
even those actions which, if they were done apart from evil thoughts, would have
justified the man who did them. We have thus investigated according to our
ability what are the things which defile; but to eat with unwashed hands does
not defile the man; but if we must say it with boldness, with unwashed heart to
eat anything whatsoever which is the natural food of our reason, defileth the
man.

16. Concerning the Canaanitish Woman. Meaning of the "Borders of Tyre and
Sidon."

"And Jesus went out thence and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon. And
behold a Canaanitish woman."151 Whence the "thence"? Was it from the land of
Gennesaret, concerning which it was said before, "And when they had crossed over
they came into the land of Gennesaret? "152 But He withdrew, perhaps because the
Pharisees were offended when they heard that "not that which entereth in, but
that which proceedeth out, defileth the man; "153 and that, because of their
being suspected of plotting against Him, it is said, "He withdrew," is manifest
from the passage, "And when He heard that John was delivered up He withdrew into
Galilee."154 Perhaps also on this account, when describing the things in this
place, Mark says that "He rose up and went into the borders of Tyre, and having
entered into the house wished no man to know it."155 It is probable that He
sought to avoid the Pharisees who were offended at His teaching, waiting for the
time for His suffering, which was more fitting and rightly appointed. But some
one might say that Tyre and Sidon are used for the Gentiles; accordingly when He
withdrew from Israel He came into the parts of the Gentiles. Among the Hebrews,
then, Tyre is called Sor, and it is interpreted "anguish." Sidon, which is also
the Hebrew name, is rendered "hunters." And among the Gentiles likewise the
hunters are the evil powers, and among them is great distress, the distress,
namely, which exists in wickedness and passions. When Jesus, then, went out from
Gennesaret He withdrew indeed from Israel and came, not to Tyre and Sidon, but
into "the parts" of Tyre and Sidon, with the result that those of the Gentiles
now believe in part; so that if He had visited the whole of Tyre and Sidon, no
unbeliever would have been left in it. Now, according to Mark, "Jesus rose up
and went into the borders of Tyre,"156 -that is, the distress of the
Gentiles,-in order that they also from these borders who believe can be saved,
when they come out of them; for attend to this: "And behold a Canaanitish woman
came out from these borders and cried saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son
of David, my daughter is terribly vexed with a demon."157 And I think that if
she had not come out from those borders she would not have been able to cry to
Jesus with the great faith to which testimony was borne; and according to the
proportion of faith one comes out from the borders among the Gentiles, which
"when the Most High divided the nations He set up according to the number of the
sons of Israel,"158 and prevented their further advance. Here, then, certain
borders are spoken of as the borders of Tyre and Sidon, hut in Exodus the
borders of Pharaoh,159 in which, they say, were formed the plagues against the
Egyptians. And we must suppose that each of us when he sins is in the borders of
Tyre or Sidon or of Pharaoh and Egypt, or some one of those which are outside
the allotted inheritance of God; but when he changes from wickedness to virtue
he goes out from the borders of evil, and comes to the borders of the portion of
God, there being among these also a difference which will be manifest to those
who are able to understand the things that concern the division and the
inheritance of Israel, in harmony with the spiritual law. And allen d also to
the meeting, so to speak, which took place between Jesus and the Canaanitish
woman; for He comes as to the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and she comes out of
those parts, and cried, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of
David."160 Now the woman was Canaanitish, which is rendered, prepared for
humiliation. The righteous, indeed, are prepared for the kingdom of heaven and
for the exaltation in the kingdom of God;161 but sinners are prepared for the
humiliation of the wickedness which is in them, and of the deeds which flow from
it and prepare them for it, and of the sin which reigns in their mortal body.
Only, the Canaanitish woman came out of those borders and went forth from the
state of being prepared for humiliation, crying and saying, "Have mercy on me, O
Lord, Thou Son of David."

17. Exposition of the Details in the Narrative.

Now bring together from the Gospels those who call Him Son of David, as she, and
the blind men in Jericho;162 and who call Him Son of God, and that without the
addition "truly" like the demoniacs who say, "What have we to do with Thee, Thou
Son of God; "163 and who call Him so with the addition "truly," like those in
the boat who worshipped Him saying, "Truly Thou art the Son of God."164 For the
bringing together of these passages will, I think, be useful to you with a view
to seeing the difference of those who come (to Jesus); some indeed come as to
Him "who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh; "165 but others
come to Him who "was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness; "166 and of these some with the "truly," and some without
it. Further, observe, that the Canaanitish woman besought Him not about a son,
whom she does not seem to have brought forth at all, but about a daughter who
was terribly vexed with a demon; but another mother receives back alive her son
who was being carried forth dead.167 And again the ruler of the synagogue makes
supplication for a daughter twelve years old, as being dead,168 but the nobleman
about a son as being still sick, and at the point of death.169 The daughter,
accordingly, who was distressed by a demon, and the dead son sprang from two
mothers; and the dead daughter, and the son who was sick unto death, sprang from
two fathers, of whom the one was a ruler of the synagogue, and the other was a
nobleman. And I am persuaded these things contain reasons concerning the verse
kinds of souls which Jesus vivifies and heals. And all the cures that He works
among the people, especially those recorded by the Evangelists, took place at
that time, that those who would not otherwise have believed unless they saw
signs and wonders might believe;170 for the things aforetime were symbols of the
things that are ever being accomplished by the power of Jesus; for there is no
time when each of the things which are written is not done by the power of Jesus
according to the desert of each. The Canaanitish woman, therefore, because of
her race was not worthy even to receive an answer from Jesus, who acknowledged
that He had not been sent by the Father tor any other thing than to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel,171 -a lost race of souls possessed of clear
vision; but, because of her resolution and of having worshipped Jesus as Son of
God, she obtains an answer, which reproaches her with baseness of birth and
exhibits the measure of her worthiness, namely, that she was worthy of crumbs as
the little dogs, but not of the loaves. But when she with intensified
resolution, accepting the saying of Jesus, puts forth the claim to obtain crumbs
even as a little dog, and acknowledges that the masters are of a nobler race,
then she gets a second answer, which bears testimony to her faith as great, and
a promise that it shall be done unto her as she wills.172 And corresponding, I
think, "to the Jerusalem above, which is free, the mother"173 of Paul and those
like to him, must we conceive of the Canaanitish woman, the mother of her who
was terribly distressed with a demon, who was the symbol of the mother of such a
soul. And consider whether it is not according to sound reason that there are
also many fathers and many mothers corresponding to the fathers of Abraham to
whom the patriarch went away,174 and to Jerusalem the "mother," as Paul says,
concerning himself and those like to him. And it is probable that she of whom
the Canaanitish woman was a symbol came out of the borders of Tyre and Sidon, of
which the places on earth were types, and came to the Saviour and besought Him
and even now beseeches Him saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David,
my daughter is terribly vexed with a demon."175 Then also to those without and
to the disciples when necessary He answers and says, "I was not sent; "176
teaching us that there are some lost souls pre-eminently intellectual and clear
of vision, figuratively called sheep of the house of Israel; which things, I
think, the simpler who are of opinion that they are spoken in regard to the
Israel which is after the flesh will of necessity admit, namely, that our
Saviour was sent by the Father to no others than to those lost Jews. But we, who
can truthfully boast that "if we have once known Christ after the flesh, but now
no longer do we know Him so,"177 are assured that it is pre-eminently the work
of the Word to save the more intelligent, for these are more akin to Him than
those who are duller. But since the lost sheep of the house of Israel, with the
exception of "the remnant according to the election of grace,"178 disbelieved
the Word, on this account "God chose the foolish things of the world,"179
namely, that which was not Israel, nor clear of vision, that He might put to
shame the wise ones of Israel; and He called "the things which are not,"180
handing over to them an intelligent nation who were able to admit "the
foolishness of the preaching,"181 and of His good pleasure saved those who
believe in this, that He might refute "the things which are," having perfected
praise for Himself, "out of the mouths of babes and sucklings,"182 when they
became hostile to truth. Now, the Canaanitish woman, having come, worshipped
Jesus as God, saying, "Lord, help me," but He answered and said, "It is not
possible to take the children's bread and cast it to the little dogs."183 But
some one might inquire also into the meaning of this saying, since,-inasmuch as
there was a measure of loaves such that both the children and the dogs of the
household could not eat loaves, unless the dogs ate other loaves than those
which were well made,-it was not possible according to right reason for the
well-made loaf of the children to be given as food to the little dogs. But no
such thing appears in the case of the power of Jesus, for of this it was
possible both for the children and those called little dogs to partake.
Consider, then, whether perhaps with reference to the saying, "It is not
possible to take the bread of children," we ought to say that, "He who emptied
Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant,"184 brought a measure of power
such as the world was capable of receiving, of which power also He was conscious
that a certain quantity went forth from Him as is plain from the words, "Some
one did touch Me, for I perceived that power had gone forth from Me."185 From
this measure of power, then, He dispensed, giving a larger portion to those who
were pre-eminent and who were called sons, but a smaller portion to those who
were not such, as to the little dogs. But though these things were so,
nevertheless where there was great faith, to her, who because of her base birth
in Canaanitish land was a little dog, He gave as to a child the bread of the
children. And perhaps, also, of the words of Jesus there are some loaves which
it is possible to give to the more rational, as to children only; and other
words, as it were, crumbs from the great house and table of the wellborn and the
masters, which may be used by some souls, like the dogs. And according to the
law of Moses it is written about certain things, "Ye shall cast them to the
dogs,"186 and it was a matter of care to the Holy Spirit to give instruction
about certain foods that they should be left to the dogs. Let others, then, who
are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the
bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of
wickedness; but we, who do not find this at all in the divine Scripture, say
that the more rational condition changes into one more irrational, undergoing
this affection in consequence of great slothfulness and negligence. But, also,
in the same way, a will which was more irrational, because of its neglect of
reason, sometimes turns and becomes rational, so that that which at one time was
a dog, loving to eat of the crumbs that fell from the table of its masters,
comes into the condition of a son. For virtue contributes greatly to the making
of one a son of God, but wickedness, and mad fury in wanton discourses and
shamelessness, contribute to the giving of a man the name of dog according to
the word of the Scripture.187 And the like you will also understand in the case
of the other names which are applied to animals without reason. Only, he who is
reproached as a dog and yet is not indignant at being called unworthy of the
bread of children and with all forbearance repeats the saying of that
Canaanitish woman, "Yea, Lord, for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which
fall from their masters'188 table," will obtain the very gentle answer of Jesus
saying to him, "Great is thy faith,"-when he has received so great faith-and
saying, "Be it done unto thee even as thou wilt,"189 so that he himself may be
healed, and if he has produced any fruit which stands in need of healing, that
this, too, may be cured.

18. Concerning the Multitudes Who Were Healed. Comparison of the Mountain Where
Jesus Sat to the Church.

"And Jesus departed thence, "-manifestly, from what has been said before, from
the parts of Tyre and Sidon,-"and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee."190 which
is commonly called the Lake of Gennesaret, and again went up into the mountain
where He went up and sat. We may say, then, that into this mountain where Jesus
sits, not only the sound in health go up, but along with the sound, those also
who were suffering from various disorders. And, perhaps, this mountain to which
Jesus went up and sat is that which is more commonly called the Church, which
has been set up through the word of God over the rest of the world and the men
upon it; whither go not the disciples only, leaving the multitudes as in the
case of the beatitudes, but great multitudes who were not accused themselves of
being deaf or suffering from any affection, but who had such along with
themselves. For you may see, along with the multitudes who come to this mountain
where the Son of God sits, some who have become deaf to the things promised, and
others blind in soul and not looking at the true light, and others who are lame
and not able to walk according to reason, and others who are maimed and not able
to work according to reason. Those, accordingly, who are suffering in soul from
such things, though they go up along with the multitudes into the mountain where
Jesus was, so long as they are outside of the feet of Jesus, are not healed by
Him; but when, as men suffering from such disorders, they are cast by the
multitude at His feet,191 and at the extremities of the body of Christ, not
being worthy to obtain such things so far as they themselves are concerned, they
are then healed by Him. And when you see in the congregation of what is more
commonly called the church the catechumens cast behind those who are at the
extreme end of it, and as it were at the feet of the body of Jesus-the
church-coming to it with their own deafness and blindness and lameness and
crookedness, and in time cured according to the Word, you would not err in
saying that such having gone up with the multitudes of the church to the
mountain where Jesus was, are cast at His feet and are healed; so that the
multitude of the church is astonished at beholding transformations which have
taken place from so great evils to that which is better, so that it might say,
those who were formerly dumb afterwards speak the word of God, and the lame
walk, the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled, not only in things bodily but in
things spiritual, which said, "Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the
tongue of him that hath an impediment in his speech be plain."192 And there,
unless the expression, "the lame man shall leap as an hart," is to be taken as
accidental, we will say that those formerly lame, and who now through the power
of Jesus leap as an hart are not without design compared to a hart, which is a
clean animal, and hostile to serpents and cannot at all be injured by their
poison. But also, in respect of the fact that the dumb are seen speaking is the
prophecy fulfilled which said, "And the tongue of him that hath an impediment
shall be plain," or rather that which said, "Hear ye deaf; "but the blind see
according to the prophecy following, "Hear ye deaf, and ye blind look up that ye
may see."193 Now the blind see, when they see the world and from the exceeding
great beauty of the things created they contemplate the Creator corresponding in
greatness and beauty to them; and when they see clearly "the invisible things of
God Himself from the creation of the world, which are perceived through the
things that are made; "194 that is, they see and understand with care and
clearness. Now the multitudes seeing these things, glorified the God of
Israel,195 and glorify Him in the persuasion that it is the same God, who is the
Father of Him who healed those previously mentioned, and the God of Israel. For
He is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.196 Let us then
cause to go up along with ourselves to the mountain where Jesus sits-His
church-those who wish to go up to it along with us, the deaf, the blind, the
lame, the maimed and many others, and let us cast them at the feet of Jesus that
He may heal them, so that the multitudes are astonished at their healing; for it
is not the disciples who are described as wondering at such things, although at
that time they were present with Jesus, as is manifest from the words, "And
Jesus called unto Him His disciples and said, I have compassion on the
multitudes,"197 etc.; and perhaps if you attend carefully to the words, "There
came unto Him great multitudes,"198 you would find that the disciples at that
time did not come to Him, but had begun long ago to follow Him and followed Him
into the mountain. But there came unto Him those who were inferior to the
disciples, and were then for the first time approaching Him, who had not the
same experience as those who had gone up with them. Observe, moreover, in the
Gospel who are described as having followed Jesus, and who as having come to
Him, and who as having been brought to Him, and the division between those who
go before and of those who follow; and of those who came, who came to Him in the
house, and who when He was elsewhere. For by observation, and by comparing
things spiritual with spiritual, you would find many things worthy of the
accurate wisdom in the Gospels.

19. Concerning the Seven Loaves. The Narrative of the Feeding of the Four
Thousand Compared with that of the Five Thousand.

"And Jesus called unto Him His disciples and said."199 Above in the similar
history to this about the loaves, before the loaves are spoken of, "Jesus came
forth and saw a great multitude and had compassion upon them and healed their
sick. And when even was come the disciples came to Him saying, The place is
desert and the time is already past, send them away,"200 etc. But now after the
healing of the deaf and the rest, He takes compassion on the multitude which had
continued with Him now three days and had nothing to eat. And there the
disciples make request concerning the five thousand;201 but here He speaks of
His own accord about the four thousand.202 Those, too, are fed when it was
evening after they had spent a day with Him; but these, who are testified to
have continued with Him three days, partake of the loaves lest they might faint
by the way. And there the disciples say to Him when He was not inquiring, that
they had only five loaves and two fishes; but here to Him making inquiry, they
give answer about the seven loaves and the few small fishes. And there He
commands the multitudes to sit down or lie upon the grass; for Luke also wrote,
"Make them sit down,"203 and Mark says, "He commanded them all to sit down; "204
but here He does not command but proclaims205 to the multitude to sit down.
Again, there, the three Evangelists say in the very same words that "He took the
five loaves and the two fishes and looking up to heaven He blessed; "206 but
here, as Matthew and Mark have written, "Jesus gave thanks and brake; "207
there, they recline upon the grass, but here they sit down upon the ground. You
will moreover investigate in the accounts in the different places the variation
found in John, who wrote in regard to that transaction that Jesus said, "Make
the men sit down,"208 and that, having given thanks, He gave of the loaves to
them that were set down, but he did not mention this miracle at all.209
Attending, then, to the difference of those things which are written in the
various places in regard to the loaves, I think that these belong to a different
order from those; wherefore these are fed in a mountain, and those in a desert
place; and these after they had continued three days with Jesus, but those one
day, on the evening of which they were fed. And further, unless it be the same
thing for Jesus to do a thing of Himself and to act after having heard from the
disciples, consider if those to whom Jesus shows kindness are not superior when
He fed them on the spot with a view to showing them kindness. And, if according
to John,210 they were barley loaves of which the twelve baskets remained over,
but nothing of this kind is said about these, how are not these superior to the
former? And the sick of those He healed,211 but here He heals these, along with
the multitudes, who were not sick but blind, and lame, and deaf, and maimed;
wherefore also in regard to these the four thousand marvel,212 but in regard to
the sick no such thing is said. And these I think who ate of the seven loaves
for which thanks were given, are superior to those who ate of the five which
were blessed; and these who ate the few little fishes to those who ate of the
two, and perhaps also these who sat down upon the ground to those who sat down
on the grass. And those from fewer loaves leave twelve baskets, but these from a
greater number leave seven baskets, inasmuch, as they were able to receive more.
And perhaps these tread upon all earthly things and sit down upon them, but
those upon the grass-upon their flesh only-for "all flesh is grass."213 Consider
also after this, that Jesus does not wish to send them away fasting lest they
faint on the way, as being without the loaves of Jesus, and while they were
still on the way-the way to their own concerns-might suffer injury. Take note
also of the cases where Jesus is recorded to have sent any one away, that you
may see the difference of those who were sent away by Him after being fed, and
those who had been sent away otherwise; and, as a pattern of one who was sent
away otherwise, take "Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity."214 But
further the disciples who are always with Jesus are not sent away by Him; but
the multitudes after they have eaten are sent away. Likewise, again, the
disciples who conceive nothing great about the Canaanitish woman say, "Send her
away, for she crieth after us; "215 but the Saviour does not at all appear to
send her away; for saying unto her, "O woman, great is thy faith, be it done to
thee even as thou wilt,"216 He healed her daughter from that hour: it is not
however written that He sent her away. So far at the present time have we been
able to investigate and see into the passage before us.

213: Isa. xl. 6.

214: Luke xiii. 12, Literally `thou art sent away. 0' 215: Matt. xv. 23.

216: Matt. xv. 28.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 12
========================================================================

Book XII.

1. Concerning Those Who Asked Him to Show Them a Sign from Heaven.

2. Why the Pharisees Asked a Sign from Heaven.

3. The Answer of Jesus to Their Request.

4. Why Jesus Called Them an Adulterous Generation, the Law as Husband.

5. Concerning the Leaven of the Pharisees.

6. The Meaning of Leaven. Jesus' Knowledge of the Heart.

7. Relative Magnitude of Sins of the Heart and Actual Sins.

8. The Leaven Figurative Like the Water Spoken of by Jesus to the Woman of
Samaria.

9. Concerning the Question of Jesus in Caesarea, Who Do Men Say that I Am?
Different Conceptions of Jesus.

10. The Answer of Peter.

11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All
Disciples Like Him.

12. Every Sin-Every False Doctrine is a "Gate of Hades."

13. The "Gates of Hades" And the "Gates of Zion" Contrasted.

14. In What Sense the "Keys" Are Given to Peter, and Every Peter. Limitations of
This Power.

15. Relation of the Former Commission Given by Jesus to the Disciples, to His
Present Injunction of Silence. Belief and Knowledge Contrasted.

16. Gradual Growth in Knowledge of the Disciples.

17. Reasons for that Gradual Knowledge.

18. Jesus Was at First Proclaimed by the Twelve as a Worker and a Teacher Only.

19. Importance of the Proclamation of Jesus as the Crucified.

20. Why Jesus Had to Go to Jerusalem.

21. The Rebuke of Peter and the Answer of Jesus.

22. Importance of the Expressions "Behind" And "Turned."

23. Peter as a Stumbling-Block to Jesus.

24. Self-Denial and Cross-Bearing.

25. Reference to the Saying of Paul About Crucifixion with Christ.

26. The Less of Life; And the Saving of It.

27. Life Lost to the World is Saved.

28. The Exchange for One's Life.

29. The Coming of the Son of Man in Glory.

30. The Word Appears in Different Forms; The Time of His Coming in Glory.

31. The Simpler Interpretation of the Promise About Not Tasting of Death.

32. Standing by the Saviour.

33. Interpretation of "Tasting of Death."

34. Meaning of "Until." No Limitation of Promise.

35. Scriptural References to Death.

36. Concerning the Transfiguration of the Saviour.

37. Force of the Words "Before Them."

38. The Garments White as the Light.

39. Jesus Was Transfigured-"As He Was Praying."

40. Discussion of the Saying of Peter.

41. Figurative Interpretation of the Same.

42. The Meaning of the "Bright Cloud."

43. Relation of Moses and Elijah to Jesus. The Injunction of Silence.

Book XII.

1. Concerning Those Who Asked Him to Show Them a Sign from Heaven.

"And the Sadducees and Pharisees came, and tempting Him kept asking Him to shew
them a sign from heaven."1 The Sadducees and Pharisees who disagreed with each
other in regard to the most essential truths,-for the Pharisees champion the
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, hoping that there will be a world to
come, while the Sadducees know nothing after this life in store for a man
whether he has been advancing towards virtue, or has made no effort at all to
come out from the mountains of wickedness,-these, I say, agree that they may
tempt Jesus. Now, a similar thing, as Luke has narrated,2 happened in the case
of Herod and Pilate, who became friends with one another that they might kill
Jesus; for, perhaps, their hostility with one another would have prevented Herod
from asking that He should be put to death, in order to please the people, who
said, "Crucify Him, Crucify Him,"3 and would have influenced Pilate, who was
somewhat inclined against His condemnation, his hostility with Herod giving
fresh impulse to the inclination which he previously cherished to release Jesus.
But their apparent friendship made Herod stronger in his demand against Jesus
with Pilate, who wished, perhaps, also because of the newly-formed friendship to
do something to gratify Herod and all the nation of the Jews. And often even now
you may see in daily life those who hold the most divergent opinions, whether in
the philosophy of the Greeks or in other systems of thought, appearing to be of
one mind that they may scoff at and attack Jesus Christ in the person of His
disciples. And from these things I think you may go on by rational argument to
consider, whether when forces join in opposition which are in disagreement with
one another, as of Pharaoh with Nebuchadnezzar,4 and of Tirhakah, king of the
Ethiopians, with Sennacherib,5 a combination then takes place against Jesus and
His people. So perhaps, also, "The kings of the earth set themselves and the
rulers were gathered together,"6 though not at all before at harmony with one
another, that having taken counsel against the Lord and His Christ. they might
slay the Lord of glory.

2. Why the Pharisees Asked a Sign from Heaven.

Now, to this point we have come in our discourse, because of the Pharisees and
Sadducees coming together unto Jesus, who disagreed in matters relating to the
resurrection, but came, as it were, to an agreement for the sake of tempting our
Saviour, and asking Him to show them a sign froth heaven. For, not satisfied
with the wonderful signs shown among the people in the healing of all forms of
disease and sickness, and with the rest of the miracles which our Saviour had
done in the knowledge of many, they wished Him to show to them also a sign from
heaven. And I conjecture that they suspected that the signs upon earth might
possibly not be of God; for they did not hesitate indeed to say, "Jesus casts
out demons by Beelzebub the prince of the demons; "7 and it seemed to them that
a sign from heaven could not spring from Beelzebub or any other wicked power.
But they erred in regard to both, in regard to signs upon earth as well as to
signs from heaven, not being "approved money-changers,"8 nor knowing how to
distinguish between the spirits that are working, which kind are from God, and
which have revolted from Him. And they ought to have known that even many of the
portents wrought against Egypt in the time of Moses, though they were not from
heaven, were clearly from God, and that the fire which fell from heaven upon the
sheep of Job was not from God;9 for that fire belonged to the same one as he to
whom belonged those who carried off, and made three bands of horsemen against,
the cattle of Job. I think, moreover, that in Isaiah-as if signs could be shown
both from the earth and from heaven, the true being from God, but "with all
power and signs and lying wonders"10 those from the evil one-it was said to
Ahaz, "Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God in the depth or in the
height."11 For, unless there had been some signs in the depth or in the height
which were not from the Lord God, this would not have been said, "Ask for
thyself a sign from the Lord thy God in the depth or in the height." But I know
well that such an interpretation of the passage, "Ask for thyself a sign from
the Lord thy God," will seem to some one rather forced; but give heed to that
which is said by the Apostle about the man of sin, the son of perdition, that,
"with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all deceit of
unrighteousness,"12 he shall be manifested to them that are perishing, imitating
all kinds of wonders, to-wit, those of truth. And as the enchanters and
magicians of the Egyptians, as being inferior to the man of sin and the son of
perdition, imitated certain powers, both the signs and wonders of truth, doing
lying wonders so that the true might not be believed; so I think the man of sin
will imitate signs and powers. And perhaps, also, the Pharisees suspected these
things because of the prophecies concerning Him; but I inquire whether also the
Sadducees tempting Him asked Jesus to show them a sign from heaven. For unless
we say that they suspected this, how shall we describe their relation to the
portents which Jesus wrought, who continued hard-hearted and were not put to
shame by the miraculous things that were done? But if any one supposes that we
have given an occasion of defence to the Pharisees and Sadducees, both when they
say that the demons were cast out by Jesus through Beelzebub, and when tempting
Him, they ask Jesus about a heavenly sign, let him know that we plausibly say
that they were drawn away to the end that they might not believe in the miracles
of Jesus; but not as to deserve forgiveness; for they did not look to the words
of the prophets which were being fulfilled in the acts of Jesus, which an evil
power was not at all capable of imitating. But to bring back a soul which had
gone out, so that it came out of the grave when already stinking and passing the
fourth day,13 was the work of no other than Him who heard the word of the
Father, "Let us make man after our image and likeness."14 But also to command
the winds and to make the violence of the sea cease at a word, was the work of
no other than Him through whom all things, both the sea itself and the winds,
have come into being. Moreover also as to the teaching which stimulates men to
the love of the Creator, in harmony with the law and the prophets, and which
checks passions and moulds morals according to piety, what else did it indicate
to such as were able to see. than that He was truly the Son of God who wrought
works so mighty? In respect of which things He said also to the disciples of
John, "Go your way and tell John what great things ye see and hear; the blind
receive their sight," etc.15 3. The Answer of Jesus to Their Request.

Next let us remark in what way, when asked in regard to one sign, that He might
show it from heaven, to the Pharisees and Sadducees who put the question, He
answers and says, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and
there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet, " when
also, "He left them and departed."16 But the sign of Jonah, in truth, according
to their question, was not merely a sign but also a sign from heaven; so that
even to those who tempted Him and sought a sign from heaven He, nevertheless,
out of His own great goodness gave the sign. For if, as Jonah passed three days
and three nights in the whale's belly, so the Son of man did in the heart of the
earth, and after this rose up from it,-whence but from heaven shall we say that
the sign of the resurrection of Christ came? And especially when, at the time of
the passion, He became a sign to the robber who obtained favour from Him to
enter into the paradise of God; after this, I think, descending into Hades to
the dead, "as free among the dead."17 And the Saviour seems to me to conjoin the
sign which was to come from Himself with the reason of the sign in regard to
Jonah when He says, not merely that a sign like to that is granted by Him but
that very sign; for attend to the words, "And there shall no sign be given to it
but the sign of Jonah the prophet."18 Accordingly that sign was this sign,
because that became indicative of this, so that the elucidation of that sign,
which was obscure on the face of it, might be found in the fact that the Saviour
suffered, and passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. At
the same time also we learn the general principle that, if the sign signifies
something, each of the signs which are recorded, whether as in actual history,
or by way of precept, is indicative of something afterwards fulfilled; as for
example, the sign of Jonah going out after three days from the whale's belly was
indicative of the resurrection of our Saviour, rising after three days and three
nights from the dead; and that which is called circumcision is the sign of that
which is indicated by Paul in the words: "We are the circumcision."19 Seek you
also every sign in the Old Scriptures as indicative of some passage in the New
Scripture, and that which is named a sign in the New Covenant as indicative of
something either in the age about to be, or even in the subsequent generations
after that the sign has taken place.

4. Why Jesus Called Them an Adulterous Generation, the Law as Husband. And He
called them, indeed, "an evil generation," because of the quality arising from
evil which had been produced in them, for wickedness is voluntary evil-doing,
but "adulterous" because that when the Pharisees and Sadducees left that which
is figuratively called man, the word of truth or the law, they were debauched by
falsehood and the law of sin. For if there are two laws, the law in our members
warring against the law of the mind, and the law of the mind,20 we must say that
the law of the mind-that is, the spiritual-is man, to whom the soul was given by
God as wife, that is, to the man who is law, according to what is written, "A
wife is married to a man by God; "21 but the other is a paramour of the soul
which is subject to it, which also on account of it is called an adulteress. Now
that the law is husband of the soul Paul clearly exhibits in the Epistle to the
Romans, saying, "The law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth;
for the woman that hath a husband is bound to the husband while he liveth, to
the husband who is law,"22 etc. For consider in these things that the law hath
dominion over the man so long time as the law liveth,-as a husband over a wife.
"For the woman that hath a husband," that is, the soul under the law, "is bound
to the husband while he liveth," to the husband who is the law; but if the
husband-that is, the law die-she is discharged from the law, which is her
husband. Now the law dies to him who has gone up to the condition of
blessedness, and no longer lives under the law, but acts like to Christ, who,
though He became under law for the sake of those under law, that He might gain
those under law,23 did not continue under law, nor did He leave subject to law
those who had been freed by Him; for He led them up along with Himself to the
divine citizenship which is above the law, which contains, as for the imperfect
and such as are still sinners, sacrifices for the remission of sins. He then who
is without sin, and stands no longer in need of legal sacrifices, perhaps when
he has become perfect has passed beyond even the spiritual law, and comes to the
Word beyond it, who became flesh to those who live in the flesh, but to those
who no longer at all war after the flesh, He is perceived as being the Word,
as24 He was God in the beginning with God, and reveals the Father. Three things
therefore are to be thought of in connection with this place-the woman that hath
a husband, who is under a husband-the law; and the woman who is an adulteress,
to-wit, the soul, which, while her husband, the law, liveth, has become joined
to another husband, namely, the law of the flesh; and the woman who is married
to the brother of the dead husband, to the Word who is alive and dies not, who
"being raised from the dead dieth no more, for death hath no more dominion over
Him."25 So far then because of the saying, "But if the husband die she is
discharged from the law, the husband," and because of this, "so then, while her
husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be joined to another
man," and because of this, "but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so
that she is no adulteress though she be joined to another man."26 But this very
saying, "So then while her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress,"
we have brought forward, wishing clearly to show why in answer to the Pharisees
and Sadducees who were tempting Him and asking Him to show them a sign from
heaven, He said not only "a wicked generation," but an "adulterous"
generation.27 In a general way, then, the law in the members which wars against
the law of the mind,28 as a man who is an adulterer, is an adulterer of the
soul. But now also every power that is hostile, which gains the mastery over the
human soul, and has intercourse with it, commits adultery with her who had a
bridegroom given to her by God, namely, the Word. After these things it is
written that "He left them and departed." For how was the bridegroom-the
Word-not going to leave the adulterous generation and depart from it? But you
might say that the Word of God, leaving the synagogue of the Jews as adulterous,
departed from it, and took a wife of fornication,29 namely, those from the
Gentiles; since those who were "Sion, a faithful city,"30 have become harlots;
but these have become like the harlot Rahab, who received the spies of Joshua,
and was saved with all her house;31 after this no longer playing the harlot, but
coming to the feet of Jesus, and wetting them with the tears of repentance, and
anointing them with the fragrance of the ointment of holy conversation, on
account of whom, reproaching Simon the leper,-the former people,-He spoke those
things which are written.32 5. Concerning the Leaven of the Pharisees.

"And His disciples came to the other side and forgot to take loaves."33 Since
the loaves which they had before they came to the other side were no longer
useful to the disciples when they came to the other side, for they needed one
kind of loaves before they crossed and a different kind when they crossed,-on
this account, being careless of taking loaves when going to the other side, they
forgot to take loaves with them. To the other side then came the disciples of
Jesus who had passed over from things material to things spiritual, and from
things sensible to those which are intellectual. And perhaps that He might turn
back those who, by crossing to the other side, "had begun in spirit,"34 from
running back to carnal things, Jesus said to them when on the other side, "Take
heed and beware."35 For there was a certain lump of teaching and of truly
ancient leaven,-that according to the bare letter, and on this account not freed
from those things which arise from wickedness,-which the Pharisees and Sadducees
offered, of which Jesus does not wish His own disciples any longer to eat,
having made for them a new and spiritual lump, offering Himself to those who
gave up the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and had come to Him-"the
living bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world."36 But
since, to him who is no longer going to use the leaven and the lump and the
teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the first thing is to "see" and
then to "beware," so that no one, by reason of not seeing and from want of
taking heed, may ever partake of their forbidden leaven,-on this account He says
to the disciples, first, "see," and then, "beware." It is the mark of the
clear-sighted and careful to separate the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees
and every food that is not of "the unleavened-bread of sincerity and truth"37
from the living bread, even that which came down from heaven, so that no one who
eats may adopt the things of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but by eating the
living and true bread may strengthen his soul. And we might seasonably apply the
saying to those who, along with the Christian way of life, prefer to live as the
Jews, materially, for these do not see nor beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and Sadducees, but, contrary to the will of Jesus who forbade it, eat the bread
of the Pharisees. Yea and also all, who do not wish to understand that the law
is spiritual, and has a shadow of the good things to come,38 and is a shadow of
the things to come,39 neither inquire of what good thing about to be each of the
laws is a shadow, nor do they see nor beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; and
they also who reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead are not on
their guard against the leaven of the Sadducees. And there are many among the
heterodox who, because of their unbelief in regard to the resurrection of the
dead, are imbued with the leaven of the Sadducees. Now, while Jesus said these
things, the disciples reasoned, saying not aloud, but in their own hearts, "We
took no loaves."40 And something like this was what they said, "If we had loaves
we would not have had to take of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees;
but since, from want of loaves, we run the risk of taking from their leaven,
while the Saviour does not wish us to run back to their teaching, therefore He
said to us, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the
Sadducees."41 And these things then they reasoned; Jesus, while looking to that
which was in their hearts, and hearing the reasons in them, as the true overseer
of hearts, reproves them because they did not see nor remember the loaves which
they received from Him; on account of which, even when they appeared to be in
want of loaves, they did not need the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

6. The Meaning of Leaven. Jesus' Knowledge of the Heart.

Then expounding clearly and representing to them, who were being distracted
because of the equivocal meaning of loaf and leaven, in an undisguised fashion,
that He was not speaking to them about sensible bread but about the leaven in
the teaching, He subjoins, "How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not
you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the
Sadducees."42 And though He had not laid bare the interpretation, but still
continued to use metaphorical language, the disciples would have understood that
the discourse of the Saviour was about the teaching, figuratively called leaven,
which the Pharisees and Sadducees were teaching. So long, then, as we have Jesus
with us fulfilling the promise which runs, "Lo, I am with you always unto the
consummation of the age,"43 we cannot fast nor be in want of food, so that,
because of want of it we should desire to take and eat the forbidden leaven,
even from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now there may sometimes be a time, when
He is with us, that we are without food, as is spoken of in the passage above,
"They continue with me now three days and have nothing to eat; "44 but, even
though this should happen, being unwilling to send us away fasting lest we faint
on the way, He gives thanks over the loaves which were with the disciples, and
causes us to have the seven baskets over from the seven loaves, as we have
recorded. And moreover this also is to be observed, in view of those who think
that the divinity of the Saviour is not at all demonstrable from the Gospel of
Matthew, that the fact that, when the disciples were reasoning among themselves
and saying, "We have no loaves," Jesus knew their reasonings and said, "Why
reason ye among yourselves, O ye of little faith, because ye took no loaves,"45
was beyond the power of man; for the Lord alone, as Solomon says in the third
Book of Kings, knows the hearts of men.46 But since the disciples understood,
when Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven,"47 that He did not tell them to beware
of the loaves but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, you will
understand that whenever leaven is named it is put figuratively for teaching,
whether in the law, or in the Scriptures which come after the law; and so
perhaps leaven is not offered upon the altar; for it is not right that prayers
should take the form of teaching, but should only be supplications of good
things from God. But one might inquire, on account of what has been said about
disciples who came to the other side, if any one who has reached the other side
can be reproached as one of little faith, and as not yet understanding nor
remembering what was done by Jesus. But it is not difficult, I think, to say to
this, that in relation to that which is perfect, on the coming of which "that
which is in part shall be done away,"48 all our faith here is little faith, and
in regard to that, we who know in part do not yet know nor remember; for we are
not able to obtain a memory which is sufficient and able to attain to the
magnitude of the nature of the speculations.

7. Relative Magnitude of Sins of the Heart and Actual Sins. But we may also
learn from this, that in respect of the reasonings only which we reason within
ourselves, we are sometimes convicted and reproached as being of tittle faith.
And I think that just as a man commits adultery in his heart only, though not
proceeding altogether to the overt act, so he commits in his heart the rest of
the things which are forbidden. As then he who has committed adultery in his
heart will be punished proportionately to adultery of this kind, so also he who
has done in his heart any one of the things forbidden, for example, who has
stolen in his heart only, or borne false witness in his heart only, will not be
punished as he who has stolen in fact, or who has completed the very act of
false testimony, but only as he who has done such things in his heart. There is
also the case of the man who while he did not arrive at the evil action, came
short of it in spite of his own will. For if, in addition to willing it, he has
attempted it, but not carried it out, he will be punished not as one who has
sinned in his heart alone but in deed. To questions of this sort one might ask,
whether any one commits adultery in his heart, even if he does not do the deed
of adultery, but lacks self-control in heart only. And the like also you will
say concerning the rest of things which are deserving of praise. But the passage
possibly contains a plausible fallacy which must be cleared away, I think, in
this manner: adultery which takes place in the heart is a less sin, than if one
were also to add to it the act. But it is impossible that there can be chastity
in the heart, hindering the chaste action-unless indeed one brings forward for
an illustration of this the case of the virgin who according to the law was
violated in solitude;49 for it may be granted that the heart of any one may be
most pure,50 but that force in a matter of licentiousness has caused the
corruption of the body of her who was chaste. In truth she seems to me to be
altogether chaste in secret heart, hut no longer to be pure in body such as she
was before the act of violence; but though she is not pure outwardly, is she
therefore now also unchaste? I have said these things because of the words,
"They reasoned among themselves saying, We took no loaves," to which is added,
"And Jesus perceiving it, said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among
yourselves,"51 etc.; for it was necessary that investigation should be made in
regard to the censure of things in secret and correlatively to the praise of
things in secret.

8. The Leaven Figurative Like the Water Spoken of by Jesus to the Woman of
Samaria. But I wonder if the disciples thought, before the saying was explained
to them by Jesus, that their Teacher and Lord was forbidding them to beware of
the sensible leaven of the Pharisees or the Sadducees as impure, and on this
account forbidden, lest they might use that leaven because they had not taken
loaves. And we might make a like inquiry in regard to other things; but by-way
of illustration the narrative about the woman of Samaria sufficeth, "Every one
that drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the
water that I shall give him shall never thirst."52 For there, also, so far as
the mere form of expression is concerned, the Samaritan woman would seem to have
thought that the Saviour was giving a promise about sensible water, when He
said, "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst." And those things then must be figuratively interpreted, and we must
examine and compare the water of the spring of Jacob from which the woman of
Samaria drew water with the water of Jesus; and here the like must be done; for
perhaps the loaves were not baked, but a kind of raw leaven solely, the
teaching, namely, of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

9. Concerning the Question of Jesus in Caesarea, Who Do Men Say that I Am?
Different Conceptions of Jesus.

"Now when Jesus came into the parts of Coesarea Philippi, He asked His
disciples."53 Jesus inquires of the disciples, "Who do men say that I am," that
we may learn from the answer of the Apostles the different conceptions then held
among the Jews in regard to our Saviour; and perhaps also that the disciples of
Jesus might learn to be interested in knowing what is said by men about them;54
because that will be an advantage to them who do it, by cutting off in every way
occasions of evil if anything evil is spoken of, and by increasing the
incitements to good, if anything good is spoken of. Only, observe how, on
account of the different movements of opinion among the Jews about Jesus, some,
under the influence of unsound theories, said that He was John the Baptist. like
Herod the tetrarch who said to his servants, "This is John the Baptist, he is
risen from the dead, and therefore do the powers work in him; "55 but others
that He who was now called Jesus was Elijah, either having been born a second
time, or living from that time in the flesh, and appearing at the present time.
But those who said that Jesus was Jeremiah, and not that Jeremiah was a type of
the Christ, were perhaps influenced by what is said in the beginning of Jeremiah
about Christ, which was not fulfilled in the prophet at that time, but was
beginning to be fulfilled in Jesus, whom "God set up over nations and kingdoms
to root up, and to break down, and to destroy, and to build up, and to
transplant,"56 having made Him to be a prophet to the Gentiles to whom He
proclaimed the word. Moreover also those who said, "that he was a certain one of
the prophets,"57 conceived this opinion concerning Him because of those things
which had been said in the prophets as unto them, but which had not been
fulfilled in their case. But also the Jews, as worthy of the veil which was upon
their heart, held false opinions concerning Jesus; while Peter as not a disciple
"of flesh and blood,"58 but as one fit to receive the revelation of the Father
in heaven, confessed that He was the Christ. The saying of Peter to the Saviour,
"Thou art the Christ," when the Jews did not know that He was Christ, was indeed
a great thing, but greater that he knew Him not only to be Christ, but also "the
Son of the living God,"59 who had also said through the prophets, "I live,"60
and "They have forsaken Me the spring of living water; "61 -and He is life also,
as from the Father the spring of life, who said, "I am the Life; "62 And
consider carefully, whether, as the spring of the river is not the same thing as
the river, the spring of life is not the same as life. And these things we have
added because to the saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of God," was
subjoined the word "living; "63 for it was necessary to set forth something
noteworthy in regard to that which is said about God and the Father of all
things as living, both in relation to His absolute life, and in relation to
those things which participate in it. But since we said that they were under the
influence of unsound opinions who declared that Jesus was John the Baptist, or
any one of those named, in saying this let us prove that if they had fallen in
with Jesus as He was going away to John for baptism, or with John when he was
baptizing Jesus, or if they had heard it from any one, they would not have said
that Jesus was John. But also if they had understood the opinions under the
influence of which Jesus said, "If ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah
which is to come."64 and had heard what was said, as men having ears, some would
not have said that He was Elijah. And if those who said that He was Jeremiah had
perceived that the most of the prophets took upon themselves certain features
that were symbolical of Him, they would not have said that He was Jeremiah; and
in like manner the others would not have said that He was one of the prophets.

10. The Answer of Peter. And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, "65 if we say it as Peter, not
by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in
heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as
he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also
to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with
regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in
heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven,66
revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away
every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation"
of God.67 And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light
from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to
us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc.68 For a rock69 is
every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock
which followed them,70 and upon every such rock is built every word of the
church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who
have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the
blessedness, is the church built by God.

11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All
Disciples Like Him. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole
church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each
one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in
particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail
against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made,
"The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"71 hold in regard to all and
in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build
My church"?72 Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter
only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"73 be common to the
others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which
are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this
place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,"74 etc; but in the Gospel of John the
Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them
said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"75 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will
say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and
blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon
their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror
the glory of the Lord"76 they may speak through the Spirit of God saying
concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God."77 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing
it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that
were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the
spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.
For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of
the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may
drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just
as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him
they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from
these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is
Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.79 And so in regard to all
His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all
such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to
the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which
Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or
is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be
true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor
against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent
upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,80 cannot be found.
Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock
upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the
rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the
gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates
of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who
built His own house wisely upon the rock,81 is incapable of admitting the gates
of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church,
but have no power against it.

12. Every Sin-Every False Doctrine is a "Gate of Hades." But when we have
understood how each of the sins through which there is a way to Hades82 is a
gate of Hades, we shall apprehend that the soul, which has "spot or wrinkle or
any such thing,"83 and because of wickedness is neither holy nor blameless, is
neither a rock upon which Christ builds, nor a church, nor part of a church
which Christ builds upon the rock. But if any one wishes to put us84 to shame in
regard to these things because of the great majority of those of the church who
are thought to believe, it must be said to him not only "Many are called, but
few chosen; "85 but also that which was said by the Saviour to those who come to
Him, as it is recorded in Luke in these words, "Strive to enter in by the narrow
door, for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in through the narrow door
and shall not be able; "86 and also that which is written in the Gospel of
Matthew thus, "For narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth unto
life, and few be they that find it."87 Now, if you attend to the saying, "Many,
I say unto you, shall seek to enter in and shall not be able,"88 you will
understand that this refers to those who boast that they are of the church, but
live weakly and contrary to the word. Of those, then, who seek to enter in,
those who are not able to enter will not be able to do so, because the gates of
Hades prevail against them; but in the case of those against whom the gates of
Hades will not prevail, those seeking to enter in will be strong, being able to
do all things, in Christ Jesus, who strengtheneth them.89 And in like manner
each one of those who are the authors of any evil opinion has become the
architect of a certain gate of Hades; but those who co-operate with the teaching
of the architect of such things are servants and stewards, who are the
bond-servants of the evil doctrine which goes to build up impiety. And though
the gates of Hades are many and almost innumerable, no gate of Hades will
prevail against the rock or against the church which Christ builds upon it.
Notwithstanding, these gates have a certain power by which they gain the mastery
over some who do not resist and strive against them; but they are overcome by
others who, because they do not turn aside from Him who said, "I am the door,"90
have rased from their soul all the gates of Hades. And this also we must know
that as the gates of cities have each their own names, in the same way the gates
of Hades might be named after the species of sins; so that one gate of Hades is
called "fornication," through which fornicators go, and another "denial,"
through which the deniers of God go down into Hades. And likewise already each
of the heterodox and of those who have begotten any "knowledge which is falsely
so called,"91 has built a gate of Hades-Marcion one gate, and Basilides another,
and Valentinus another.

13. The "Gates of Hades" And the "Gates of Zion" Contrasted. In this place,
then, the gates of Hades are spoken of; but in the Psalms the prophet gives
thanks saying, "He who lifteth me up from the gates of death that I may declare
all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion."92 And from this we learn
that it is never possible for any one to be fit to declare the praises of God,
unless he has been lifted up from the gates of death, and has come to the gates
of Zion. Now the gates of Zion may be conceived as opposed to the gates of
death, so that there is one gate of death, dissoluteness, but a gate of Zion,
self-control; and so a gate of death, unrighteousness, but a gate of Zion,
righteousness, which the prophet shows forth saying, "This is the gate of the
Lord, the righteous shall enter into it."93 And again there is cowardice, a gate
of death, but manly courage, a gate of Zion; and want of prudence, a gate of
death, but its opposite, prudence, a gate of Zion. But to all the gates of the
"knowledge which is falsely so called"94 one gate is opposed, the gate of
knowledge which is free from falsehood. But consider if, because of the saying ,
"our wrestling is not against flesh and blood,"95 etc., you can say that each
power and world-ruler of this darkness, and each one of the "spiritual hosts of
wickedness in the heavenly places"96 is a gate of Hades and a gate of death.
Let, then, the principalities and powers with which our wrestling is, be called
gates of Hades, but the "ministering spirits"97 gates of righteousness. But as
in the case of the better things many gates are first spoken of, and after the
gates, one, in the passage, "Open to me the gates of righteousness, I will enter
into them, and will make full confession to the Lord," and "this is the gate of
the Lord, by it the righteous shall enter; "98 so also in the case of those
gates which are opposed, many are the gates of Hades and death, each a power;
but over all these the wicked one himself. And let us take heed in regard to
each sin, as if we were descending into some gate of death if we sin; but when
we are lifted up from the gates of death let us declare all the praises of the
Lord in the gates of the daughter of Zion; as, for example, in one gate of the
daughter of Zion-that which is called self-control-we will declare by our
self-control the praises of God; and in another which is called righteousness,
by righteousness we will declare the praises of God; and, generally, in all
things whatsoever of a praiseworthy character with which we are; occupied, in
these we are at some gate of the daughter of Zion, declaring at each gate some
praise of God. But we must make inquiry whether in one of the Twelve99 it is
said, "They hated him that reproveth in the gates, and they loathed the holy
word."100 Perhaps, then, he who reproves in the gates is of the gates of the
daughter of Zion, reproving those who are in sins which are opposed to this
gate, even of the gates of Hades or death. But if ye do not so understand the
words, "They hated him that reproveth in the gates," either the expression "in
the gates" will be held to be superfluous, or investigate how that which is said
can be worthy of the prophetic spirit.

14. In What Sense the "Keys" Are Given to Peter, and Every Peter. Limitations of
This Power. And after this let us see in what sense it is said to Peter, and to
every Peter, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."101 And,
in the first place, I think that the saying, "I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven," is spoken in consistency with the words, "The gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it."102 For he is worthy to receive from the
same Word the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who is fortified against the gates
of Hades so that they do not prevail against him, receiving, as it were, for a
prize, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, because the gates of Hades had no
power against him, that he might open for himself the gates that were closed to
those who had been conquered by the gates of Hades. And he enters in, as a
temperate man, through an opened gate-the gate of temperance-by the key which
opens temperance; and, as a righteous man, by another gate-the gate of
righteousness-which is opened by the key of righteousness; and so with the rest
of the virtues. For I think that for every virtue of knowledge certain mysteries
of wisdom corresponding to the species of the virtue are opened up to him who
has lived according to virtue; the Saviour giving to those who are not mastered
by the gates of Hades as many keys as there are virtues, which open gates equal
in number, which correspond to each virtue according to the revelation of the
mysteries. And perhaps, also, each virtue is a kingdom of heaven, and all
together are a kingdom of the heavens; so that according to this he is already
in the kingdom of the heavens who lives according to the virtues, so that
according to this the saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,"103
is to be referred, not to the time, but to deeds and dispositions; for Christ,
who is all virtue, has come, and speaks, and on account of this the kingdom of
God is within His disciples, and not here or there.104 But consider how great
power the rock has upon which the church is built by Christ, and how great power
every one has who says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," so
that the judgments of this man abide sure, as if God were judging in him, that
in the very act of judging the gates of Hades shall not prevail against him. But
when one judges unrighteously, and does not bind upon earth according to the
Word of God, nor loose upon earth according to His will, the gates of Hades
prevail against him; but, in the case of any one against whom the gates of Hades
do not prevail, this man judges righteously. Wherefore he has the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, opening to those who have been loosed on earth that they may
be also loosed in heaven, and free; and shutting to those who by his just
judgment have been bound on earth that they also may be bound in heaven, and
condemned. But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use
of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven
from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned,
are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them
are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have
the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, "Thou art Peter;
"105 and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to
them with good reason this could be referred; and the gates of Hades ought not
to prevail against him when he wishes to bind and loose. But if he is tightly
bound with the cords of his sins,106 to no purpose does he bind and loose. And
perhaps you can say that in the heavens which are in the wise man-that, is the
virtues,-the bad man is bound; and again in these the virtuous man is loosed,
and has received an indemnity for the sins which he committed before his virtue.
But, as the man, who has not the cords of sins nor iniquities compared to a
"long rope or to the strap of the yoke of a heifer,"107 not even God could bind,
in like manner, no Peter, whoever he may be; and if any one who is not a Peter,
and does not possess the things here spoken of, imagines as a Peter that he will
so bind on earth that the things bound are bound in heaven, and will so loose on
earth that the things loosed are loosed in heaven, he is puffed up, not
understanding the meaning of the Scriptures, and, being puffed up, has fallen
into the ruin of the devil.108

15. Relation of the Former Commission Given by Jesus to the Disciples, to His
Present Injunction of Silence. Belief and Knowledge Contrasted.

"Then enjoined He His disciples that they should tell no man thai He was the
Christ."109 It is written above that Jesus sent forth these twelve saying unto
them, "Go not into any way of the Gentiles,"110 and the other words which are
recorded to have been said to them when He sent them to the apostleship. Did He
then wish them when they were already discharging the function of Apostles to
proclaim that He was the Christ? For, if He wished it, it is fitting to inquire
why He now at all commands the disciples that they should not say that He was
the Christ? Or if He did not wish it, how can the things concerning the
apostleship be safely maintained? And these things also one may inquire at this
place,-whether, when He sent away the Twelve, He did not send them away with the
understanding that He was the Christ? But if the Twelve had such understanding,
manifestly Peter had it also; how, then, is he now pronounced blessed? For the
expression here plainly indicates that now for the first time Peter confessed
that Christ was the Son of the living God, Matthew then, according to some of
the manuscripts, has written, "Then He commanded His disciples that they should
tell no man that He was the Christ," but111 Mark says, "He charged them that
they should tell no man of Him; "112 and Luke, "He charged them and commanded
them to tell this to no man."113 But what is the "this"? Was it that also
according to him, Peter answered and said to the question, "Who say ye that I
am."-"The Christ, the Son of the living God? "114 You must know, however, that
some manuscripts of the Gospel according to Matthew have, "He charged."115 The
difficulty thus started seems to me a very real difficulty; but let a solution
which cannot be impugned be sought out, and let the finder of it bring it
forward before all, if it be more credible than that which shall be advanced by
us as a fairly temperate view.116 Consider, then, if you can say, that the
belief that Jesus is the Christ is inferior to the knowledge of that which is
believed. And perhaps also there is a difference in the knowledge of Jesus as
the Christ, as every one who knows does not know Him alike. From the words in
John, "If ye abide in My word, ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make
you free,"117 it is plain that belief without knowledge is inferior to knowing;
but that there is a difference in the knowledge of Jesus as the Christ, as all
who know Him do not know Him equally, is a fact self-evident to any one who
gives even a very little consideration to the matter. For who would not
acknowledge, for example, that Timothy, though he knew that Jesus was the
Christ, had not been enlightened to such an extent in the knowledge of Him as
the Apostle had been enlightened? And who would not also admit this-that though
many, speaking the truth, say about God, "He has given to me a true knowledge of
things that are," yet they will not say this with equal insight and apprehension
of the things known, nor as knowing the same number of things? But it is not
only in respect of the difference of knowing that those who know do not know
alike, bat also according to that which is the source of the knowledge; so that
according to this he who knows the Son by the revelation of the Father,118 as
Peter is testified to have known, has the highest beatitude. Now, if these views
of ours are sound, you will consider whether the Twelve formerly believed but
did not know; but, after believing, they gained also the rudiments of knowledge
and knew a few things about Him; and afterwards they continued to advance in
knowledge so that they were able to receive the knowledge from the Father who
reveals the Son; in which position Peter was, when he was pronounced blessed;
for also he is pronounced blessed not merely because he said, "Thou art the
Christ," but with the addition, "the Son of the living God." Accordingly Mark
and Luke who have recorded that Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ,"
but have not given the addition found in Matthew, have not recorded that he was
declared blessed for what had been said, nor the blessing which followed the
declaration of blessedness, "Thou art Peter,"119 etc.

16. Gradual Growth in Knowledge of the Disciples. But now we must first
investigate the fact that they were declaring other things about Him as being
great and wonderful, but did not yet proclaim that He was the Christ, lest the
Saviour may not appear to take away from them the authority to announce that He
was the Christ, which He had formerly bestowed upon them. And perhaps some one
will support an argument of this kind, saying that on their introduction into
the school of Christ the Jews were taught by the disciples glorious things about
Jesus, so that in due season there might be built upon these as a foundation the
things about Jesus being the Christ; and perhaps many of the things which were
said to them were said to all who virtually believed; for not to the Apostles
alone did the saying apply, "Before governors and kings also shall ye be brought
for My sake for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles; "120 and perhaps also
not to the Apostles absolutely, but to all who were about to believe the word,
"And brother shall deliver up brother to death,"121 etc.; but, "Whosoever shall
confess Me,"122 etc., is said not specially to the Apostles, but also to all
believers. According to this, then, through that which was said to the Apostles
an outline was given beforehand of the teaching which would afterwards come to
be of service both to them and to every teacher.

17. Reasons for that Gradual Knowledge. And likewise he who holds that the fact
that He was Christ had been formerly proclaimed by the Apostles when they heard
the saying, "What I tell you in the darkness, speak ye in the light, and what ye
hear in the ear proclaim on the housetops,"123 will say, that He wished first to
give catechetical instruction as it were to those of the Apostles who were to
hear the name of Christ, then to permit this, so to speak, to be digested in the
minds of the hearers, that, after there had been a period of silence in the
proclamation of something of this kind about Him, at a more seasonable time
there might be built up upon the former rudiments "Christ Jesus crucified and
raised from the dead," which at the beginning not even the Apostles knew; for it
is written in the passage now under consideration, "From that time began Jesus
to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem"124 and suffer this
and that. But if now, for the first time, the Apostles learn from Jesus the
things that were about to happen unto Him, namely, that the elders will plot
against Him, and that He will be killed, and that after these things, on the
third day, He will rise from the dead,-what necessity is there for supposing
that those who had been taught by the Apostles concerning Jesus knew them
before, or that although Christ was announced to them He was announced to them
by way of an introduction which did not clearly elucidate the things concerning
Him? For our Saviour wished, when He enjoined the disciples to tell no man that
He was the Christ, to reserve the more perfect teaching about Him to a more
fitting time, when to those who had seen Him crucified, the disciples who had
seen Him crucified and risen could testify the things relating to His
resurrection. For it the Apostles. who were always with Him and had seen all the
wonderful things which He did, and who bore testimony to His words that they
were words of eternal life,125 were offended on the night on which He was
betrayed,-what do you suppose would have been the feelings of those who had
formerly learned that He was the Christ? To spare them, I think, He gave this
command.

18. Jesus Was at First Proclaimed by the Twelve as a Worker and a Teacher Only.
But he who holds that the things spoken to the Twelve refer to the times
subsequent to this, and that the Apostles had not as yet announced to their
hearers that He was the Christ, will say that He wished the conception of the
Christ which was involved in the name of Jesus to be reserved for that preaching
which was more perfect, and which brought salvation, such as Paul knew of when
he said to the Corinthians, "I determined not to know anything among yon save
Jesus Christ and Him crucified."126 Wherefore, formerly they proclaimed Jesus as
the doer of certain things, and the teacher of certain things; but now when
Peter confesses that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, as He did not
wish it to be proclaimed already that He was the Christ, in order that He might
be proclaimed at a more suitable time, and that as crucified, He commands His
disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. And that this was
His meaning, when He forbade proclamation to be made that He was the Christ, is
in a measure established by the words, "From that time began Jesus to show unto
His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the
elders," and what is annexed;127 for then, at the fitting time, He proclaims, so
to speak, to the disciples who knew that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living
God, the Father having revealed it to them, that instead of believing in Jesus
Christ who had been crucified, they were to believe in Jesus Christ who was
about to be crucified. But also, instead of believing in Christ Jesus and Him
risen from the dead, He teaches them to believe in Christ Jesus and Him about to
be risen from the dead. But since "having put off from Himself the
principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over in
the cross,"128 if any one is ashamed of the cross of Christ, he is ashamed of
the dispensation on account of which these powers were triumphed over; and it is
fitting that he, who both believes and knows these things, should glory in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,129 through which, when Christ was crucified, the
principalities-among which, I think, was also the prince of this world-were made
a show of and triumphed over before the believing world. Wherefore, when His
suffering was at hand he said, "Now the prince of this world has been
judged,"130 and, "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out," and, "I, if I
be lifted from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself; "131 as he no longer
had sufficient power to prevent those going to Jesus who were being drawn by
Him.

19. Importance of the Proclamation of Jesus as the Crucified.

It is necessary, therefore, to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ, that He
should be proclaimed as crucified; and the proclamation that Jesus was the
Christ does not seem to me so defective when any of His other miracles is passed
over in silence, as when the fact of His crucifixion is passed over. Wherefore,
reserving the more perfect proclamation of the things concerning Him by the
Apostles, He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was
the Christ; and He prepared them to say that He was the Christ crucified and
risen from the dead, "when He began "not only to say, nor even to advance to the
point of teaching merely, but "to show"132 to His disciples that He must go to
Jerusalem, etc.; for attend to the expression "show"; because just as sensible
things are said to be shown so the things spoken by Him to His disciples are
said to be shown by Jesus. And i do not think that each of the things seen was
shown to those who saw Him suffering many things in body from the elders of the
people, with such clearness as was the rational demonstration about Him to the
disciples.

20. Why Jesus Had to Go to Jerusalem.

"Then began He to show; "133 and probably afterwards when they were able to
receive it He shewed more clearly, no longer beginning to show as to those who
were learning the introduction, but already also advancing in the showing; and
if it is reasonable to conceive that Jesus altogether completed what He began,
then, some time, He altogether completed that which He began to show to His
disciples about the necessity of His suffering the things which are written.
For, when any one apprehends from the Word the perfect knowledge of these
things, then it must be said that, from a rational exhibition (the mind seeing
the things which are shown, ) the exhibition becomes complete for him who has
the will and the power to contemplate these things, and does contemplate them.
But since "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,"134 -a perishing
which corresponds to the words, "He that loseth his life for My sake shall find
it."135 -on this account it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem, that
having suffered many things in that Jerusalem, He might make "the
first-fruits"136 of the resurrection from the dead in the Jerusalem above, doing
away with and breaking up the city upon the earth with all the worship which was
maintained in it. For so long as Christ "had not been raised from the dead. the
first-fruits of them that are asleep,"137 and those who become conformed to His
death and resurrection had not yet been raised along with Him, the city of God
was sought for below, and the temple, and the purifications, and the rest; but
when this took place, no longer were the things below sought for, but the things
above; and, in order that these might be set up, it was necessary that He should
go unto the Jerusalem below, and there suffer many things from the elders in it,
and the chief priests and scribes of the people, in order that He might be
glorified by the heavenly elders who could receive his bounties, and by diviner
high-priests who are ordained under the one High-Priest, and that He might be
glorified by the scribes of the people who are occupied with letters "not
written with ink"138 but made clear by the Spirit of the living God, and might
be killed in the Jerusalem below, and having risen from the dead might reign in
Mount Zion, and the city of the living God-the heavenly Jerusalem.139 But on the
third day He rose from the dead.140 in order that having delivered them from the
wicked one, and his son,141 in whom was falsehood and unrighteousness and war
and everything opposed to that which Christ is, and also from the profane spirit
who transforms himself into the Holy Spirit, He might gain for those who had
been delivered the right to be baptized in spirit and soul and body, into the
name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which represent the three
days eternally present at the same time to those who by means of them are sons
of light.

21. The Rebuke of Peter and the Answer of Jesus.

"And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee.
Lord, this shall never be unto thee."142 To whom He said, "Get thee behind Me,
Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me; for thou mindest not the things of
God but the things of men."143 Since Jesus had begun to show unto His disciples
that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things, Peter up to this point
learned the beginnings of those things which were shown.144 But since he thought
that the sufferings were unworthy of Christ the Son of the living God, and below
the dignity of the Father who had revealed to him so great things about
Christ,-for the things that concerned His coming suffering had not been revealed
to him,-on this account he took Him, and as one forgetful of the honour due to
the Christ, and that the Son of the living God neither does nor says anything
worthy of rebuke, he began to rebuke Him; and as to one who needed
propitiation,-for he did not yet know that "God had set Him forth to be a
propitiation through faith in His blood,"145 he said, "God be propitious to
thee, O Lord."146 Approving his purpose, indeed, but rebuking his ignorance,
because of the purpose being right. He says to him, "Get thee behind Me,"147 as
to one who, by reason of the things of which he was ignorant and spake not
rightly, had abandoned the following of Jesus; but because of his ignorance, as
to one who had something antagonistic to the things of God, He said, "Satan,"
which in the Hebrew means "adversary." But, if Peter had not spoken from
ignorance, nor rebuked the Son of the living God, saying unto Him, "God be
propitious to thee, Lord, this shall never be unto Thee," Christ would not have
said to him, "Get thee behind Me," as to one who had given up being behind Him
and following Him; nor would He have said as to one who had spoken things
adverse to what He had said, "Satan." But now Satan prevailed over him who had
followed Jesus and was going behind Him, to turn aside from following Him and
from being behind the Son of God, and to make him, by reason of the words which
he spoke in ignorance, worthy of being called "Satan" and a stumbling-block to
the Son of God, and "as not minding the things of God but the things of men."
But that Peter was formerly behind the Son of God, before he committed this sin,
is manifest from the words, "Come ye behind Me, and I will make you fishers of
men."148 22. Importance of the Expressions "Behind" And "Turned." But you will
compare together His saying to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan,"149 with that
said to the devil (who said to Him, "All these things will I give Thee if Thou
wilt fall down and worship me"),150 "get thee hence,"151 without the addition,
"behind Me; "for to be behind Jesus is a good tiling. Wherefore it was said,
"Come ye behind Me and I will make you fishers of men."152 And to the same
effect is the saying, "He that doth not take his cross and follow behind Me is
not worthy of Me."153 And as a general principle observe the expression
"behind"; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and
is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God
behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says, "Do not walk
behind thy lusts."154 And Elijah also, in the third Book of Kings, says to the
people, "How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him,
but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him."155 And Jesus says this to Peter when He
"turned," and He does so by way of conferring a favour. And if therefore you
will collect more illustrations of the "having turned," and especially those
which are ascribed to Jesus, and compare them with one another, you would find
that the expression is not superfluous. But it is sufficient at present to bring
forward this from the Gospel according to John, "Jesus turned and beheld them-"
clearly, Peter and Andrew-"following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? "156
For observe that, when He "turned," it is for the advantage of those to whom He
turned.

23. Peter as a Stumbling-Block to Jesus.

Next we must inquire how He said to Peter, "Thou art a stumbling-block unto
Me,"157 especially when David says, "Great peace have they that love Thy law,
and there is no stumbling-block to them."158 For some one will say, if this is
said in the prophet, because of the steadfastness of those who have love, and
are incapable of being offended, for "love beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, love never faileth,"159 how did
the Lord Himself, "who upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all that be bowed
down,"160 say to Peter, "Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me"? But it must be
said that not only the Saviour, but also he who is perfected in love, cannot be
offended. But, so far as it depends on himself, he who says or does such things
is a stumbling-block even to him who will not be offended; unless perhaps Jesus
calls the disciple who sinned a stumbling-block even to Himself, as much more
than Paul He would have said from love, "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is
made to stumble, and I burn not? "161 In harmony with which we may put, "Who is
made to stumble, and I am not made to stumble? "But if Peter, at that time
because of the saying. "God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto
Thee,"162 was called a stumbling-block by Jesus, as not minding the things of
God in what he said but the things of men, what is to be said about all those
who profess to be made disciples of Jesus, but do not mind the things of God,
and do not look to things unseen and eternal, but mind the things of man, and
look to things seen and temporal,163 but that such still more would be
stigmatized by Jesus as a stumbling-block to Him, and because stumbling-blocks
to Him, as stumbling-blocks to His brethren also? As in regard to them He says,
"I was thirsty and ye gave Me no drink,"164 etc., so also He might say, "When I
was running ye caused Me to stumble." Let us not therefore suppose that it is a
trivial sin to mind the things of men, since we ought in everything to mind the
things of God. And it will be appropriate also to say this to every one that has
fallen away from the doctrines of God and the words of the church and a true
mind; as, for example, to him who minds as true the teaching of Basilides, or
Valentinus, or Marcion, or any one of those who teach the things of men as the
things of God.

24. Self-Denial and Cross-Bearing.

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, If any man wills to follow after Me, "
etc.165 He shows by these words that, to will to come after Jesus and to follow
Him, springs from no ordinary manly courage, and that no one who has not denied
himself can come after Jesus. And the man denies himself who wipes out by a
striking revolution his own former life which had been spent in wickedness; as
by way of illustration he who was once licentious denies his licentious self,
having become self-controlled even abidingly. But it is probable that some one
may put the objection, whether as he denied himself i so he also confesses
himself, when he denied himself, the unjust, and confesses himself, the
righteous one. But, if Christ i is righteousness, he who has received
righteousness confesses not himself but Christ; so also he who has found wisdom,
by the very possession of wisdom, confesses Christ. And such a one indeed as,
"with the heart believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth maketh
confession unto salvation,"166 arid bears testimony to the works of Christ, as
making confession by all these things of Christ before men, will be confessed by
Him before His Father in heaven.167 So also he who has not denied himself but
denied the Christ will experience the saying, "I also will deny him."168 On this
account let every thought and every purpose and every word and every action
become a denial of ourselves, but a testimony about Christ and in Christ; for I
am persuaded that every action of the perfect man is a testimony to Christ
Jesus, and that abstinence from every sin is a denial of self, leading him after
Christ. And such an one is crucified with Christ, and taking up his own cross
follows Him who for our sakes bears His own cross, according to that which is
said in John: "They took Jesus therefore and put it on Him," etc., down to the
words, "Where they crucified Him."169 But the Jesus according to John, so to
speak, bears the cross for Himself, and bearing it went out; but the Jesus
according to Matthew and Mark and Luke, does not bear it for Himself, for Simon
of Cyrene bears it.170 And perhaps this man refers to us, who because of Jesus
take up the cross of Jesus, but Jesus Himself takes it upon Himself; for there
are, as it were, two conceptions of the cross, the one which Simon of Cyrene
bears, and the other which Jesus Himself bears for Himself.

25. Reference to the Saying of Paul About Crucifixion with Christ.

Moreover in regard to the saying, "Let him deny himself,"171 the following
saying of Paul who denied himself seems appropriate, "Yet I live, and yet no
longer I but Christ liveth in me; "172 for the expression, "I live, yet no
longer I," was the voice of one denying himself, as of one who had laid aside
his own life and taken on himself the Christ, in order that He might live in him
as Righteousness, and as Wisdom, and as Sanctification, and as our Peace,173 and
as the Power of God, who worketh all things in him. But further also, attend to
this, that while there are many forms of dying, the Son of God was crucified,
being hanged on a tree, in order that all who die unto sin may die to it, in no
other way than by the way of the cross. Wherefore they will say, "I have been
crucified with Christ," and, "Far be it from me to glory save hi the cross of
the Lord, through which the world has been crucified unto me and I unto the
world."174 For perhaps also each of those who have been crucified with Christ
puts off from himself the principalities and the powers, and makes a show of
them and triumphs over them in the cross;175 or rather, Christ does these things
in them.

26. The Less of Life; And the Saving of It.

"For whosoever would save his own life shall lose it."176 The first expression
is ambiguous; for it may be understood. in one way thus. If any one as being a
lover of life, and thinking that the present life is good, tends carefully his
own life with a view to living in the flesh, being afraid to die, as through
death going to lose it, this man, by the very willing to save in this way his
own life will lose it, placing it outside of the borders of blessedness. But if
any one despising the present life because of my word, which has persuaded him
to strive in regard to eternal life even unto death for truth, loses his own
life, surrendering it for the sake of piety to that which is commonly called
death, this man, as for my sake he has lost his life, will save it rather, and
keep it in possession. And according to a second way we might interpret the
saying as follows. If any one, who has grasped what salvation really is, wishes
to procure the salvation of his own life, let this man having taken farewell of
this life, and denied himself and taken up his own cross, and following me, lose
his own life to the world; for having lost it for my sake and for the sake of
all my teaching, he will gain the end of loss of this kind-salvation.

27. Life Lost to the World is Saved. But at the same time also observe that at
the beginning it is said, "Whosoever wills," but afterwards, "Whoso shall
lose."177 If we then wish it to be saved let us lose it to the world, as those
who have been crucified with Christ and have for our glorying that which is in
the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world is to be crucified
unto us and we unto the world,178 that we may gain our end, even the salvation
of our lives, which begins from the time when we lose it for the sake of the
word. But if we think that the salvation of our life is a blessed thing, with
reference to the salvation which is in God and the blessednesses with Him, then
any loss of life ought to be a good thing, and, for the sake of Christ must
prove to be the prelude to the blessed salvation. It seems to me, therefore,
following the analogy of self-denial, according to what has been said, that each
ought to lose his own life. Let each one therefore lose his own sinning life,
that having lost that which is sinful, he may receive that which is saved by
right actions; but a man will in no way be profited if he shall gain the whole
world. Now he gains the world, I think, to whom the world is not crucified; and
to whom the world is not crucified, to that man shall be the loss of his own
life. But when two things are put before us, either by gaining one's life to
forfeit the world, or by gaining the world to forfeit one's life, much more
desirable is the choice, that we should forfeit the world and gain our life by
losing it on account of Christ.

28. The Exchange for One's Life. But the saying, "What shall a man give in
exchange for his own life, "179 if spoken by way of interrogation, will seem to
be able to indicate that an exchange for his own life is given by the man who
after his sins has given up his whole substance, that his property may feed the
poor, as if he were going by that to obtain salvation; but, if spoken
affirmatively, I think, to indicate that there is not anything in man by the
giving of which in exchange for his own life which has been overcome by death.
he will ransom it out of its hand. A man, therefore, could not give anything as
an exchange for his own life, but God gave an exchange for the life of us all,
"the precious blood of Christ Jesus,"180 according as "we were bought with a
price,"181 "having been redeemed, not with corruptible things as silver or gold,
but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," even of
Christ.182 And in Isaiah it is said to Israel. "I gave Ethiopia in exchange for
thee, and Egypt and Syene for thee; from what time thou hast become honourable
before Me thou wast glorified."183 For the exchange, for example, of the
first-born of Israel was the first-born of the Egyptians, and the exchange for
Israel was the Egyptians who died in the last plagues that came upon Egypt, and
in the drowning which took place after the plagues. But, from these things, let
him who is able inquire whether the exchange of the true Israel given by God,
"who redeems Israel from all his transgressions,"184 is the true Ethiopia, and,
so to speak, spiritual Egypt. and Syene of Egypt; and to inquire with more
boldness, perhaps Syene is the exchange for Jerusalem, and Egypt for Judaea, and
Ethiopia for those who fear, who are different from Israel, and the house of
Levi, and the house of Aaron.

29. The Coming of the Son of Man in Glory.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father with His
angels."185 Now, indeed, the Son of man has not come in His glory; "for we saw
Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was dishonoured and defective
compared with the sons of men; He was a man in affliction and toil, and
acquainted with the enduring of sickness, because His face was turned away, He
was dishonoured and not esteemed."186 And it was necessary that He should come
in such form that He might bear our sins187 and suffer pain for us; for it did
not become Him in glory to bear our sins and suffer pain for us. But He also
comes in glory, having prepared188 the disciples through that epiphany of His
which has no form nor beauty; and, having become as they that they might become
as He, "conformed to the image of His glory,"189 since He formerly became
conformed to "the body of our humiliation,"190 when He "emptied Himself and took
upon Him the form of a servant,"191 He is restored to the image of God and also
makes them conformed unto it.

30. The Word Appears in Different Forms; The Time of His Coming in Glory. But if
you will understand the differences of the Word which by "the foolishness of
preaching"192 is proclaimed to those who believe, and spoken in wisdom to them
that are perfect, you will see in what way the Word has the form of a slave to
those who are learning the rudiments, so that they say, "We saw Him and He had
no form or beauty."193 But to the perfect He comes "in the glory of His own
Father,"194 who might say, "and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the
only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."195 For indeed to the
perfect appears the glory of the Word, and the only-begotten of God His Father,
add the fulness of grace and likewise of truth, which that man cannot perceive
who requires the "foolishness of the preaching," in order to believe. But "the
Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father" not alone, but "with His
own angels." And if you can conceive of all those who are fellow-helpers in the
glory of the Word, and in the revelation of the Wisdom which is Christ, coming
along with Him, you will see in what way the Son of man comes in the glory of
His own Father with His own angels. And consider whether you cad in this
connection say that the prophets who formerly suffered in virtue of their word
having "no form or beauty" had an analogous position to the Word who had "no
form or beauty." And, as the Son of man comes in the glory of His own Father, so
the angels, who are the words in the prophets, are present with Him preserving
the measure of their own glory. But when the Word comes in such form with His
own angels, He will give to each a part of His own glory and of the brightness
of His own angels, according to the action of each. But we say these things not
rejecting even the second coming of the Son of God understood in its simpler
form. But when shall these things happen? Shall it be when that apostolic oracle
is fulfilled which says, "For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ, that each one may receive the things dope in the body, according to what
he has done, whether it be good or bad? "196 But if He will render to each
according to his deed, not the good deed only, nor the evil apart from the good,
it is manifest that He will render to each according to every evil, and
according to every good, deed. But I suppose-in this also following the Apostle,
but comparing also the sayings of Ezekiel, in which the sins of him who is a
perfect convert are wiped out, and the former uprightness of him who has utterly
fallen away is not held of account-that in the case of him who is perfected, and
has altogether laid aside wickedness, the sins are wiped out, but that, in the
case of him who has altogether revolted from piety, if anything good was
formerly done by him, it is not taken into account.197 But to us, who occupy a
middle position between the perfect man add the apostate, when we stand before
the judgment-seat of Christ,198 there is rendered what we have done, whether
good or bad; for we have not been so pure that our evil deeds are not at all
imputed unto us, nor have we fallen away to such an extent that our better
actions are forgotten.

31. The Simpler Interpretation of the Promise About Not Tasting of Death.

"Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not
taste of death."199 Some refer these things to the going up-six days after, or,
as Luke says,200 eight days-of the three disciples into the high mountain with
Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the
remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coining in
His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured
before them so that "His face shone," etc., "they saw the kingdom of God coming
with power."201 For even as some spear-bearers stand around a king, so Moses and
Elijah appeared to those who had gone up into the mountains, talking with Jesus.
But it is worth while considering whether the sitting on the right hand and on
the left band of the Saviour in His kingdom refers to them, so that the words,
"But for whom it is prepared," were202 spoken because of them. Now this
interpretation about the three Apostles not tasting of death until they have
seen Jesus transfigured, is adapted to those who are designated by Peter as
"new-born babes longing for the reasonable milk which is without guile,"203 to
whom Paul says, "I have fed you with milk, not with meat,"204 etc. Now, too,
every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot
receive greater truths might reasonably be called milk, flowing from the holy
ground of the Scriptures, which flows with milk and honey. But he who has been
weaned, like Isaac,205 worthy of the good cheer and reception which Abraham gave
at the weaning of his son, would seek here and in every Scripture food which is
different, I think, from that which is meat, indeed, but is not solid food, and
from what are figuratively called herbs, which are food to one who has been
weaned and is not yet strong but weak, according to the saying, "He that is weak
eateth herbs."206 In like manner also he who has been weaned, like Samuel, and
dedicated by his mother to God,207 -she was Hannah, which is, by interpretation,
grace, -would be also a son of grace, seeking, like one nurtured in the temple,
flesh of God, the holy food of those who are at once perfect and priests.

32. Standing by the Saviour. The reflections in regard to the passage before us
that occur to us at the present time are these: Some were standing where Jesus
was, having the footsteps of the soul firmly planted with Jesus, and the
standing of their feet was akin to the standing of which Moses said in the
passage, "And I stood on the mountain forty days and forty nights,"208 who was
deemed worthy to have it said to him by God who asked him to stand by Him, "But
stand thou here with Me."209 Those who really stand by Jesus-that is, by the
Word of God-do not all stand equally; for among those who stand by Jesus are
differences from each other. Wherefore, not all who stand by the Saviour, but
some of them as standing better, do not taste of death until they shall have
seen the Word who dwelt with men, and on that account called Son of man, coming
in His own kingdom; for Jesus does not always come in His own kingdom when He
comes, since to the newly initiated He is such that they might say, beholding
the Word Himself not glorious nor great, but inferior to many among them, "We
saw Him, and He had no form or beauty, but His form was dishonoured, defective
compared with all the sons of men."210 And these things will be said by those
who beheld His glory in connection with their own former times, when at first
the Word as understood in the synagogue had no form nor beauty to them. To the
Word, therefore, who has assumed most manifestly the power above all words.
there belongs a royal dignity which is visible to some of those who stand by
Jesus, when they have been able to follow Him as He goes before them and ascends
to the lofty mountain of His own manifestation. And of this honour some of those
who stand by Jesus are deemed worthy if they be either a Peter against whom the
gates of Hades do not prevail, or the sons of thunder,211 and are begotten of
the mighty voice of God who thunders and cries aloud from heaven great things to
those who have ears and are wise. Such at least do not taste death.

33. Interpretation of "Tasting of Death." But we must seek to understand what is
meant by "tasting of death." And He is life who says, "I am the life,"212 and
this life assuredly has been hidden with Christ in God; and. "when Christ our
life shall be manifested, then along with Him"213 shall be manifested those who
are worthy of being manifested with Him in glory. But the enemy of this life,
who is also the last enemy of all His enemies that shall be destroyed, is
death,214 of which the soul that sinneth dies, having the opposite disposition
to that which takes place in the soul that lives uprightly, and in consequence
of living uprightly lives. And when it is said in the law, "I have placed life
before thy face,"215 the Scripture says this about Him who said, "I am the
Life," and about His enemy, death; the one or other of which each of us by his
deeds is always choosing. And when we sin with life before our face, the curse
is fulfilled against us which says, "And thy life shall be hanging up before
thee," etc., down to the words, "and for the sights of thine eyes which thou
shall see."216 As, therefore, the Life is also the living bread which came down
from heaven and gave life to the world,217 so His enemy death is dead bread. Now
every rational soul is fed either on living bread or dead bread, by the opinions
good or bad which it receives. As then in the case of more common foods it is
the practice at one time only to taste them, and at another to eat of them more
largely; so also, in the case of these loaves, one eats insufficiently only
tasting them, but another is satiated,-he that is good or is on the way to being
good with the living bread which came down from heaven, but he that is wicked
with the dead bread, which is death; and some perhaps sparingly, and sinning a
little, only taste of death; but those who have attained to virtue do not even
taste of it, but are always fed on the living bread. It naturally followed then
in the case of Peter, against whom the gates of Hades will not prevail, that he
did not taste of death, since any one tastes of death and eats death at the time
when the gates of Hades prevail against him; and one eats or tastes of death in
proportion as the gates of Hades to a greater or less extent, more or fewer in
number, prevail against him. But also for the sons of thunder who were begotten
of thunder, which is a heavenly thing, it was impossible to taste of death,
which is extremely far removed from thunder, their mother. But these things the
Word prophesies to those who shall be perfected, and who by standing with the
Word advanced so far that they did not taste of death, until they saw the
manifestation and the glory and the kingdom and the excellency of the Word of
God in virtue of which He excels every word, which by an appearance of truth
draws away and drags about those who are not able to break through the bonds of
distraction, and go up to the height of the excellency of the Word of truth.

34. Meaning of "Until." No Limitation of Promise. But since some one may think
that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting
of death, namely, that they will not taste of death "until"218 they see the Son
of man coming in His own kingdom. but after this will taste of it, let us show
that according to the scriptural usage the word "until" signifies that the time
concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the
"until," that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place.
Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this
among other things, "Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation
of the age."219 When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with
them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the
age, when another age was at hand, which is "called the age to come," He would
be no longer with them?-so that according to this, the condition of the
disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the
consummation of the age? But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that
after the consummation of the age the Son of God will be no longer with the
disciples, because the expression declares that He will be with them for so
long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the
matter under inquiry was, whether the Son of God was forthwith going to be with
His disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which
were given as a recompense. But there might have been a question-it being
granted that He would be with them-whether sometimes He was present with them,
and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that
might have arisen from doubt, He declared that now and even all the days He
would be with the disciples, and that He would not leave those who had become
His disciples until the consummation of the age; (because He said "all the days"
He did not deny that by night, when the sun set, He would be present with them.)
But if such is the force of the words, "until the consummation of the age,"
plainly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who see the Son of man
coming in His own kingdom shall taste of death, after being deemed worthy of
beholding Him in such guise. But as in the case of the passage we brought
forward, the urgent necessity was to teach us that "until the consummation of
the age" He would not leave us but be with us all the days; so also in this case
I think that it is clear to those who know how to look at the logical coherence
of things that He who has seen once for all "the Son of man coming in His own
kingdom," and seen Him "in His own glory," and seen "the kingdom of God come
with power," could not possibly taste of death after the contemplation of things
so good and great. But apart from the word of the promise of Jesus, we have
conjectured not without reason that we would taste of death, so long as we were
not yet held worthy to see "the kingdom of God come with power," and "the Son of
man coming in His own glory and in His own kingdom."

35. Scriptural References to Death. But since here it is written in the three
Evangelists, "They shall not taste of death,"220 but in other writers different
things are written concerning death, it may not be out of place to bring forward
and examine these passages along with the "taste." In the Psalms, then, it is
said, "What man is he that shall live and not see death? "221 And again, in
another place, "Let death come upon them and let them go down into Hades alive;
"222 but in one of the prophets, "Death becoming mighty has swallowed them up;
"223 and in the Apocalypse, "Death and Hades follow some."224 Now in these
passages it appears to me that it is one thing to taste of death, but another
thing to see death, and another thing for it to come upon some, and that a
fourth thing, different from the aforesaid, is signified by the words, "Death
becoming mighty has swallowed them up," and a fifth thing, different from these,
by the words, Death and Hades follow them." And if yon were to collect them, you
would perhaps find also other differences than those which we have mentioned, by
a comparison of which with one another and right investigation, you would find
the things signified in each place. But here I inquire whether it is a less evil
to see death, but a greater evil than seeing to taste of it, but still worse
than this that death should follow any one, and not only follow him, but also
now come upon him and seize him whom it formerly followed; but to be swallowed
up seems to be more grievous than all the things spoken of. But giving heed to
what is said, and to the differences of sins committed, you will not I think, be
slow to admit that things of this kind were intended by the Spirit who caused
these things to be written in the oracles of God. But, if it be necessary to
give an exposition clearer than what has been said of what is signified by
seeing the Son of man coming in His own kingdom, or in His own glory, and what
is signified by seeing the kingdom of God come with power, these things-whether
those that are made to shine in our hearts, or that are found by those who seek,
or that enter gradually into our thoughts.-let each one judge as he wills-we
will set forth. He who beholds and apprehends the excellency of the Word, as tie
breaks down and refutes all the plausible forms of things which are truly lies
but profess to be truths, sees the Son of man, (according to the word of John,
"the Word of God,") coming in His own kingdom; but if such an one were to behold
the Word, not only breaking down plausible oppositions, but also representing
His own truths with perfect clearness, he would behold His glory in addition to
His kingdom. And such an one indeed would see in Him the kingdom of God come
with power; and he would see this, as one who is no longer now under the reign
of "sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who sin,"225 but is ever under
the orders of the king, who is God of all, whose kingdom is indeed potentially
"within us,"226 but actually, and, as Mark has called it, "with power," and not
at all in weakness within the perfect alone. These things, then, Jesus promised
to the disciples who were standing, prophesying not about all of them, but about
some.

36. Concerning the Transfiguration of the Saviour.

"Now after six days, " according to Matthew and Mark,227 "He taketh with him
Peter and James and John his brother, and leads them up into a high mountain
apart, and was transfigured before them." Now, also, let it be granted, before
the exposition that occurs to us in relation to these things, that this took
place long ago, and according to the letter. But it seems to me, that those who
are led up by Jesus into the high mountain, and are deemed worthy of beholding
His transfiguration apart, are not without purpose led up six days after the
discourses previously spoken. For since in six days-the perfect number-the whole
world,-this perfect work of art,-was made, on this account I think that he who
transcends all the things of the world by beholding no longer the things which
are seen, for they are temporal, but already the things which not seen, and only
the things which are not seen, because that they are eternal, is represented in
the words, "After six days days Jesus took up with Him" certain persons. If
therefore any one of us wishes to be taken by Jesus, and led up by Him into the
high mountain, and be deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, let
him pass beyond the six days, because he no longer beholds the things which are
seen, nor longer loves the world, nor the things in the world,228 nor lusts
after any worldly lust, which is the lust of bodies, and of the riches of the
body, and of the glory which is after the flesh, and whatever things whose
nature it is to distract and drag away the soul from the things which are better
and diviner, and bring it down and fix it fast to the deceit of this age, in
wealth and glory, and the rest of the lusts which are the foes of truth. For
when he has passed through the six days, as we have said, he will keep a new
Sabbath, rejoicing in the lofty mountain, because he sees Jesus transfigured
before him; for the Word has different forms, as He appears to each as is
expedient for the beholder, and is manifested to no one beyond the capacity of
the beholder.

37. Force of the Words "Before Them." But you will ask if, when He was
trans-figured before those who were led up by Him into the lofty mountain, He
appeared to them in the form of God, in which He formerly was, so that He had to
those below the form of a servant, but to those who had followed Him after the
six days to the lofty mountain, He had not that form, but the form of God. But
hear these things, if you can, at the same time giving heed spiritually, that it
is not said simply, "He was trans-figured," but with a certain necessary
addition, which Matthew and Mark have recorded; for, according to both, "He was
transfigured before them."229 And according to this, indeed, you will say that
it is possible for Jesus to be transfigured before some with this
transfiguration, but before others at the same time not to be transfigured. But
if you wish to see the transfiguration of Jesus before those who went up into
the lofty mountain apart long with Him, behold with me the Jesus in the Gospels,
as more simply apprehended, and as one might say, known "according to the
flesh," by those who do not go up, through works and words which are uplifting,
to the lofty mountain of wisdom, but known no longer after the flesh, but known
in His divinity by menus of all the Gospels, and beholden in the form of God
according to their knowledge; for before them is Jesus transfigured, and not to
any one of those below. But when He is transfigured, His face also shines as the
sun, that He may be manifested to the children of light, who have put off the
works of darkness, and put on the armour of light,230 and are no longer the
children of darkness or night, but have become the sons of day, and walk
honestly as in the day;231 and being manifested, He will shine unto them not
simply as the sun, but as demonstrated to be the sun of righteousness.

38. The Garments White as the Light. And not only is He transfigured before such
disciples, nor does He only add to the transfiguration the shining of His face
as the sun; but further also to those who were led up by Him into the high
mountain apart, His garments appear white as the light.232 But the garments of
Jesus are the expressions and letters of the Gospels with which He invested
Himself. But I think that even the words in the Apostles which indicate the
truths concerning Him are garments of Jesus, which become white to those who go
up into the high mountain along with Jesus. But since there are differences also
of things white, His garments become white as the brightest and purest of all
white things; and that is light. When therefore you see any one not only with a
thorough understanding of the theology concerning Jesus, but also making clear
every expression of the Gospels, do not hesitate to say that to Him the garments
of Jesus have become white as the light. But when the Son of God in His
transfiguration is so understood and beheld, that His face is a sun, and His
garments white as the light, straightway there will appear to him who beholds
Jesus in such form Moses,-the law-and Elijah,-in the way of synecdoche, not one
prophet only, but all the prophets-holding converse with Jesus; for such is the
force of the words "talking with Him; "233 but, according to Luke, "Moses and
Elijah appeared in glory," down to the words, "in Jerusalem."234 But if any one
sees the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as a discourse in
harmony with Jesus, and the wisdom in the prophets which is hidden in a
mystery,235 he sees Moses and Elijah in glory when he sees them with Jesus.

39. Jesus Was Transfigured-"As He Was Praying."

Then, since it will be necessary to expound the passage as given in Mark, "And
as He was praying He was transfigured before them, "236 we must say that perhaps
it is possible especially to see the Word transfigured before us if we have done
the things aforesaid, and gone up into the mountain, and seen the absolute Word
holding converse with the Father, and praying to Him for such things as the true
High-Priest might pray for to the only true God. But in order that He may thus
hold fellowship with God and pray to the Father, He goes up into the mountain;
and then, according to Mark, "His garments become white and glistening as the
light, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them."237 And perhaps the fullers
upon the earth are the wise men of this world who are careful about the diction
which they consider to be bright and pure, so that even their base thoughts and
false dogmas seem to be beautified by their fulling, so to speak; but He who
shows His own garments glistering to those who have ascended and brighter than
their fulling can make them, is the Word, who exhibits in the expressions of the
Scriptures which are despised by many the glistering of the thoughts, when the
raiment of Jesus, according to Luke, becomes white and dazzling.238 40.
Discussion of the Saying of Peter. But let us next see what was the thought of
Peter when he answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here;
let us make three tabernacles, "239 etc. And on this account these words call
for very special examination, because Mark, in his own person, has added, "For
he wist not what to answer,"240 but Luke, "not knowing," he says, "what he
spake."241 You will consider, therefore, if he spake these things as in a
trance, being filled with the spirit which moved him to say these things, which
could not be a Holy Spirit; for John taught in the Gospel that, before the
resurrection of the Saviour, no one had the Holy Spirit, saying, "For the Spirit
was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified."242 But if the Spirit was not
yet, and he, not knowing what he said, spoke under the influence of some spirit,
the spirit which caused these things to be said was some one of the spirits
which had not yet been triumphed over in the cross, nor made a show of along
with them, about whom it is written, "Having put off from Himself the
principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over
them in the cross.243 " But this spirit was perhaps that which is called a
stumbling-block by Jesus, and which is spoken of as Satan in the passage, "Get
thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto me.'244 But I know well
that such things will offend many who meet with them, because they think thai it
is opposed to sound reason that he should be spoken ill of who a little before
had been pronounced blessed by Jesus, on the ground that the Father in heaven
had revealed to him the things concerning the Saviour, to-wit, that He was
verily Jesus, and the Christ, and the Son of the living God. But let such an one
attend more exactly to the statements about Peter and the rest of the Apostles,
how even they made requests as if they were yet alien from Him who was to redeem
them from the enemy and purchase them with His own precious blood; or let them
also, who will have it that even before the passion of Jesus the Apostles were
perfect, tell us whence it came about that "Peter and they that were with him
were heavy with sleep."245 But to anticipate something else of what follows and
apply it to the subject in hand, I would raise in turn these questions,-whether
it is possible for any one to find occasion of stumbling in Jesus apart from the
working of the devil who caused him to stumble; and whether it is possible for
any one to deny Jesus, and that in presence of a little maid and a doorkeeper
and men most worthless, unless a spirit had been with him in his denial hostile
to the Spirit which is given and the wisdom, (which is given) to those who are
assisted by God to make confession, according to a certain desert of theirs. But
he who has learned to refer the roots of sin to the father of sin, the devil,
will not say that apart from him either the Apostles were caused to stumble, or
that Peter denied Christ thrice before that well-known cock-crowing. But if this
be so, consider whether perhaps with a view to make Jesus stumble, so far as was
in his power, and to turn Him aside from the dispensation whose characteristic
was suffering that brought salvation to men, which He undertook with great
willingness, seeking to effect these things which seemed to contribute to this
end, he himself also here wishes as it were, by deceit, to draw away Jesus, as
if calling upon Him no longer to condescend to men, and come to them, and
undergo death for them, but to abide on the high mountain with Moses and Elijah.
But he promised also to build three tabernacles, one apart for Jesus, and one
for Moses, and one for Elijah, as if one tabernacle would not have sufficed for
the three, if it had been necessary for them to be in tabernacles and in the
high mountain. And perhaps also in this he acted with evil intent, when he
incited him "who did not know what he said," not desiring that Jesus and Moses
and Elijah should be together, but desiring to separate them from one another,
under pretext of the three tabernacles." And likewise it was a lie, "It is good
for us to be here; "246 for if it had been a good thing they would also have
remained there. But if it were a lie, you will seek to know who caused the lie
to be spoken; and especially since according to John, "When he speaketh a lie he
speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father thereof; "247 and as there
is no truth apart from the working of Him who says, "I am the Truth,"248 so
there is no lie apart from him who is the enemy of truth. These contrary
qualities, accordingly, were still in Peter truth and falsehood; and from truth
he said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,"249 but from falsehood
he said, "May God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee,"250
and also, "It is good for us to be here."251 But if any one will not admit that
Peter spoke these things from any evil inspiration, but that his words were of
his own mere choice, and it is demanded of him how he will interpret, "not
knowing what he said," and,252 "for he did not know what to answer,"253 he will
say, that in the former case Peter held it to be a shameful thing and unworthy
of Jesus to admit that the Son of the living God, the Christ, whom already the
Father had revealed to him, should be killed; and in the: present case that, as
having seen the two forms of Jesus and the one at the transfiguration which was
much more excellent, being well pleased with that, he said that it was good to
make their sojourning in that mountain, in order that he himself and those with
him might rejoice as they beheld the transfiguration of Jesus and His face
shining as the sun. and His garments white as the light, and, in addition to
these things, might always behold in glory those whom they had once seen in
glory, Moses and Elijah; and that they might rejoice at the things which they
might hear, as they talked and held intercourse with each other, Moses and
Elijah with Jesus, and Jesus with them.

41. Figurative Interpretation of the Same. But since we have not yet spent our
energy in interpreting the things in the place figuratively, but have said these
things by way of searching into the mere letter, let us in conformity with these
things, consider whether the aforesaid Peter and the sons of thunder who were
taken up into the mountain of the dogmas of the truth, and who saw the
transfiguration of Jesus and of Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory with
Him. might wish to make tabernacles in themselves for the Word of God who was
going to dwell in them, and for His law which had been beholden in glory, and
for the prophecy which spake of the decease of Jesus, which He was about to
accomplish;254 and Peter, as one loving the contemplative life, and having
preferred that which was delightsome in it to the life among the crowd with its
turmoil, said, with the design of benefiting those who desired it, "It is good
for us to be here."255 But since "love seeketh not its own,"256 Jesus did not do
that which Peter thought good; wherefore He descended from the mountain to those
who were not able to ascend to it and behold His transfiguration, that they
might behold Him in such form as they were able to see Him. It is, therefore,
the part of a righteous man who possesses "the love which seeketh not its
own"257 to be free from all, but to bring himself under bondage to all those
below that He might gain the more of them.258 But some one, with reference to
what we have alleged about the trance and the working of an evil spirit in
Peter, concerning the words, "not knowing what he said,"259 not accepting that
interpretation of ours, may say that there were certain mentioned by Paul
"desiring to be teachers of the law,"260 who do not know about what they speak,
but who, though they do not clearly expound the nature of what is said, nor
understand their meaning, make confident affirmations of things which they do
not know. Of such a nature was the affection of Peter also, for not apprehending
what was good with reference to the dispensation of Jesus and of those who
appeared in the mountain,-Moses and Elijah,-he says, "It is good for us to be
here," etc., "not knowing what he said," "for he wist not what to say," for if
"a wise man will understand the things from his own mouth, and carries prudence
in his lips,"261 he who is not so does not understand the things from his own
mouth, nor comprehend the nature of the things spoken by him.

42. The Meaning of the "Bright Cloud."

Next to these come the words, "While He was yet speaking, behold, also, a bright
cloud overshadowed them, "262 etc. Now, I think that God, wishing to dissuade
Peter from making three tabernacles, under which so far as it depended on his
choice he was going to dwell, shows a tabernacle better, so to speak, and much
more excellent, the cloud. For since it is the function of a tabernacle to
overshadow him who is in it, and to shelter him, and the bright cloud
overshadowed them, God made, as it were, a diviner tabernacle, inasmuch as it
was bright, that it might be to them a pattern of the resurrection to come; for
a bright cloud overshadows the just, who are at once protected and illuminated
and shone Upon by it. But what might the bright cloud, which overshadows the
just, be? Is it, perhaps, the fatherly power, from which comes the voice of the
Father bearing testimony to the Son as beloved and well-pleasing, and exhorting
those who were under its shadow to hear Him and no other one? But as He speaks
of old, so also always does He speak through what He wills. And perhaps, too,
the Holy Spirit is the bright cloud which overshadows the just, and prophesies
of the things of God, who works in it, and says, "This is My beloved Son in whom
I am well-pleased; "but I would venture also to say that our Saviour is a bright
cloud. When, therefore, Peter said, "Let us make here three tabernacles,"263 ...
one from the Father Himself, and from the Son, and one from the Holy Spirit. For
a bright cloud of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit overshadows the genuine
disciples of Jesus; or a cloud overshadows the Gospel and the law and the
prophets, which is bright to him who is able to see the light of it in the
Gospel, and the law, and the prophets. But perhaps the voice from the cloud says
to Moses and Elijah, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased, hear
Him," as they were desirous to see the Son of man, and to hear Him, and to
behold Him as He was in glory. And perhaps it teaches the disciples that He who
was, in a literal sense, the Son of God, and His beloved in whom He was
well-pleased, whom it behoved them especially to hear, was He who was then
beheld, and transfigured, and whose face shone as the sun, and who was clothed
with garments white as the light.

43. Relation of Moses and Elijah to Jesus. The Injunction of Silence. But after
these things it is written that, when they heard the voice from the cloud
bearing testimony to the Son, the three Apostles, not being able to bear the
glory of the voice and power resting upon it, "fell on their face,"264 and
besought God; for they were sore afraid at the supernatural sight, and the
things which were spoken from the sight. But consider if you can also say this
with reference to the details in the passage, that the disciples, having
understood that the Son of God had been holding conference with Moses, and that
it was He who said, "A man shall not see My face and live,"265 and taking
further the testimony of God about Him, as not being able to endure the radiance
of the Word, humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God;266 but, after the
touch of the Word, lifting up their eyes they saw Jesus only and no other.267
Moses, the law, and Elijah, the prophet, became one only with the Gospel of
Jesus; and not, as they were formerly three, did they so abide, but the three
became one, But consider these things with me in relation to mystical matters;
for in regard to the bare meaning of the letter, Moses and Elijah, having
appeared in glory and talked with Jesus, went away to the place from which they
had come, perhaps to communicate the words which Jesus spake with them, to those
who were to be benefited by Him, almost immediately, namely, at the time of the
passion, when many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep, their tombs
being opened, were to go to the city which is truly holy-not the Jerusalem which
Jesus wept over-and there appear unto many.268 But after the dispensation in the
mountain, when the disciples were coming down from the mountain in order that,
when they had come to the multitude, they might serve the Son of God concerning
the salvation of the people, Jesus commanded the disciples saying, "Tell the
vision to no man until the Son of man rise from the dead."269 But that saying,
"Tell the vision to no man," is like that which was investigated in the passage
above, when "He enjoined the disciples to tell no man that He was the
Christ."270 Wherefore the things that were said at that passage may be useful to
us also for the passage before us; since Jesus wishes also, in accordance with
these, that the things of His glory should not be spoken of, before His glory
after the passion; for those who heard, and in particular the multitudes, would
have been injured when they saw Him crucified, who had been so glorified.
Wherefore since His being glorified in the resurrection was akin to His
transfiguration, and to the vision of His face as the sun, on this account He
wishes that these things should then be spoken of by the Apostles, when He rose
from the dead.

1: Matt. xvi. 1.

2: Luke xxiii. 12.

3: Luke xxiii. 21.

4: 2 Kings xxiv. 7.

5: 2 Kings xix. 9.

6: Ps. ii. 2.

7: Matt. ix. 24, xii. 24.

8: The familiar saying so frequently quoted as Scripture in the Fathers,
sometimes ascribed to Jesus by them, sometimes to Paul. see Suicer.

9: Job i. 1 6.

10: 2 Thess. ii. 9.

11: Isa. vii. 11.

12: 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10.

13: 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10.

14: Gen. i. 26.

15: Matt. xi. 4, 5.

16: Matt. xvi. 4.

17: Ps.lxxxviii. 6.

18: Matt. xvi. 4.

19: Phil. iii. 3.

20: Rom. vii. 23.

21: Prov. xix. 14.

22: Rom. vii. 1, 2. H gar upandroj gunh tw zwnti andri dedetai nomw . The reader
must note that Origen takes nomw in apposition to andri .

23: 1 Cor. ix. 10.

24: Or , who was God.

25: Rom. vi. 9.

26: Rom. vii. 2, 3.

27: Matt. xvi. 4.

28: Rom. vii. 23.

29: Hos. i. 2.

30: Isa. i. 21.

31: Josh. vi. 25.

32: Luke vii. 37-50. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 6.

33: Matt. xvi. 5.

34: Cf. Gal. iii. 3.

35: Matt. xvi. 6.

36: John vi. 33, 51.

37: 1 Cor. v. 8.

38: Heb. x. 1.

39: Col. ii. 17.

40: Matt. xvi. 7.

41: Matt. xvi. 6.

42: Matt. xvi. 6.

43: Matt. xxviii. 20.

44: Matt. xv. 32.

45: Matt. xvi. 8.

46: 1 Kings viii. 39 47: Matt. xvi. 6.

48: 1 Cor. xiii. 10.

49: Deut. xxii. 25.

50: Or , violence in the licentious person.

51: Matt. xvi. 7, 8.

52: John xiv. 13,14.

53: Matt. xvi. 13.

54: Or , Him.

55: Matt. xiv. 2.

56: Jer. i. 10.

57: Matt. xvi. 14.

58: Matt. xvi. 17.

59: Matt. xvi. 16.

60: Jer. xxii. 24.

61: Jer. ii, 13.

62: John xiv. 6.

63: Matt. xvi. 16.

64: Matt xi. 14.

65: Matt. xvi. 16.

66: Phil. iii. 20.

67: Eph. i. 17.

68: Matt. xvi. 18.

69: Or , a Peter.

70: 1 Cor. x. 4.

71: Matt. xvi. 18.

72: Matt. xvi. 18.

73: Matt. xvi. 19.

74: Matt. xvi. 19.

75: John. xx. 22.

76: 2 Cor. iii. 18.

77: Matt. xvi. 16 78: 1 Cor. x. 4.

79: 1 Cor. i. 30.

80: Prov, xxx. l9.

81: Matt. vii. 24.

82: Or, each of the sins on account of which Christ was about to go to Hades.
(Erasmus)

83: Eph. v. 27.

84: Or , you.

85: Matt. xxii. 14.

86: Luke xiii. 24.

87: Matt. vii. 14.

88: Luke xiii. 24.

89: Phil. iv. 13.

90: John x, 9.

91: 1 Tim. vi, 20.

92: Ps. ix. 13, 14.

93: Ps. cxviii. 20.

94: 1 Tim. vi, 20.

95: Eph. vi. 12.

96: Eph. vi. 12.

97: Heb. i. 14.

98: Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.

99: That is, the Minor Prophets.

100: Amos v. 10.

101: Matt. xvi. 19.

102: Matt. xvi. 18.

103: Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17.

104: Luke xvii. 21 105: Matt. xvi. 18.

106: Prov. v. 22.

107: Isa. v. 18.

108: 1 Tim. iii. 10, 109: Matt. xvi. 20.

110: Matt. x. 5.

111: Matt. xvi. 20.

112: Mark viii. 30.

113: Luke ix. 21.

114: Matt. xvi. 15, 16.

115: Matt. xvi. 20.

116: Or , which he may regard as mediocre.

117: John viii. 31, 32.

118: Matt. xvi. 16.

119: Matt. xvi. 18.

120: Matt. x. 18.

121: Matt. x. 21.

122: Matt. x. 32.

123: Matt. x. 27 124: Matt. xvi. 21.

125: John vi. 68.

126: I Cor. ii. 2.

127: Matt. xvi. 21.

128: Col. ii. 15.

129: Gal vi. 14.

130: John xvi. 11.

131: John xii. 31, 32.

132: Matt. xvi. 21.

133: Matt. xvi. 21.

134: Luke xiii. 33.

135: Matt. x. 39.

136: 1 Cor. xv. 20.

137: 1 Cor. xv. 20.

138: 2 Cor. iii. 3.

139: Heb. xii. 22.

140: Or (putting a comma after Jerusalem), but that on the third day He might
rise.

141: see xi. c. 6, p. 434, note 2.

142: Matt. xvi. 22.

143: Matt. xvi. 23.

144: These three sentences are supplied from the old Latin version, as at this
point there is a hiatus in the MSS.

145: Rom. iii. 25.

146: Matt. xvi. 22.

147: Matt. xvi. 23.

148: Matt. iv. 19.

149: Matt. xvi. 23.

150: Matt. iv. 9.

151: Matt. iv. 10.

152: Matt. iv. 19.

153: Matt. x. 38.

154: Ecclus. xviii. 30.

155: 1 Kings xviii, 21.

156: John i. 38.

157: Matt. xvi. 23.

158: Ps. cxix. 165.

159: 1 Cor. xiii. 7, 8.

160: Ps. cxlv. 14.

161: 2 Cor. xi. 29.

162: Matt. xvi. 22.

163: Matt. xvi. 22.

164: Matt. xxv. 42.

165: Matt. xvi. 24, 166: Rom. x. 10.

167: Matt. x. 32.

168: Matt. x. 33.

169: John xix. 17, 18.

170: Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26.

171: Matt. xvi. 24.

172: Gal. ii. 20.

173: 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. ii. 14 174: Gal. ii 20; vi. 14.

175: Col. ii. 15.

176: Matt. xvi. 25.

177: Matt. xvi, 25.

178: Gal. vi. 14.

179: Matt. xvi. 26.

180: 1 Pet. i. 19.

181: 1 Cor. vi. 20.

182: 1 Cor. vi. 20.

183: Isa. xliii. 3, 4, 184: Ps. cxxx. 8, 185: Matt. xvi. 27.

186: Isa. liii. 2, 3 187: Isa. liii. 4.

188: Reading proeutrepisaj . as the Vetus Inter.

189: Rom. viii. 29.

190: Phil. iii. 21.

191: Phil. ii. 7.

192: 1 Cor. i. 21.

193: Isa. liii. 2.

194: Matt. xvi. 27.

195: John i. 14.

196: 1 Cor. v. 10.

197: Ezek. xviii. 21-24.

198: 2 Cor. v. 10.

199: Matt. xvi, 28.

200: Luke ix. 28.

201: Mark ix. 1.

202: Matt. xx. 23.

203: 1 Pet. ii. 2.

204: 1 Cor. iii. 2.

205: Gen. xxi. 8.

206: Rom. xiv. 2.

207: 1 Sam. i. 23, 24.

208: Deut. x. 10.

209: Deut. v. 31.

210: Isa. liii. 2, 3.

211: Mark iii. 17.

212: John xiv. 6.

213: Col. iii. 3, 4.

214: 1 Cor. xv. 26.

215: Deut. xxx. 15.

216: Deut. xxviii. 66, 67.

217: John vi. 33, 51.

218: Matt. xvi. 28.

219: Matt. xxviii. 20.

220: Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27.

221: Ps. lxxxix. 48.

222: Ps. lv. 18.

223: Isa. xxv. 8.

224: Rev. vi. 10.

225: Rom. vi. 12.

226: Luke xvii. 2r.

227: Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix.2.

228: 1 John ii. 15.

229: Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 2.

230: Rom. xiii. 12.

231: Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 5.

232: Matt. xvii. 2.

233: Matt. xvii. 3.

234: Matt. xvii. 3.

235: I Cor. ii, 7.

236: Luke (ix. 28, 29) alone mentions the praying.

237: Mark ix. 3.

238: Luke ix. 29.

239: Matt. xvii. 4; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33.

240: Mark ix. 6.

241: Luke ix. 33.

242: John vii. 39.

243: Col, ii. 15.

244: Matt. xvi. 23.

245: Luke ix. 32.

246: Matt. xvii. 4.

247: John viii. 44.

248: John xiv. 6.

249: Matt. xvi. 16.

250: Matt. xvi. 20.

251: Matt. xvii. 4.

252: Luke ix. 33.

253: Mark ix. 6.

254: Luke ix. 31.

255: Matt. xvii. 4.

256: 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

257: 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

258: 1 Cor. ix. 19.

259: Luke ix. 33.

260: 1 Tim. i. 7.

261: Prov. xvi. 23.

262: Matt, xvii. 5.

263: Matt, xvii. 5.

264: Matt. xvii. 6.

265: Exod. xxx. 20.

266: 1 Pet. v. 6.

267: 1 Pet. v. 6.

268: Matt. xxvii. 52, 53, 269: Matt, xvii, 9.

270: Matt, xvi, 20.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 13
========================================================================

Book XIII.

1. Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered.

2. "The Spirit and Power of Elijah"-Not the Soul-Were in the Baptist.

3. Concerning the Epileptic.

4. Spiritual Epileptics.

5. The Deaf and Dumb Spirit.

6. Influence of the Moon and Stars on Men.

7. The Power of Faith.

8. Jesus' Prediction of His "Delivery" Into the Hands of Men.

9. Satan and the "Delivery" Of Jesus.

10. Concerning Those Who Demanded the Half-Shekel.

11. The Freedom of Sons.

12. The Stater Allegorized.

13. The Sacred Half-Shekel.

14. Concerning Those Who Said, Who is the Greatest? and Concerning the Child
that Was Called by Jesus.

15. Greatness Varies in Degree.

16. Why the Great are Compared to Little Children.

17. The Little Ones and Their Stumbling-Blocks.

18. Who Was the Little Child Called by Jesus.

19. The Parallel Passages in Mark and Luke.

20. The World and Offences. Various Meanings of World.

21. The "Woe" Does Not Apply to the Disciples of Jesus.

22. What the "Occasions of Stumbling" Are.

23. In What Sense "Necessary."

24. The Offending Hand, or Foot, or Eye.

25. The Eye or Hand Allegorized.

26. The Little Ones and Their Angels.

27. When the Little Ones are Assigned to Angels.

28. Close Relationship of Angels to Their "Little Ones."

29. The Little Ones and the Perfect.

30. The Sinning Brother.

31. The Power to Bind on Earth and in Heaven.

Book XIII.

1. Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered.

"The disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must
first come? "1 The disciples indeed who went up with Jesus remembered the
traditions of the scribes concerning Elijah, that before the advent of Christ,
Elijah would come and prepare for Him the souls of those who were going to
receive Him. But the vision in the mountain, at which Elijah appeared, did not
seem to be in harmony with the things which were said, since to them it seemed
that Elijah had not come before Jesus but after Him; wherefore, they say these
things, thinking that the scribes lied. But to this the Saviour answers, not
setting aside the traditions concerning Elijah, but saying that there was
another advent of Elijah before that of Christ of which the scribes were
ignorant; and, in regard to this, being ignorant of him, they "had done unto him
whatsoever they listed,"2 as if they had been accomplices in his having been
cast into prison by Herod and slain by him; then He says that according as they
had done towards Elijah so would He suffer at their hands.3 And these things
indeed as about Elijah the disciples asked and the Saviour answered, but when
they heard they understood that the words, "Elijah has already come," and that
following which was spoken by the Saviour, had reference to John the Baptist.4
And let these things be said by way of illustration of the passage before us.
But now according to our ability let us make investigation also into the things
that are stored up in it. In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah
the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration,
which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor
anywhere set forth in the Scriptures; for it is also in opposition to the saying
that "things seed are temporal,"5 and that "this age shall have a consummation,"
and also to the fulfilment of the saying, "Heaven and earth shall pass away,"6
and "the fashion of this world passeth away,"7 and "the heavens shall perish,"8
and what follows. For if, by hypothesis, in the constitution of things which has
existed from the beginning unto the end of the world, the same soul can be twice
hithe body, for what cause should it be in it? For if because of sin it should
be twice in the body, why should it not be thrice, and repeatedly in it, since
punishments, in respect of this life, and of the sins committed in it, shall be
rendered to it only by the method of transmigration? But if this be granted as a
consequence, perhaps there will never be a time when a soul shall not undergo
transmigration: for always because of its former sins will it dwell in the body;
and so there will be no place for the corruption of the world, at which "the
heaven and the earth shall pass away."9 And if it be granted, on this
hypothesis, that one who is absolutely sinless shall not come into the body by
birth, after what length of time do you suppose that a soul shall be found
absolutely pure and needing no transmigration? But nevertheless, also, if any
one soul is always thus being removed from the definite number of souls and
returns no longer to the body, sometime after infinite ages, as it were, birth
shall cease; the world being reduced to some one or two or a few more, after the
perfecting of whom the world shall perish, the supply of souls coming into the
body having failed. But this is not agreeable to the Scripture; for it knows of
a multitude of sinners at the time of the destruction of the world. This is
manifest from consideration of the saying, "How-beit when the Son of man cometh
shall He find faith on the earth? "10 So we find it thus said in Matthew, "As
were the days of Noah so shall also be the coming of the Son of man; for as they
were in the days of the flood," etc.11 But to those who are then in existence
there shall be the exaction of a penalty for their sins, but not by way of
transmigration; for, if they are caught while still sinning, either they will be
punished after this by a different form of punishment,-and according to this
either there will be two general forms of punishment, the one by way of
transmigration, and the other outside of a body of this kind, and let them
declare the causes and differences of these,-or they will not be punished, as if
those who were left at the consummation of things had forthwith cast away their
sins; or, which is better, there is one form of punishment for those who have
sinned in the body, namely, that they should suffer, outside of it, that is,
outside the constitution of this life, what is according to the desert of their
sins. But to one who has insight into the nature of things it is clear that each
of these things is fitted to overturn the doctrine of transmigration. But if, of
necessity, the Greeks who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down
things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to
corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in
the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either
disbelieve them, or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation
of the things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not
be able to do. And this besides we will say to those who may have had the
hardihood to aver that the world will not perish, that, if the world does not
perish but is to exist for infinite periods of time, there will be no God
knowing all things before they come into being. But if, perhaps, tie knows in
part, either He will know each thing before it comes into being, or certain
things, and after these again other things; for things infinite in nature cannot
possibly be grasped by that knowledge whose nature it is to limit things known.
From this it follows that there cannot be prophecies about all things
whatsoever, since all things are infinite.

2. "The Spirit and Power of Elijah"-Not the Soul-Were in the Baptist.

I have thought it necessary to dwell some time on the examination of the
doctrine of transmigration, because of the suspicion of some who suppose that
the soul under consideration was the same in Elijah and in John, being called in
the former case Elijah, and in the second case John; and that, not apart from
God, had he been called John, as is plain from the saying of the angel who
appeared to Zacharias, "Fear not, Zacharias, for thy supplication is heard, and
thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John; "12
and from the fact that Zacharias regained his speech after he had written in the
tablet, that he who had been born should be called John.13 But if it were the
soul of Elijah, then, when he was begotten a second time, he should have been
called Elijah; or for the change of name some reason should have been assigned,
as in the case of Abram and Abraham, Sarah and Sarrah, Jacob and Israel, Simon
and Peter. And yet not even thus would their argument in the case be tenable;
for, in the case of the aforesaid, the changes of name took place in one and the
same life. But some one might ask, if the soul of Elijah was not first in the
Tishbite and secondly in John, what might that be in both which the Saviour
called Elijah? And I say that Gabriel in his words to Zacharias suggested what
the substance was in Elijah and John that was the same; for he says, "Many of
the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God; and he shall go
before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah."14 For, observe, he did not
say in the "soul" of Elijah, in which case the doctrine of transmigration might
have some ground, but "in the spirit and power of Elijah." For the Scripture
well knows the distinction between spirit and soul, as, "May God sanctify you
wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame
at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; "15 anti the passage, "Bless the Lord,
ye spirits and souls of the righteous"16 as it stands in the book of Daniel,
according to the Septuagint, represents the difference between spirit and soul.
Elijah, therefore, was not called John because of the soul, but because of the
spirit and the power, which in no way conflicts with the teaching of the church,
though they were formerly in Elijah, and afterwards in John; and "the spirits of
the prophets are subject to the prophets,"17 but the souls of the prophets are
not subject to the prophets, and "the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha."18 But
we ought to inquire whether the spirit of Elijah is the same as the spirit of
God in Elijah, or whether they are different from each other, and whether the
spirit of Elijah which was in him was something supernatural, different from the
spirit of each man which is in him; for the Apostle clearly indicates that the
Spirit of God, though it be in us, is different from the spirit of each man
which is in Him, when he says somewhere, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with
our spirit that we are the children of God; "19 and elsewhere, "No one of men
knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of the man which is in him; even so
the things of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God."20 But do not marvel in
regard to what is said about Elijah, if, just as something strange happened to
him different from all the saints who are recorded, in respect of his having
been caught up by a whirlwind into heaven,21 so his spirit had something of
choice excellence, so that not only did it rest on Elisha, but also descended
along with John at his birth; and that John, separately, "was filled with the
Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb," and separately, "came before Christ in
the spirit and power of Elijah."22 For it is possible for several spirits not
only worse, but also better, to be in the same man. David accordingly asks to be
established by a free spirit,23 and that a right spirit be renewed in his inward
parts.24 But if, in order that the Saviour may impart to us of "the spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of
knowledge and reverence,"25 he was filled also with the spirit of the fear of
the Lord; it is possible also that these several good spirits may be conceived
as being in the same person. And this also we have brought forward, because of
John having come before Christ "in the spirit and power of Elijah,"26 in order
that the saying. "Elijah has already come,"27 may be referred to the spirit of
Elijah that was in John; as also the three disciples who had gone up with Him
understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.28 Upon Elisha, then,
only the spirit of Elijah rested, but John came before,29 not only in the
spirit, but also in the power of Elijah. Wherefore, also, Elisha could not have
been called Elijah, but John was Elijah himself. But if it be necessary to
adduce the Scripture from which the scribes said that Elijah must first come,
listen to Malachi who says, "And behold I will send to you Elijah the Tishbite,"
etc., down to the words, "Lest I come and smite the earth utterly."30 And it
seems to be indicated by these words, that Elijah was to prepare for the
glorious coming of Christ by certain holy words and dispositions in their souls,
those who had been made fittest for this, which those upon earth could not have
endured, because of the excellency of the glory, unless they had been prepared
before hand by Elijah. And likewise, by Elijah, in this place, I do not
understand the soul of that prophet but his spirit and his power; for these it
is by which all things shall be restored,31 so that when they have been
restored, and, as a result of that restoration, become capable of receiving the
glory of Christ, the Son of God who shall appear in glory may sojourn with them.
But if also Elijah be in some sort a word inferior to "the Word who was in the
beginning with God, God the Word,"32 this word also might come as a preparatory
discipline to the people prepared by it, that they might be trained tot the
reception of the perfect Word. But some one may raise the question whether the
spirit and power of Elijah, suffered what was suffered in John, according to the
words, "They did in him whatsoever they listed."33 And to this it will be said
on the one hand, in simpler fashion that there is nothing strange in the
thought, that the things which assist do, because of love, suffer along with
those that are assisted; and Jesus indeed says. "Because of the weak i was weak,
and I hungered because of the hungry, and I thirsted because of the thirsty,"34
and, on the other hand, in a deeper sense that the words are not, "But they did
unto him whatsoever they listed in him," for the things which suffered leaned
upon the spirit and the power of Elijah, the soul of John being in no wise
Elijah; and probably also the body (leaned upon them). For in one fashion is the
soul in the body, and the spirit, and the power; and in another fashion is the
body of the righteous man in these better parts, as leaning upon them, and
clinging to them; but "they who are in the flesh cannot please God; but ye are
not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if the Spirit of God dwell in you; "35 for
the soul of the sinner is in the flesh, but of the righteous man in spirit. And
likewise, further, this might be inquired into, to whom refer the words, "But
they did in him whatsoever they listed."36 Was it to the scribes in regard to
whom the disciples inquired and said, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah
must first come? "37 But it is not at all evident that John suffered anything at
the hands of the scribes, except, indeed, that they did not believe him; or, as
we said also before, that they were accomplices in the wrongs which Herod dared
to inflict on him. But another might say that the words, "But they did in him
whatsoever they listed," refer not to the scribes but to Herodias and her
daughter, and Herod, who did in him whatsoever they listed. And that which
follows, "So shall the Son of man suffer from them,"38 might be referred to the
scribes, if the former were referred to them; but, if the former refers to Herod
and Herodias and her daughter, the second passage will also refer to them;39 for
Herod also seems to have joined in the vote that Jesus should die, perhaps his
wife also taking part with him in the plot against Him.

3. Concerning the Epileptic.

"And when they were come to the multitude, there came to Him a man kneeling to
Him and saying, Lord, have mercy upon my son."40 Those who are suffering, or the
kinsfolk of the sufferers, are along with the multitudes; wherefore, when He has
dispensed the things that were beyond the multitudes, He descends to them, so
that those, who were not able to ascend because of the sicknesses that repressed
their soul, might be benefited when the Word descended to them from the loftier
regions. But we ought to make inquiry, in respect of what diseases the sufferers
believe and pray for their own healing, and in respect of what diseases others
do this for them, as, for example, the centurion for his servant, and the
nobleman for his son, and the ruler of the synagogue for a daughter, and the
Canaanitish woman for her female child who was vexed with a demon, and now the
man who kneels to Him on behalf of his epileptic son. And along with these you
will investigate when the Saviour heals of Himself and unasked by any one, as
for example, the paralytic; for these cures, when compared with one another for
this very purpose, and examined together, will exhibit to him who is able to
hear "the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery,"41 many dogmas concerning the
different diseases of souls, as well as the method of their healing.

4. Spiritual Epileptics. But since our present object is not to make inquiry
about every case, but about the passage before us, let us, adopting a figurative
interpretation, consider who we may say the lunatic was, and who was his father
who prayed for him, and what is meant by the sufferer falling not constantly but
oft-times, sometimes into the fire, and sometimes into the water, and what is
meant by the fact that he could not be healed by the disciples but by Jesus
Himself. For if every sickness and every infirmity, which our Saviour then
healed among the people, refers to different disorders in souls, it is also in
accordance with reason that by the paralytics are symbolised the palsied in
soul, who keep it lying paralysed in the body; but by those who are blind are
symbolised those who are blind in respect of things seen by the soul alone, and
these are really blind; and by the deaf are symbolised those who are deaf in
regard to the reception of the word of salvation. On the same principle it will
be necessary that the matters regarding the epileptic should be investigated.
Now this affection attacks the sufferers at considerable intervals, during which
he who suffers from it seems in no way to differ from the man in good health, at
the season when the epilepsy is not working on him. Similar disorders you may
find in certain souls, which are often supposed to be healthy in point of
temperance and the other virtues; then, sometimes, as if they were seized with a
kind of epilepsy arising from their passions, they fall down from the position
in which they seemed to stand, and are drawn away by the deceit of this world
and other lusts. Perhaps, therefore, you would not err if you said, that such
persons, so to speak, are epileptic spiritually, having been cast down by "the
spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places,"42 and are often ill, at
the time when the passions attack their soul; at one time falling into the fire
of burnings, when, according to what is said in Hosea, they become adulterers,
like a pan heated for the cooking from the burning flame;43 and, at another
time, into the water, when the king of all the dragons in the waters casts them
down from the sphere where they appeared to breath freely, so that they come
into the depths of the waves of the sea of human life. This interpretation of
ours in regard to the lunatic will be supported by him who says in the Book of
Wisdom with reference to the even temperament of the just man, "The discourse of
a pious man is always wisdom," but, in regard to what we have said, "The fool
changes as the moon."44 And sometimes even in the case of such you may see
impulses which might carry away in praise of them those who do not attend to
their want of ballast, so that they would say that it was as full moon in their
case, or almost full moon. And you might see again the light that seemed to be
in them diminishing ,-as it was not the light of day but the light of
night,-fading to so great an extent, that the light which appeared to be seen in
them no longer existed. But whether or not those who first gave their names to
things, on account of this gave the name of lunacy to the disease epilepsy, you
will judge for yourself.

5. The Deaf and Dumb Spirit.

Now the father of the epileptic-perhaps the angel to whom he had been allotted,
if we are to say that every human soul is put in subjection to some angel-prays
the Physician of souls for his son that He may heal him who could not be healed
from his disorder by the inferior word which was in the disciples. But the dumb
and deaf spirit, who was cast out by the Word, must be figuratively understood
as the irrational impulses, even towards that which seems to be good, so that,
what things any man once did by irrational impulse which seemed to onlookers to
be good, he may do no longer irrationally but according to the reason of the
teaching of Jesus. Under the inspiration of this Paul also said, "If I have all
faith so as to remove mountains; "45 for he, who has all faith, which is as a
grain of mustard seed,46 removes not one mountain only, but also several
analogous to it; for although faith is despised by men and appears to be
something very little and contemptible; yet when it meets with good ground, that
is the soul, which is able fittingly to receive such seed, it becomes a great
tree, so that no one of those things which have no wings, but the birds of
heaven which are winged spiritually, are able to lodge in the branches of faith
so great.47 6. Influence of the Moon and Stars on Men.

Let us now, then, give heed to the very letter of the passage, and first let us
inquire, how he who has been cast into darkness and repressed by an impure and
deaf and dumb spirit is said to be a "lunatic," and for what reason the
expression to be a "lunatic "derives its name from the great light in heaven
which is next to the sun, which God appointed "to rule over the night."48 Let
physicians then, discuss the physiology of the matter, inasmuch as they think
that there is no impure spirit in the case, but a bodily disorder, and inquiring
into the nature of things let them say, that the moist humours which are in the
head are moved by a certain sympathy which they have with the light of the moon,
which has a moist nature; but as for us, who also believe the Gospel that this
sickness is viewed as having been effected by an impure dumb and deaf spirit in
those who suffer from it, and who see that those, who are accustomed like the
magicians of the Egyptians to promise a cure in regard to such, seem sometimes
to be successful in their case, we will say that, perhaps, with the view of
slandering the creation of God, in order that "unrighteousness may be spoken
loftily, and that they may set their mouth against the heaven,"49 this impure
spirit watches certain configurations of the moon, and so makes it appear from
observation of men suffering at such and such a phase of the moon, that the
cause of so great an evil is not the dumb and deaf demon, but the great light in
heaven which was appointed "to rule by night." and which has no power to
originate such a disorder among men. But they all "speak unrighteousness
loftily," as many as say, that the cause of all the disorders which exist on the
earth, whether of such generally or of each in detail, arises from the
disposition of the stars; and such have truly "set their mouth against the
heaven," when they say that some of the stars have a malevolent, and others a
benevolent influence; since no star was formed by the God of the universe to
work evil, according to Jeremiah as it is written in the Lamentations, "Out of
the mouth of the Lord shall come things noble and that which is good."50 And it
is probable that as this impure spirit, producing what is called lunacy,
observes the phases of the moon, that it may work on him who for certain causes
has been committed to it, and who has not made himself worthy of the
guardianship of angels, so also there are other spirits and demons who work at
certain phases of the rest of the stars; so that not the moon only, but the rest
of the stars also may be calumniated by those "who speak unrighteousness
loftily." It is worth while, then, to listen to the casters of nativities, who
refer the origin of every form of madness and every demoniacal possession to the
phases of the moon. That those, then, who suffer from what is called lunacy
sometimes fall into the water is evident, and that they also fall into the fire,
less frequently indeed, yet it does happen; and it is evident that this disorder
is very difficult to cure, so that those who have the power to cure demoniacs
sometimes fall in respect of this, and sometimes with fastings and supplications
and more toils, succeed. But you will inquire whether there are such disorders
in spirits as well as in men; so that some of them speak, but some of them are
speechless, and some of them hear, but some are deaf; for as in them will be
found the cause of their being impure, so also, because of their freedom of
will, are they condemned to be speechless and deaf; for some men will suffer
such condemnation if the prayer of the prophet, as spoken by the Holy Spirit,
shall be given heed to, in which it is said of certain sinners, "Let the lying
lips be put to silence."51 And so, perhaps, those who make a bad use of their
hearing, and admit the hearing of vanities, will be rendered deaf by Him who
said, "Who hath made the stone-deaf and the deaf,"52 so that they may no longer
lend an ear to vain things.

7. The Power of Faith. But when the Saviour said, "O faithfulness and perverse
generation, "53 He signifies that wickedness, which is contrary to nature,
stealthily enters in from perversity, and makes us perverted. But of the whole
race of men on earth, I think, being oppressed by reason of their wickedness and
His tarrying with them, the Saviour said, "How long shall I be with you? "We
have already, then, spoken in part of the words, "If ye have faith as a grain of
mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain,"54 etc.; but nevertheless also we
shall speak in this place the things that appear to us fitted to increase
perspicuity. The mountains here spoken of, in my opinion, are the hostile powers
that have their being in a flood of great wickedness, such as are settled down,
so to speak, in some souls of men. Whenever, then, any one has all faith so that
he no longer disbelieves in any things which are contained in the Holy
Scriptures, and has faith such as was that of Abraham, who believed in God to
such a degree that his faith was counted for righteousness. he has all faith as
a grain of mustard seed; then will such an one say to this mountain-I mean, the
dumb and deaf spirit in him who is called lunatic,-"Remove hence," clearly, from
the man who is suffer-lug, perhaps to the abyss, and it shall remove. And the
Apostle, taking, I think. his starting-point from this place, says with
apostolical authority, "If I have all faith so as to remove mountains,"55 for
not one mountain merely, but also several analogous to it, he removes who has
all faith which is as a grain of mustard-seed; and nothing shall be impossible
to him who has so great faith.56 But let us also attend to this, "This kind
goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,"57 in order that if at any time it is
necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a
disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit
as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful
as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean
spirit from him.

8. Jesus' Prediction of His "Delivery" Into the Hands of Men.

"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be
delivered into the hands of men."58 And these things will appear to be of the
same effect as those, "that Jesus began to show unto His disciples that He must
go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
scribes."59 But it is not so; for it is not the same thing "to show unto the
disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders
and chief priests and scribes," and, after suffering, "be killed," and, after
being killed, "be raised up on the third day," as that which was said to them,
when they were in Galilee,-which we did not learn before, -that the Son of man
"would be delivered up; "for the being delivered up was not mentioned above, but
now also it is said that "He is to be delivered up into the hands of men."60 As
for these matters let us inquire by what person or persons He will be delivered
up into the hands of men; for there we are taught of whom He will suffer, and in
what place He will suffer; but here, in addition, we learn that while His
suffering many things takes place at the hands of the aforesaid, they are not
the prime causes of His suffering many things, but the one or ones who delivered
Him up into the hands of men. For some one will say that the Apostle,
interpreting this, says with reference to God, "He that spared not His own Son,
but delivered Him up for us all; "61 but the Son also gave Himself to death for
us, so that He was delivered up, not only by the Father but also by Himself. Bat
another will say not merely that, but also collecting the passages together,
will say that the Son is first delivered up by God,-then about to be tempted,
then to be in conflict, then to suffer for men, or even for the whole world that
He might take away its sin,62 -to the prince of this age, and to the rest of its
princes, and then by them delivered into the hands of men who would slay Him.
The case of Job will be taken as an illustration. "Lo, all that is his I give
into thy hands, but do not touch him; "63 thereafter, he was, as it were,
delivered up by the devil to his princes, namely, to those who took prisoners of
war, to the horsemen, to the fire that came down from heaven, to the great wind
that came from the desert and broke up his house,64 But you will consider if, as
he delivered up the property of Job to those who took them captive, and to the
horsemen, so also he delivered them up to a certain power, subordinate to "the
prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of
disobedience,"65 in order that the fire which descended thence on the sheep of
Job might seem to fall from heaven, to the man who announced to Job that "fire
fell from heaven, and burned up his sheep, and consumed the shepherds
likewise."66 And in the same way you will inquire whether also the sudden mighty
wind, that came down from the desert and assailed the four corners of the
dwelling, was one of those which are under the devils to whom the devil
delivered up the banquet of the sons and daughters of Job, that the house might
fall on the children of the just man, and they might die. Let it be granted,
then, that, as in the case of Job, the Father first delivered up the Son to the
opposing powers, and that then they delivered Him up into the hands of men,
among which men Judas also was, into whom after the sop67 Satan entered, who
delivered Him up in a more authoritative manner than Judas. But take care lest
on comparing together the delivering up of the Son by the Father to the opposing
powers, with the delivering up of the Saviour by them into the hands of men, you
should think that what is called the delivering up is the same in the case of
both. For understand that the Father in His love of men delivered Him up for us
all; but the opposing powers, when they delivered up the Saviour into the hands
of men, did not intend to deliver Him up for the salvation of some, but, as far
as in them lay, since none of them knew "the wisdom of God which was hidden in a
mystery,"68 they gave Him up to be put to death, that His enemy death might
receive Him under its subjection, like those who die in Adam;69 and also the men
who slew Him did so, as they were moulded after the will of those who wished
indeed that Jesus should become subject to death. I have deemed it necessary
also to examine into these things, because that when Jesus was delivered up into
the hands of men, He was not delivered up by men into the hands of men, but by
powers to whom the Farther delivered up His Son for us all, and in the very act
of His being delivered up, and coming under the power of those to whom He was
delivered up, destroying him that has the power of death; for "through death He
brought to nought him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, and
delivered all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage."70 9. Satan and the "Delivery" Of Jesus.

Now we must think that the devil has the power of death,-not of that which is
common and indifferent, in accordance with which those who are compacted of soul
and body die, when their soul is separated from the body,-but of that death
which is contrary to and the enemy of Him who said, "I am the Life,"71 in
accordance with which "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."72 But that it was
not God who gave Him up into the hands of men, the Saviour manifestly declares
when He says, "If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight
that I should not be delivered to the Jews."73 For, when He was delivered up to
the Jews. He was delivered into the hands of men, not by His own servants, but
by the prince of this age who says, concerning the powers which are in the
sphere of the invisible, the kingdoms which are set up against men. "All these
things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship Me."74 Wherefore
also we should think that in regard to them it was said, "The kings of the earth
stood side by side, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and
against His Christ."75 And those kings, indeed, and those rulers stood side by
side and were gathered against the Lord and against His Christ; but we, because
we have been benefited by His being delivered by them into the hands of men and
slain, say, "Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their yoke from
us."76 For, when we become conformed to the death of Christ, we are no longer
under the bonds of the kings of the earth, as we have said, nor under the yoke
of the princes of this age, who were gathered together against the Lord. And, on
this account, "the Father spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all,"77 that those, who took Him and delivered Him up into the hands of men,
might be laughed at by Him who dwells in the heavens, and might be derided by
the Lord, inasmuch as, contrary to their expectation, it was to the destruction
of their own kingdom and power, that they received from the Father the Son, who
was raised on the third day, by having abolished His enemy death, and made us
conformed, not only to the image of His death but also of His resurrection;
through whom we walk in newness of life,78 no longer sitting "in the region and
shadow of death,"79 through the light of God which has sprung up upon us. But
when the Saviour said, "The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of
men, and they shall kill Him, and the third day He shall rise again," they were
"exceeding sorry,"80 giving heed to the fact that He was about to be delivered
up into the hands of men, and that He would be killed, as matters gloomy and
calling for sorrow, but not attending to the fact that He would rise on the
third day, as He needed no longer time "to bring to nought through death him
that had the power of death."81 10. Concerning Those Who Demanded the
Half-Shekel.

"And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came
to Peter."82 There are certain kings of the earth, and the sons of these do not
pay toll or tribute; and there are others, different from their sons, who are
strangers to the kings of the earth, from whom the kings of the earth receive
toll or tribute. And among the kings of the earth, their sons are free as among
fathers; but those who are strangers to them, while they are free in relation to
things beyond the earth, are as slaves in respect of those who lord it over them
and keep them in bondage; as the Egyptians lorded it over the children of
Israel, and greatly afflicted their life and violently held them in bondage.83
It was for the sake of those who were in a bondage, corresponding to the bondage
of the Hebrews, that the Son of God took upon Him only the form of a slave,84
doing no work that was foul or servile. As then, having the form of that slave,
He pays toll and tribute not different from that which was paid by His disciple;
for the same stater sufficed, even the one coin which was paid for Jesus and His
disciple. But this coin was not in the house of Jesus, but it was in the sea,
and in the mouth of a fish of the sea which, in my judgment, was benefited when
it came up and was caught in the net of Peter, who became a fisher of men, in
which net was that which is figuratively called a fish, in order also that the
coin with the image of Caesar might be taken from it, and that it might take its
place among those which were caught by them who have learned to become fishers
of men. Let him, then, who has the things of Caesar render them to Caesar,85
that afterwards he may be able to render to God the things of God. But since
Jesus, who was "the image of the invisible God,"86 had not the image of Caesar,
for "the prince of this age had nothing in Him,"87 on this account He takes from
its own place, the sea, the image of Caesar, that He may give it to the kings of
the earth for Himself and His disciple, so that those who receive the
half-shekel might not imagine that Jesus was the debtor of them and of the kings
of the earth; for He paid the debt, not having taken it up, nor having possessed
it, nor having acquired it, nor at any time having made it His own possession,
so that the image of Caesar might never be along with the image of the invisible
God.

11. The Freedom of Sons. And this may be put in another way. There are some who
are kings' sons on the earth, and yet they are not sons of those kings, but
sons, and sons absolutely; but others, because of their being strangers to the
sons of the kings of the earth, and sons of no one of those upon the earth, but
on this very account are sons, whether of God or of His Son, or of some one of
those who are God's. If, then, the Saviour inquires of Peter, saying, "The kings
of the earth from whom do they receive toll or tribute-from their own sons or
from strangers? "88 and Peter replies not from their own sons, but "from
strangers," then Jesus says about such as are strangers to the kings of the
earth, and on account of being free are sons, "Therefore the sons are free; "89
for the sons of the kings of the earth are not free, since "every one that
committeth sin is the bond-servant of sin,"90 but they are free who abide in the
truth of the word of God, and on this account, know the truth, that they also
may become free from sin. If, any one then, is a son simply, and not in this
matter wholly a son of the kings of the earth, he is free. And nevertheless,
though he is free, he takes care not to offend even the kings of the earth, and
their sons, and those who receive the half-shekel; wherefore He says, "Let us
not cause them to stumble, but go thou and cast thy net, and take up the fish
that first cometh up,"91 etc. But I would inquire of those who are pleased to
make myths about different natures, of what sort of nature they were, whether
the kings of the earth, or their sons, or those who receive the half-shekel,
whom the Saviour does not wish to offend; it appears of a verity, ex hypothesi,
that they are not of a nature worthy of praise, and yet He took heed not to
cause them to stumble, and He prevents any stumbling-block being put in their
way, that they may not sin more grievously, and that with a view to their being
saved-if they will-even by receiving Him who has spared them from being caused
to stumble. And as in a place verily of consolation,-for such is, by
interpretation, Capernaum,-comforting the disciple as being both free and a son,
He gives to him the power of catching the fish first, that when it came up Peter
might be comforted by its coming up and being caught, and by the staler being
taken from its mouth, in order to be paid to those whose the staler was, add who
demanded as their own such a piece of money.

12. The Stater Allegorized. But you might sometimes gracefully apply the passage
to the lover of money, who has nothing in his mouth but things about silver,
when you behold him healed by some Peter, who takes the stater, which is the
symbol of all his avarice, not only from his mouth and words, but from his whole
character. For you will say that such an ode was in the sea, and in the bitter
affairs of life, and in the waves of the cares and anxieties of avarice, having
the staler in his mouth when he was un believing and avaricious, but that he
came up from the sea and was caught in the rational net, and being benefited by
some Peter who has taught him the truth, no longer has the stater in his mouth,
but in place of it those things which contain His image, the oracles of God.

13. The Sacred Half-Shekel.

Moreover to the saying, "They that received the half-shekel came to Peter,"92
you will adduce from Numbers that, for the saints according to the law of God,
is paid not a half-shekel simply, but a sacred half-shekel. For it is written,
"And thou shale take five shekels per head, according to the sacred
half-shekel."93 But also on behalf of all the sons of Israel is given a sacred
half-shekel per head. Since then it was not possible for the saint of God to
possess along with the sacred half-shekels the profane shekels, so to speak, on
this account, to them who do not receive the sacred half-shekels, and who asked
Peter and said, "Doth not your master pay the half-shekel? "the Saviour commands
the stater to be paid, in which was the half-shekel which was found in the mouth
of the first fish that came up, in order that it might be given for the Teacher
and the disciple.

14. Concerning Those Who Said, Who is the Greatest? and Concerning the Child
that Was Called by Jesus.

"In that day came the disciples unto Jesus saying, Who then is greatest in the
kingdom of heaven? "94 In order that we might be taught what it was that the
disciples came to Jesus and asked to learn of Him, and how He answered to their
inquiry, Matthew, though he might have given an account of this very thing only,
has added, according to some manuscripts, "In that hour the disciples came unto
Jesus," but, according to others, "In that day; "and it is necessary that we
should not leave the meaning of the evangelist without examination. Wherefore
giving attention to the words preceding "in that day," or "hour," let us see if
it is possible from them to find a way to understand, as being necessary, the
addition, "in that day," or "hour." Jesus then had come to Capernaum along with
His disciples, where "they that received the half-shekel came to Peter," and
asked and said, "Doth not your Master pay the half-shekel? "Then, when Peter
answered and said to them, Yea, Jesus giving further a defence with reference to
the giving of the half-shekel, sends Peter to drag up the fish into the net, in
the mouth of which He said that a stater would be found which was to be given
for Himself and Peter. It seems to me, then, that thinking that this was a very
great honour which had been bestowed on Peter by Jesus, who judged that he was
greater than the rest of His friends, they wished to learn accurately the truth
of their suspicion, by making inquiry of Jesus and hearing from Him, whether, as
they supposed, He had judged that Peter was greater than they; and at the same
time also they hoped to learn the ground on which Peter had been preferred to
the rest of the disciples. Matthew then, I think, wishing to make this plain,
has subjoined to the words "that take"-the stater, to-wit-"and give auto them
for thee and me," the words, "In that day came the disciples unto Jesus, saying,
Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? "95 And, perhaps, they were
also in doubt because of the preference which had been given to the three at the
transfiguration, and they were in doubt about this-which of the three was judged
by the Lord to be greatest. For John reclined on His breast through love, and we
may conclude that before the Supper they had seen many tokens of special honour
given by Jesus to John; but Peter on his confession was called blessed in their
hearing, because of his saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;
"96 but again because of the saying, "Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a
stumbling-block unto Me, for thou mindest not the things of God hut the things
of men,"97 they were distracted in mind as to whether it was not he but one of
the sons of Zebedee, that was the greatest. So much for the words "in that day"
or "hour," on which took place the matters relating to the stater.

15. Greatness Varies in Degree. But next we must seek to understand this: the
disciples came to Him, as disciples to a teacher proposing difficult questions,
and making inquiry, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?98 And, in
this respect, we must imitate the disciples of Jesus; for if, at any time, any
subject of investigation among us should not be found out let us go with all
unanimity in regard to the question in dispute to Jesus, who is present where
two or three are gathered together in His name, and is ready by His presence
with power to illumine the hearts of those who truly desire to become His
disciples, with a view to their apprehension of the matters under inquiry. And
likewise it would be nothing strange for us to go to any of those who have been
appointed by God as teachers in the church, and propose any question of a like
order to this, "Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? "What, then,
was already known to the disciples of the matters relating to this question? And
what was the point under inquiry? That there is not equality in regard to those
who are deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven they had apprehended, and that,
as there was not equality, some one was greatest, and so in succession down to
the least: but of what nature was the greatest, and what was the way of life of
him who was the least, and who occupied the middle position, they further
desired to know; unless, indeed, it is more accurate to say that they knew who
was least from the words, "Whosoever shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of
heaven; "but who was the greatest of all they did not know, even if they had
grasped the meaning of the words, "Whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; "99 for as there were many
great, it was not clear to them who was the greatest of the great, to use a
human standard. And that many are great, but the great not equally great, will
be manifest from the ascription of the epithet "great" to Isaac, "who waxed
great, and became exceedingly great,"100 and from what is said in the case of
Moses, and John the Baptist, and the Saviour. And every one will acknowledge
that even though all these were great according to the Scripture, yet the
Saviour was greater than they. But whether John also (than whom there was no
greater among those born of women),101 was greater than Isaac and Moses, or
whether he was not greater, but equal to both, or to one of them, it would be
hazardous to declare. And from the saying, "But Isaac, waxing great, became
greater,"102 until he became not simply great, but with the twice repeated
addition, "exceedingly," we may learn that there is a difference among the
great, as one is great, and another exceedingly great, and another exceedingly
exceedingly great. The disciples, therefore, came to Jesus and sought to learn,
who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and perhaps they wished to learn,
hearing from Him sometimes like this, "A certain one is greatest in the kingdom
of heaven; "but He gives a universal turn to the discourse, showing what was the
quality of him who was greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Let us seek to
understand, from what is written, to the best of our ability, who this is. "For
Jesus called a little child,"103 etc.

16. Why the Great are Compared to Little Children. But first we may expound it
in simple fashion. One, expounding the word of the Saviour here after the simple
method, might say that, if any one who is a man mortifies the lusts of manhood,
putting to death by the spirit the deeds of the body, and" always bearing about
in the body the putting to death of Jesus,"104 to such a degree that he has the
condition of the little child who has not tasted sensual pleasures, and has had
no conception of the impulses of manhood, then such an one is converted, and has
become as the little children. And the greater the advance he has made towards
the condition of the little children in regard to such emotions, by so much the
more as compared with those who are in training and have not advanced to so
great a height of self-control, is he the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But
that which has been said about little children in respect of lustful pleasures,
the same might also be said in regard to the rest of the affections and
infirmities and sicknesses of the soul, into which it is not the nature of
little children to fall, who have not yet fully attained to the possession of
reason; as, for example, that, if any one be converted, and, though a man, such
an one becomes as a child in respect of anger; and, as is the child in relation
to grief, so that sometimes he laughs and plays at the very time that his father
or mother or brother is dead, he who is converted would become such an one as
little children; and, having received from the Word a disposition incapable of
grief, so that he becomes like the little child in regard to grief. And the like
you will say about what is called pleasure, in regard to which the wicked are
irrationally lifted up, from which little children do not suffer, nor such as
have been converted and become as little children. As, then, it has been
accurately demonstrated also by others, that no passion is incident to the
little children who have not yet attained to full possession of reason; and if
no passion, clearly fear also; but, it there be anything corresponding to the
passions, these are faint, and very quickly suppressed, and healed in the case
of little children, so that he is worthy of love, who, being converted as the
little children, has reached such a point as to have, as it were, his passions
in subjection like the little children. And with regard to fear, therefore,
similar things to those spoken might be conceived, that the little children do
not experience the fear of the wicked, but a different thing, to which those who
have an accurate knowledge of questions in regard to the passions and their
names give the name of fear; as, for example, in the case of children there is a
forgetfulness of their evils at the very time of their tears, for they change in
a moment, and laugh and play along with those who were thought to grieve and
terrify them, but in truth had wrought in them no such emotion. So too,
moreover, one will humble himself like the little child which Jesus called; for
neither haughtiness, nor conceit in respect of noble birth, or wealth, or any of
those things which are thought to be good, but are not, comes to a little child.
Wherefore you may see those who are not altogether infants, up to three or four
years of age, like to those who are of mean birth, though they may seem to be of
noble birth, and not appearing at all to love rich children rather than the
poor. If, therefore, in the same way as according to their age children are
affected towards those passions which exalt the senseless, the disciple of Jesus
under the influence of reason105 has humbled himself like the little child which
Jesus showed, not being exalted because of vainglory, nor puffed up on the
ground of wealth, or raiment, nor elated because of noble birth, in particular
are they to be received and imitated in the name of Jesus, who have been
converted as the Word showed, like the little child which Jesus took to Him;
since especially in such the Christ is, and therefore He says, "Whosoever shall
receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me. "106 17. The Little Ones
and Their Stumbling-Blocks. But it is a hard task to expound what follows in
logical harmony with what has already been said; for one might say, how is it
that he who is converted and has become as the little children, is a little one
among such as believe in Jesus, and is capable of being caused to stumble? And
likewise let us attempt to explain this coherently. Every one that gives his
adherence to Jesus as the Son of God according to the true history concerning
Him, and by deeds done according to the Gospel, is on the way to living the life
which is according to virtue, is converted and is on the way towards becoming as
the little children; and it is impossible for him not to enter into the kingdom
of heaven. There are, indeed, many such; but not all, who are converted with a
view to becoming like the little children, have reached the point of being made
like unto little children; but each wants so much of the likeness to the little
children, as he falls short of the disposition of little children towards the
passions, of which we have spoken. In the whole multitude, then, of believers,
are also those who, having been, as it were, just converted in regard to their
becoming as the little children, at the very point of their conversion that they
may become as the little children, are called little; and those of them, who are
converted that they may become as the little children, but fall far short of
having truly become as the little children, are capable of being caused to
stumble; each of whom falls so far short of the likeness to them, as he falls
short of the disposition of children towards the passions, of which we have
spoken, to whom we ought not to give occasions of stumbling-block; but, if it be
otherwise, he who has caused him to stumble will require, as contributing
towards his cure, to have "an ass's millstone hanged about his neck, and be sunk
into the depths of the sea."107 For, in this way, when he has paid the due
penalty in the sea, where is "the dragon which God formed to play in it,"108
and, so far as is expedient for the end in view, has been punished and undergone
suffering, he shall then109 have his part in those troubles which belong to the
depths of the sea, which he endured when he was dragged down by the ass's
millstone. For there are also differences of millstones, so that one of them may
be, so to call it, the millstone of a man, and another that of an ass; and that
is human, about which it is written, "Two women shall be grinding at the mill;
one is taken and one is left; "110 but the millstone of the ass is that which
shall be put round him who has given occasion of stumbling-block. But some one
might say-I know not whether he would speak soundly or erroneously-that the
ass's millstone is the heavy body of the wicked man, which is sunken downwards,
and which he will receive at the resurrection that he may be sunk in the abyss
which is called the depth of the sea, where "is the dragon which God formed to
play therein."111 But another will refer the creating of a stumbling-block to
one of the little ones to the powers that are unseen by men; for from these
arise many stumbling-blocks to the little ones pointed out by Jesus. But when
they cause to stumble one of the little ones pointed out by Jesus, who are
believers in Him, he shall assume an ass's millstone, the corruptible body which
presses heavily on the soul, which is itself hung from the neck, which is
dragged down to the affairs in this life, that by means of these their conceit
may be taken away, and having paid the penalty, they shall come, through means
of the ass's millstone, to the condition expedient for them.

18. Who Was the Little Child Called by Jesus.

Now another interpretation different from what is called the simpler may be
uttered; whether as dogma, or for the sake of exercise, so to speak, let us also
inquire what was the little child who was called by Jesus and set in the midst
of the disciples. Now consider if you can say that the little child, whom Jesus
called, was the Holy Spirit who humbled Himself, when He was called by the
Saviour, and set in the midst of the reason of the disciples of Jesus; if,
indeed, He wishes us, being turned away from everything else, to be turned
towards the examples suggested by the Holy Spirit, so that we may so become as
the little children, who are themselves also turned and likened to the Holy
Spirit; which little children God gave to the Saviour, according to what is said
in Isaiah, "Behold, I and the little children which God has given to me."112 And
it is not possible for any one to enter into the kingdom of heaven, who has not
been turned away from the affairs of this world, and made like unto the little
children who possess the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit was called by Jesus,
and, descending from His own perfection to men as a little child, was set by
Jesus in the midst of the disciples. It is necessary, then, for him who has
turned away from the desires of this world to humble himself not simply as the
little child, but, according to what is written, "as this little child."113 But
to humble oneself as that little child is to imitate the Holy Spirit, who
humbled Himself for the salvation of men. Now, that the Saviour and the Holy
Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of men has been declared in
Isaiah, in the person of the Saviour, saying, "And now the Lord hath sent me and
His Spirit."114 You must know, however, that this expression is ambiguous; for
either God sent, but also the Holy Spirit sent, the Saviour; or, as we have
taken it, the Father sent both-the Saviour and the Holy Spirit. He, therefore,
who has humbled himself more than all those who have humbled themselves in
imitation of that little child, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. For
there are many who are willing to humble themselves as that little child; but
the man, who in every respect has become like to the little child who humbled
himself, in the name of Jesus-especially in Jesus Himself,-in reality, would be
found to be he who is named greater than all in the kingdom of heaven. But as he
receives Jesus, whosoever receives one such of the little children in His name,
so he rejects Jesus and casts Him out, who does not wish to receive one such
little child in the name of Jesus. But if, also, there is a difference in those
who are deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, as believers receive more or less of
the Holy Spirit, there would be some little ones among those who believe in God
who can be made to stumble: to avenge whose being made to stumble the Word says,
with reference to those who had caused them to stumble, "It is profitable for
him that an ass's millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should
be sunk in the depth of the sea."115 Let these things be said in regard to the
passage of Matthew before us.

19. The Parallel Passages in Mark and Luke. But let us consider also the like
account in the other Evangelists. Mark,116 then, says, that the Twelve reasoned
in the way as to which of them was the greatest. Wherefore He sat down, and
called them, and teaches who is the greatest, saying, that he who became last of
all by means of his moderation and gentleness, would as the greatest obtain the
first place, so that he did not receive the place of one who was being
ministered unto, but the place of one who ministered, and that not to some but
not to others, but to all absolutely; for attend to the words, "If any man would
be first he shall be last of all, and minister of all."117 And next to that He
says, that "He,"-Jesus to-wit-"took a little child, and set him in the midst of
His own disciples, and taking him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever
shall receive one of the little children in My name receiveth Me."118 But what
was the little child which Jesus took and placed in His arms, according to the
deeper meaning in the passage? Was it the Holy Spirit? And to this little child,
indeed, some were likened, of whom He said, "Whosoever shall receive one of such
little children in My name receiveth Me." According to Luke, however, the
reasoning did not arise spontaneously in the disciples, but was suggested to
them by the question, "which of them should be greatest."119 And Jesus, seeing
the reasoning of their heart, as He had eyes that see the reasonings of
hearts,-seeing the reasoning of their heart,-without being questioned, according
to Luke, "took the little child and set him," not in the midst alone, as Matthew
and Mark have said, but now, also, "by His side," and said to the disciples, not
only, "Whosoever shall receive one such little child," or, "Whosoever shall
receive one of such little ones in My name receiveth Me," but, now going even a
step higher, "Whosoever shall receive this little child in My name receiveth
Me."120 It is necessary, therefore, according to Luke, to receive in the name of
Jesus that very little child which Jesus took and placed by His side. And I know
not if there be any one who can interpret figuratively the word, "Whosoever
shall receive this little child in My name." For it is necessary that each of us
should receive in the name of Jesus that little child which Jesus then took and
set by His side; for he lives as immortal, and we must receive him from Jesus
Himself in the name of Jesus; and without being separated from him, Jesus is
with him who receives the little child, so that according to this it is said,
"Whosoever shall receive this little child in My name receiveth Me." Then, since
the Father is inseparable from the Son, He is with him who receives the Son.
Wherefore it is said, "And whosoever shall receive Me receives Him that sent
Me."121 But he who has received the little child, and the Saviour, and Him that
sent Him, is least of all the disciples of Jesus, making himself little. But, so
far as he belittles himself, to that extent does he become great; as that very
thing, which caused him the more to make himself little, contributes to his
advance in greatness; for attend to what is said, "He that is least among you
all the same is great; "but in other manuscripts we read, "The same shall be
great." Now, according to Luke, "If any one shall not receive the kingdom of God
as the little child, he shall in no wise enter therein."122 And this expression
is ambiguous; for either it means that he who receives the kingdom of God may
become as a little child, or, that he may receive the kingdom of God, which has
become to him as a little child. And perhaps here those who receive the kingdom
of God receive it, when it is as a little child, but in the world to come no
longer as a little child; and they receive the greatness of the perfection in
the spiritual manhood, so to speak, which perfection is manifested to all who in
the present time receive it, when it is here as a little child.

20. The World and Offences. Various Meanings of World.

"Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling."123 The expression
"cosmos," is used in itself and absolutely in the passage, "He was in the cosmos
and the cosmos knew Him not,"124 but it is used relatively and in respect of its
connection with that of which it is the cosmos, in the words, "Lest you look up
to the heaven, and seeing the sun, and the moon, and all the cosmos of the
heavens, you should stray and bow down to them and worship them."125 And the
like you will find in the Book of Esther, spoken about her, when it is written,
stripping off all her "cosmos."126 For the word "cosmos," simply, is not the
same as the "cosmos" of heaven, or the "cosmos" of Esther; and this which we are
now investigating is another. I think, then, that the world is not this
compacted whole of heaven and earth according to the Divine Scriptures, but only
the place which is round about the earth, and this is not to be conceived in
respect of the whole earth, but only in respect of ours which is inhabited; for
the true light "was in the world," that is, in the place which is around,
conceived in relation to our part of the earth; "and the world knew Him not,"127
that is, the men in the region round about, and perhaps also the powers that
have an affinity to this place. For it is monstrous to understand by the world
here the compacted whole formed of heaven and earth, and those in it; so that it
could be said, that the sun and moon and the choir of the stars and the angels
in all this world, did not know the true light, and, though ignorant of it,
preserved the order which God had appointed for them. But when it is said by the
Saviour in the prayer to the Father, "And, now, glorify me, O Father, with Thine
own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the worldwas,"128 you must
understand by the "world," that which is inhabited by us on the earth; for it
was from this world that the Father gave men to the Son, in regard to whom alone
the Saviour beseeches His Father, and not for the whole world of men. Moreover,
also, when the Saviour says, "And I come to thee and am no longer in the
world,"129 He speaks of the terrestrial world; for it is not to be supposed that
He spoke things contradictory when He said, "And I come to thee, and I am no
longer in the world," and "I am in the world." But also in this, "And these
things I speak in the world,"130 we must think of the place round about the
earth. And this is clearly indicated also by the words, "And the world hated
them, because they are not of the world."131 For it hated us from the time when
we no longer "look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not
seen,"132 because of the teaching of Jesus; not the world of heaven and earth
and them that are therein, all compacted together but the men on the earth along
with us. And the saying, "They are not of the world,"133 is equivalent to, They
are not of the place round about the earth. And so also the disciples of Jesus
are not of this world, as He was not of the world. And further also the saying,
"That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,"134 twice spoken in the
Gospel according to John, does not refer to the things that are superior to men,
but to men who need to believe that the Father sent the Son into the world here.
Yea, and also in the Apostle, "Your faith is proclaimed in the whole world."135
21. The "Woe" Does Not Apply to the Disciples of Jesus. But if there is woe unto
men everywhere on the earth, because of occasions of stumbling to those who are
laid hold of by them; but the disciples are not of the world, as they do not
look at things seen, like as the Master is not of this world; to no one of the
disciples of Jesus does the "woe because of occasions of stumbling" apply, since
"great peace have they who love the law of God, and there is to them no occasion
of stumbling."136 But if any one seems to be called a disciple, but yet is of
the world, because of his loving the world, and the things therein,-I mean, the
life in the place round about the earth, and the property in it, or the
possessions, or any form of wealth whatsoever,-so that the saying, "they are not
of the world,"137 does not fit him; to him, as being really of the world, shall
come that which happens to the world, the "woe, because of occasions of
stumbling." But let him who wishes to avoid this woe not be a lover of life, but
let him say with Paul," "The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the
world."138 For the saints while "in the tabernacle, do groan being burdened"139
with "the body of humiliation," and do all things that they may become worthy to
be found in the mystery of the resurrection, when God shall fashion anew the
body of humiliation not of all, but of those who have been truly made disciples
to Christ, so that it may be conformed to the body of the glory of Christ.140
For as none of the "woes" happen to any of the disciples of Christ, so does not
this "woe, because of occasions of stumbling; "for, supposing that thousands of
occasions should arise, they shall not touch those who are no longer of the
world. But if any one, because of his faith wanting ballast, and the instability
of his submission in regard to the Word of God, is capable of being caused to
stumble, let him know that he is not called by Jesus His disciple. Now we must
suppose that so many stumbling-blocks come, that, as a result, the woes extend
not to some parts of the earth, but to the whole "world" which is in it.

22. What the "Occasions of Stumbling" Are.

"And it must needs be thai occasions of stumbling come, "141 which I take to be
different from the men by whom they come. The occasions then which come are an
army of the devil, his angels, and a wicked band of impure spirits, which,
seeking out instruments through whom they will work, often find men altogether
strangers to piety, and sometimes even some of those who are thought to believe
the Word of God, for whom exists a worse woe than that which comes to him who is
caused to stumble, just as also it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in
the day of judgment,142 than for the places where Jesus did signs and wonders,
and yet was not believed. But as one might undertake to make a collection from
the Scriptures of those who are pronounced blessed, and of the things in respect
of which they are so called, so also he might undertake to do with the woes
which are written, and those in whose case the woes are spoken. But that the woe
is worse in the case of him who causes to stumble, than in him who is made to
stumble, you may prove by the passage, "Whoso shall cause to stumble one of
these little ones which believe in Me, it is profitable for him,"143 etc.; for,
while the little one who is made to stumble receives retribution from him who
caused him to stumble, it is expedient that the severe and intolerable
punishment which is written should befall the man who has caused the stumbling.
But if we were to give more careful consideration to these things, we should be
on our guard against sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience
when it is weak, lest we sin against Christ;144 as often our brethren about us,
"for whom Christ died," perish, not only through our knowledge, but also through
some other causes connected with us; in the case of whom, we, sinning against
Christ, shall pay the penalty, the soul of them who perish through us being
required of us.

23. In What Sense "Necessary."

Next we must test accurately the meaning of the word "necessity" in the passage,
"For there is a necessity that the occasions come, "145 and to the like effect
in Luke, "It is 'inadmissible' but that occasions of stumbling should come,"146
instead of "impossible." And as it is necessary that that which is mortal should
die, and it is impossible but that it should die, and as it must needs be that
he who is in the body should be fed, for it is impossible for one who is not fed
to live, so it is necessary and impossible but that occasions of stumbling
should arise, since there is a necessity also that wickedness should exist
before virtue in men, from which wickedness stumbling-blocks arise; for it is
impossible that a man should be found altogether sinless, and who, without sin,
has attained to virtue. For the wickedness in the evil powers, which is the
primal source of the wickedness among men, is altogether eager to work through
certain instruments against the men in the world. And perhaps also the wicked
powers are more exasperated when they are cast out by the word of Jesus, and
their worship is lessened, their customary sacrifices not being offered unto
them; and there is a necessity that these offences come; but there is no
necessity that they should come through any particular one; wherefore the "woe"
falls on the man through whom the stumbling-block comes, as he has given a place
to the wicked power whose purpose it is to create a stumbling-block. But do not
suppose that by nature, and from constitution, there are certain
stumbling-blocks which seek out men through whom they come; for as God did not
make death, so neither did He create stumbling-blocks; but free-will begot the
stumbling-blocks in some who did not wish to endure toils for virtue.

24. The Offending Hand, or Foot, or Eye. And it is well, then, if the eye and
the hand are deserving of praise, that the eye cannot with reason say to the
hand, "I have no need of thee."147 But if any one in the whole body of the
congregations of the church, who because of his practical girls has the name of
hand, should change and become a hand causing to stumble, let the eye say to
such a hand, "I have no need of thee," and, saying it, let him cut it off and
cast it from him.148 And so it is well, if any head be blessed, and the feet
worthy of the blessed head, so that the head observing the things which are
becoming to itself, may not be able to say to the feet, "I have no need of you."
If, however, any foot be found to become a stumbling-block to the whole body,
let the head say to such a foot, "I have no need of thee," and having cat it
off, let him cast it from himself; for even it is much better that the rest of
the body should enter into life, wanting the foot or the hand which caused the
stumbling-block, rather than, when the stumbling-block has spread over the whole
body, it should be cast into the hell of fire with the two feet or the two
hands. And so it is well, that he who can become the eye of the whole body
should be worthy of Christ and of the whole body; but if such an eye should ever
change, and become a stumbling-block to the whole body, it is well to take it
out and cast it outside the whole body, and that the rest of the body without
that eye should be saved, rather than that along with it, when the whole body
has been corrupted, the whole body should be cast into the hell of fire.149 For
the practical faculty of the soul, if prone to sin, and the walking faculty of
the soul, so to speak, if prone to sin, and the faculty of clear vision, if
prone to sin, may be the hand that causes to stumble, and the foot that causes
to stumble, and the eye that causes to stumble, which things it is better to
cast away, and having put them aside to enter into life without them, like as
one halt, or maimed, or one-eyed, rather than along with them to lose the whole
soul. And likewise in the case of the soul it is a good and blessed thing to use
its power for the noblest ends; but if we are going to lose one for any cause,
it is better to lose the use of it, that along with the other powers we may be
saved.

25. The Eye or Hand Allegorized. And it is possible to apply these words also to
our nearest kinsfolk, who are our members, as it were; being considered to be
our members, because of the close relationship; whether by birth, or from any
habitual friendship, so to speak; whom we must not spare if they are injuring
our soul. For let us cut off from ourselves as a hand or a foot or an eye, a
father or mother who wishes us to do that which is contrary to piety, and a son
or daughter who, as far as in them lies, would have us revolt from the church of
Christ and the love of Him. But even if the wife of our bosom, or a friend who
is kindred in soul, become stumbling-blocks to us, let us not spare them, but
let us cut them out from ourselves, and cast them outside of our soul, as not
being truly our kindred but enemies of our salvation; for "whosoever hates not
his father, and mother,"150 and the others subjoined, when it is the fitting
season to hate them as enemies and assailants, that he may be able to win
Christ, this man is not worthy of the Son of God. And in respect of these we may
say, that from a critical position any lame one, so to speak, is saved, when he
has lost a foot-say a brother-and alone obtains the inheritance of the kingdom
of God; and a maimed one is saved, when his father is not saved, but they
perish, while he is separated from them, that he alone may obtain the
benedictions. And so also any one is saved with one eye, who has cut out the eye
of his own house, his wife, if she commit fornication, lest having two eyes he
may go away into the hell of fire.

26. The Little Ones and Their Angels.

"See that ye despise not one of these little ones."151 It seems to me that as
among the bodies of men there are differences in point of size,-so that some are
little, and others great, and others of middle height, and, again, there are
differences among the little, as they are more or less little, and the same
holds of the great, and of those of middle height,-so also among the souls of
men, there are some things which give them the stamp of littleness, and other
things the stamp of greatness, so to speak, and generally, after the analogy of
things bodily, other things the siam p of mediocrity. But in the case of bodies,
it is not due to the action of men but to the spermatic principles, that one is
short and little, another great, and another of middle height; but in the case
of souls, it is our free-will, and actions of such a kind, and habits of such a
kind, that furnish the reason why one is great, or little, or of middle height;
and it is of our free-will either by advancing in stature to increase our size,
or not advancing to be short. And so indeed I understand the words about Jesus
having assumed a human soul, "Jesus advanced; "152 for as from the free-will
there was an advance of His soul in wisdom and grace, so also in stature. And
the Apostle says, "Until we all attain unto a full-grown man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ; "153 for we must think that he attains
unto a man, and that full-grown, according to the inner man, who has gone
through the things of the child, and has reached the stage of the man, and has
put away the things of the child, and generally, has perfected the things of the
man.154 And so we must suppose that there is a certain measure of spiritual
stature unto which the most perfect soul can attain by magnifying the Lord, and
become great. Thus, then, these became great, of whom this is written, Isaac,
and Moses, and John, and the Saviour Himself above all; for also about Him
Gabriel said, "He shall be great; "155 but the little ones are "the newborn
babes which long for the reasonable milk which is without guile,"156 such as
stand in need of nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers, spoken of in Isaiah when
he says, about the calling from the Gentiles, "And they shall bring the sons in
the bosom, and take their daughters on the shoulders, and kings shall be thy
nursing-fathers and their princesses thy nursing-mothers."157 For these reasons
you will, then, attend to the word, "Do not despise one of these little
ones,"158 and consider whether it is their angels who bring them in their bosom,
since they have become sons, and also take on their shoulders what are called
daughters, and whether from them are the nursing-fathers who are called kings,
and the nursing-mothers who are called princesses. And since the little ones,
pointed out by our Saviour, are under the stewardship as of nursing-fathers and
nursing-mothers, on this account I think that Moses, who believed that he had
been already assigned a place among the ranks of the great, said, with regard to
the promise, "My angel shall go before you,"159 "If thou thyself do not go along
with me, carry me not up hence."160 For though the little one even be an heir,
yet as being a child he differs nothing from a servant when he is a child,161
and to the extent to which he is little "has the spirit of bondage to fear; "162
but he who is not at all any longer such has no longer the spirit of bondage,
but already the spirit of adoption, when "perfect love casteth out fear; "163 it
will be plain to thee, how that according to these things "the angel of the
Lord" is said "to encamp round about them that fear Him, and to save them."164
But you will consider, according to these things also, whether these are indeed
angels of the little ones "who are led by the spirit of bondage to fear," "when
the angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him and delivereth
them; "but of the great, whether it is the Lord who is greater than the angels,
who might say about each of them, "I am with him in affliction; "165 and, so
long as we are imperfect, and need one to assist us that we may be delivered
from evils, we stand in need of an angel of whom Jacob said, "The angel who
delivered me from all the evils; "166 but, when we have become perfected, and
have passed through the stage of being subject to nursing-fathers and
nursing-mothers and guardians and stewards,167 we are meet to be governed by the
Lord Himself.

27. When the Little Ones are Assigned to Angels.

Then again one might inquire at what time those who are called their angels
assume guardianship of the little ones pointed out by Christ; whether they
received this commission to discharge concerning them, from what time "by the
laver of regeneration,"168 through which they were born "as new-born babes, they
long for the reasonable milk which is without guile,"169 and no longer are in
subjection to any wicked power; or, whether from birth they had been appointed,
according to the foreknowledge and predestination of God, over those whom God
also foreknew, and foreordained to be conformed to the glory of the Christ.170
And with reference to the view that they have angels from birth, one might
quote, "He who separated me from my mother's womb,"171 and, "From the womb of my
mother thou hast been my protector,"172 and, "He has assisted me from my
mother's womb,"173 and, "Upon thee I was cast from my mother,"174 and in the
Epistle of Jude, "To them that are beloved in God the Father and are kept for
Jesus Christ, being called,"175 -kept completely by the angels who keep them.

28. Close Relationship of Angels to Their "Little Ones." With reference to the
words, "When through the layer I became a child in Christ, " it may be said,
that there is no holy angel present with those who are still in wickedness, but
that during the period of unbelief they are under the angels of Satan;176 but,
after the regeneration, He who has redeemed us with His own blood consigns us to
a holy angel, who also, because of his purity, beholds the face of God. And a
third exposition of this passage might be something like the following, which
would say, that as it is possible for a man to change from unbelief to faith,
and from intemperance to temperance, and generally from wickedness to virtue, so
also it is possible that the angel, to whom any soul has been entrusted at
birth, may be wicked at the first, but afterwards may at some time believe in
proportion as the man believes, and may make such advance that he may become one
of the angels who always behold the face of the Father in heaven,177 beginning
from the time that he is yoked along with the man who was foreknown and
foreordained to believe at that time, the judgments of God, which are
unspeakable and unsearchable and like to the depths, fitly bringing together all
this harmonious relationship-angels with men. And it may be that as when a man
and his wife are both unbelievers, sometimes it is the man who first believes
and in time saves his wife, and sometimes the wife who begins and afterwards in
time persuades her husband, so it happens with angels and with men. If, however,
anything of this kind takes place in the case of other angels or not, you may
seek out for yourself. But consider whether it may not be appropriate to say
something of this kind in regard to each angel who is so honoured according to
the word of the Saviour, that he is said to behold always the face of the Father
who is in heaven. But since in what we said above, that the little ones have
angels, but that the great have passed beyond such a position, some one will
quote in opposition to US from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written,
that a certain maid Rhoda, when Peter knocked at the door, came to answer, and
recognizing the voice of Peter, ran in and announced that Peter stood before the
gate; but when they who were gathered together in the house wondered, and
thought that it was quite impossible that Peter verily stood before the gate,
they said, It is his angel.178 For the objector will say that, as they had
learned once for all that each of the believers had some definite angel, they
knew that Peter also had one. But he, who adheres to what we have previously
said, will say that the word of Rhoda was not necessarily a dogma, and perhaps
also the word of those who did not accurately know, when one as being little and
God-fearing is governed by angels, and when now by the Lord Himself. After this,
in order to establish our conception of the little one which we have brought
forward, it will be said that we need no command about "not despising" in the
case of the great, but we do need it in the case of the little; wherefore it is
not merely said, "Do not despise one of these," pointing to all the disciples,
but "one of these little ones,"179 pointed out by Him, who sees the littleness
and the greatness of the soul.

29. The Little Ones and the Perfect. But another might say that the perfect man
is here called little, applying the word, "For he that is least among you all,
the same is great,"180 and will affirm that he who humbles himself and becomes a
child in the midst of all that believe, though he be an apostle or a bishop, and
becomes such "as when a nurse cherisheth her own children,"181 is the little one
pointed out by Jesus, and that the angel of such an one is worthy to behold the
face of God. For to say that the little are here called perfect, according to
the passage, "He that is least among you all, the same is great."182 and as Paul
said, "Unto me who am less than the least of all saints was this grace
given,"183 will seem to be in harmony with the saying, "Whoso shall cause one of
these little ones to stumble,"184 and "So it is not the will of My Father in
heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."185 For he, as has been
stated, who is now little, could not be made to stumble nor perish, for "great
peace have they who love the law of God, and there is no stumbling-block to
them; "186 and he could not perish, who is least of all among all the disciples
of Christ, and on this account becomes great; and, since he could not perish, he
could say, "Who shall separate us from the love,"187 etc. But he who wishes to
maintain this last exposition will say that the soul even of the just man is
changeable, as Ezekiel also testifies, saying, that the righteous man may
abandon the commandments of God, so that his former righteousness is not
reckoned unto him;188 wherefore it is said, "Whoso shall cause to stumble one of
these little ones, and, "It is not the will of My Father which is in heaven that
one of these little ones should perish."189 [As for the exposition of the
matters relating to "the hundred sheep," you may consult the homilies on
Luke.190 ] 30. The Sinning Brother.

"If thy brother sin against thee, go, shew him his fault between thee and him
alone.191 " He, then, who attends closely to the expression, in proof of the
surpassing philanthropy of Jesus, will say, that as the words do not suggest a
difference of they will act in a singular manner and contrary to the goodness of
Jesus, who supply the thought, that these words are to be understood as being
limited in their application to lesser sins. But another, also attending closely
to the expression, and not wishing to introduce these extraneous thoughts, nor
admitting that it is spoken about every sin, will say, that he who commits those
great sins is not a brother, even if he be called a brother, as the Apostle
says, "If any one that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolater, etc., with such an one not to eat; "192 for no one who is all
idolater, or a fornicator, or covetous, is a brother; for if he, who seems to
bear the name of Christ, though he is named a brother, has something of the
features of these, he would not rightly be called a brother. As then he, who
says that such words are spoken about every sin, whether the sin be murder, or
poisoning, or paederasty, or anything of that sort, would give occasion of
injury to the exceeding goodness of Christ, so, on the contrary, he who
distinguishes between the brother and him who is called the brother, might teach
that, in the case of the least of the sins of men, he who has not repented after
the telling of the fault is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a publican, for sins
which are "not unto death,"193 or, as the law has described them in the Book of
Numbers, not "death-bringing."194 This would seem to be very harsh; for I do not
think that any one will readily be found who has not been censured thrice for
the same form of sin, say, reviling, with which revilers abuse their neighbours,
or those who are carried away by passion, or for over-drinking, or lying and
idle words, or any of those things which exist in the masses. You will inquire,
therefore, whether any observation of the passage has escaped the notice of
those, who are influenced by their conception of the goodness of the Word, and
grant pardon to those who have committed the greatest sins, as well as of those
who teach that, in the case of the very least sins, he is to be reckoned as a
Gentile and a publican, making him a stranger to the church, after he has
committed three very trivial transgressions. But the following seems to me to
have been overlooked by both of them, namely, the words, "Thou hast gained thy
brother."195 It is assigned by the Word to him only who heard, and He no longer
applies it in the case of him who has stumbled twice or thrice and been
censured; but that which was to be said about him who was censured twice or
thrice, corresponding to the saying, "Thou hast gained thy brother," He has left
in the air, so to speak. He is not, therefore, altogether gained, nor will he
altogether perish, or he will receive stripes. And attend carefully to the first
passage, "If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother," and to the second
passage, which is literally, "If he hear thee not, take with thyself one or two
more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established."196 What, then, will happen to him who has been censured for the
second time, after every word has been established by two or three witnesses, He
has left us to conceive. And, again, "If he refuse to hear them"-manifestly, the
witnesses who have been taken-"tell it," he says, "to the church; "197 and He
does not say what he will suffer if he does not hear the church, but He taught
that if he refused to hear the church, then he who had thrice admonished, and
had not been heard, was to regard him for the future as the Gentile and the
publican.198 Therefore he is not altogether gained, nor will he altogether
perish. But what at all he will suffer, who at first did not hear, but required
witnesses, or even refused to hear these, but was brought to the church, God
knows; for we do not declare it, according to the precept, "Judge not that ye be
not judged,"199 "until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden
things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts."200 But, with
reference to the seeming harshness in the case of those who have committed less
sins, one might say that it is not possible for him who has not heard twice in
succession to hear the third time, so as, on this account, no longer to be as a
Gentile or a publican, or no longer to stand in need of the censure in presence
of all the church. For we must bear in mind this, "So it is not the will of My
Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."201 For if "we
must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the
things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or
bad,"202 let each one with all his power do what he can so that he may not
receive punishment for more evil things done in the body, even if he is going to
receive back for all the wrongs which he has done; but it should be our ambition
to procure the reward for a greater number of good deeds, since "with what
measure we mete, it shall be measured to us,"203 and, "according to the works of
our own hands shall it happen unto us,"204 and not in infinite wise, but either
double or sevenfold shall sinners receive for their sins from the hand of the
Lord; since He does not render unto any one according to the works of his hands,
but more than that which he has done, for "Jerusalem," as Isaiah taught,
"received from the hand of the Lord double for her sins; "205 but the neighbours
of Israel, whoever they may be, will receive sevenfold, according to the
following expression in the Psalms, "Render unto our neighbours sevenfold into
their bosom the reproach with which they have reproached Thee, O Lord."206 And
other forms of payment in return could be found, which, if we apprehend, we
shall know that to repent after any sin, whatever its greatness, is
advantageous, in order that, in addition to our not being punished for more
offences, there may be some hope left to us concerning good deeds done
afterwards at some time, even though, before them, thousands of errors have been
committed by anyone of us. For it would be strange that evil deeds should be
reckoned to any one, but the better which are done after the bad should profit
nothing; which may also be learned from Ezekiel,207 by those who pay careful
consideration to the things said about such cases.

31. The Power to Bind on Earth and in Heaven. But to me it seems that, to the
case of him who after being thrice admonished was adjudged to be as the Gentile
and the publican, it is fitly subjoined, "Verily, I say unto you, "-namely, to
those who have judged any one to be as the Gentile and the publican,-"and what
things soever ye shall bind on the earth, "208 etc.; for with justice has he,
who has thrice admonished and not been heard, bound him who is judged to be as a
Gentile and a publican; wherefore, when such an one is bound and condemned by
one of this character, he remains bound, as no one of those in heaven overturns
the judgment of the man who bound him. And, in like manner, he who was
admonished once for all, and did things worthy of being gained, having been set
free by the admonition of the man who gained him, and no longer bound by the
cords of his own sins,209 for which he was admonished, shall be adjudged to have
been set free by those in heaven. Only, it seems to be indicated that the
things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give
the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard,
they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as
such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if
something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice
admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those
who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to thee
the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,"210 has been specially set before the
words, "And what things soever ye shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we
were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here,
and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who
have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in
the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small
difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in
order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one
heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on
earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the
case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with
power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.211 The better, therefore,
is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every
part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.

1: Matt. xvii. 10.

2: Matt. xvii, 12.

3: Matt. xvii. l2.

4: Matt. xvii. 13.

5: 2 Cor iv. 18.

6: Matt. xxiv. 35.

7: 1 Cor. vii. 31.

8: Ps. cii. 26.

9: Matt. xxiv. 35.

10: Luke xviii, 8.

11: Matt. xxiv. 37-39.

12: Luke i. 13.

13: Luke i. 63.

14: Luke i. 16, 17.

15: Luke i. 16, 17.

16: Dan. iii. 86. (Song of the Three Children v. 64.) 17: 1 Cor. xiv. 32.

18: 2 Kings ii. 15.

19: Rom, viii. 16.

20: 1 Cor. ii. 11.

21: 2 Kings ii. 11.

22: Luke i. 15, 17.

23: Ps. li. 12.

24: Ps. li. 10.

25: Isa. xi. 2.

26: Isa. xi. 2.

27: Matt. xvii. 12.

28: Matt. xvii. 13.

29: Cf. Luke i. 17.

30: Mal. iv. 5, 6.

31: Matt. xvii. 11.

32: John i. 1.

33: Matt. xvii. 12.

34: Cf. Matt. xxv. 35.

35: Rom. viii. 8, 9.

36: Matt. xvii. 12.

37: Matt. xvii. 10.

38: Matt. xvii. 12.

39: Matt. xvii. 12.

40: Matt. xvii. 14, 15.

41: 1 Cor. ii. 7.

42: Eph. vi. 12.

43: Hos. vii. 4.

44: Ecclus. xxvii. 11.

45: 1 Cor. xiii. 2.

46: Matt. xvii. 20.

47: Cf. Matt. xiii. 31, 32.

48: Gen. i. 16.

49: Ps. lxxiii. i, 9.

50: Ps. lxxiii. i, 9.

51: Ps. xxxi. 18.

52: Exod. iv. 11.

53: Matt. xvii. 17.

54: Matt. xvii. 20.

55: 1 Cor. xiii. 2.

56: Matt. xvii. 20.

57: Matt. xvii. 21.

58: Matt. xvii. 22.

59: Matt. xvi. 21.

60: Matt. xvii. 22.

61: Rom. viii. 32.

62: John i. 29.

63: Job i, 12.

64: Job i, 15-19.

65: Eph. ii. 2.

66: Job i. 16.

67: John xiii. 27.

68: 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8.

69: 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8.

70: Heb. ii. 14, 15.

71: John xiv. 6.

72: Ezek. xviii. 4.

73: John xviii. 36.

74: Matt. iv. 9.

75: Ps. ii. 2.

76: Ps. ii. 3.

77: Rm. viii. 32.

78: Rom. vi. 4.

79: Matt. iv. 16.

80: Matt. xvii. 22, 23.

81: Heb. ii. 14.

82: Matt. xvii. 24.

83: Exod. i. 13, 14.

84: Phil. ii. 7.

85: Mark xli. 17; Luke xx. 25.

86: Col i. 15.

87: Col i. 15.

88: Matt. xvii. 25.

89: Matt. xvii. 26.

90: John viii. 34.

91: Matt. xvii. 27.

92: Matt. xvii. 24.

93: Num. iii. 47.

94: Matt. xviii. 1.

95: Matt. xvii. 27; xviii. 1.

96: Matt. xvi. 16, 17.

97: Matt. xvi. 23.

98: Matt. xviii. 1.

99: Matt. v. 19.

100: Gen. xxvi. 13.

101: Matt. xi. 11.

102: Gen. xxvi. 13.

103: Matt. xviii. 2.

104: 2 Cor. iv. 10.

105: Or , the Word.

106: Matt. xviii. 5.

107: Matt. xviii. 6.

108: Ps. civ. 26.

109: Or , be free from. The Vetus Inter . has " extra dolores ." It has had ecw
instead of echj .

110: Matt. xxiv. 41.

111: Ps. civ. 26.

112: Psa. viii. 18.

113: Matt. xviii. 4.

114: Isa. xlviii. 16.

115: Matt. xviii. 6.

116: Mark ix. 33, 34.

117: Mark ix. 35.

118: Mark ix. 36, 37.

119: Luke ix. 46.

120: Luke ix. 47, 48.

121: Luke ix. 48.

122: Luke xviii. 17.

123: Matt. xviii. 7.

124: John i. 10.

125: Deut. iv. 19.

126: Lomm., following Huet. refers to Esther (The addition to Esther, xiv. 2).
But the word kosmoj does not occur in this passage. see Judith x, 4; I Macc. ii
II.

127: John i. 10.

128: John xvii. 5.

129: John xvii. 11.

130: John xvii. 11.

131: John xvii. 14.

132: 2 Cor. iv. 18.

133: John xvii. 21.

134: John xvii. 21, 23.

135: Rom i, 8.

136: Ps. cxix. 165.

137: John xvii. 16.

138: Gal. vi. 14.

139: 2 Cor. v. 4.

140: Phil. iii. 21.

141: Matt. xviii. 7.

142: Matt. xi. 22.

143: Matt. xviii. 6.

144: 1 Cor. viii. 11, 12 145: Matt. xviii. 7.

146: Luke xviii. 1.

147: Cor. xii. 21.

148: Matt. xviii. 8.

149: Cf. Matt. xviii. 9.

150: Luke xiv. 26.

151: Matt. xviii. 10.

152: Luke ii. 52.

153: Eph. iv. 13.

154: Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 11.

155: Luke i. 32.

156: 1 Pet. ii. 2.

157: Isa.xlix. 22, 23.

158: Matt. xviii. 10.

159: Exod. xxxii. 34.

160: Exod. xxxiii. 15.

161: Gal. iv. 1.

162: Rom. viii. 15.

163: Rom. viii. 15.

164: Ps. xxxiv. 7.

165: Ps. xci. 15.

166: Gen. xlviii. 16.

167: Gal. iv. 4.

168: Tit. iii. 5.

169: 1 Pet. ii. 2.

170: Rom viii. 29.

171: Gal i. 15.

172: Ps. lxxi. 6.

173: Ps. cxxxix. 13.

174: Ps. xxii. 10.

175: Jude 1 176: The text is perhaps corrupt.

177: Matt. xviii. 10.

178: Acts xii. 13-15.

179: Matt. xviii. 10.

180: Luke ix. 48.

181: 1 Thess. ii. 7.

182: Luke ix. 48.

183: Eph. iii. 8.

184: Matt. xviii. 6.

185: Matt. xviii. 14.

186: Ps. cxix. 165.

187: Rom. viii. 35.

188: Ezek. xxxiii. 12.

189: Matt. xviii. 14.

190: Matt. xviii. 12-14.

191: Matt. xviii. 15.

192: 1 Cor. v. 11.

193: 1 John v. 16.

194: Num. xviii. 22.

195: Matt. xviii. 15.

196: Matt. xviii. 15, 16.

197: Matt. xviii. 17.

198: Matt. xviii. 17.

199: Matt. vii. 1.

200: 1 Cor. iv. 5.

201: Matt xviii. 14.

202: 2 Cor. v. 10.

203: Matt. vii. 2.

204: Isa. iii. 11.

205: Isa. xl. 2.

206: Ps. lxxix. 12.

207: Ezek xxxiii 208: Matt. xviii. 18.

209: Prov. v. 22.

210: Matt. xvi. 19.

211: Matt. xvi. 19.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 14
========================================================================

Book XIV.

1. The Power of Harmony in Relation to Prayer.

2. The Harmony of Husband and Wife.

3. The Harmony of Body, Soul, and Spirit.

4. Harmony of the Old and New Covenants.

5. The Limit of Forgiveness.

6. Concerning the King Who Made a Reckoning with His Own Servants, to Whom Was
Brought a Man Who Owed Ten Thousand Talents.

7. Exposition Continued: the King and the Servants.

8. The Principle of the Reckoning.

9. The Time Occupied by the Reckoning.

10. The Man Who Owed Many Talents.

11. The Servant Who Owed a Hundred Pence.

12. The Time of the Reckoning.

13. No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving.

14. How Jesus Finished His Words.

15. How Men Followed Jesus.

16. Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Tempting Jesus (by Asking) Whether Was
Lawful for a Man to Put Away His Wife for Every Cause.

17. Union of Christ and the Church.

18. The Bill of Divorcement.

19. The Divorce of Israel.

20. Christ and the Gentiles.

21. Union of Angels and the Souls of Men.

22. The Marriage of Church Dignitaries.

23. Some Laws Given by Concession to Human Weakness.

24. Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ.

25. Chastity and Prayer.

Book XIV.

1. The Power of Harmony in Relation to Prayer.

"Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree1 on earth as touching
anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them."2 The word symphony is
strictly applied to the harmonies of sounds in music. And there are indeed among
musical sounds some accordant and others discordant. But the Evangelic Scripture
is familiar with the name as applied to musical matters in the passage, "He
heard a symphony and dancing."3 For it was fitting that when the son who had
been lost and found came by penitence into concord with his father a symphony
should be heard on the occasion of the joyous mirth of the house. But the wicked
Laban was not acquainted with the word symphony in his saying to Jacob, "And if
thou hadst told me I would have sent thee away with mirth and with music and
with drums and a harp."4 But akin to the symphony of this nature is that which
is written in the second Book of Kings when "the brethren of Aminadab went
before the ark, and David and his son played before the Lord on instruments
artistically fitted with might and with songs; "5 for the instruments thus
fitted with might and with songs, had in themselves the musical symphony which
is so powerful that when two only, bring along with the symphony which has
relation to the music that is divine and spiritual, a request to the Father in
heaven about anything whatsoever, the Father grants the request to those who ask
along with the symphony on earth,-which is most miraculous,-those things which
those who have made the symphony spoken of may have asked. So also I understand
the apostolic saying "Defraud ye not one the other except it be by agreement for
a season that ye may give yourselves unto prayer."6 For since the word harmony
is applied to those who marry according to God in the passage from Proverbs
which is as follows: "Fathers will divide their house and substance to their
sons, but from God the woman is married to the man,"7 it is a logical
consequence of the harmony being from God, that the name and the deed should
enjoy the agreement with a view to prayer, as is indicated in the word, "unless
it be by agreement."8 Then the Word repeating that the agreeing of two on the
earth is the same thing as the agreeing with Christ, adds, "For where two or
three are gathered together in My name."9 Therefore the two or three who are
gathered together in the name of Christ are those who are in agreement on earth,
not two only but sometimes also three. But he who has the power will consider
whether this agreement and a congregation of this sort in the midst of which
Christ is, can be found in more, since "narrow and straightened is the way that
leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it."10 But perhaps also not even
few but two or three make a symphony as Peter and James and John, to whom as
making a symphony the Word of God showed His own glory. But two made a symphony,
Paul and Sosthenes, when writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians;11 and
after this Paul and Timothy when sending the second Epistle to the same.12 And
even three made a symphony when Paul and Silvanus and Timothy gave instruction
by letter to the Thessalonians.13 But if it be necessary also from the ancient
Scriptures to bring forward the three who made a symphony on earth, so that the
Word was in the midst of them making them one, attend to the superscription of
the Psalms, as for example to that of the forty-first, which is as follows:
"Unto the end, unto understanding, for the sons of Korah."14 For though there
were three sons of Korah whose names we find in the Book of Exodus,15 Aser,
which is, by interpretation, "instruction," and the second Elkana, which is
translated, "possession of God," and the third Abiasaph, which in the Greek
tongue might be rendered, "congregation of the father," yet the prophecies were
not divided but were both spoken and written by one spirit, and one voice, and
one soul, which wrought with true harmony, and the three speak as one, "As the
heart panteth after the springs of the water, so panteth my soul alter thee, O
God."16 But also they say in the plural in the forty-fourth Psalm, "O God, we
have heard with our ears."17 But if you wish still further to see those who are
making symphony on earth look to those who heard the exhortation, "that ye may
be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment."18 and who
strove after the goal, "the soul and the heart of all the believers were one."19
who have become such, if it be possible for such a condition to be found in more
than two or three, that there is no discord between them, just as there is no
discord between the strings of the ten-stringed psaltery with each other. But
they were not in symphony in earth who said, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,
and I of Cephas, and I of Christ,"20 but there were schisms among them, upon the
dissolution of which they were gathered together in company with the spirit in
Paul, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ,21 that they might no longer "bite
and devour one another so that they were consumed by one another; "22 for
discord consumes, as concord brings together, and admits23 the Son of God who
comes in the midst of those who have become at concord. And strictly, indeed,
concord takes place in two things generic, through the perfecting together, as
the Apostle has called it, of the same mind by an intellectual grasp of the same
opinions, and through the perfecting together of the same judgment, by a like
way of living. But if whenever two of us agree on earth as touching anything
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father of Jesus who is in
heaven,24 plainly when this is not done for them of the Father in heaven as
touching anything that they shall ask, there the two have not been in agreement
on earth; and this is the cause why we are not heard when we pray, that we do
not agree with one another on earth, neither in opinions nor in life. But
further also if we are the body of Christ and God hath set the members each one
of them in the body that the members may have the same care one for another, and
may agree with one another, and when one member suffers, all the members suffer
with it, and if one be glorified, they rejoice with it,25 we ought to practise
the symphony which springs from the divine music, that when we are gathered
together in the name of Christ, He may be in the midst of us, the Word of God,
and the Wisdom of God, and His Power.26 2. The Harmony of Husband and Wife. So
much then for the more common understanding of the two or three whom the Word
exhorts to be in agreement. But now let us also touch upon another
interpretation which was uttered by some one of our predecessors, exhorting
those who were married to sanctity and purity; for by the two, he says, whom the
Word desires to agree on earth, we must understand the husband and wife, who by
agreement defraud each other of bodily intercourse that they may give themselves
unto prayer;27 when if they pray for anything whatever that they shall ask, they
shall receive it, the request being granted to them by the Father in heaven of
Jesus Christ on the ground of such agreement. And this interpretation does not
appear to me to cause dissolution of marriage, but to be an incitement to
agreement, so that if the one wished to be pure, but the other did not desire
it, and on this account he who willed and was able to fulfil the better part,
condescended to the one who had not the power or the will, they would not both
have the accomplishment from the Father in heaven of Jesus Christ, of anything
whatever that they might ask.

3. The Harmony of Body, Soul, and Spirit. And next to this about the married, I
am familiar also with another interpretation of the agreement between the two
which is as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, being settled as
on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys the lusts
thereof;28 but in the case of those, who have stirred up the sin which formerly
reigned over the body as from a throne and who are in conflict with it, "the
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; "29 but in
the case of those who have now become perfected, the spirit has gained the
mastery and put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts to the body of its
own life, so that already this is fulfilled, "He shall quicken also your mortal
bodies because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you; "30 and there arises a
concord of the two, body and spirit, on the earth, on the successful
accomplishment of which there is sent up a harmonious prayer also of him who
"with the heart believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth maketh
confession unto salvation."31 so that the heart is no longer far from God, and
along with this the righteous man draws nigh to God with his own lips and mouth.
But still more blessed is it if the three be gathered together in the name of
Jesus that this may be fulfilled, "May God sanctify you wholly, and may your
spirit and soul and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ."32 But some one may inquire with regard to the concord of
spirit and body spoken of, if it is possible for these to be at concord without
the third being so,-I mean the soul-and whether it does not follow from the
concord of these on the earth after the two have been gathered together in the
name of Christ, that the three also are already gathered together in His name,
in the midst of whom comes the Son of God as all are dedicated to Him,-I mean
the three,-and no one is opposed to Him, there being no antagonism not only on
the part of the spirit, but not even of the soul, nor further of the body.

4. Harmony of the Old and New Covenants. And likewise it is a pleasant thing to
endeavour to understand and exhibit the fact of the concord of the two
covenants,-of the one before the bodily advent of the Saviour and of the new
covenant; for among those things in which the two covenants are at concord so
that there is no discord between them would be found prayers, to the effect that
about anything whatever they shall ask it shall be done to them from the Father
in heaven. And if also you desire the third that unites the two, do not hesitate
to say that it is the Holy Spirit, since "the words of the wise," whether they
be of those before the advent, or at the time of the advent, or after it, "are
as goads, and as nails firmly fixed, which were given by agreement from one
shepherd."33 And do not let this also pass unobserved, that He did not say,
where two or three are gathered together in My name, there "shall I be" in the
midst of them, but "there am I,"34 not going to be, not delaying, but at the
very moment of the concord being Himself found, and being in the midst of them.

5. The Limit of Forgiveness.

"Then came Peter and said unto Him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against
me and I forgive him? "35 The conception that these things were said in a simple
sense by Peter, as if he were inquiring whether he was to forgive his brother
when he sinned against him seven times, but no longer if he sinned an eighth
time, and by the Saviour, as if He thought that one should sit still and reckon
up the sins of his neighbours against him in order that he might forgive seventy
times and seven, but that from the seventy-eighth he should not forgive the man
who wronged him, seems to me altogether silly and unworthy alike of the progress
which Peter had made in the company of Jesus and of the divine magnanimity of
Jesus. Perhaps, then, these things also border on an obscurity akin to the
words, "Hear My voice, ye wives of Lamech,"36 etc. If any one has already become
a friend of Jesus so as to be taught by His spirit which illumines the reason of
him who has advanced so far according to his desert, he might know the true
meaning, therefore, in regard to these things, and such as Jesus Himself would
have clearly expounded it; but we who fall short of the greatness of the
friendship of Jesus must be content if we can babble a little about the passage.
The number six, then, appears to be working and toilsome, but the number seven
to contain the idea of repose. And consider if you can say that he, who loves
the world and works the things of the world, and does those things which are
material, sins six times, and that the number seven is the end of sin in his
case, so that Peter with some such thought in his mind wished to pardon seven
sins of those which his brother had committed against him. But since as units
the tens and the hundreds have a certain common measure of proportion to the
number which is in units, and Jesus knew that the number might be exceeded, on
this account, I think, that He added to the number seven also the seventy,37 and
said that there ought to be forgiveness to brethren here, and to them who have
sinned in respect to things here. But if any one going beyond the things about
the world and this age were to commit sin, even if it were trifling, he could
not longer reasonably have forgiveness of sins; for forgiveness extends to the
things here, and in relation to the sins committed here, whether the forgiveness
comes late or soon; but there is no forgiveness, not even to a brother, who has
sinned beyond the seven and seventy times. But you might say that he who has
sinned in such wise, whether as against Peter his brother, or as against Peter,
against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, is by sins of this kind in the
smaller number of the sin, but according to sins still worse is in the number
which has no forgiveness of sins.

6. Concerning the King Who Made a Reckoning with His Own Servants, to Whom Was
Brought a Man Who Owed Ten Thousand Talents.

"Therefore I say unto you the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king,
who wished to make a reckoning with his own servants."38 The general conception
of the parable is to teach us that we should be inclined to forgive the sins
committed against us by those who have wronged us, and especially if after the
wrongdoing he who has done it supplicates him who has been wronged, asking
forgiveness for the sins which he has committed against him. And this the
parable wishes to teach us by representing that even when forgiveness has been
granted by God to us of the sins in respect of which we have received remission,
exaction will be demanded even after the remission, unless we forgive the sins
of those who have wronged us, so that there is no longer left in us the least
remembrance of the wrong that was done. but the whole heart, assisted by the
spirit of forgetfulness of wrongs, which is no common virtue, forgives him who
has wronged us those things which have been wickedly done against any of us by
him, even treacherously.But next to the general conception of the parable, it is
right to examine the whole of it more simply according to the letter, so that he
who advances with care to the right investigation of each detail of the things
previously written may derive profit from the examination of what is said. Now
there is, as is probable, an interpretation, transcendental and hard to trace,
as it is somewhat mystical, according to which, after the analogy of the
parables which are interpreted by the Evangelists, one would investigate each of
the details in this; as, for example, who the king was, and who the servants
were, and what was the beginning of his making a reckoning, and who was the one
debtor who owed many talents, and who was his wife and who his children, and
what were the "all things" spoken of besides those which the king ordered to be
sold in order that the debt might be paid out of his belongings, and what was
meant by the going out of the man who had been forgiven the many talents, and
who was the one of the servants who was found and was a debtor not to the
householder, but to the man who had been forgiven, and what is meant by the
number of the hundred pence, and what by the word, "He took him by the throat
saying, Pay what thou owest," and what is the prison into which he who had been
forgiven all the talents went out and cast his fellow-servant, and who were the
fellow-servants who were grieved and told the lord all that had been done, and
who were the tormentors to whom he who had cast his fellow-servant into prison
was delivered, and how he who was delivered to the tormentors paid all that was
due, so that he no longer owed anything.39 But it is probable also that some
other things could be added to the number by a more competent investigator, the
exposition and interpretation of which I think to be beyond the power of man,
and requiring the Spirit of Christ who spoke them in order that Christ may be
understood as He spoke; for as "no one among men knows the things of the man,
save the spirit which is in him," and "no one knows the things of God, save the
Spirit of God,"40 so no one knows after God the things spoken by Christ in
proverbs and parables save the Spirit of Christ, in which he who participates in
Christ not only so far as He is Spirit, but in Christ as He is Wisdom, as He is
Word, would behold the things which were revealed to him in this passage. But
with regard to the interpretation of the loftiest type, we make no profession;
nor on the other hand with the assistance of Christ who is the Wisdom of God do
we despair of apprehending the things signified in the parable; but whether it
shall be the case that such things shall be dictated to us in connection with
this Scripture or not, may God in Christ suggest the doing of that which is
pleasing to Him, if only there be granted to us also concerning these things,
the word of wisdom which is given from God through the Spirit, and the word of
knowledge which is supplied according to the Spirit.41 7. Exposition Continued:
the King and the Servants.

"The kingdom of heaven, " He says, "is likened, "42 etc. But if it be likened to
such a king, and one who has done such things, who must we say that it is but
the Son of God? For He is the King of the heavens, and as He is absolute Wisdom
and absolute Righteousness and absolute Truth, is He not so also absolute
Kingdom? But it is not a kingdom of any of those below, nor of a part of those
above, but of all the things above, which were called heavens. But if you
enquire into the meaning of the words, "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"43 you
may say that Christ is theirs in so far as He is absolute Kingdom, reigning in
every thought of the man who is no longer under the reign of sin which reigns in
the mortal body of those who have subjected themselves to it.44 And if I say,
reigning in every thought, I mean something like this, reigning as Righteousness
and Wisdom and Truth and the rest of the virtues in him who has become a heaven,
because of bearing the image of the heavenly, and in every power, whether
angelic, or the rest that are named saints, not only in this age, but also in
that which is to come, and who are worthy of a kingdom of such a kind.
Accordingly this kingdom of heaven (when it was made "in the likeness of sinful
flesh,"45 that for sin it might condemn sin, when God made "Him who knew no sin
to be sin on behalf of us,"46 who bear the body of our sin), is likened to a
certain king who is understood in relation to Jesus being united to Him, if we
may dare so to speak, having more capacity towards being united and becoming
entirely one with the "First-born of all creation,"47 than he, who, being joined
to the Lord, becomes one spirit with Him.48 Now of this kingdom of the heavens
which is likened unto a certain king, according to the conception of Jesus, and
is united to Him, it is said by anticipation that he wished to make a reckoning
with his servants. But he is about to make a reckoning with them in order that
it may be manifested how each has employed the tried money of the householder
and his rational coins. And the image in the parables was indeed taken from
masters who made a reckoning with their own servants; but we shall understand
more accurately what is signified by this part of the parable, if we fix our
thought on the things done by the slaves who had administered their master's
goods, and who were asked to give a reckoning concerning them. For each of them,
receiving in different measure from his master's goods, has used them either for
that which was right so as to increase the goods of his master. or consumed it
riotously on things which he ought not, and spent profusely without judgment and
without discretion that which had been put into his hands. But there are those
who have wisely administered these goods and goods so great, but have lost
others, and whenever they give the reckoning when the master makes a reckoning
with them, there is gathered together how much loss each has incurred, and there
is reckoned up how much gain each has brought, and according to the worthiness
of the way in which he has administered it, he is either honoured or punished,
or in some cases the debt is forgiven, but in others the talents are taken away.
Well, then, from what has been said, let us first look at the rational coins and
the tried money of the householder, of which one receives more and another less,
for according to the ability of each, to one are given five talents as he has
the ability to administer so many, but to another two as not being able to
receive the amount of the man before him, and to another one as being also
inferior to the second.49 Are these, then, the only differences, or are we to
recognize these differences in the case of certain persons of whom the Gospel
goes on to speak while there are also others besides these: In other parables
also are found certain persons, as the two debtors, the one who owed five
hundred pence, and the other fifty;50 but whether these had been entrusted with
them and had administered them badly as being inferior in ability to him who had
been entrusted with a talent, or had received them, we have not learned; but
that they owed so much, we seem to be taught from the parable. And there are
found other ten servants who were each entrusted with a pound separately.51 And
if any one understood the varied character of the human soul and the wide
differences from each other in respect of natural aptitude, or want of aptitude
for more or fewer of the virtues, and for these virtues or for those, perhaps he
would comprehend how each soul has come with certain coins of the householder
which come to light with the full attainment of reason, and with the attention
which follows the full attainment of reason, and with exercise in things that
are right, or with diligence and exercise in other things, whether they be
useful as pursuits, or in part useful and in part not useful, such as the
opinions which are not wholly true nor wholly false.

8. The Principle of the Reckoning. But you will here inquire whether all men can
be called servants of the king, or some are servants whom he foreknew and
fore-ordained, while there are others who transact business with the servants,
and are called bankers.52 And in like manner you will inquire if there are those
outside the number of the slaves from whom the householder declares that he will
exact his own with usury, not only men alien from piety, but also some of the
believers. Now the servants alone are the stewards of the Word, but the king,
making a reckoning with the servants, demands from those who have borrowed from
the servants, whether a hundred measures of wheat or a hundred measures of
oil,53 or whatever in point of fact those who are outside of the household of
the king have received; for he who owed the hundred measures of wheat or the
hundred measures of oil is not found to be, according to the parable, a
fellow-servant of the unjust steward, as is evident from the question-how much
owest thou to my lord?54 But mark with me that each deed which is good or seemly
is like a gain and an increment, but a wicked deed is like a loss; and as there
is a certain gain when the money is greater and another when it is less, and as
there are differences of more or less, so according to the good deeds, there is
as it were a valuing of gains more or less. To reckon what work is a great gain,
and what a less gain, and what a least, is the prerogative of him who alone
knows to investigate such things, looking at them in the light of the
disposition, and the word, and the deed, and from consideration of the things
which are not in our power cooperating with those that are; and so also in the
case of things opposite, it is his to say what sin, when a reckoning is made
with the servants, is found to be a great loss, and what is less, and what, if
we may so call it, is the loss of the very last mite,55 or the last farthing.56
The account, therefore, of the entire and whole life is exacted by that which is
called the kingdom of heaven which is likened to a king, when "we must all stand
before the judgment-sent of Christ that each one may receive the things done in
the body according to what he hath done, whether good or bad; "57 and then when
the reckoning is being made, shall there be brought into the reckoning that is
made also every idle word that men shall speak,58 and Guy cup of cold water only
which one has given to drink in the name of a disciple.59 9. The Time Occupied
by the Reckoning. And these things will take place whenever that happens which
is written in Daniel, "The books were opened and the judgment was set; "60 for a
record, as it were, is made of all things that have been spoken and done and
thought, and by divine power every hidden thing of ours shall be manifested, and
everything that is covered shall be revealed,61 in order that when any one is
found who has not "given diligence to be freed from the adversary," he may go in
succession through the hands of the magistrate, and the judge, and the attendant
into the prison, until he pays the very last mite;62 but when one has given
diligence to be freed from him and owes nothing to any one, and already has made
the pound ten pounds or five pounds, or doubled the five talents, or made the
two four, he may obtain the due recompense, entering into the joy of his Lord,
either being set over all His possessions,63 or hearing the word, "Have thou
authority over ten cities,"64 or "Have thou authority over five cities."65 But
we think that these things are spoken of as if they required a long period of
time, in order that an account may be made by us of the whole times of the
earthly life, so that we might suppose that when the king makes a reckoning with
each one of his many servants the matter would require so vast a period of time,
until these things come to an end which have existed from the beginning of the
world down to the consummation of the age, not of one age, but of many ages. But
the truth is not so; for when God wished all at once to rekindle in the memories
of all everything that had been done by each one throughout the whole time, in
order that each might become conscious of his own doings whether good or bad, He
would do it by His ineffable power. For it is not with God as with us; for if we
wish to call some things to remembrance, we require sufficient time for the
detailed account of what has been said by us, and to bring to our remembrance
the things which we wish to remember; but if He wished to call to our memory the
things which have been done in this life, in order that becoming conscious of
what we have done we may apprehend for what we are punished or honoured, He
could do so. But if any one disbelieves the swiftness of the power of God in
regard to these matters, he has not yet had a true conception of the God who
made the universe, who did not require times to make the vast creation of heaven
and earth and the things in them; for, though He may seem to have made these
things in six days, there is need of understanding to comprehend in what sense
the words "in six days" are said, on account of this, "This is the book of the
generation of heaven and earth,"66 etc. Therefore it may be boldly affirmed that
the season of the expected judgment does not require times, but as the
resurrection is said to take place "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,"67
so I think will the judgment also be.

10. The Man Who Owed Many Talents.

Next we must speak in regard to this, "And when he had begun to reckon, there
was brought unto him one which owed many talents. "68 The sense of this appears
to me to be as follows: The season of beginning the judgment is with the house
of God, who says, as also it is written in Ezekiel, to those who are appointed
to attend to punishments, "Begin ye with My saints; "69 and it is like "the
twinkling of an eye; "but, the time of making a reckoning includes the same
"twinkling," ideally apprehended, for we are not forgetful of what has been
previously said of those who owe more. Wherefore it is not written, when he was
making reckoning, but it is said, "When he began to reckon," there was brought,
at the beginning of his making a reckoning, one who owed many talents; he had
lost tens of thousands of talents, having been entrusted with great things, and
having had many things committed to his care, but he had brought no gain to his
master, but had lost tens of thousands so that he owed many talents; and,
perhaps on this account, he owed many talents, seeing that he followed often the
woman, who wassitting upon the talent of lead, whose name is wickedness.70 But
observe here that every great sin is a loss of the talents of the master of the
house, and such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of
themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murderers. Perhaps then the one who
is brought to the king owing many talents has committed no small sin but all
that are great and heinous; and if you were to seek for him among men, perhaps
you would find him to be "the man of sin, the son of perdition, he that opposeth
and exalteth himself against every God or object of worship; "71 but if yon seek
him outside the number of men, who can this be but the devil who has ruined so
many who received him, who wrought sin in them. For "man is a great thing, and a
pitiful man is precious,"72 precious so as to be worthy of a talent, whether of
gold like as the lamp which was equal to a talent of gold,73 or of silver or of
any kind of material whatsoever understood intellectually, the symbols of which
are recorded in the Words of the Days,74 when David became enriched with many
talents of which the number is mentioned, so many talents of gold, and so many
of silver, and of the rest of the material there named, from which the temple of
God was built.

11. The Servant Who Owed a Hundred Pence.

Only, though he cannot pay the talents, for he has lost them, he has a wife and
children and other things, of which it is written, "All that he has."75 And it
was possible that when he had been sold along with his own, he would have
prospered if some one had bought him, and, by his worth and the things that were
his, have paid the whole debt in full; and it was possible that he might no
longer be the servant of the king, but become that of his purchaser. And he
makes a request that he be not sold along with his own, but may continue to
abide in the house of the king; wherefore he fell down and worshipped him,
knowing that the king was God, and said, "Have patience with me, and I will pay
thee all; "76 for he was, as is probable, an active man, who knew that he could
by a second course of action fill up the whole deficiency of the former loss of
many talents. And this truly good king was moved with compassion for the man who
owed him many talents and then released him, having bestowed upon him a favour
greater than the request which had been made; for the debtor promised to the
long-suffering master to pay all his debts, but the Lord moved with compassion
for him did not merely forgive him with the idea of receiving his own back as a
result of his patience, but even entirely released him and forgave him the whole
debt. But this wicked servant, who had besought his master to have patience for
his many talents, acted without mercy, for, having found one of his
fellow-servants which owed him a hundred pence, he laid hold on him and took him
by the throat, saying, "Pay if thou owest."77 And did he not exhibit the very
excess of wickedness who laid hold of his fellow-servant for a hundred pence,
and took him by the throat and deprived him of freedom to breathe, when he
himself, for the many talents, had neither been laid hold of, nor seized by the
throat, but at first was ordered to be sold along with his wife and children and
all that was his own; but afterwards, when he had worshipped him, the master was
moved with compassion for him, and he was released and forgiven in regard to the
whole of the debt. But it were indeed a hard task to tell according to the
conception of Jesus who is the one fellow-servant who was found to be owing a
hundred pence, not to his own lord, but to him who owed many talents, and who
are the fellow-servants who saw the one taking by the throat, and the other
taken, and were exceedingly sorry, and represented clearly unto their own lord
all that had been done. But what the truth in these matters is, I declare that
no one can interpret unless Jesus, who explained all things to His own disciples
privately, takes up His abode in his reason, and opens up all the treasures in
the parable which are dark, hidden, unseen, and confirms by clear demonstrations
the man whom He desires to illumine with the light of the knowledge of the
things that are in this parable, that he may at once represent who is brought to
the king as the debtor of many talents, and who is the other one who owes to him
a hundred pence, etc.; whether he can be the man of sin previously mentioned,78
or the devil, or neither of these, but some other, whether a man, or some one of
these under the sway of the devil; for it is a work of the wisdom of God to
exhibit the things have have been prophesied concerning those who are in
themselves of a certain nature, or have been made according to such and such
qualities, whether among visible powers or also among some men, in whatever way
they may have been written by the Holy Spirit. But as we have not yet received
the competent mind which is able to be blended with the mind of Christ, and
which is capable of attaining to things so great, and which is able with the
Spirit to "search all things, even the deep things of God,"79 we, forming an
impression still indefinitely with regard to the matters in this passage, are of
opinion that the wicked servant indicated by the parable who is here represented
in regard to the debt of many talents, refers to some definite one.

12. The Time of the Reckoning. But it is fitting to examine at what time the
man-the king-in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants,
and to what period we ought to refer the things that are said. For if it be
after the consummation, or at it at the time of the expected judgment, how are
we to maintain the things about him who owed a hundred pence, and was taken by
the throat by the man who had been forgiven the many talents? But if, before the
judgment, how can we explain the reckoning that was made before this by the
king, with his own servants? But we ought to think in a general way about every
parable, the interpretation of which has not been recorded by the evangelists,
even though Jesus explained all things to His own disciples privately;80 and for
this reason the writers of the Gospels have concealed the clear exposition of
the parables, because the things signified by them were beyond the power of the
nature of words to express, and every solution and exposition of such parables
was of such a kind that not even the whole world itself could contain the books
that should be written81 in relation to such parables. But it may happen that a
fitting heart be found, and, because of its purity, able to receive the letters
of the exposition of the parable, so that they could be written in it by the
Spirit of the living God. But some one will say that, perhaps, we act with
impiety, who, because of the secret and mystical import of some of the
Scriptures which are of heavenly origin, wish them to be symbolic, and endeavour
to expound them, even though it might seem ex hypothesi that we had an accurate
knowledge of their meaning. But to this we must say that, if there be those who
have obtained the gift of accurate apprehension of these things, they know what
they ought to do; but as for us, who acknowledge that we fall short of the
ability to see into the depth of the things here signified, even though we
obtain a somewhat crass perception of the things in the passage, we will say,
that some of the things which we seem to find after much examination and
inquiry, whether by the grace of God, or by the power of our own mind, we do not
venture to commit to writing; but some things, for the sake of our own
intellectual discipline, and that of those who may chance to read them, we will
to some extent set forth. But let these things, then, be said by way of apology,
because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what
time the man-the king-in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own
servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the
judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one
at the close of the Gospel before us,82 and one from the Gospel according to
Luke.83 And not to prolong the discussion by quoting the very letter, as any one
who wishes can take it from the Scripture himself, we will say that the parable
according to Matthew declares, "For it is as when a man going into another
country called his own servants, and delivered unto them his own goods, and to
one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one talent; "84
then they took action with regard to that which had been entrusted to them, and,
after a long time, the lord of those servants cometh, and it is written in the
very words, that he also makes a reckoning with them.85 And compare the words,
"And when he began to make a reckoning,"86 and consider that he called the going
of the householder into another country the time at which "we are at home in the
body but absent from the Lord; "87 but his advent, when, "after a long time the
lord of those servants cometh,"88 the time at the consummation in the judgment;
for after a long time the lord of those servants cometh and makes a reckoning
with them, and those things which follow take place. But the parable in Luke
represents with more clearness, that "a certain nobleman went into a far country
to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return," and when going, "he called ten
servants, and gave to them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye till I
come."89 But the nobleman, being hated by his own citizens, who sent an
ambassage after him, as they did not wish him to reign over them, came back
again, having received the kingdom, and told the servants to whom he had given
the money to be called to himself that he might know what they had gained by
trading. And, seeing what they had done, to him who had made the one pound ten
pounds, rendering praise in the words, "Well done, thou good servant, because
thou wast found faithful in a very little,"90 he gives to him authority over ten
cities, to-wit, those which were under his kingdom. And to another, who had
multiplied the pound fivefold, he did not render the praise which he assigned to
the first, nor did he specify the word "authority," as in the case of the first,
but said to him, "Be thou also over five cities."91 But to him who had tied up
the pound in a napkin, he said, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou
wicked servant; "92 and he said to them that stood by. Take from him the pound,
and give it unto him that hath the ten pounds93 Who, then, in regard to this
parable, will not say that the nobleman, who goes into a far country to receive
for himself a kingdom and to return, is Christ, going, as it were, into another
country to receive the kingdoms of this world, and the things in it? And those
who have received the ten talents are those who have been entrusted with the
dispensation of the Word which has been committed unto them. And His citizens
who did not wish Him to reign over them when He was a citizen in the world in
respect of His incarnation,94 are perhaps Israel who disbelieved Him, and
perhaps also the Gentiles who disbelieved Him.

13. No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving.

Only, I have said these things with the view of referring his return when he
comes with his kingdom to the consummation, when he commanded the servants to
whom he had given the money to be called to him that he might know what they had
gained by trading, and from a desire to demonstrate from this, and from the
parable of the Talents, that the passage "he who wished to make a reckoning with
his own servants"95 is to be referred to the consummation when now he is king,
receiving the kingdom, on account of which, according to another parable,96 he
went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.
Therefore, when he returned after receiving the kingdom, he wished to make a
reckoning with his own servants. And "when he had begun to reckon, there was
brought unto him one who owed many talents,"97 and he was brought as to a king
by those who had been appointed his ministers-I think, the angels, And perhaps
he was one of those under the kingdom who had been entrusted with a great
administration and had not dispensed it well, but had wasted what had been
entrusted to him, so that he came to owe the many talents which he had lost.
This very man, perhaps not having the means to pay, is ordered by the king to be
sold along with his wife, by intercourse with whom he became the father of
certain children. But it is no easy task to see what is intellectually meant by
father and mother and children. What this means in point of truth God may know,
and whether He Himself has given insight to us or not, he who can may judge.
Only this is our conception of the passage; that, as "the Jerusalem which is
above" is "the mother"98 of Paul and of those like unto him, so there may be a
mother of others after the analogy of Jerusalem, the mother, for example, of
Syene in Egypt, or Sidon, or as many cities as are named in the Scriptures.
Then, as Jerusalem is "a bride adorned for her husband,"99 Christ, so there may
be those mothers of certain powers who have been allotted to them as wives or
brides. And as there are certain children of Jerusalem, as mother, and of
Christ, as father, so there would be certain children of Syene, or Memphis, or
Tyre, or Sidon, and the rulers set over them. Perhaps then, too, this one, the
debtor of many talents who was brought to the king, has, as we have said, a wife
and children, whom at first the king ordered to be sold, and also all that he
had to be sold; but afterwards, being moved with compassion, he released him and
forgave him all the debt; not, as if he were ignorant of the future, but, in
order that we might understand what happened, it was written that he did so.
Each one then of those who have, as we have said, a wife and children will
render an account whenever the king comes to make a reckoning, having received
the kingdom and having returned; and each of them as a ruler of any Syene or
Memphis, or Tyre or Sidon, or any like unto them, has also debtors. This one,
then, having been released, and having been forgiven all the debt, "went out
from the king and found one of his fellow-servants,"100 etc.; and, on this
account, I suppose that he took him by the throat, when he had gone out from the
king, for unless he had gone out he would not have taken his own fellow-servant
by the throat. Then observe the accuracy of the Scripture, how that the one fell
down and "worshipped," but the other fell down and did not worship but
"besought; "101 and the king being moved with compassion released him and
forgave him all the debt, but the servant did not wish even to pity his own
fellow-servant; and the king before his release ordered him to be sold and what
was his, while he who had been forgiven cast him into prison. And observe that
his fellow-servants did not bring any accusation or "said," but "told,"102 and
that he did not use the epithet "wicked" at the beginning in regard to the money
lost, but reserved it afterwards for his action towards the fellow-servant. But
mark also the moderation of the king; he does not say, You worshipped me, but
You besought me; and no longer did he order him and his to be sold, but, what
was worse, he delivered him to the tormentors, because of his wickedness.103 But
who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments?
But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by
adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator104 of being passionate,
because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this
king, because that "being wroth," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But
it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by
Jesus to the tormentors,-pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who
delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to
this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you; "105 and to the
same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten
Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which
would not that I should reign over them,"106 etc. The conclusion of the parable,
however, is adapted also to the simpler; for all of us who have obtained the
forgiveness of our own sins, and have not forgiven our brethren, are taught at
once that we shall suffer the lot of him who was forgiven but did not forgive
his fellow-servant.

14. How Jesus Finished His Words.

"And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words. "107 He who gives a
detailed and complete account of each of the questions before him so that
nothing is left out, finishes his own words. But he will give a declaration on
this point with more confidence who devotes himself with great diligence to the
entire reading of the Old and New Testament; for if the expression, "he finished
these words," may be applied to no other, neither to Moses, nor to any of the
prophets, but only to Jesus, then one would date to say that Jesus alone
finished His words, He who came to put an end to things, and to fulfil what was
defective in the law, by saying, "It was said to them of old time,"108 etc.,
and, again, "That the things spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled."109
But if it is written somewhere also in them, then you may compare and contrast
the discourses finished by them with those finished by the Saviour, that you may
find the difference between them. And yet at this point, also, investigation
might be made whether in the case of the things spoken by way of oracle the
expression, "he finished," is applied either to the things spoken by Moses, or
any of the prophets, or of both together; for careful observation would suggest
very weighty thoughts to those who know how "to compare spiritual things with
spiritual," and on this account "speak not in words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Spirit teacheth."110 But perhaps some other one, attending with
over-curious spirit to the word "finished," which is assigned to things of a
more mystical order, just as we say that some one delivered to those who were
under his control mysteries and rites of "perfecting"111 not in a praiseworthy
fashion, and another delivered the mysteries of God to those who are worthy, and
rites of "perfecting" proportionate to such mysteries, might say that having
initiated them, he made a rite of "perfecting," by which "perfecting" the words
were shown to be powerful, so that the gospel of Jesus was preached in the whole
world, and by virtue of the divine "perfecting" gained the mastery of every soul
which the Father draws to the Son, according to what is said by the Saviour, "No
one comes to Me except the Father which has sent Me draw him."112 Wherefore also
"the word" of those who by the grace of God are ambassadors of the gospel, "and
their preaching, is not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of
the spirit of power,"113 to those for whom the words of the doctrine of Jesus
were finished. You will therefore observe how often it is said, "He finished."
and of what things it is said, and you will take as an illustration that which
is said in regard to the beatitudes, and the whole of the discourse to which is
subjoined, "And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, all the
multitudes were astonished at His teaching."114 But now the saying, "Jesus
finished these words," is referred also immediately to the very mystical parable
according to which the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a king, but also beyond
this parable to the sections which were written before it.

15. How Men Followed Jesus.

Only, when Jesus had finished these words, having spoken them in Galilee about
Capernaum, then "He departed thence, and came into the borders of Judaea,"115
which were different from Galilee. But He came to the borders of Judaea, and not
to the middle of it, but, as it were, to the outermost parts, where great
multitudes followed Him,116 whom He healed at "the borders of Judaea beyond
Jordan,"-where baptism had been given.117 But you will observe the difference
between the crowds who simply followed, and Peter and the others who gave up
everything and followed, and Matthew, who arose and followed him;118 he did not
simply follow, but "having arisen; "for "having arisen" is an important
addition. There are always those, then, who follow like the great multitudes,
who have no arisen that they may follow, nor have given up all that was theirs
formerly, but few are they who have arisen and followed, who also, in the
regeneration, shall sit on twelve thrones.119 Only, if one wishes to be healed,
let him follow Jesus.

16. Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Tempting Jesus (by Asking) Whether Was
Lawful for a Man to Put Away His Wife for Every Cause.

After this it is written that "there came unto Him the Pharisees tempting Him
and saying, Is it lawful for a man to wife for every cause? "120 Mark, also, has
written to the like effect.121 Accordingly, of those who came to Jesus and
inquired of Him, there were some who put questions to tempt Him; and if our
Saviour so transcendent was tempted, which of His disciples who is ordained to
teach need be vexed, when he is tempted by some who inquire, not from the love
of learning, but from the wish to tempt? And you might find many passages, if
you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others,
different from them, as a certain lawyer,122 and perhaps also a scribe,123 that
by bringing together what is said about those who tempted Him, you might find by
investigation what is useful for this kind of inquiries. Only, the Saviour, in
response to those who tempted Him, laid down dogmas; for they said, "Is it
lawful for a man to put away his own wife for every cause? "and He answered and
said, "Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them
male and female? "124 etc. And I think that the Pharisees put forward this word
for this reason, that they might attack Him whatever He might say; as, for
example, if He had said, "It is lawful," they would have accused Him of
dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, "It is not lawful," they
would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with
sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute-money,125 if He had told them to
give, they would have accused Him of making the people subject to the Romans,
and not to the law of God, but if He had told them not to give, they would have
accused Him of creating war and sedition, and of stirring up those who were not
able to stand against so powerful an army. But they did not perceive in what way
He answered blamelessly and wisely, in the first place, rejecting the opinion
that a wife was to be put away for every cause, and, in the second place, giving
answer to the question about the bill of divorcement; for He saw that not every
cause is a reasonable ground for the dissolution of marriage, and that the
husband must dwell with the wife as the weaker vessel, giving honour,126 and
bearing her burdens in sills;127 and by what is written in Genesis, He puts to
shame the Pharisees who boasted in the Scriptures of Moses, by saying, "Have ye
not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,"
etc., and, subjoining to these words, because of the saying, "And the twain
shall become one flesh," teaching in harmony with one flesh, namely, "So that
they are no more twain, but one flesh."128 And, as tending to convince them that
they should not put away their wife for every cause, is it said," What God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder."129 It is to be observed, however, in
the exposition of the words quoted from Genesis in the Gospel, that they were
not spoken consecutively as they are written in the Gospel; and I think that it
is not even said about the same persons, namely, of those who were formed after
the image of God, and of those who were formed from the dust of the ground and
from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, "Male and female made He
them,"130 the reference is to those formed "after the image," but where He also
said, "For this cause shall a man leave his own father and mother,"131 etc., the
reference is not to those formed after the image; for some time after the Lord
God formed the man, taking dust from the ground, and from his side the helpmate.
And mark, at the same time, that in the case of those who are formed "after the
image," the words were not "husband and wife" but "male and female." But we have
also observed this in the Hebrew, for man is indicated by the word "is," but
male by the word "zachar," and again woman by the word "essa," but female by the
word "agkeba." For at no time is it "woman" or "man" "after the image," but the
superior class, the male, and the second, the female. But also if a man leave
his mother and his father, he cleaves not to the female, but to his own wife,
and "they become," since man and woman are one in flesh, "one flesh." Then,
describing what ought to be in the case of those who are joined together by God,
so that they may be joined together in a manner worthy of God, the Saviour adds,
"So that they are no more twain; "132 and, wherever there is indeed concord, and
unison, and harmony, between husband and wife, when he is as ruler and she is
obedient to the word, "He shall rule over thee,"133 then of such persons we may
truly say, "They are no more twain." Then since it was necessary that for "him
who was joined to the Lord," it should be reserved "that he should become one
spirit with Him,"134 in the case of those who are joined together by God, after
the words, "So that they are no more twain," it is said, "but one flesh." And it
is God who has joined together the two in one so that they are no more twain,
from the time that135 the woman is married to the man. And, since God has joined
them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by
God, there is a "gift"; and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the
Word of God was a "gift," like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, "But I would
that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man hath his own gift from God, one
after this manner, and another after that."136 And those who are joined together
by God both mind and keep the precept, "Husbands love your wives, as Christ also
the church."137 The Saviour then commanded, "What God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder,"138 but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined
together, when, "falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies,
branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding," not only to
commit fornication, but "to marry,"139 he dissolves even those who had been
before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said,
keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and
the man and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees.

17. Union of Christ and the Church. But since the Apostle understands the words,
"And they twain shall be one flesh, "140 of Christ and the church,141 we must
say that Christ keeping the saying, "What God hath joined together let not man
put asunder,"142 did not put away His former wife, so to speak-that is, the
former synagogue-for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication,
being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her
husband and slew Him, saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify
Him, crucify Him."143 It was she therefore who herself revolted, rather than her
husband who put her away and dismissed her; wherefore, reproaching her for
falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, "Of what kind is the bill of your
mother's divorcement, with which I sent her away? "144 And He who at the
beginning created Him "who is in the form of God" after the image, made Him
male, and the church female, granting to both oneness after the image. And, for
the sake of the church, the Lord-the husband-left the Father whom He saw when He
was" in the form of God,"145 left also His mother, as He was the very son of the
Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here,
and these two here became one flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became
flesh, when "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,"146 and they are no more
two, but now they are one flesh, since it is said to the wife, "Now ye are the
body of Christ, and members each in his part; "147 for the body of Christ is not
something apart different from the church, which is His body, and from the
members each in his part. And God has joined together these who are not two, but
have become one flesh, commanding that men should not separate the church from
the Lord. And he who takes heed for himself so as not to be separated, is
confident as one who will not possibly be separated and says, "Who shall
separate us from the love of Christ? "148 Here, therefore, the saying, "What God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder,"149 was written with relation to
the Pharisees, but to those who are superior to the Pharisees, it could be said,
"What then God hath joined together, let nothing put asunder," neither
principality nor power; for God, who has joined together is stronger than all
those which any one could conceive and name.

18. The Bill of Divorcement.

After this we will discuss the saying of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus,
"Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and put her away? "150
And with good reason we will bring forward for this purpose the passage from
Deuteronomy concerning the bill of divorcement, which is as follows: "But if a
man taketh a wife and cohabit with her, and it shall be, if she do not find
favour in his sight because he hath found in her a thing unseemly," etc., down
to the words, "and ye shall not pollute the land which the Lord your God giveth
you for an inheritance."151 Now I inquire whether in these things according to
this law, we are to seek nothing in it beyond the letter seeing that God has not
given it, or whether to the Pharisees who quoted the saying, "Moses commanded to
give a bill of divorcement and put her away," it was of necessity said, "Moses,
for your hardness of heart, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the
beginning it hath not been so."152 But if any one ascends to the Gospel of
Christ Jesus which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek also the
spiritual understanding of this law. And he who wishes to interpret these things
figuratively will say that, just as it was said by Paul confident in the grace
which he had, "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if
the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the
Lord; but she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think
that I also have the Spirit of God"153 (for here to the words, "after my
judgment," lest it should be despised as being without the Spirit of God, he
well added, "and I think that I also have the Spirit of God)," so also it would
be possible for Moses, by reason of the power given to him to make laws, to the
effect that he suffered for the hardness of heart of the people certain things,
among which was the putting away of wives, to be persuaded in regard to the laws
which he promulgated according to his own judgment, that in these also the
legislation took place with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, unless one
law is spiritual and another is not such, this is a law, and this is spiritual,
and its spiritual significance ought to be investigated.

19. The Divorce of Israel.

Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah
about the bill of divorcement, we will say that the mother of the people
separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of
divorcement, but afterwards when there was found in her an unseemly thing, and
she did not find favour in his sight, the bill of divorcement was written out
for her; for when the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of
Him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorcement
to her who formerly separated from her husband-the law, and the Word. Therefore
he, also, having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given
into the hands of the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can no
longer do the things enjoined on them by the law, because of the bill of
divorcement. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorcement is this,
that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the
things in it which were believed to be holy, and with the altar of burnt
offerings, and all the worship associated with it. And a further sign of the
bill of divorcement is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though
according to the letter of the law designedly commanded them, in the place which
the Lord God appointed to them for keeping feasts; but there is this also, that
the whole synagogue has become unable to stone those who have committed this or
that sin; and thousands of things commanded are a sign of the bill of
divorcement; and the fact that "there is no more a prophet," and that they say,
"We no longer see signs; "154 " for the Lord says, "He hath taken away from
Judaea and from Jerusalem," according to the word of Isaiah, "Him that is
mighty, and her that is mighty, a powerful giant," etc., down to the words, "a
prudent hearer."155 Now, He who is the Christ may have taken the synagogue to
wife and cohabited with her, but it may be that afterwards she found not favour
in His sight; and the reason of her not having found favour in His sight was,
that there was found in her an unseemly thing; for what was more unseemly than
the Circumstance that, when it was proposed to them to release one at the feast,
they asked for the release of Barabbas the robber, and the condemnation of
Jesus?156 And what was more unseemly than the fact, that they all said in His
case, "Crucify Him, crucify Him," and "Away with such a fellow from the
earth"?157 And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness, "His blood be
upon us, and upon our children"?158 Wherefore, when He was avenged, Jerusalem
was compassed with armies, and its desolation was near,159 and their house was
taken away from it, and "the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a vineyard,
and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a besieged city."160 And, about
the same time, I think, the husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his
former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own house,
and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has been cancelled about which
the Apostle Says, "Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, which was
contrary to us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;
"161 for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel for her who came from
the Gentiles.162 The first wife, accordingly, not having found favour before her
husband, because in her had been found an unseemly thing, went out from the
dwelling of her husband, and, going away, has become joined to another man, to
whom she has subjected herself, whether we should call the husband Barabbas the
robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of
some of that synagogue there has happened the former thing which was written in
the law, but in the case of others, that which was second. For the last
husband163 hated his wife and will write out for her some day at the
consummation of things a bill of divorcement, when God so orders it, and will
give it into her hands and will send her away from his dwelling; for as the good
God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and
her seed,164 so will He order it that the last husband shall hate her.

20. Christ and the Gentiles.

Now there are those in whose case it has happened that the man dwells with them
without having hated them, because they abide in the house of the last husband,
who took to himself their synagogue as wife. But also in their case the latter
husband dies,165 perhaps whenever the last enemy of Christ, death, is destroyed.
But whichever of these things may happen, whether the former or the latter to
the wife, the former husband, it says, who sent her away, will not he able to
turn back and take her to be a wife to himself after she has been defiled, since
"it is abomination," it says, "before the Lord thy God."166 But these things
will not seem to be consistent with this, "If the fulness of the Gentiles be
come in, all Israel shall be saved."167 But consider if it can be said to this,
that, if she shall be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to
himself as wife, she will in any case be saved after she has been polluted. A
priest, then, will not take to himself as a wife one who has been a harlot and
an outcast,168 but no other, as being inferior to the priest, is hindered from
doing so. But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the
Gentiles, you may use the passage, "Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and
children of fornication,"169 etc.; for, as "the priests in the temple profane
the sabbath, and are guiltless,"170 so he who, casting oat his former wife,
takes in due season "a wife of fornication," having done it according to the
command of Him who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary,
"He shall not take a harlot to wife," and, when it was reasonable, He says,
"Take to yourself a wife of fornication." For as the Son of man is Lord of the
sabbath,171 and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives
the law has power to give it "until a time of reformation,"172 and to change the
law, and, when the time of the reformation is at hand, also to give after the
former way and after the former heart another way and another heart, "in an
acceptable time, and in a day of salvation."173 And let these things be said
according to our interpretation of the law in regard to the bill of divorcement.

21. Union of Angels and the Souls of Men. But some one may inquire whether the
human soul can be figuratively called a wife, and the angel who is set over her
and is her ruler, with whom as her sovereign she holds conversation, can be
called her husband; so that according to this each lawfully dwells along with
the soul which is worthy of the guardianship of a divine angel; but sometimes
after long sojourning and intercourse a cause may arise in the soul why she does
not find favour in the eyes of the angel who is her lord and ruler, because that
in it there is found an unseemly thing; and bonds may be written out, as such
are written, and a bill of divorcement be written and put into the hands of her
who is cast out, so that she may no longer be familiar with her former guardian,
when she is cast out from his dwelling. And even she who has gone away from her
former dwelling may be joined to another husband, and be unfortunate with him,
not only, as in the case of the former, not finding favour in his sight because
an unseemly thing was found in her, but even being hated by him.174 Yea, and
even there might be written out from the second husband a bill of divorcement
and it might be put into her hands from the last husband who sends her away from
his dwelling. But whether there can be such a change of the life of angels with
men, as to amount, so far as concerns their relation to us, to their death, one
may put the question rash though it be; but be that as it may, she also who has
once fallen away from the former husband will not return again to him, for the
former husband who sent her away will not be able to turn back and take her as
wife to himself, after she was defiled.175 And if one should dare, using a
Scripture which is in circulation in the church, but not acknowledged by all to
be divine, to soften down a precept of this kind, the passage might be taken
from The Shepherd, concerning some who as soon as they believe are put in
subjection to Michael,176 but falling away from him from love of pleasure, are
put in subjection to the angel of luxury,177 then to the angel of punishment,178
and after this to the angel of repentance; for you observe that the wife or soul
who has once been given to luxury no longer returns to the first ruler, but also
besides suffering punishment, is put in subjection to one inferior to Michael;
for the angel of penitence is inferior to him. We must therefore take heed lest
there be found in us any unseemly thing, and we should not find favour in the
eyes of our husband Christ, or of the angel who has been set over us. For if we
do not take heed, perhaps we also shall receive the bill of divorcement, and
either be bereft of our guardian, or go to another man. But I consider that it
is not of good omen to receive, as it were, the marriage of an angel with our
own soul.179 22. The Marriage of Church Dignitaries.

But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps
now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and
see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning
ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has
attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration
of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law
in regard to bishops m the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, "If a man seeketh
the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be
without reproach, the husbands of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,"180 etc.;
and, in regard to deacons, "Let the deacons," he says, "be the husbands of one
wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,"181 etc. Yea, and also
when appointing widows, he says, "Let there be no one as a widow under
threescore years old, having been the wife of one man; "182 and after this he
says the things superadded, as being second or third in importance to this. And,
in the Epistle to Titus, "For this cause," he says, "I left thee in Crete that
thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in
every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one
wife, having children, that believe"183 -of course-and so on. Now, when we saw
that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have
been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who
have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it
seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible
that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second
wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to
old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not
naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought
for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of
the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once
married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife,
and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But,
from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether,
seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things
that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who
were figuratively once married, in order that he who is able to give attention
to the matter, may find out from the spiritual law the one who was unworthy of
ecclesiastical rule, whose soul did not find favour in the eyes of her husband
because there had been found in her an unseemly thing, and she had become worthy
of the bill of divorcement; for such a soul, having dwelt along with a second
husband, and having been hated by such an one, can no longer, after the second
bill of divorcement, return to her former husband.184 It is likely, therefore,
also, that other arguments will be found by those who are wiser than we, and
have more ability to see into such things, whether in the law about the bill of
divorcement, or in the apostolic writings which prohibit those who have been
twice married from ruling over the church or being preferred to preside over it.
But, until something shall be found that is better and able by the excessive
brilliancy of the light of knowledge to cast into the shade what we have
uttered, we have said the things which have occurred to us in regard to the
passages.

23. Some Laws Given by Concession to Human Weakness.

But, even if we have seemed to touch on things too deep for our capacity in the
passages, nevertheless, because of the literal expression these things must
further be said, that some of the laws were written not as excellent, but as by
way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the law was given; for
something of this kind is indicated in the words, "Moses for your hardness of
heart suffered you to put away your wives; "185 but that which is pre-eminent
and superior to the law, which was written for their hardness of heart, is
indicated in this, "But from the beginning it hath not been so." But in the new
covenant also there are some legal injunctions of the same order as, "Moses for
your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives; "for example,
because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our
weakness, "But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let
each woman have her own husband; "186 and this, "Let the husband render unto the
wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband."187 To these sayings
it is accordingly subjoined, "But this I say by way of permission, not of
commandment."188 But this also, "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband
liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will,
only in the Lord,"189 was said by Paul in view of our hardness of heart and
weakness, to those who do not wish to desire earnestly the greater gifts190 and
become more blessed. But now contrary to what was written, some even of the
rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was
living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, "A wife is bound
for so long time as her husband liveth," and "So then if while her husband
liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an
adulteress,"191 not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this
concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was
from the beginning ordained by law, and written.

24. Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ. But perhaps some Jewish man of those
who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said,
"Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
maketh her an adulteress,"192 He also gave permission to put away a wife like as
well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of
heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, "Because he found in her an
unseemly thing,"193 is to be reckoned as the same as fornification on account of
which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it
must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be
stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be
understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to
write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed
perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by
the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the
bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her
husband; "but from the beginning it hath not been so."194 After this our Saviour
says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than
fornication alone, when detected in the wife, "Whosoever shall but away his own
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress."195 But it
might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting
away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for
example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband
from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And
further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband,
though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason
cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his
own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be
something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to
endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or
fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act
contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would
acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put
away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, "Whosoever
shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an
adulteress."196 For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a
fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, "when
the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to
another man; "197 and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a
second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to
whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes
any defence of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband
can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit
adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is
fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the
simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a
ground of defence or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you
will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult
questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from
his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her
desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and
self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with
him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who,
for other reason than fornication, has sent her away,-for poisoning or murder or
any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she
seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also
the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her
as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.

25. Chastity and Prayer.

Now after these things, having considered how many possible accidents may arise
in marriages, which it was necessary for the man to endure and in this way
suffer very great hardships, or if he did not endure, to transgress the word of
Christ, the disciples say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more
expedient than marriage, though the latter appears to be expedient, "If the case
of life man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."198 And to this
the Saviour said, teaching us that absolute chastity is a gift given by God, and
not merely the fruit of training, but given by God with prayer, "All men cannot
receive the saying, but they to whom it is given."199 Then seeing that some make
a sophistical attack on the saying. "To whom it is given," as if those who
wished to remain pure in celibacy, but were mastered by their desires, had an
excuse, we must say that, if we believe the Scriptures, why at all do we lay
hold of the saying, "But they to whom it is given," but no longer attend to
this, "Ask and it shall be given you,"200 and to that which is added to it, "For
every one that asketh receiveth"?201 For if they "to whom it is given" can
receive this saying about absolute purity, let him who wills ask, obeying and
believing Him who said, "Ask and it shall be given you,"202 and not doubting
about the saying, "Every one that asketh receiveth."203 But when there you will
inquire who it is that asketh, for no one of those who do not receive has asked,
even though he seems to have done so, since it is not lawful to say that the
saying, "Every one that asketh receiveth." is a lie. Who then is he that asketh,
but he who has obeyed Jesus when He says, "If ye stand praying, believe that ye
receive, and ye shall receive"?204 But he that asketh must do everything in his
power that he may pray "with the spirit" and pray also "with the
understanding,"205 and pray "without ceasing,"206 keeping in mind also the
saying, "And He spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always to
pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge,"207 etc. And it is
useful to know what it is to ask, and what it is to receive, and what is meant
by "Every one that asketh, receiveth,"208 and by "I say unto you though he will
not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity,
he will arise and give him as many as he needeth."209 It is therefore added,
"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you," and so on. Further, let
the saying, "All men cannot receive the saying but they to whom it is given,"210
be a stimulus to us to ask worthily of receiving; and this, "What son is there
of you who shall ask his father for a fish, will he for a fish give him a
serpent," etc. God therefore will give the good gift, perfect purity in celibacy
and chastity, to those who ask Him with the whole soul, and with faith, and in
prayers without ceasing.parparpar 2: Matt. xviii. 19.

4: Gen. xxxi. 27.

9: Matt. xviii. 20.

10: Matt. vii. 14.

11: 1 Cor. i. 1.

15: Exod. vi. 24.

19: Acts iv. 32.

21: 1 Cor. v. 4 23: Or reading xwrizei , following the Vetus Inter, keeps apart.

31: Rom. x. 10.

34: Matt. xviii. 20.

35: Matt. xviii. 21.

36: Gen. iv. 23.

37: Matt. xviii. 22.

40: 1 Cor. ii. 11.

43: Matt. v. 3.

44: Rom. vi. 12.

47: Col. i. 15.

48: 1 Cor. vi. 17.

51: Luke xix. 13.

52: Matt. xxv. 27.

59: Matt. x. 42.

60: Dan. vii. 10.

61: Matt. x. 26 ; Luke xii. 2.

62: Luke xii. 58, 59.

64: Luke xix. 17.

65: Luke xix. 19. In chap. 12 Origen reads: Be thou also over five cities -as W.
& H., and comments on the difference of the reward. The MSS. are therefore in
error here.

67: 1 Cor. xv. 52.

74: 1 Chron. xxii. 14.

76: Matt. xviii. 26.

79: 1 Cor. ii. 10.

81: John xxi. 25.

82: Matt. xxv. 14-30.

83: Luke xix. 12-27.

86: Matt. xviii. 24.

87: 2 Cor. v. 6.

89: Luke xix. 12, 13.

95: Matt. xviii. 23.

96: Luke xix. 12.

99: Rev. xxi. 2.

101: Matt. xvii. 26, 29.

102: Matt. xviii. 31.

105: Matt. xviii. 35.

106: Luke xix. 27.

109: Mark xiv. 49; Matt. xxvi. 56.

111: teletaj . Origen's play on the words etelesen and teleth cannot be fully
reproduced in English. The word teleth , in reference to the mysteries, meant
the rite, or participation in the rite, by which one became perfect; and in
later Christian usage it was applied to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper. See Suicer.

116: Matt. xix. 2.

118: Matt. ix. 9.

121: Mark. x. 2.

129: Matt. xix. 6.

130: Gen. i. 27.

131: Gen. ii. 24.

133: Gen. iii. 16.

140: Matt. xix. 5.

144: Isa. l. 1.

146: John i. 14.

147: 1 Cor. xii. 27.

153: 1 Cor. vii. 39, 40.

156: Matt. xxvii. 21.

157: John xix. 15.

160: Isa. i. 8.

166: Deut. xxiv. 4.

167: Rom. xi. 25, 26.

169: Hos. i. 2.

171: Matt. xii. 8.

176: Cf. Her. Sim. viii. 3.

180: 1 Tim. iii. 1,2.

181: 1 Tim. iii. 12.

182: 1 Tim. v. 9.

184: Cf. Deut. xxiv. 4.

189: 1 Cor. vii. 39.

190: 1 Cor. xii. 31.

192: Matt. v. 32 193: Deut. xxiv. 1.

194: Matt. xix. 8.

195: Matt. v. 32.

200: Matt. vii. 7.

202: Matt. vii. 7.

204: Mark xi. 24, 25.

205: 1 Cor. xiv. 15.

206: 1 Thess. v. 17.

209: Luke xi. 8.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - BOOK 2
========================================================================

Book II1 The Unity and Harmony of Scripture

Book II1 The Unity and Harmony of Scripture

"Blessed are the peacemakers.... "2 To the man who is a peacemaker in either
sense there is in the Divine oracles nothing crooked or perverse, for they are
all plain to those who understand.3 And because to such an one there is nothing
crooked or perverse, he sees therefore abundance of peace4 in all the
Scriptures, even in those which seem to be at conflict, and in contradiction
with one another. And likewise he becomes a third peacemaker as he demonstrates
that that which appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no
conflict, and exhibits their concord and peace, whether of the Old Scriptures
with the New, or of the Law with the Prophets, or of the Gospels with the
Apostolic Scriptures, or of the Apostolic Scriptures with each other. For, also,
according to the Preacher, all the Scriptures are "words of the wise like goads,
and as nails firmly fixed which were given by agreement from one shepherd; "5
and there is nothing superfluous in them. But l the Word is the one Shepherd of
things rational which may have an appearance of discord to those who have not
ears to hear, but are truly at perfect concord. For as the different chords of
the psalter or the lyre, each of which gives forth a certain sound of its own
which seems unlike the sound of another chord, are thought by a man who is not
musical and ignorant of the principle of musical harmony, to be inharmonious,
because of the dissimilarity of the sounds, so those who are not skilled in
hearing the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures think that the Old is not in
harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one
another, or the Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other
Apostles. But he who comes instructed in the music of God, being a man wise in
word and deed, and, on this account, like another David-which is, by
interpretation, skilful with the hand-will bring out the sound of the music of
God, having learned from this at the right time to strike the chords, now the
chords of the Law, now the Gospel chords in harmony with them, and again the
Prophetic chords, and, when reason demands it, the Apostolic chords which are in
harmony with the Prophetic, and likewise the Apostolic with those of the
Gospels. For he knows that all the Scripture is the one perfect and harmonised6
instrument of God, which from different sounds gives forth one saving voice to
those willing to learn, which stops and restrains every working of an evil
spirit, just as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul, which
also was choking him.7 You see, then, that he is in the third place a
peacemaker, who sees in accordance with the Scripture the peace of it all, and
implants this peace in those who rightly seek and make nice distinctions in a
genuine spirit.

1: This fragment, which is preserved in the Philecalia, c. vi., is all that is
extant of Book II.

2: Matt. v. 9.

3: Prov. viii. 8, 9.

4: Ps. lxxii.. 7.

5: Ecc. xii. 11.

6: Or, fitted.

7: 1 Sam. xvi. 14.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW - INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

Introduction to the Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew Introduction to the
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew

According to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) the Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew
were written about the same time as the Contra Celsum, when Origen was over
sixty years of age, and may therefore be probably assigned to the period
246-248. This statement is confirmed by internal evidence. In the portion here
translated, books x.-xiv., he passes by the verses Matt. xviii. 12, 13, and
refers for the exposition of them to his Homilies on Luke (book xiii. 29).
Elsewhere, he refers his readers for a fuller discussion on certain points to
his Commentaries on John (book xvi. 20), and on Romans (book xvii. 32). Of the
twenty-five books into which the work was divided, the first nine, with the
exception of two fragments, are lost; books x.-xvii., covering the portion from
Matt. xiii. 36 to xxii. 33, are extant in the Greek, and the greater part of the
remaining books survives in a Latin version, which is co-extensive with the
Greek from book xii. 9 to book xvii. 36, and contains further the exposition
from Matt. xxii. 34 to xxvii. 66. The passages in Cramer's Catena do not seem to
be taken from the Commentaries. Of the numerous quotations from Matthew only one
(Matt. xxi. 35) can be definitely traced to this section of the writings of
Origen; and as this differs greatly from our present text, and is moreover
purely narrative, it is probably taken like the others either from the Scholia
(commaticum interpretationis genus), or from the Homilies to which reference is
made by Jerome (Prol. in Matt. I. iv). The majority of them may be ascribed to
the Scholia. In addition to the mss. already referred to (p. 294) the old Latin
version is often useful for determining the text, though it contains some
interpolations and has many omissions. The omissions (cf. book xiii. 28, book
xiv. x, 3, book xiv. 19-22) are not due to any dogmatic bias, but have been made
by the translator or some subsequent transcriber on the ground that the passages
were uninteresting or unimportant. The version is otherwise for the most part
literal, and has in some cases preserved the correct reading, though it often
fails just when it would have been of most service. For an estimate of the work
and method of Origen as an exegete, see pp. 291-294; and for a fuller statement
on some of the points here touched upon, see Westcott's article on Origen in
Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography (vol. iv.).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: DE PRINCIPIIS - BOOK 1
========================================================================

Book I.

Chapter I.-On God.

Chapter II.-On Christ.

Chapter III.-On the Holy Spirit.

Chapter IV.-On Defection, or Falling Away.

Chapter V.-On Rational Natures.

Chapter VI.-On the End or Consummation.

Chapter VII.-On Incorporeal and Corporeal Beings.

Chapter VIII.-On the Angels.

Fragment from the First Book of the de Principiis.

Another Fragment from the Same.

Book I.

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; "1 and in the Gospel according to
John, that "God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit
and in truth."2 Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as
nothing else than a body. Now, I should like to ask these persons what they have
to say respecting that passage where it is declared that God is light; as John
writes in his Epistle, "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all."3
Truly He is that light which illuminates the whole understanding of those who
are capable of receiving truth, as is said in the Psalms 36, "In Thy light we
shall see light."4 For what other light of God can be named, "in which any one
sees light," save an influence of God, by which a man, being enlightened, either
thoroughly sees the truth of all things, or comes to know God Himself, who is
called the truth? Such is the meaning of the expression, "In Thy light we shall
see light; "i.e., in Thy word and wisdom which is Thy Son, in Himself we shall
see Thee the Father. Because He is called light, shall He be supposed to have
any resemblance to the light of the sun? Or how should there be the slightest
ground for imagining, that from that corporeal light any one could derive the
cause of knowledge, and come to the understanding of the truth?

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?
"5 He makes them, after all their vices and passions have been consumed, a holy
temple, worthy of Himself. Those, moreover, who, on account of the expression
"God is a Spirit," think that He is a body, are to be answered, I think, in the
following manner. It is the custom of sacred Scripture, when it wishes to
designate anything opposed to this gross and solid body, to call it spirit, as
in the expression, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,"6 where
there can be no doubt that by "letter" are meant bodily things, and by "spirit"
intellectual things, which we also term "spiritual." The apostle, moreover,
says, "Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart:
nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away: and
where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."7 For so long as any one is
not converted to a spiritual understanding, a veil is placed over his heart,
with which veil, i.e., a gross understanding, Scripture itself is said or
thought to be covered: and this is the meaning of the statement that a veil was
placed over the countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, i.e., when the
law was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also is the word
of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual knowledge, then the veil is
taken away, and with unveiled face we shall behold the glory of the Lord in the
holy Scriptures.

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 science8 or art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those who
do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is
placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or must we not
rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds come to understand
the art and discipline itself, may be said to be partaken of the art of healing?
But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel instances in a comparison of
medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that
that is not necessarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed
by many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or
science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual
existence9 and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whereas medicine is not
at all of that nature.

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."10 To this opinion of the
Samaritan woman, therefore, who imagined that God was less rightly or duly
worshipped, according to the privileges of the different localities, either by
the Jews in Jerusalem or by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the Saviour
answered that he who would follow the Lord must lay aside all preference for
particular places, and thus expressed Himself: "The hour is coming when neither
in Jerusalem nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers worship the Father.
God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in
truth."11 And observe how logically He has joined together the spirit and the
truth: He called God a Spirit, that He might distinguish Him from bodies; and He
named Him the truth, to distinguish Him from a shadow or an image. For they who
worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God neither in truth nor in spirit, being in
subjection to the shadow or image of heavenly things; and such also was the case
with those who worshipped on Mount Gerizim.

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.12 For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God,
either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by
many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. For, as if we were to
see any one unable to bear a spark of light, or the flame of a very small lamp,
and were desirous to acquaint such a one, whose vision could not admit a greater
degree of light than what we have stated, with the brightness and splendour of
the sun, would it not be necessary to tell him that the splendour of the sun was
unspeakably and incalculably better and more glorious than all this light which
he saw? So our understanding, when shut in by the fetters of flesh and blood,
and rendered, on account of its participation in such material substances,
duller and more obtuse, although, in comparison with our bodily nature, it is
esteemed to be far superior, yet, in its efforts to examine and behold
incorporeal things, scarcely holds the place of a spark or lamp. But among all
intelligent, that is, incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others-so
unspeakably and incalculably superior-as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or
seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest?

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,13 admitting within Himself no addition of any
kind; so that He cannot be believed to have within him a greater and a less, but
is such that He is in all parts Mona/j, and, so to speak, 9Ena/j, and is the
mind and source from which all intellectual nature or mind takes its beginning.
But mind, for its movements or operations, needs no physical space, nor sensible
magnitude, nor bodily shape, nor colour, nor any other of those adjuncts which
are the properties of body or matter. Wherefore that simple and wholly
intellectual nature14 can admit of no delay or hesitation in its movements or
operations, lest the simplicity of the divine nature should appear to be
circumscribed or in some degree hampered by such adjuncts, and lest that which
is the beginning of all things should be found composite and differing, and that
which ought to be free from all bodily intermixture, in virtue of being the one
sole species of Deity, so to speak, should prove, instead of being one, to
consist of many things. That mind, moreover, does not require space in order to
carry on its movements agreeably to its nature, is certain from observation of
our own mind. For if the mind abide within its own limits, and sustain no injury
from any cause, it will never, from diversity of situation, be retarded in the
discharge of its functions; nor, on the other hand, does it gain any addition or
increase of mobility from the nature of particular places. And here, if any one
were to object, for example, that among those who are at sea, and tossed by its
waves the mind is considerably less vigorous than it is wont to be on land, we
are to believe that it is in this state, not from diversity of situation, but
from the commotion or disturbance of the body to which the mind is joined or
attached. For it seems to be contrary to nature, as it were, for a human body to
live at sea; and for that reason it appears, by a sort of inequality of its own,
to enter upon its mental operations in a slovenly and irregular manner, and to
perform the acts of the intellect with a duller sense, in as great degree as
those who on land are prostrated with fever; with respect to whom it is certain,
that if the. mind do not discharge its functions as well as before, in
consequence of the attack of disease, the blame is to be laid not upon the
place, but upon the bodily malady, by which the body, being disturbed and
disordered, renders to the mind its customary services under by no means the
well-known and natural conditions: for we human beings are animals composed of a
union of body and soul, and in this way (only) was it possible for us to live
upon the earth. But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be
regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist
elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed,
whatever that be which is called composite. Neither does the mind require bodily
magnitude in order to perform any act or movement; as when the eye by gazing
upon bodies of larger size is dilated, but is compressed and contracted in order
to see smaller objects. The mind, indeed, requires magnitude of an intellectual
kind, because it grows, not after the fashion of a body, but after that of
intelligence. For the mind is not enlarged, together with the body, by means of
corporal additions, up to the twentieth or thirtieth year of life; but the
intellect is sharpened by exercises of learning, and the powers implanted within
it for intelligent purposes are called forth; and it is rendered capable of
greater intellectual efforts, not being increased by bodily additions, but
carefully polished by learned exercises. But these it cannot receive immediately
from boyhood, or from birth, because the framework of limbs which the mind
employs as organs for exercising itself is weak and feeble; and it is unable to
bear the weight of its own operations, or to exhibit a capacity for receiving
training.

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
invisible15 things? How does the body possess the faculty of understanding
incorporeal existences? How does a bodily nature investigate the processes of
the various arts, and contemplate the reasons of things? How, also, is it able
to perceive and understand divine truths, which are manifestly incorporeal?
Unless, indeed, some should happen to be of opinion, that as the very bodily
shape and form of the ears or eyes contributes something to hearing and to
sight, and as the individual members, formed by God, have some adaptation, even
from the very quality of their form, to the end for which they were naturally
appointed; so also he may think that the shape of the soul or mind is to be
understood as if created purposely and designedly for perceiving and
understanding individual things, and for being set in motion by vital movements.
I do not perceive, however, who shall be able to describe or state what is the
colour of the mind, in respect of its being mind, and acting as an intelligent
existence. Moreover, in confirmation and explanation of what we have already
advanced regarding the mind or soul-to the effect that it is better than the
whole bodily nature-the following remarks may be added. There underlies every
bodily sense a certain peculiar sensible substance,16 on which the bodily sense
exerts itself. For example, colours, form, size, underlie vision; voices and
sound, the sense of hearing; odours, good or bad, that of smell; savours, that
of taste; heat or cold, hardness or softness, roughness or smoothness, that of
touch. Now, of those senses enumerated above, it is manifest to all that the
sense of mind is much the best. How, then, should it not appear absurd, that
under those senses which are inferior, substances should have been placed on
which to exert their powers, but that under this power, which is far better than
any other, i.e., the sense of mind, nothing at all of the nature of a substance
should be placed, but that a power of an intellectual nature should be an
accident, or consequent upon bodies? Those who assert this, doubtless do so to
the disparagement of that better substance which is within them; nay, by so
doing, they even do wrong to God Himself, when they imagine He may be understood
by means of a bodily nature, so that according to their view He is a body, and
that which may be understood or perceived by means of a body; and they are
unwilling to have it understood that the mind bears a certain relationship to
God, of whom the mind itself is an intellectual image, and that by means of this
it may come to some knowledge of the nature of divinity, especially if it be
purified and separated from bodily matter.

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."17 Not, as some suppose, that the nature
of God is visible to some and invisible to others: for the apostle does not say
"the image of God invisible" to men or "invisible" to sinners, but with
unvarying constancy pronounces on the nature of God in these words: "the image
of the invisible God." Moreover, John, in his Gospel, when asserting that "no
one hath seen God at any time,"18 manifestly declares to all who are capable of
understanding, that there is no nature to which God is visible: not as if, He
were a being who was visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view
of a frailer creature, but because by the nature of His being it is impossible
for Him to be seen. And if you should ask of me what is my opinion regarding the
Only-begotten Himself, whether the nature of God, which is naturally invisible,
be not visible even to Him, let not such a question appear to you at once to be
either absurd or impious, because we shall give you a logical reason. It is one
thing to see, and another to know: to see and to be seen is a property of
bodies; to know and to be known, an attribute of intellectual being. Whatever,
therefore, is a property of bodies, cannot be predicated either of the Father or
of the Son; but what belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and
the Son.19 Finally, even He Himself, in the Gospel, did not say that no one has
seen the Father, save the Son, nor any one the Son, save the Father; but His
words are: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; nor any one the Father,
save the Son."20 By which it is clearly shown, that whatever among bodily
natures is called seeing and being seen, is termed, between the Father and the
Son, a knowing and being known, by means of the power of knowledge, not by the
frailness of the sense of sight. Because, then, neither seeing nor being seen
can be properly applied to an incorporeal and invisible nature, neither is the
Father, in the Gospel, said to be seen by the Son, nor the Son by the Father,
but the one is said to be known by the other.

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,"21 from that very passage, in my opinion,
will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in
heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him
with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to
the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to
perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So also it is
said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper meaning of a statement.
So also we say that it makes use of teeth, when it chews and eats the bread of
life which cometh down from heaven. In like manner, also, it is said to employ
the services of other members, which are transferred from their bodily
appellations, and applied to the powers of the soul, according to the words of
Solomon, "You will find a divine sense."22 For he knew that there were within us
two kinds of senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other immortal and
intellectual, which he now termed divine. By this divine sense, therefore, not
of the eyes, but of a pure heart, which is the mind, God may be seen by those
who are worthy. For you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both old and
new, the term "heart" repeatedly used instead of "mind," i.e., intellectual
power. In this manner, therefore, although far below the dignity of the subject,
have we spoken of the nature of God, as those who understand it under the
limitation of the human understanding. In the next place, let us see what is
meant by the name of Christ.

Chapter II.-On Christ.

1. In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in
Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one thing, and
that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the
dispensation (of grace) is another. And therefore we have first to ascertain
what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different
names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed
Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created me-the
beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He
rounded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before
He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong,
before all the hills, He brought me forth."23 He is also styled First-born, as
the apostle has declared: "who is the first-born of every creature."24 The
first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but
one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that "Christ (is) the power of
God and the wisdom of God."25

2. Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal26 when we call
Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be,
not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise,
giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made
capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly
understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically27
existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or
entertain any suspicion that that u9po/stasij or substantia contains anything of
a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by
form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form,
or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is
capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can
suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of
time,28 without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say
either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He
afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He
possessed the power indeed, but-what cannot be said of God without impiety-was
unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike
absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a
condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the
power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have
always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed
of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only
such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind
alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked
powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was
generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed. And
since all the creative power of the coming creation29 was included in this very
existence of Wisdom (whether of those things which have an original or of those
which have a derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by
the power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had been
described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does Wisdom say, in the
words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning of the ways of God,
inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or
species of all creation.

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,30 where it
is said that "here is the Word a living being," appears to me to be rightly
used. John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of
his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, "And God
was the Word,31 and this was in the beginning with God." Let him, then, who
assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not
guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that
He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed
wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or
anything else that can be so entitled.

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.32 But it is monstrous and
unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son,
and in the substance33 of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in
such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional
and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in
things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by
perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten
God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as
eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it
is not by receiving the34 breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward
act, but by His own nature.

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."35 And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is
"the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person."36 Now, we
find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of
the wisdom of God: "For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest
efflux37 of the glory of the Almighty."38 Nothing that is polluted can therefore
come upon her. For she is the splendour of the eternal light, and the stainless
mirror of God's working, and the image of His goodness. Now we say, as before,
that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else save in Him who is the beginning of
all things: from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because He
Himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore termed the
Only-begotten.

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 of the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, may be compared to
the second of the above examples, even in respect of this, that He is the
invisible image of the invisible God, in the same manner as we say, according to
the sacred history, that the image of Adam is his son Seth. The words are, "And
Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, and after his own image."39 Now this image
contains the unity of nature and substance belonging to Father and Son. For if
the Son do, in like manner, all those things which the Father doth, then, in
virtue of the Son doing all things like the Father, is the image of the Father
formed in the Son, who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding from
the mind. And I am therefore of opinion that the will of the Father ought alone
to be sufficient for the existence of that which He wishes to exist. For in the
exercise of His wilt He employs no other way than that which is made known by
the counsel of His will. And thus also the existence40 of the Son is generated
by Him. For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow
nothing to be unbegotten, i.e., unborn, save God the Father only. And we must be
careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves
certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and who divide
God the Father as far as they can, since even to entertain the remotest
suspicion of such a thing regarding an incorporeal being is not only the height
of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly, it being most remote from any
intelligent conception that there should be any physical division of any
incorporeal nature. Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the
understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from
it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten
the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature,
He also begat an image that was invisible. For the Son is the Word, and
therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the
senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything
corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into
this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. Our
Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with
the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals
the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father,
whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him.
And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding. For He by whom the
Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also,
according to His own words: "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also."41

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,"42 let us see what idea we are to form of this. According to John,
"God is light." The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light,
proceeding inseparably from (God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and
illuminating the whole of creation. For, agreeably to what we have already
explained as to the manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father;
and in which He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and the
mysteries of knowledge, making them known to the rational creation; and is also
the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection,-in the same way ought we to
understand also the meaning of His being the brightness: for it is by its
splendour that we understand and feel what light itself is. And this splendour,
presenting itself gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals, and
gradually training, as it were, and accustoming them to bear the brightness of
the light, when it has put away from them every hindrance and obstruction to
vision, according to the Lord's own precept," Cast forth the beam out of thine
eye,"43 renders them capable of enduring the splendour of the light, being made
in this respect also a sort of mediator between men and the light.

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,44 it does not seem
idle to inquire how there can be said to be another figure of that person
besides the person of God Himself, whatever be the meaning of person and
subsistence. Consider, then, whether the Son of God, seeing He is His Word and
Wisdom, and alone knows the Father, and reveals Him to whom He will (i.e., to
those who are capable of receiving His word and wisdom), may not, in regard of
this very point of making God to be understood and acknowledged, be called the
figure of His person and subsistence; that is, when that Wisdom, which desires
to make known to others the means by which God is acknowledged and understood by
them, describes Himself first of all, it may by so doing be called the express
figure of the person of God. In order, however, to arrive at a fuller
understanding of the manner in which the Saviour is the figure of the person or
subsistence of God, let us take an instance, which, although it does not
describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, may
nevertheless be seen to be employed for this purpose only, to show that the Son
of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself (of His glory), makes it
His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fulness
of His deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a
size as to fill the whole world, and which on that account could be seen by no
one; and that another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape
of the limbs, and in the features of the countenance, and in form and material,
but without the same immensity of size, so that those who were unable to behold
the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that
they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and
countenance, and even the very form and material, so closely, as to be
altogether undistinguishable from it; by some such similitude, the Son of God,
divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing to us the way to
the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person: so that we, who
were unable to look upon the glory of that marvellous light when placed in the
greatness of His Godhead, may, by His being made to us brightness, obtain the
means of beholding the divine light by looking upon the brightness. This
comparison, of course, of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed
for no other purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very
insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of His
works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an immense and
invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples, "He who sees Me, sees
the Father also; "and, "I and the Father are one." And to these belong also the
similar expression, "The Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

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."45 These, then, are the definitions which he
gives of God, pointing out by each one of them certain attributes which belong
to the Wisdom of God, calling wisdom the power, and the glory, and the
everlasting light, and the working, and the goodness of God. He does not say,
however, that wisdom is the breath of the glory of the Almighty, nor of the
everlasting light, nor of the working Of the Father, nor of His goodness, for it
was not appropriate that breath should be ascribed to any one of these; but,
with all propriety, he says that wisdom is the breath of the power of God. Now,
by the power of God is to be understood that by which He is strong; by which He
appoints, restrains, and governs all things visible and invisible; which is
sufficient for all those things which He rules over in His providence; among all
which He is present, as if one individual. And although the breath of all this
mighty and immeasurable power, and the vigour itself produced, so to speak, by
its own existence, proceed from the power itself, as the will does from the
mind, yet even this will of God is nevertheless made to become the power of
God.46

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,"47 it ought to be termed not only the breath of the power of God, but
power out of power.

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 is
necessary that all things should exist. For if any one would have some ages or
portions of time, or whatever else he likes to call them, to have passed away,
while those things which were afterwards made did not yet exist, he would
undoubtedly show that during those ages or periods God was not omnipotent, but
became so afterwards, viz., from the time that He began to have persons over
whom to exercise power; and in this way He will appear to have received a
certain increase, and to have risen from a lower to a higher condition; since
there can be no doubt that it is better for Him to be omnipotent than not to be
so. And now how can it appear otherwise than absurd, that when God possessed
none of those things which it was befitting for Him to possess, He should
afterwards, by a kind of progress, come into the possession of them? But if
there never was a time when He was not omnipotent, of necessity those things by
which He receives that title must also exist; and He must always have had those
over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or
prince, of which we shall speak more fully in the proper place, when we come to
discuss the subject of the creatures. But even now I think it necessary to drop
a word, although cursorily, of warning, since the question before us is, how
wisdom is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty, lest any one should
think that the title of Omnipotent was anterior in God to the birth of Wisdom,
through whom He is called Father, seeing that Wisdom, which is the Son of God,
is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty. Let him who is inclined to
entertain this suspicion hear the undoubted declaration of Scripture
pronouncing, "In wisdom hast Thou made them all,"48 and the teaching of the
Gospel, that "by Him were all things made, and without Him nothing was made; "49
and let him understand from this that the title of Omnipotent in God cannot be
older than that of Father; for it is through the Son that the Father is
almighty. But from the expression "glory of the Almighty," of which glory Wisdom
is the efflux, this is to be understood, that Wisdom, through which God is
called omnipotent, has a share in the glory of the Almighty. For through Wisdom,
which is Christ, God has power over all things, not only by the authority of a
ruler, but also by the voluntary obedience of subjects. And that you may
understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God
and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which
John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty."50 For who else was "He which is to
come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father,
that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no
one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent. For in
this way will that saying be true which He utters to the Father, "All Mine are
Thine, and Thine are Mine, and I am glorified in them."51 Now, if all things
which are the Father's are also Christ's, certainly among those things which
exist is the omnipotence of the Father; and doubtless the only-begotten Son
ought to be omnipotent, that the Son also may have all things which the Father
possesses. "And I am glorified in them," He declares. For "at the name of Jesus
every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under
the earth; and every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of
God the Father."52 Therefore He is the efflux of the glory of God in this
respect, that He is omnipotent-the pure and limpid Wisdom herself-glorified as
the efflux of omnipotence or of glory. And that it may be more clearly
understood what the glory of omnipotence is, we shall add the following. God the
Father is omnipotent, because He has power over all things, i.e., over heaven
and earth, sun, moon, and stars, and all things in them. And He exercises His
power over them by means of His Word, because at the name of Jesus every knee
shall bow, both of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
earth. And if every knee is bent to Jesus, then, without doubt, it is Jesus to
whom all things are subject, and He it is who exercises power over all things,
and through whom all things are subject to the Father; for through wisdom, i.e.,
by word and reason, not by force and necessity, are all things subject. And
therefore His glory consists in this very thing, that He possesses all things,
and this is the purest and most limpid glory of omnipotence, that by reason and
wisdom, not by force and necessity, all things are subject. Now the purest and
most limpid glory of wisdom is a convenient expression to distinguish it from
that glory which cannot be called pure and sincere. But every nature which is
convertible and changeable, although glorified in the works of righteousness or
wisdom, yet by the fact that righteousness or wisdom are accidental qualifies,
and because that which is accidental may also fall away, its glory cannot be
called sincere and pure. But the Wisdom of God, which is His only-begotten Son,
being in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and every good quality
in Him being essential, and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory
is therefore declared to be pure and sincere.

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 e0ne/rgeia 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."53 And again He says, that the Son
cannot do anything of Himself, save what He sees the Father do. As therefore the
Son in no respect differs from the Father in the power of His works, and the
work of the Son is not a different thing from that of the Father, but one and
the same movement, so to speak, is in all things, He therefore named Him a
stainless mirror, that by such an expression it might be understood that them is
no dissimilarity whatever between the Son and the Father. How, indeed, can those
things which are said by some to be done after the manner in which a disciple
resembles or imitates his master, or according to the view that those things are
made by the Son in bodily material which were first formed by the Father in
their spiritual essence, agree with the declarations of Scripture, seeing in the
Gospel the Son is said to do not similar things, but the same things in a
similar manner?

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, "Them is none good save one only, God the Father,"54 that by such an
expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but
of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is tightly termed the image,
because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest
there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in
the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son.
And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it
were, in the words, "There is none good save one only, God the Father," as if
thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit
was good. But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood
as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy
Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that
goodness which is in the source whence they are derived. And if there be any
other things which in Scripture are called good, whether angel, or man, or
servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so termed
catachrestically,55 having in them an accidental, not an essential goodness. But
it would require both much time and labour to collect together all the titles of
the Son of God, such, e.g., as the true light, or the door, or the
righteousness, or the sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others;
and to show if or what reasons each one of them is so given. Satisfied,
therefore, with what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into
those other matters which follow.

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
recognise Him as the parent of the universe. Now, that to Him belongs a Son, is
a statement not made by us only; although it may seem a sufficiently marvellous
and incredible assertion to those who have a reputation as philosophers among
Greeks and Barbarians, by some of whom, however, an idea of His existence seems
to have been entertained, in their acknowledging that all things were created by
the word or reason of God. We, however, in conformity with our belief in that
doctrine, which we assuredly hold to be divinely inspired, believe that it is
possible in no other way to explain and bring within the reach of human
knowledge this higher and diviner reason as the Son of God, than by means of
those Scriptures alone which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Gospels
and Epistles, and the law and the prophets, according to the declaration of
Christ Himself. Of the existence of the Holy Spirit no one indeed could
entertain any suspicion, save those who were familiar with the law and the
prophets, or those who profess a belief in Christ. For although no one is able
to speak with certainty of God the Father, it is nevertheless possible for some
knowledge of Him to be gained by means of the visible creation and the natural
feelings of the human mind; and it is possible, moreover, for such knowledge to
be confined from the sacred Scriptures. But with respect to the Son of God,
although no one knoweth the Son save the Father, yet it is from sacred Scripture
also that the human mind is taught how to think of the Son; and that not only
from the New, but also from the Old Testament, by means of those things which,
although done by the saints, are figuratively referred to Christ, and from which
both His divine nature, and that human nature which was assumed by Him, may be
discovered.

2. Now, what the Holy Spirit is, we are taught in many passages of Scripture, as
by David in the Psalms 51, when he says, "And take not Thy Holy Spirit from me;
"56 and by Daniel, where it is Said, "The Holy Spirit which is in thee."57 And
in the New Testament we have abundant testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is
described as having descended upon Christ, and when the Lord breathed upon His
apostles after His resurrection, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit; "58 and the
saying of the angel to Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee; "59 the
declaration by Paul, that no one can call Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Spirit.60
In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given by the imposition of the
apostles' hands in baptism.61 From all which we learn that the person of the
Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not
complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all,
i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the
unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the
Holy Spirit. Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy
Spirit, when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope
for forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which is to come!62

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 Hennas, 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."63 And in
the book of Enoch also we have similar descriptions. But up to the present time
we have been able to find no statement in holy Scripture in which the Holy
Spirit could be said to be made or created,64 not even in the way in which we
have shown above that the divine wisdom is spoken of by Solomon, or in which
those expressions which we have discussed are to be understood of the life, or
the word, or the other appellations of the Son of God. The Spirit of God,
therefore, which was borne upon the waters, as is written in the beginning of
the creation of the world, is, I am of opinion, no other than the Holy Spirit,
so far as I can understand; as indeed we have shown in our exposition of the
passages themselves, not according to the historical, but according to the
spiritual method of interpretation.

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; "65 and, "Seeing ye began in the Spirit, are
ye now made perfect in the flesh? "66 We are of opinion that this distinction
may be observed in the Old Testament also, as when it is said, "He that giveth
His Spirit to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk
thereon."67 For, · without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth (i.e.,
earthly and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy Spirit, receiving
it from God. My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in
Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one
another, and saying, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Loan God of hosts,"68 were to be
understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think
that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, "In the midst
either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,"69
ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of
the Father is obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so that
both of these beings which, according to the prophet, are called either "living
things" or "lives," exist as the ground of the knowledge of God the Father. For
as it is said of the Son, that "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to
whom the Son will reveal Him,"70 the same also is said by the apostle of the
Holy Spirit, when He declares, "God hath revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit;
for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God; "71 and again
in the Gospel, when the Saviour, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of
His teaching, which His disciples were not yet able to receive, thus addresses
them: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; but
when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is come, He will teach you all things, and
will bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."72
We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father,
reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep
things of God, reveals God to whom He will: "For the Spirit bloweth where He
listeth."73 We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His
knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the
Father through the Son's revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into
one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy
Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else
existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He
came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the
time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that
after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were
the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity,
i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been
the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as "always" or "was," or any
other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due
allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those
subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in
time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the
finite understanding.

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,"74 all things, whatever they are,
participate; which participation in God the Father is shared both by just men
and sinners, by rational and irrational beings, and by all things universally
which exist. The Apostle Paul also shows truly that all have a share in Christ,
when he says, "Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (i.e., to
bring Christ down from above;) or who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to
bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith the Scripture? The word is
nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart."75 By which he means that Christ
is in the heart of all, in respect of His being the word or reason, by
participating in which they are rational beings. That declaration also in the
Gospel, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now
they have no excuse for their sin,"76 renders it manifest and patent to all who
have a rational knowledge of how long a time man is without sin, and from what
period he is liable to it, how, by participating in the word or reason, men are
said to have sinned, viz., from the time they are made capable of understanding
and knowledge, when the reason implanted within has suggested to them the
difference between good and evil; and after they have already begun to know what
evil is, they are made liable to sin, if they commit it. And this is the meaning
of the expression, that "men have no excuse for their sin," viz., that, from the
time the divine word or reason has begun to show them internally the difference
between good and evil, they ought to avoid and guard against that which is
wicked: "For to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is
sin."77 Moreover, that all men are not without communion with God, is taught in
the Gospel thus, by the Saviour's words: "The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! but the kingdom of
God is within you."78 But here we must see whether this does not bear the same
meaning with the expression in Genesis: "And He breathed into his face the
breath of life, and man became a living soul."79 For if this be understood as
applying generally to all men, then all men have a share in God.

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 corrupter 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."80 By which, it
is clearly shown that the Spirit of God is taken away from all who are unworthy.
In the Psalms also it is written: "Thou wilt take away their spirit, and they
will die, and return to their earth. Thou wilt send forth Thy Spirit, and they
shall be created, and Thou wilt renew the face of the earth; "81 which is
manifestly intended of the Holy Spirit, who, after sinners and unworthy persons
have been taken away and destroyed, creates for Himself a new people, and renews
the face of the earth, when, laying aside, through the grace of the Spirit, the
old map with his deeds, they begin to walk in newness of life. And therefore the
expression is competently applied to the Holy Spirit, because He will take up
His dwelling, not in all men, nor in those who are flesh, but in those whose
land82 has been renewed. Lastly, for this reason was the grace and revelation of
the Holy Spirit bestowed by the imposition of the apostles' hands after baptism.
Our Saviour also, after the resurrection, when old things had already passed
away, and all things had become new, Himself a new man, and the first-born from
the dead, His apostles also being renewed by faith in His resurrection, says,
"Receive the Holy Spirit; "83 This is doubtless what the Lord the Saviour meant
to convey in the Gospel, when He said that new wine cannot be put into old
bottles, but commanded that the bottles should be made new, i.e., that men
should walk in newness of life, that they might receive the new wine, i.e., the
newness of grace of the Holy Spirit. In this manner, then, is the working of the
power of God the Father and of the Son extended without distinction to every
creature; but a share in the Holy Spirit we find possessed only by the saints.
And therefore it is said, "No man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy
Ghost."84 And on one occasion, scarcely even the apostles themselves are deemed
worthy to hear the words, "Ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming
upon you."85 For this reason, also, I think it follows that he who has committed
a sin against the Son of man is deserving of forgiveness; because if he who is a
participator of the word or reason of God cease to live agreeably to reason, he
seems to have fallen into a state of ignorance or folly, and therefore to
deserve forgiveness; whereas he who has been deemed worthy to have a portion of
the Holy Spirit, and who has relapsed, is, by this very act and work, said to be
guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Let no one indeed suppose that we,
from having said that the Holy Spirit is conferred upon the saints alone, but
that the benefits or operations of the Father and of the Son extend to good and
bad, to just and unjust, by so doing give a preference to the Holy Spirit over
the Father and the Son, or assert that His dignity is greater, which certainly
would be a very illogical conclusion. For it is the peculiarity of His grace and
operations that we have been describing. Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be
called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things
by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things
which are worthy of sanctification, as it is written in the Psalm: "By the word
of the Lord were the heavens strengthened, and all their power by the Spirit of
His mouth."86 There is also a special working of God the Father, besides that by
which He bestowed upon all things the gift of natural life. There is also a
special ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ to those upon whom he confers by
nature the gift of reason, by means of which they are enabled to be rightly what
they are. There is also another grace of the Holy Spirit, which is bestowed upon
the deserving, through the ministry of Christ and the working of the Father, in
proportion to the merits of those who are rendered capable of receiving it. This
is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the
power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the
same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who
worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to
profit: withal."87 From which it most clearly follows that there is no
difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is
made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father. "But all these
worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every one severally as He
will."88

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."89 Whence also
the working of the Father, which confers existence upon all things, is found to
be more glorious and magnificent, while each one, by participation in Christ, as
being wisdom, and knowledge, and sanctification, makes progress, and advances to
higher degrees of perfection; and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit
that any one is made purer and holier, he obtains, when he is made worthy, the
grace of wisdom and knowledge, in order that, after all stains of pollution and
ignorance are cleansed and taken away, he may make so great an advance in
holiness and purity, that the nature which he received from God may become such
as is worthy of Him who gave it to be pure and perfect, so that the being which
exists may be as worthy as He who called it into existence. For, in this way, he
who is such as his Creator wished him to be, will receive from God power always
to exist, and to abide for ever. That this may be the case, and that those whom
He has created may be unceasingly and inseparably present with Him, Who is, it
is the business of wisdom to instruct and train them, and to bring them to
perfection by confirmation of His Holy Spirit and unceasing sanctification, by
which alone are they capable of receiving God. In this way, then, by the renewal
of the ceaseless working of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in us, in its various
stages of progress, shall we be able at some future time perhaps, although with
difficulty, to behold the holy and the blessed life, in which (as it is only
after many struggles that we are able to reach it) we ought so to continue, that
no satiety of that blessedness should ever seize us; but the more we perceive
its blessedness, the more should be increased and intensified within us the
longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly and freely receive and hold
fast the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But if satiety should ever
take hold of any one of those who stand on the highest and perfect summit of
attainment, I do not think that such an one would suddenly be deposed from his
position and fall away, but that he must decline gradually and little by little,
so that it may sometimes happen that if a brief lapsus take place, and the
individual quickly repent and return to himself, he may not utterly fall away,
but may retrace his steps, and return to his former place, and again make good
that which had been lost by his negligence.

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."90 In the writings also of St. Paul himself we find
him designating them, from some unknown source, as thrones, and dominions, and
principalities, and powers; and after this enumeration, as if knowing that there
were still other rational offices91 and orders besides those which he had named,
he says of the Saviour: "Who is above all principality, and power, and might,
and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in
that which is to come."92 From which he shows that there were certain beings
besides those which he had mentioned, which may be named indeed in this world,
but were not now enumerated by him, and perhaps were not known by any other
individual; and that there were others which may not be named in this world, but
will be named in the world to come.

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 course of rectitude, for which reason
he is justly liable to pains and penalties. And this also is to be held as
applying to the devil himself, and those who are with him, and are called his
angels. Now the rifles of these beings have to be explained, that we may know
what they are of whom we have to speak. The name, then, of Devil, and Satan, and
Wicked One, who is also described as Enemy of God, is mentioned in many passages
of Scripture. Moreover, certain angels of the devil are mentioned, and also a
prince of this world, who, whether the devil himself or some one else, is not
yet clearly manifest. There are also certain princes of this world spoken of as
possessing a kind of wisdom which will come to nought; but whether these are
those princes who are also the principalities with whom we have to wrestle, or
other beings, seems to me a point on which it is not easy for any one to
pronounce. After the principalities, certain powers also are named with whom we
have to wrestle, and carry on a struggle even against the princes of this world
and the rulers of this darkness. Certain spiritual powers of wickedness also, in
heavenly places, are spoken of by Paul himself. What, moreover, are we to say of
those wicked and unclean spirits mentioned in the Gospel? Then we have certain
heavenly beings called by a similar name, but which are said to bend the knee,
or to be about to bend the knee, at the name of Jesus; nay, even things on earth
and things under the earth, which Paul enumerates in order. And certainly, in a
place where we have been discussing the subject of rational natures, it is not
proper to be silent regarding ourselves, who are human beings, and are called
rational animals; nay, even this point is not to be idly passed over, that even
of us human beings certain different orders are mentioned in the words, "The
portion of the Lord is His people Jacob; Israel is the cord of His
inheritance."93 Other nations, moreover, are called a part of the angels; since
"when the Most High divided the nations, and dispersed the sons of Adam, He
fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of
God."94 And therefore, with other rational natures, we must also thoroughly
examine the reason of the human soul.

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.95 In order, now, that
our first inquiry may begin with the names themselves, let us consider whether
the holy angels, from the period of their first existence, have always been
holy, and axe holy still, and will be holy, and have never either admitted or
had the power to admit any occasion of sin. Then in the next place, let us
consider whether those who are called holy principalities began from the moment
of their creation by God to exercise power over some who were made subject to
them, and whether these latter were created of such a nature, and formed for the
very purpose of being subject and subordinate. In like manner, also, whether
those which are called powers were created of such a nature and for the express
purpose of exercising power, or whether their arriving at that power and dignity
is a reward and desert of their virtue. Moreover, also, whether those which are
called thrones or seats gained that stability of happiness at the same time with
their coming forth into being,96 so as to have that possession from the will of
the Creator alone; or whether those which are called dominions had their
dominion conferred on them, not as a reward for their proficiency, but as the
peculiar privilege of their creation,97 so that it is something which is in a
certain degree inseparable from them, and natural. Now, if we adopt the view
that the holy angels, and the holy powers, and the blessed seats, and the
glorious virtues, and the magnificent dominions, are to be regarded as
possessing those powers and dignities and glories in virtue of their nature,98
it will doubtless appear to follow that those beings which have been mentioned
as holding offices of an opposite kind must be regarded in the same manner; so
that those principalities with whom we have to struggle are to be viewed, not as
having received that spirit of opposition and resistance to all good at a later
period, or as failing away from good through the freedom of the will, but as
having had it in themselves as the essence of their being from the beginning of
their existence. In like manner also will it be the case with the powers and
virtues, in none of which was wickedness subsequent or posterior to their first
existence. Those also whom the apostle termed rulers and princes of the darkness
of this world, are said, with respect to their rule and occupation of darkness,
to fall not from perversity of intention, but from the necessity of their
creation. Logical reasoning will compel us to take the same view with regard to
wicked and malignant spirits and unclean demons. But if to entertain this view
regarding malignant and opposing powers seem to be absurd, as it is certainly
absurd that the cause of their wickedness should be removed from the purpose Of
their own will, and ascribed of necessity to their Creator, why should we not
also be obliged to make a similar confession regarding the good and holy powers,
that, viz., the good which is in them is not theirs by essential being, which we
have manifestly shown to be the case with Christ and the Holy Spirit alone, as
undoubtedly with the Father also? For it was proved that there was nothing
compound in the nature of the Trinity, so that these qualities might seem to
belong to it as accidental consequences. From which it follows, that in the case
of every creature it is a result of his own works and movements, that those
powers which appear either to hold sway over others or to exercise power or
dominion, have been preferred to and placed over those whom they are said to
govern or exercise power over, and not in consequence of a peculiar privilege
inherent in their constitutions, but on account of merit.

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 aim didst thou fill thy treasures, and thy storehouses within
thee. From the day when thou weft created along with the cherubim, I placed thee
in the holy mount of God. Thou weft in the midst of the fiery stones: thou weft
stainless in thy days, from the day when thou weft created, until iniquities
were found in thee: from the greatness of thy trade, thou didst fill thy
storehouses with iniquity, and didst sin, and weft 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."99 Seeing, then, that such are the words of the prophet, who is
there that on hearing, "Thou wert a seal of a similitude, and a crown of
comeliness among the delights of paradise," or that "From the day when thou wert
created with the cherubim, I placed thee in the holy mount of God," can so
enfeeble the meaning as to suppose that this language is used of some man or
saint, not to say the prince off Tyre? Or what fiery stones can he imagine in
the midst of which any man could live? Or who could be supposed to be stainless
from the very day of his creation, and wickedness being afterwards discovered in
him, it be said of him then that he was cast forth upon the earth? For the
meaning of this is, that He who was not yet on the earth is said to be cast
forth upon it: whose holy places also are said to be polluted. We have shown,
then, that what we have quoted regarding the prince of Tyre from the prophet
Ezekiel refers to an adverse power, and by it it is most clearly proved that
that power was formerly holy and happy; from which state of happiness it fell
from the time that iniquity was found in it, and was hurled to the earth, and
was not such by nature and creation. We are of opinion, therefore, that these
words are spoken of a certain angel who had received the office of governing the
nation of the Tyrians, and to whom also their souls had been entrusted to be
taken care of. But what Tyre, or what souls of Tyrians, we ought to understand,
whether that Tyre which is situated within the boundaries of the province of
Phoenicia, or some other of which, this one which we know on earth is the model;
and the souls of the Tyrians, whether they are those of the former or those
which belong to that Tyre which is spiritually understood, does not seem to be a
matter requiting examination in this place; test perhaps we should appear to
investigate subjects of so much mystery and importance in a cursory manner,
whereas they demand a labour and work of their own.

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 shall thou be clean, because thou hast
destroyed my land and slain my people: thou shall 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."100 Most evidently by these words
is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used
to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how
is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning,
who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches
us, saying of the devil, "Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like
lightning."101 For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is the
truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning, in the words,
"For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven even to its height
again, so will the coming of the Son of man be."102 And notwithstanding He
compares him to lightning, and says that he fell from heaven, that He might show
by this that he had been at one time in heaven, and had had a place among the
saints, and had enjoyed a share in that light in which all the saints
participate, by which they are made angels. of light, and by which the apostles
are termed by the Lord the light of the world. In this manner, then, did that
being once exist as light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had
his glory turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the
prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world, i.e., of
an earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who were obedient to
his wickedness, since "the whole of this world"-for I term this place of earth,
world-"lieth in the wicked one,"103 and in this apostate. That he is an
apostate, i.e., a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, "Thou wilt
take with a hook the apostate dragon," i.e., a fugitive.104 Now it is certain
that by the dragon is understood the devil himself. If then they are called
opposing powers, and are said to have been once without stain, while spotless
purity exists in the essential being of none save the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, but is an accidental quality in every created thing; and since that
which is accidental may also fall away, and since those opposite powers once
were spotless, and were once among those which still remain unstained, it is
evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that
no one was by nature polluted. And the consequence of this is, that it lies
within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness;
or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to
such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness
(if a man be guilty of so great neglect), he may descend even to that state in
which he will be changed into what is called an "opposing power."

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."105 And if
the meaning of the prophet's language here be less clear, we may ascertain it
from the Apostle Paul, who speaks more openly, thus: "For Christ must reign
until He has put all enemies under His feet."106 But if even that unreserved
declaration of the apostle do not sufficiently inform us what is meant by
"enemies being placed under His feet," listen to what he says in the following
words, "For all things must be put under Him." What, then, is this "putting
under" by which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of opinion that
it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which
the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of
Christ. For the name "subjection," by which we are subject to Christ, indicates
that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to His subjects, agreeably to
the declaration of David, "Shall not my soul be subject unto God? From Him
cometh my salvation."107

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
diversity, according to the movements of the mind and will, one man falling with
greater ease, another with more difficulty, into a lower condition; in this is
to be seen the just judgment of the providence of God, that it should happen to
every one according to the diversity of his conduct, in proportion to the desert
of his declension and defection. Certain of those, indeed, who remained in that
beginning which we have described as resembling the end which is to come,
obtained, in the ordering and arrangement of the world, the rank of angels;
others that of influences, others of principalities, others of powers, that they
may exercise power over those who need to have power upon their head. Others,
again, received the rank of thrones, having the office of judging or ruling
those who require this; others dominion, doubtless, over slaves; all of which
are conferred by Divine Providence in just and impartial judgment according to
their merits, and to the progress which they had made in the participation and
imitation of God. But those who have been removed from their primal state of
blessedness have not been removed irrecoverably, but have been placed under the
rule of those holy and blessed orders which we have described; and by availing
themselves of the aid of these, and being remoulded by salutary principles and
discipline, they may recover themselves, and be restored to their condition of
happiness. From all which I am of opinion, so far as I can see, that this order
of the human race has been appointed in order that in the future world, or in
ages to come, when there shall be the new heavens and new earth, spoken of by
Isaiah, it may be restored to that unity promised by the Lord Jesus in His
prayer to God the Father on behalf of His disciples: "I do not pray for these
alone, but for all who shall believe on Me through their word: that they all.
may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one
in Us; "108 and again, when He says: "That they may be one, even as We are one;
I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one."109 And this is
further confirmed by the language of the Apostle Paul: "Until we all come in the
unity of the faith to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ."110 And in keeping with this is the declaration of the same
apostle, when he exhorts us, who even in the present life are placed in the
Church, in which is the form of that kingdom which is to come, to this same
similitude of unity: "That ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no
divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind
and in the same judgment."111

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.

4. But since Paul says that certain things are visible and temporal, and others
besides these invisible and eternal, we proceed to inquire how those things
which are seen are temporal-whether because there will be nothing at all after
them in all those periods of the coming world, in which that dispersion and
separation from the one beginning is undergoing a process of restoration to one
and the same end and likeness; or because, while the form of those things which
are seen passes away, their essential nature is subject to no corruption. And
Paul seems to confirm the latter view, when he says, "For the fashion of this
world passeth away."112 David also appears to assert the same in the words, "The
heavens shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; and they all shall wax old as a
garment, and Thou shalt change them like a vesture, and like a vestment they
shall be changed."113 For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which
is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is
by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is
shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of
appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new
heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For this renewal of
heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of the present world, and
this changing of the heavens will undoubtedly be prepared for those who are
walking along that way which we have pointed out above, and are tending to that
goal of happiness to which, it is said, even enemies themselves are to be
subjected, and in which God is said to be "all and in all." And if any one
imagine that at the end material, i.e., bodily, nature will be entirely
destroyed, he cannot in may respect meet my view, how beings so numerous and
powerful are able to live and to exist without bodies, since it is an attribute
of the divine nature alone-i.e., of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-to exist
without any material substance, and without partaking in any degree of a bodily
adjunct. Another, perhaps, may say that in the end every bodily substance will
be so pure and refined as to be like the aether, and of a celestial purity and
clearness. How things will be, however, is known with certainty to God alone,
and to those who are His friends through Christ and the Holy Spirit.114 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."115 The Apostle Paul, moreover, describing created things by
species and numbers and orders, speaks as follows, when showing that all things
were made through Christ: "And in Him were all things created, 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
in Him: and He is before all, and He is the head."116 He therefore manifestly
declares that in Christ and through Christ were all things made and created,
whether things visible, which are corporeal, or things invisible, which I regard
as none other than incorporeal and spiritual powers. But of those things which
he had termed generally corporeal or incorporeal, he seems to me, in the words
that follow, to enumerate the various kinds, viz., thrones, dominions,
principalities, powers, influences.

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 stab 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 'Arka/j, 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 made by Him, and that in Him were
all things created, both things in heaven and things on earth, there can be no
doubt that also those things which are in the firmament, which is called heaven,
and in which those luminaries are said to be placed, are included amongst the
number of heavenly things. And secondly, seeing that the course of the
discussion has manifestly discovered that all things were made or created, and
that amongst created things there is nothing which may not admit of good and
evil, and be capable of either, what are we to think of the following opinion
which certain of our friends entertain regarding sun, moon, and stars, viz.,
that they are unchangeable, and incapable of becoming the opposite of what they
are? Not a few have held that view even regarding the holy angels, and certain
heretics also regarding souls, which they call spiritual natures. 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."117 Nor is
this to be understood of the splendour of their physical substance, as if one
were to say, for example, of a garment, that it is not clean; for if such were
the meaning, then the accusation of a want of cleanness in the splendour of
their bodily substance would imply an injurious reflection upon their Creator.
For if they are unable, through their own diligent efforts, either to acquire
for themselves a body of greater brightness, or through their sloth to make the
one they have less pure, how should they incur censure for being stars that are
not clean, if they receive no praise because they are so?118

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,"119 says the Lord. What, now, are these commandments? Those, namely, that
each star, in its order and course, should bestow upon the world the amount of
splendour which has been entrusted to it. For those which are called "planets"
move in orbits of one kind, and those which are termed a0planei=j are different.
Now it manifestly follows from this, that neither can the movement of that body
take place without a soul, nor can living things be at any time without motion.
And seeing that the stars move with such order and regularity, that their
movements never appear to be at any time subject to derangement, would it not be
the height of folly to say that so orderly an observance of method and plan
could be carried out or accomplished by irrational beings? In the writings of
Jeremiah, indeed, the moon is called the queen of heaven.120 Yet if the stars
are living and rational beings, there will undoubtedly appear among them both an
advance and a falling back. For the language of Job, "the stars are not dean in
His sight," seems to me to convey some such idea.

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,"121 or whether their spirit was implanted in
them, not at the creation of their bodies, but from without, after they had been
already made. I, for my part, suspect that the spirit was implanted in them from
without; but it will be worth while to prove this from Scripture: for it will
seem an easy matter to make the assertion on conjectural grounds, while it is
more difficult to establish it by the testimony of Scripture. Now it may be
established conjecturally as follows. If the soul of a man, which is certainly
inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body,
but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this
be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly. For, as regards
man, how could the soul of him, viz., Jacob, who supplanted his brother in the
womb, appear to be formed along with his body? Or how could his soul, or its
images, be formed along with his body, who, while lying in his mother's womb,
was filled with the Holy Ghost? I refer to John leaping in his mother's womb,
and exulting because the voice of the salutation of Mary had come to the ears of
his mother Elisabeth. How could his soul and its images be formed along with his
body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known to God, and
was sanctified by Him before his birth? Some, perhaps, may think that God fills
individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on
grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly. And how
shall we escape that declaration: "Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid!"122 or this : "Is there respect of persons with God? "123 For such is
the defence of those who maintain that souls come into existence with bodies. So
far, then, as we can form an opinion from a comparison with the condition of
man, I think it follows that we must hold the same to hold good with heavenly
beings, which reason itself and scriptural authority show us to be the case with
men.

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."124 To what vanity, pray, was the creature made subject, or
what creature is referred to, or how is it said "not willingly," or "in hope of
what? "And in what way is the creature itself to be delivered from the bondage
of corruption? Elsewhere, also, the same apostle says: "For the expectation of
the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God."125 And again in
another passage, "And not only we, but the creation itself groaneth together,
and is in pain until now."126 And hence we have to inquire what are the
groanings, and what are the pains. Let us see then, in the first place, what is
the vanity to which the creature is subject. I apprehend that it is nothing else
than the body; for although the body of the stars is ethereal, it is
nevertheless material. Whence also Solomon appears to characterize the whole of
corporeal nature as a kind of burden which enfeebles the vigour of the soul in
the following language: "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; all is vanity.
I have looked, and seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold,
all is vanity."127 To this vanity, then, is the creature subject, that creature
especially which, being assuredly the greatest in this world, holds also a
distinguished principality of labour, i.e., the sun, and moon, and stars, are
said to be subject to vanity, because they are clothed with bodies, and set
apart to the office of giving light to the human race. "And this creature," he
remarks, "was subjected to vanity not willingly." For it did not undertake a
voluntary service to vanity, but because it was the will of Him who made it
subject, and because of the promise of the Subjector to those who were reduced
to this unwilling obedience, that when the ministry of their great work was
performed, they were to be freed from this bondage of corruption and vanity when
the time of the glorious redemption of God's children should have arrived. And
the whole of creation, receiving this hope, and looking for the fulfilment of
this promise now, in the meantime, as having an affection for those whom it
serves, groans along with them, and patiently suffers with them, hoping for the
fulfilment of the promises. See also whether the following words of Paul can
apply to those who, although not willingly, yet in accordance with the will of
Him who subjected them, and in hope of the promises, were made subject to
vanity, when he says, "For I could wish to be dissolved," or "to return and be
with Christ, which is far better."128 For I think that the sun might say in like
manner, "I would desire to be dissolved," or "to return and be with Christ,
which is far better." Paul indeed adds, "Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is
more needful for you; "while the sun may say, "To abide in this bright and
heavenly body is more necessary, on account of the manifestation of the sons of
God." The same views are to be believed and expressed regarding the moon and
stars.

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 Raphael, e.g., the work of curing and healing to
Gabriel, the conduct of wars; to Michael, the duty of attending to the prayers
and supplications of mortals. For we are not to imagine that they obtained these
offices otherwise than by their own merits, and by the zeal and excellent
qualities which they severally displayed before this world was formed; so that
afterwards in the order of archangels, this or that office was assigned to each
one, while others deserved to be enrolled in the order of angels, and to act
under this or that archangel, or that leader or head of an order. All of which
things were disposed, as I have said, not indiscriminately and fortuitously, but
by a most appropriate and just decision of God, who arranged them according to
deserts, in accordance with His own approval and judgment: so that to one angel
the Church of the Ephesians was to be entrusted; to another, that of the
Smyrnaeans; one angel was to be Peter's, another Paul's; and so on through every
one of the little ones that are in the Church, for such and such angels as even
daily behold the face of God must be assigned to each one of them;129 and there
must also be some angel that encampeth round about them that fear God.130 All of
which things, assuredly, it is to be believed, are not performed by accident or
chance, or because they (the angels) were so created, lest on that view the
Creator should be accused of partiality; but it is to be believed that they were
conferred by God, the just and impartial Ruler of all things, agreeably to the
merits and good qualities and mental vigour of each individual spirit.

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? "131 Or why did Peter
weep most bitterly, if it were another than he who sinned? From which all their
silly assertions will be proved to be baseless.

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. For, as we
are taught by those quotations which we adduced from the prophets, there was
once a time when he was good, when he walked in the paradise of God between the
cherubim. As he, then, possessed the power either of receiving good or evil, but
fell away from a virtuous course, and turned to evil with all the powers of his
mind, so also other creatures, as having a capacity for either condition, in the
exercise of the freedom of their will, flee from evil, and cleave to good. There
is no nature, then, which may not admit of good or evil, except the nature of
God-the fountain of all good things-and of Christ; for it is wisdom, and wisdom
assuredly cannot admit folly; and it is righteousness, and righteousness will
never certainly admit of unrighteousness; and it is the Word, or Reason, which
certainly cannot be made irrational; nay, it is also the light, and it is
certain that the darkness does not receive the light. In like manner, also, the
nature of the Holy Spirit, being holy, does not admit of pollution; for it is
holy by nature, or essential being. If there is any other nature which is holy,
it possesses this property of being made holy by the reception or inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, not having it by nature, but as an accidental quality, for
which reason it may be lost, in consequence of being accidental. So also a man
may possess an accidental righteousness, from which it is possible for him to
fall away. Even the wisdom which a man has is still accidental, although it be
within our own power to become wise, if we devote ourselves to wisdom with the
zeal and effort of our life; and if we always pursue the study of it, we may
always be participators of wisdom: and that result will follow either in a
greater or less degree, according to the desert of our life or the amount of our
zeal. For the goodness of God, as is worthy of Him, incites and attracts all to
that blissful end, where all pain, and sadness, and sorrow fall away and
disappear.

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,"132 who rather disposes everything according to
the deserts and moral progress of each individual, So, then, the angelic office
does not exist except as a consequence of their desert; nor do "powers" exercise
power except in virtue of their moral progress; nor do those which are called
"seats" i.e., the powers of judging and ruling, administer their powers unless
by merit; nor do "dominions" rule undeservedly, for that great and distinguished
order of rational creatures among celestial existences is arranged in a glorious
variety of offices. And the same view is to be entertained of those opposing
influences which have given themselves up to such places and offices, that they
derive the property by which they are made "principalities," or "powers," or
rulers of the darkness of the world, or spirits of wickedness, or malignant
spirits, or unclean demons, not from their essential nature, nor from their
being so created, but have obtained these degrees in evil in proportion to their
conduct, and the progress which they made in wickedness. And that is a second
order of rational creatures, who have devoted themselves to wickedness in so
headlong a course, that they are unwilling rather than unable to recall
themselves; the thirst for evil being already a passion, and imparting to them
pleasure. But the third order of rational creatures is that of those who are
judged fit by God to replenish the human race, i.e., the souls of men, assumed
in consequence of their moral progress into the order of angels; of whom we see
some assumed into the number: those, viz., who have been made the sons of God,
or the children of the resurrection, or who have abandoned the darkness, and
have loved the light, and have been made children of the light; or those who,
proving victorious in every struggle, and being made men of peace, have been the
sons of peace, and the sons of God; or those who, mortifying their members on
the earth, and, rising above not only their corporeal nature, but even the
uncertain and fragile movements of the soul itself, have united themselves to
the Lord, being made altogether spiritual, that they may be for ever one spirit
with Him, discerning along with Him each individual thing, until they arrive at
a condition of perfect spirituality, and discern all things by their perfect
illumination in all holiness through the word and wisdom of God, and are
themselves altogether undistinguishable by any one.

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 woman has unnaturally prostituted herself,
shall be deemed equally guilty with the woman, and shall be ordered to be
stoned; or that a bull which strikes with its horn,133 shall be put to death in
the same way; or even the speaking of Balaam's ass, when God opened its mouth,
and the dumb beast of burden, answering with human voice, reproved the madness
of the prophet. All of which assertions we not only do not receive, but, as
being contrary to our belief, we refute and reject. After the refutation and
rejection of such perverse opinions, we shall show, at the proper time and
place, how those passages which they quote from the sacred Scriptures ought to
be understood.

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,134 some of them walk
slowly on account of their slothful habits, others fly with rapid flight on
account of their diligence. And since all are possessed of free-will, and may of
their own accord admit either of good or evil, the former will be in a worse
condition than they are at present, while the latter will advance to a better
state of things; because different conduct and varying wills will admit of a
different condition in either direction, i.e., angels may become men or demons,
and again from the latter they may rise to be men or angels."

1: Deut. iv. 24.

2: John iv. 24.

3: 1 John i. 5.

4: Ps. xxxvi. 9.

5: John xiv. 23.

6: 2 Cor. iii. 6.

7: 2 Cor. iii. 15-17.

8: Disciplina.

9: Subsistentia.

10: John iv. 20.

11: John iv. 23, 24.

12: "Inaestimabilem."

13: "Simplex intellectualis natura."

14: "Natura illa simplex et tota mens."

15: Some read "visivle."

16: "Substantia quaedam sensibilis propria."

17: Col. i. 15.

18: John i. 18.

19: "Constat inter Patrem et Filium."

20: Matt. xi. 27.

21: Matt. v. 8.

22: Cf. Prov. ii. 5.

23: Prov. viii. 22-25. The reading in the text differs considerably from that of
the Vulgate.

24: Col. i. 15.

25: 1 Cor. i. 24.

26: Aliquid insubstantivum.

27: Substantialiter.

28: Ad punctum alicujus momenti.

29: Omnis virtus ac deformatio futurae creaturae.

30: 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 Heb. iv. 12, awn gar o logoj tou
Qeou . [Jones on the Canon , vol. ii. pp. 353-411, as to Paul and Thecla . As to
this quotation of our author, see Lardner, Credib ., ii. p. 539.] 31: Or, "and
the Word was God."

32: "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 shour be
"deferunt processuris" - "and hand it over to those who are destined to come
forth from them," i.e., to their descendants.

33: Subsistentia. Some would read here, "substantia."

34: Per adoptionem Spiritus. The original words here were probably eispoihsij
tou pneumatoj , and Rufinus seems to have mistaken the allusion to Gen. ii. 7.
To "adoption," in the technical theological sense, the words in the text cannot
have any reference. - Schnitzer.

35: Col. i. 15.

36: Heb. i. 3.

37: aporroia .

38: Wisd. vii. 25.

39: Gen. v. 3.

40: Subsistentia.

41: John xiv. 9.

42: Heb. i. 3.

43: Luke vi. 42.

44: Heb. i. 3. Substantiae vel subsistentiae.

45: Wisd. vii. 25, 26.

46: "Hujus ergo totius virtutis tantae et tam immensae vapor, et, ut ita dicam,
vigor ipse in propiâ subsistentiâ effectus, quamvis ex ipsa virtute velut
voluntas ex men te procedat, tamen et ipsa voluntas Dei nihilominus Dei virtus
efficitur."

47: 1 Cor. i. 24.

48: Ps. civ. 24.

49: John i. 3.

50: Rev. i. 8.

51: John xvii. 10.

52: Phil. ii. 10, 11.

53: John v. 19.

54: [Luke xviii. 19.] 55: Abusive [= improperly used. S.]

56: Ps. li. 11.

57: Dan. iv. 8.

58: John xx. 22.

59: Luke i. 35.

60: 1 Cor. xii. 3.

61: Acts viii. 18.

62: Cf. Matt. xii. 32 and Luke xii. 10.

63: Cf. Hermae Past., Vision v. Mandat. 1. [See vol. ii. p. 20.] 64: Per quem
Spiritus Sanctus factura esse vel creatura diceretur.

65: Gal. v. 22.

66: Gal. iii. 3.

67: Isa. xlii. 5.

68: Isa. vi. 3.

69: Hab. iii. 2.

70: Luke x. 22.

71: 1 Cor. ii. 10.

72: Cf. John xvi. 12, 13, and xiv. 26.

73: John iii. 8.

74: Ex. iii. 14.

75: Rom. x. 6-8.

76: John xv. 22.

77: Jas. iv. 17.

78: Luke xvii. 20, 21.

79: Gen. ii. 7.

80: Gen. vi. 3.

81: Ps. civ. 29, 30.

82: Terra.

83: John xx. 22.

84: 1 Cor. xii. 3.

85: Acts i. 8.

86: Ps. xxxiii. 6.

87: 1 Cor. xii. 4-7.

88: 1 Cor. xii. 11.

89: 1 Cor. xii. 6.

90: Heb. i. 14.

91: Officia.

92: Eph. i. 21.

93: Deut. xxxii. 9.

94: Deut. xxxii. 8. The Septuagint here differs from the Masoretic text.

95: [See note at end of chap. vi. S.] 96: Simul cum substantiae suae prolatione
- at the same time with the emanation of their substance.

97: Conditionis praerogativa.

98: Substantialiter.

99: Ezek. xxviii. 11-19.

100: Isa. xiv. 12-22.

101: Luke x. 18.

102: Matt. xxiv. 27.

103: 1 John v. 19.

104: Job xl. 20 [LXX.]

105: Ps. cx. 1.

106: 1 Cor. xv. 25.

107: Ps. lxii. 1.

108: John xvii. 20, 21.

109: John xvii. 22, 23.

110: Eph. iv. 13.

111: 1 Cor. i. 10.

112: 1 Cor. vii. 31.

113: Ps. cii. 26.

114: [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.] 115: John i. 1-3.

116: Col. i. 16-18.

117: Job xxv. 5.

118: [See note, supra , p. 262. S.] 119: Isa. xlv. 12.

120: Jer. vii. 18.

121: Gen. i. 16.

122: Rom. ix. 14.

123: Rom. ii. 11.

124: Cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21.

125: Rom. viii. 19.

126: Rom. viii. 22, cf. 23.

127: Eccles. i. 1, 14.

128: Phil. 1. 23.

129: Matt. xviii. 10.

130: Ps. xxxiv. 7. Tum demun per singulos minimorum, qui sunt in ecclesiâ, qui
vel qui adscribi singulis debeant angeli, qui etiam quotidie videant faciem Dei;
sed et quis debeat esse angelus, qui circumdet in circuitu timentium Deum.

131: 1 Cor. xv. 9.

132: Cf. Rom. ii. 11.

133: [See Exod. xxi. 28, 29. S.]

134: De quibusdam repagulis atque carceribus. There is an allusion here to the
race-course and the mode of starting the chariots.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: DE PRINCIPIIS - BOOK 2
========================================================================

Book II.

Chapter I.-On the World.

Chapter II.-On the Perpetuity of Bodily Nature.

Chapter III.-On the Beginning of the World, and Its Causes.

Chapter IV.-The God of the Law and the Prophets, and the Father of Our Lord
Jesus Christ, is the Same God.

Chapter V.-On Justice and Goodness.

Chapter VI.-On the Incarnation of Christ.

Chapter VII.-On the Holy Spirit.

Chapter VIII.-On the Soul (Anima).

Chapter IX.-On the World and the Movements of Rational Creatures, Whether Good
or Bad; And on the Causes of Them.

Chapter X.-On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and
Punishments.

Chapter XI.-On Counter Promises.186

Book II.

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 mat 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;1 then,
secondly, of places, i.e., of the heaven or heavens, and of the earth or water,
as well as of the air, which is intermediate, and which they term aether, and of
everything which proceeds from the earth or is born in it. Seeing, then,2 there
is so great a variety in the world, and so great a diversity among rational
beings themselves, on account of which every other variety and diversity also is
supposed to have come into existence, what other cause than this ought to be
assigned for the existence of the world, especially if we have regard to that
end by means of which it was shown in the preceding book that all things are to
be restored to their original condition? And if this should seem to be logically
stated, what other cause, as we have already said, are we to imagine for so
great a diversity in the world, save the diversity and variety in the movements
and declensions of those who fell from that primeval unity and harmony in which
they were at first created by God, and who, being driven from that state of
goodness, and drawn in various directions by the harassing influence of
different motives and desires, have changed, according to their different
tendencies, the single and undivided goodness of their nature into minds of
various sorts?3

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 would be deemed more worthy of approval,
and the place of rank obtained after victory be held with greater certainty,
which should be established by the difficulties of the contest.4

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; "5 and again, "The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My
footstool; "6 and by the Saviour's words, when He says that we are to swear
"neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His
footstool: "7 To the same effect also are the words of Paul, in his address to
the Athenians, when he says, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being."8
For how do we live, and move, and have our being in God, except by His
comprehending and holding together the whole world by His power? And how is
heaven the throne of God, and the earth His footstool, as the Saviour Himself
declares, save by His power filling all things both in heaven and earth,
according to the Lord's own words? And that God, the Father of all things, fills
and holds together the world with the fulness of His power, according to those
passages which we have quoted, no one, I think, will have any difficulty in
admitting. And now, since the course of the preceding discussion has shown that
the different movements of rational beings, and their varying opinions, have
brought about the diversity that is in the world, we must see whether it may not
be appropriate that this world should have a termination like its beginning. For
there is no doubt that its end must be sought amid much diversity and variety;
which variety, being found to exist in the termination of the world, will again
furnish ground and occasion for the diversities of the other world which is to
succeed the present.

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 u\ #lh, 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 the opinion of those men who are
altogether ignorant of the power and intelligence of un-crested nature. But that
we may see the nature of things a little more clearly, let it be granted that
for a little time matter did not exist, and that God, when nothing formerly
existed, caused those things to come into existence which He desired, why are we
to suppose that God would create matter either better or greater, or of another
kind, than that which He did produce from His own power and wisdom, in order
that that might exist which formerly did not? Would He cream a worse and
inferior matter, or one the same as that which they call uncreated? Now I think
it will very easily appear to any one, that neither a better nor inferior matter
could have assumed the forms and species of the world, if it had not been such
as that which actually did assume them. And does it not then seem impious to
call that uncreated, which, if believed to be formed by God, would doubtless be
found to be such as that which they call uncreated?

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."9 In the book of the Shepherd also, in the first
commandment, he speaks as follows: "First of all believe that there is one God
who created and arranged all things, and made all things to come into existence,
and out of a state of nothingness."10 Perhaps also the expression in the Psalms
has reference to this: "He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they
were created."11 For the words, "He spake, and they were made," appear to show
that the substance of those things which exist is meant; while the others, "He
commanded, and they were created," seem spoken of the qualities by which the
substance itself has been moulded.

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, : hat 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 are worthy,
after many testimonies have been collected on this very point.

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 havebeen
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."12 Some such meaning, then, as this, seems
to be suggested by the apostle. For can the expression which he employs, "this
corruptible," and "this mortal," with the gesture, as it were, of one who
touches or points out, apply to anything else than to bodily matter? This matter
of the body, then, which is now corruptible shall put on incorruption when a
perfect soul, and one furnished with the marks13 of incorruption, shall have
begun to inhabit it. And do not be surprised if we speak of a perfect soul as
the clothing of the body (which, on account of the Word of God and His wisdom,
is now named incorruption), when Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Lord and
Creator of the soul, is said to be the clothing of the saints, according to the
language of the apostle, "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ."14 As Christ, then,
is the clothing of the soul, so for a kind of reason sufficiently intelligible
is the soul said to be the clothing of the body, seeing it is an ornament to it,
covering and concealing its mortal nature. The expression, then, "This
corruptible must put on incorruption," is as if the apostle had said, "This
corruptible nature of the body must receive the clothing of incorruption-a soul
possessing in itself incorruptibitity," because it has been clothed with Christ,
who is the Wisdom and Word of God. But when this body, which at some future
period we shall possess in a more glorious state, shall have become a partaker
of life, it will then, in addition to being immortal, become also incorruptible.
For whatever is mortal is necessarily also corruptible; but whatever is
corruptible cannot also be said to be mortal. We say of a stone or a piece of
wood that it is corruptible, but we do not say that it follows that it is also
mortal. But as the body partakes of life, then because life may be, and is,
separated from it, we consequently name it mortal, and according to another
sense also we speak of it as corruptible. The holy apostle therefore, with
remarkable insight, referring to the general first cause of bodily matter, of
which (matter), whatever be the qualities with which it is endowed (now indeed
carnal, but by and by more refined and pure, which are termed spiritual), the
soul makes constant use, says, "This corruptible must put on incorruption." And
in the second place, looking to the special cause of the body, he says, "This
mortal must put on immortality." Now, what else will in-corruption and
immortality be, save the wisdom, and the word, and the righteousness of God,
which mould; and clothe, and adorn the soul? And hence it happens that it is
said, "The corruptible will put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality."
For although we may now make great proficiency, yet as we only know in part, and
prophesy in part, and see through a glass, darkly, those very things which we
seem to understand, this corruptible does not yet put on incorruption, nor is
this mortal yet clothed with immorality; and as this training of ours in the
body is protracted doubtless to a longer period, up to the time, viz., when
those very bodies of ours with which we are enveloped may, on account of the
word of God, and His wisdom and perfect righteousness, earn incorruptibility and
immortality, therefore is it said, "This corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality."

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.15 And if it ceases, bodily matter
returns to nothing, as formerly also it did not exist.

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 not driven on
in a cycle which returns after many ages to the same round, so as either to do
or desire this or that; but at whatever point the freedom of their own will
aims, thither do they direct the course of their actions. For what these persons
say is much the same as if one were to assert that if a medimnus of grain were
to be poured out on the ground, the fall of the grain would be on the second
occasion identically the same as on the first, so that every individual grain
would lie for the second time close beside that grain where it had been thrown
before, and so the medimnus would be scattered in the same order, and with the
same marks as formerly; which certainly is an impossible result with the
countless grains of a medimnus, even if they were to be poured out without
ceasing for many ages. So therefore it seems to me impossible for a world to be
restored for the second time, with the same order and with the same amount of
births, and deaths, and actions; but that a diversity of worlds may exist with
changes of no unimportant kind, so that the state of another world may be for
some unmistakeable reasons better (than this), and for others worse, and for
others again intermediate. But what may be the number or measure of this I
confess myself ignorant, although, if any one can tell it, I would gladly learn.

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."16 For He says that He
was once made a victim, and in the consummation of ages was manifested to take
away sin. Now that after this age, which is said to be formed for the
consummation of other ages, there will he other ages again to follow, we have
clearly learned from Paul himself, who says, "That in the ages to come He might
show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us."17 He has not
said, "in the age to come," nor "in the two ages to come," whence I infer that
by his language many ages are indicated. Now if there is something greater than
ages, so that among created beings certain ages may be understood, but among
other beings which exceed and surpass visible creatures, (ages still greater)
(which perhaps will be the case at the restitution of all things, when the whole
universe will come to a perfect termination), perhaps that period in which the
consummation of all things will take place is to be understood as something more
than an age. But here the authority of holy Scripture moves me, which says, "For
an age and more."18 Now this word "more" undoubtedly means something greater
than an age; and see if that expression of the Saviour, "I will that where I am,
these also may be with Me; and as I and Thou are one, these also may be one in
Us,"19 may not seem to convey something more than an age and ages, perhaps even
more than ages of ages,-that period, viz., when all things are now no longer in
an age, but when God is in all.

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 ko/smoj,
and ko/smoj 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,"20 he employs the same term to denote
ornament as to denote the world, viz., ko/smoj. For the plan of the world is
said to be contained in the clothing of the high priest, as we find in the
Wisdom of Solomon, where he says, "For in the long garment was the whole
world."21 That earth of ours, with its inhabitants, is also termed the world, as
when Scripture says, "The whole world lieth in wickedness."22 Clement indeed, a
disciple of the apostles, makes mention of those whom the Greeks called
'Anti/xqonej, and other parts of the earth, to which no one of our people can
approach, nor can any one of those who are there cross over to us, which he also
termed worlds, saying, "The ocean is impassable to men; and those are words
which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements
of the ruling God."23 That universe which is bounded by heaven and earth is also
called a world, as Paul declares: "For the fashion of this world will pass
away."24 Our Lord and Saviour also points out a certain other world besides this
visible one, which it would indeed be difficult to describe and make known. He
says, "I am not of this world."25 For, as if He were of a certain other world,
He says, "I am not of this world." Now, of this world we have said beforehand,
that the explanation was difficult; and for this reason, that there might not be
afforded to any an occasion of entertaining the supposition that we maintain the
existence of certain images which the Greeks call "ideas: "for it is certainly
alien to our (writers) to speak of an incorporeal world existing in the
imagination alone, or in the fleeting. world of thoughts; and how they can
assert either that the Saviour comes from thence, or that the saints will go
thither, I do not see. There is no doubt, however, that something more
illustrious and excellent than this present world is pointed out by the Saviour,
at which He incites and encourages believers to aim. But whether that world to
which He desires to allude be far separated and divided from this either by
situation, or nature, or glory; or whether it be superior in glory and quality,
but confined within the limits of this world (which seems to me more probable),
is nevertheless uncertain, and in my opinion an unsuitable subject for human
thought. But from what Clement seems to indicate when he says, "The ocean is
impassable to men, and those worlds which are behind it," speaking in the plural
number of the worlds which are behind it, which he intimates are administered
and governed by the same providence of the Most High God, he appears to throw
out to us some germs of that view by which the whole universe of existing
things, celestial and super-celestial, earthly and infernal, is generally called
one perfect world, within which, or by which, other worlds, if any there are,
must be supposed to be contained. For which reason he wished the globe of the
sun or moon, and of the other bodies called planets, to be each termed worlds.
Nay, even that pre-eminent globe itself which they call the non-wandering
(a0planh=), they nevertheless desire to have properly called world. Finally,
they summon the book of Baruch the prophet to bear witness to this assertion,
because in it the seven worlds or heavens are more clearly pointed out.
Nevertheless, above that sphere which they call non-wandering (a0planh=), they
will have another sphere to exist, which they say, exactly as our heaven
contains all things which are under it, comprehends by its immense size and
indescribable extent the spaces of all the spheres together within its more
magnificent circumference; so that all things are within it, as this earth of
oursis under heaven. And this also is believed to be called in the holy
Scriptures the good land, and the land of the living, having its own heaven,
which is higher, and in which the names of the saints are said to be written, or
to have been written, by the Saviour; by which heaven that earth is confined and
shut in, which the Saviour in the Gospel promises to the meek and merciful. For
they would have this earth of ours, which formerly was named "Dry," to have
derived its appellation from the name of that earth, as this heaven also was
named firmament from the title of that heaven. But we have treated at greater
length of such opinions in the place where we had to inquire into the meaning of
the declaration, that in the beginning "God made the heavens and the earth." For
another heaven and another earth are shown to exist besides that "firmanent"
which is said to have been made after the second day, or that "dry land" which
was afterwards called "earth." Certainly, what some say of this world, that it
is corruptible because it was made, and yet is not corrupted, because the will
of God, who made it and holds it together lest corruption should rule over it,
is stronger and more powerful than corruption, may more correctly be supposed of
that world which we have called above a "non-wandering "sphere, since by the
will of God it is not at all subject to corruption, for the reason that it has
not admired any causes of corruption, seeing it is the world of the saints and
of the thoroughly purified, and not of the wicked, like that world of ours. We
must see, moreover, lest perhaps it is with reference to this that the apostle
says, "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which
are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which
are unseen are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle
were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal
in the heavens."26 And when he says elsewhere, "Because I shall see the heavens,
the works of Thy fingers,"27 and when God said, regarding all things visible, by
the mouth of His prophet, "My hand has formed all these things,"28 He declares
that that eternal house in the heavens which He promises to His saints was not
made with hands, pointing out, doubtless, the difference of creation in things
which are seen and in those which are not seen. For the same thing is not to be
understood by the expressions, "those things which are not seen," and "those
things which are invisible." For those things which are invisible are not only
not seen, but do not even possess the property of visibility, being what the
Greeks call a0sw/mata, i.e., incorporeal; whereas those of which Paul says,
"They are not seen," possess indeed the property of being seen, but, as he
explains, are not yet beheld by those to whom they are promised.

7. Having sketched, then, so far as we could understand, these three opinions
regarding the end of all things, and the supreme blessedness, let each one of
our readers determine for himself, with care and diligence, whether any one of
them can be approved and adopted.29 For it has been said that we must suppose
either that an incorporeal existence is possible, after all things have become
subject to Christ, and through Christ to God the Father, when God, will be all
and in all; or that when, notwithstanding all things have been made subject to
Christ, and through Christ to God (with whom they formed also one spirit, in
respect of spirits being rational natures), then the bodily substance itself
also being united to most pure and excellent spirits, and being changed into an
ethereal condition in proportion to the quality or merits of those who assume it
(according to the apostle's words, "We also shall be changed"), will shine forth
in splendour; or at least that when the fashion of those things which are seen
passes away, and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when
the whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the
planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath,30 then is reached the
fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that sphere, which is
called non-wandering (a0planh/j), as in a good land, in a land of the living,
which will be inherited by the meek and gentle; to which land belongs that
heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent, surrounds and contains that
land itself) which is called truly and chiefly heaven, in which heaven and
earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently
placed,-where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for
the offences which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having
fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land;
while those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by
their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve the
kingdom of that heaven or heavens; and thus the prediction is more worthily
fulfilled, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth; "31 and,
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven;
"32 and the declaration in the Psalm, "He shall exalt thee, and thou shalt
inherit the land."33 For it is called a descent to this earth, but an exaltation
to that which is on high. In this way, therefore, does a sort of road seem to be
opened up by the departure of the saints from that earth to those heavens; so
that they do not so much appear to abide in that land, as to inhabit it with an
intention, viz., to pass on to the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, when
they have reached that degree of perfection also.

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,"34 most
evidently suggests even to a person of feeble understanding, that He is
proposing to the imitation of His disciples no other God than the maker of
heaven and the bestower of the rain. Again, what else does the expression, which
ought to be used by those who pray, "Our Father who art in heaven,"35 appear to
indicate, save that God is to be sought in the better parts of the world, i.e.,
of His creation? Further, do not those admirable principles which He lays down
respecting oaths, saying that we ought not to "swear either by heaven, because
it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, because it is His footstool,"36
harmonize most clearly with the words of the prophet, "Heaven is My throne, and
the earth is My footstool? "37 And also when casting out of the temple those who
sold sheep, and oxen, and doves, and pouring out the tables of the
money-changers, and saying, "Take these things, hence, and do not make My
Father's house a house of merchandise,"38 He undoubtedly called Him His Father,
to whose name Solomon had raised a magnificent temple. The words, moreover,
"Have you not read what was spoken by God to Moses: I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not a God of the dead, but of the
living,"39 most clearly teach us, that He called the God of the patriarchs
(because they were holy, and were alive) the God of the living, the same, viz.,
who had said in the prophets, "I am God, and besides Me there is no God."40 For
if the Saviour, knowing that He who is written in the law is the God of Abraham,
and that it is the same who says, "I am God, and besides Me there is no God,
acknowledges that very one to be His Father who is ignorant of the existence of
any other God above Himself, as the heretics suppose, He absurdly declares Him
to be His Father who does not know of a greater God. But if it is not from
ignorance, but from deceit, that He says there is no other God than Himself,
then it is a much greater absurdity to confess that His Father is guilty of
falsehood. From all which this conclusion is arrived at, that He knows of no
other Father than God, the Founder and Creator of all things.

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,41 where Stephen and
the other apostles address their prayers to that God who made heaven and earth,
and who spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, calling Him the "God of
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; "the God who "brought forth His people out of
the land of Egypt." Which expressions undoubtedly clearly direct our
understandings to faith in the Creator, and implant an affection for Him in
those who have learned piously and faithfully thus to think of Him; according to
the words of the Saviour Himself, who, when He was asked which was the greatest
commandment in the law, replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second is like unto
it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." And to these He added: "On these
two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."42 How is it, then, that He
commends to him whom He was instructing, and was leading to enter on the office
of a disciple, this commandment above all others, by which undoubtedly love was
to be kindled in him towards the God of that law, inasmuch as such had been
declared by the law in these very words? But let it be granted, notwithstanding
all these most evident proofs, that it is of some other unknown God that the
Saviour says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," etc., etc.
How, in that case, if the law and the prophets are, as they say, from the
Creator, i.e., from another God than He whom He calls good, shall that appear to
be logically said which He subjoins, viz., that "on these two commandments hang
the law and the prophets? "For how shall that which is strange and foreign to
God depend upon Him? And when Paul says, "I thank my God, whom I serve my spirit
from my forefathers with pure conscience,"43 he clearly shows that he came not
to some new God, but to Christ. For what other forefathers of Paul can be
intended, except those of whom he says, "Are they Hebrews? so am I: are they
Israelites? so am I."44 Nay, will not the very preface of his Epistle to the
Romans clearly show the same thing to those who know how to understand the
letters of Paul, viz., what God he preaches? For his words are: "Paul, the
servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart to the Gospel of
God, which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures
concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
and who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of
holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of Christ Jesus our Lord,"45 etc.
Moreover, also the following, "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that
treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith he it altogether
for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plougheth
should plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope of partaking of the
fruits."46 By which he manifestly shows that God, who gave the law on our
account, i.e., on account of the apostles, says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the
mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; "whose care was not for oxen, but
for the apostles, who were preaching the Gospel of Christ. In other passages
also, Paul, embracing the promises of the law, says, "Honour thy father and thy
mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with
thee, and that thy days may be long upon the land, the good land, which the Lord
thy God will give thee."47 By which he undoubtedly makes known that the law, and
the God of the law, and His promises, are pleasing to him.

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."48 But that
God whom Moses preaches was both seen by Moses himself, and by his fathers
before him; whereas He who is announced by the Saviour has never been seen at
all by any one. Let us therefore ask them and ourselves whether they maintain
that He whom they acknowledge to be God, and allege to be a different God from
the Creator, is visible or invisible. And if they shall say that He is visible,
besides being proved to go against the declaration of Scripture, which says of
the Saviour, "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every
creature,"49 they will fall also into the absurdity of asserting that God is
corporeal. For nothing can be seen except by help of form, and size, and colour,
which are special properties of bodies. And if God is declared to be a body,
then He will also be found to be material, since every body is composed of
matter. But if He be composed of matter, and matter is undoubtedly corruptible,
then, according to them, God is liable to corruption! We shall put to them a
second question. Is matter made, or is it uncreated, i.e., not made? And if they
shall answer that it is not made, i.e., uncreated, we shall ask them if one
portion of matter is God, and the other part the world? But if they shall say of
matter that it is made, it will undoubtedly follow that they confess Him whom
they declare to be God to have been made!-a result which certainly neither their
reason nor ours can admit. But they will say, God is invisible. And what will
you do? If you say that He is invisible by nature, then neither ought He to be
visible to the Saviour. Whereas, on the contrary, God, the Father of Christ, is
said to be seen, because "he who sees the Son," he says, "sees also the
Father."50 This certainly would press us very hard, were the expression not
understood by us more correctly of understanding, and not of seeing. For he who
has understood the Son will understand the Father also. In this way, then, Moses
too must be supposed to have seen God, not beholding Him with the bodily eye,
but understanding Him with the vision of the heart and the perception of the
mind, and that only in some degree. For it is manifest that He, viz., who gave
answers to Moses, said, "You shall not see My face, but My hinder parts."51
These words are, of course, to be understood in that mystical sense which is
befitting divine words, those old wives' fables being rejected and despised
which are invented by ignorant persons respecting the anterior and posterior
parts of God. Let no one indeed suppose that we have indulged any feeling of
impiety in saying that even to the Saviour the Father is not visible. Let him
consider the distinction which we employ in dealing with heretics. For we have
explained that it is one thing to see and to be seen, and another to know and to
be known, or to understand and to be understood.52 To see, then, and to be seen,
is a property of bodies, which certainly will not be appropriately applied
either to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit, in their mutual
relations with one another. For the nature of the Trinity surpasses the measure
of vision, granting to those who are in the body, i.e., to all other creatures,
the property of vision in reference to one another. But to a nature that is
incorporeal and for the most part intellectual, no other attribute is
appropriate save that of knowing or being known, as the Saviour Himself declares
when He says, "No man knoweth the Son, save the Father; nor does any one know
the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him."53 It is
clear, then, that He has not said, "No one has seen the Father, save the Son;
"but, "No one knoweth the Father, save the Son."

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, is said in anger to have taken away the vineyard from them,
and to have delivered over the wicked husbandmen to destruction, and to have
handed over the vineyard to others, who would yield him the fruit in its season.
And so also with regard to those citizens who, when the head of the household
had set out to receive for himself a kingdom, sent messengers after him, saying,
"We will not have this man to reign over us; "54 for the head of the household
having obtained the kingdom, returned, and in anger commanded them to be put to
death before him, and burned their city with fire. But when we read either in
the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such
expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think
of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the
verse in the Psalms 2, "Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble
them in His fury,"55 we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an
expression ought to be understood.

Chapter V.-On Justice and Goodness.

I. 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 sere 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 taught56 when relating
the parable, we inquire what is the inner meaning contained in the parable
itself. Moreover, they ought to explain this also, how He is just, and rewards
every one according to his merits, who punishes earthly-minded persons and the
devil, seeing they have done nothing worthy of punishment.57 For they could not
do any good if, according to them, they were of a wicked and ruined nature. For
as they style Him a judge, He appears to be a judge not so much of actions as of
natures; and if a bad nature cannot do good, neither can a good nature do evil.
Then, in the next place, if He whom the), call good is good to all, He is
undoubtedly good also to those who are destined to perish. And why does He not
save them? If He does not desire to do so, He will be no longer good; if He does
desire it, and cannot effect it, He will not be omnipotent. Why do they not
rather hear the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels, preparing fire
for the devil and his angels? And how shall that proceeding, as penal as it is
sad, appear to be, according to their view, the work of the good God? Even the
Saviour Himself, the Son of the good God, protests in the Gospels, and declares
that "if signs and wonders had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have
repented58 long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." And when He had come near
to those very cities, and had entered their territory, why, pray, does He avoid
entering those cities, and exhibiting to them abundance of signs and wonders, if
it were certain that they would have repented, after they had been performed, in
sackcloth and ashes? But as He does not do this, He undoubtedly abandons to
destruction those whom the language of the Gospel shows not to have been of a
wicked or mined nature, inasmuch as it declares they were capable of repentance.
Again, in a certain parable of the Gospel, where the king enters in to see the
guests reclining at the banquet, he beheld a certain individual not clothed with
wedding raiment, and said. to him, "Friend, how camest thou in hither, not
having a wedding garment? "and then ordered his servants, "Bind him hand and
foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth."59 Let them tell us who is that king who entered in to see the guests,
and finding one amongst them with unclean garments, commanded him to be bound by
his servants, and thrust out into outer darkness. Is he the same whom they call
just? How then had he commanded good and bad alike to be invited, without
directing their merits to be inquired into by his servants? By such procedure
would be indicated, not the character of a just God who rewards according to
men's deserts, as they assert, but of one who displays undiscriminating goodness
towards all. Now, if this must necessarily be understood of the good God, i.e.,
either of Christ or of the Father of Christ, what other objection can they bring
against the justice of God's judgment? Nay, what else is there so unjust charged
by them against the God of the law as to order him who had been invited by His
servants, whom He had sent to call good and bad alike, to be bound hand and
foot, and to be thrown into outer darkness, because he had on unclean garments?

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? "60 Let them learn, therefore, by searching the holy Scriptures,
what are the individual virtues, and not deceive themselves by saying that that
God who rewards every one according to his merits, does, through hatred of evil,
recompense the wicked with evil, and not because those who have sinned need to
be treated with severer remedies, and because He applies to them those measures
which, with the prospect of improvement, seem nevertheless, for the present, to
produce a feeling of pain. They do not read what is written respecting the hope
of those who were destroyed in the deluge; of which hope Peter himself thus
speaks in his first Epistle: "That Christ, indeed, was put to death in the
flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which He went and preached to the spirits
who were kept in prison, who once were unbelievers, when they awaited the
long-suffering of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was preparing, in which
a few, i.e., eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto also baptism by a like
figure now saves you."61 And with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, let them tell us
whether they believe the prophetic words to be those of the Creator God-of Him,
viz., who is related to have rained upon them a shower of fire and brimstone.
What does Ezekiel the prophet say of them? "Sodom," he says, "shall be restored
to her former condition."62 But why, in afflicting those who are deserving of
punishment, does He not afflict them for their good?-who also says to Chaldea,
"Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them; they will be a help to thee."63 And of
those also who fell in the desert, let them hear what is related in the Psalms
78, which bears the superscription of Asaph; for he says, "When He slew them,
then they sought Him."64 He does not say that some sought Him after others had
been slain, but he says that the destruction of those who were killed was of
such a nature that, when put to death, they sought God. By all which it is
established, that the God of the law and the Gospels is one and the same, a just
and good God, and that He confers benefits justly, and punishes with kindness;
since neither goodness without justice, nor justice without goodness, can
display the (real) dignity of the divine nature.

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."65 What, then, is
their position? What sort of tree the law is, is shown by its fruits, i.e., by
the language of its precepts. For if the law be found to be good, then
undoubtedly He who gave it is believed to be a good God. But if it be just
rather than good, then God also will be considered a just legislator. The
Apostle Paul makes use of no circumlocution, when he says, "The law is good; and
the commandment is holy, and just, and good."66 From which it is clear that Paul
had not learned the language of those who separate justice from goodness, but
had been instructed by that God, and illuminated by His Spirit, who is at the
same time both holy, and good, and just; and speaking by whose Spirit he
declared that the commandment of the law was holy, and just, and good. And that
he might show more clearly that goodness was in the commandment to a greater
degree than justice and holiness, repeating his words, he used, instead of these
three epithets, that of goodness alone, saying, "Was then that which is good
made death unto me? God forbid."67 As he knew that goodness was the genus of the
virtues, and that justice and holiness were species belonging to the genus, and
having in the former verses named genus and species together, he fell back, when
repeating his words, on the genus alone. But in those which follow he says, "Sin
wrought death in me by that which is good,"68 where he sums up generically what
he had beforehand explained specifically. And in this way also is to be
understood the declaration, "A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart,
bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth
forth evil things."69 For here also he assumed that there was a genus in good or
evil, pointing out unquestionably that in a good man there were both justice,
and temperance, and prudence, and piety, and everything that can be either
called or understood to be good. In like manner also he said that a man was
wicked who should without any doubt be unjust, and impure, and unholy, and
everything which singly makes a bad man. For as no one considers a man to be
wicked without these marks of wickedness (nor indeed can he be so), so also it
is certain that without these virtues no one will be deemed to be good. There
still remains to them, however, that saying of the Lord in the Gospel, which
they think is given them in a special manner as a shield, viz., "There is none
good but one, God the Father."70 This word they declare is peculiar to the
Father of Christ, who, however, is different from the God who is Creator of all
things, to which Creator he gave no appellation of goodness. Let us see now if,
in the Old Testament, the God of the prophets and the Creator and Legislator of
the word is not called good. What are the expressions which occur in the Psalms?
"How good is God to Israel, to the upright in heart!"71 and, "Let Israel now say
that He is good, that His mercy endureth for ever; "72 the language in the
Lamentations of Jeremiah, "The Lord is good to them that wait for Him, to the
soul that seeketh Him."73 As therefore God is frequently called good in the Old
Testament, so also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is styled just in the
Gospels. Finally, in the Gospel according to John, our Lord Himself, when
praying to the Father, says, "O just Father, the world hath not known Thee."74
And lest perhaps they should say that it was owing to His having assumed human
flesh that He called the Creator of the world "Father," and styled Him "Just,"
they are excluded from such a refuge by the words that immediately follow, "The
world hath not known Thee." But, according to them, the world is ignorant of the
good God alone. For the word unquestionably recognises its Creator, the Lord
Himself saying that the world loveth what is its own. Clearly, then, He whom
they consider to be the good God, is called just in the Gospels. Any one may at
leisure gather together a greater number of proofs, consisting of those
passages, where in the New Testament the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is
called just, and in the Old also, where the Creator of heaven and earth is
called good; so that the heretics, being convicted by numerous testimonies, may
perhaps some time be put to the blush.

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."75
Seeing, moreover, those declarations regarding His majesty which are contained
in holy Scripture, that He is called the "image of the invisible God, and the
first-born of every creature," and that "in Him were all things created, visible
and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers, all things were created by Him, and in Him: and He is before all things,
and by Him all things consist,"76 who is the head of all things, alone having as
head God the Father; for it is written, "The head of Christ is God; "77 seeing
clearly also that it is written, "No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, nor
doth any one know the Son, save the Father"78 (for who can know what wisdom is,
save He who called it into being? or, who can understand clearly what truth is,
save the Father of truth? who can investigate with certainty the universal
nature of His Word, and of God Himself, which nature proceeds from God, except
God alone, with whom the Word was), we ought to regard it as certain that this
Word, or Reason (if it is to be so termed), this Wisdom, this Truth, is known to
no other than the Father only; and of Him it is written, that "I do not think
that the world itself could contain the books which might be written,"79
regarding, viz., the glory and majesty of the Son of God. For it is impossible
to commit to writing (all) those particulars which belong to the glory of the
Saviour. After the consideration of questions of such importance concerning the
being of the Son of God, we are lost in the deepest amazement that such a
nature, pre-eminent above all others, should have divested itself of its
condition of majesty and become man, and tabernacled amongst men, as the grace
that was poured upon His lips testifies, and as His heavenly Father bore Him
witness, and as is confessed by the various signs and wonders and miracles80
that were performed by Him; who also, before that appearance of His which He
manifested in the body, sent the prophets as His forerunners, and the messengers
of His advent; and after His ascension into heaven, made His holy apostles, men
ignorant and unlearned, taken from the ranks of tax-gatherers or fishermen, but
who were filled with the power of His divinity, to itinerate throughout the
world, that they might gather together out of every race and every nation a
multitude of devout believers in Himself.

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 be believed to have existed within the limits of that
man who appeared in Judea; nay, that the Wisdom of God can have entered the womb
of a woman, and have been born an infant, and have uttered wailings like the
cries of little children! And that afterwards it should be related that He was
greatly troubled in death, saying, as He Himself; declared, "My soul is
sorrowful even unto death; "81 and that at the last He was brought to that death
which is accounted the most shameful among men, although He rose again on the
third day. Since, then, we see in Him some things so human that they appear to
differ in no respect from the common frailty of mortals, and some things so
divine that they can appropriately belong to nothing else than to the primal and
ineffable nature of Deity, the narrowness of human understanding can find no
outlet; but, overcome with the amazement of a mighty admiration, knows not
whither to withdraw, or what to take hold of, or whither to turn. If it think of
a God, it goes a mortal; if it think of a man; it beholds Him returning from the
grave, after overthrowing the empire of death, laden with its spoils. And
therefore the spectacle is to be contemplated with all fear and reverence, that
the truth of both natures may be clearly shown to exist in one and the same
Being; so that nothing unworthy or unbecoming may be perceived in that divine
and ineffable substance nor yet those things which were done be supposed to be
the illusions of imaginary appearances. To utter these things in human ears, and
to explain them in words, far surpasses the powers either of our rank, or of our
intellect and language. I think that it surpasses the power even of the holy
apostles; nay, the explanation of that mystery may perhaps be beyond the grasp
of the entire creation of celestial powers. Regarding Him, then, we shall state,
in the fewest possible words, the contents of our creed rather than the
assertions which human reason is wont to advance; and this from no spirit of
rashness, but as called for by the nature of our arrangement, laying before you
rather (what may be termed) our suspicions than any clear affirmations.

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,"82 inhering, from the beginning of the creation, and
afterwards, inseparably and indissolubly in Him, as being the Wisdom and Word of
God, and the Truth and the true Light, and receiving Him wholly, and passing
into His light and splendour, was made with Him in a pre-eminent degree83 one
spirit, according to the promise of the apostle to those who ought to imitate
it, that "he who is joined in the Lord is one spirit."84 This substance of a
soul, then, being intermediate between God and the flesh-it being impossible for
the nature of God to intermingle with a body without an intermediate
instrument-the God-man is born, as we have said, that substance being the
intermediary to whose nature it was not contrary to assume a body. But neither,
on the other hand, was it opposed to the nature of that soul, as a rational
existence, to receive God, into whom, as stated above, as into the Word, and the
Wisdom, and the Truth, it had already wholly entered. And therefore deservedly
is it also called, along with the flesh which it had assumed, the Son of God,
and the Power of God, the Christ, and the Wisdom of God, either because it was
wholly in the Son of God, or because it received the Son of God wholly into
itself. And again, the Son of God, through whom all things were created, is
named Jesus Christ and the Son of man. For the Son of God also is said to have
died-in reference, viz., to that nature which could admit of death; and He is
called the Son of man, who is announced as about to come in the glory of God the
Father, with the holy angels. And for this reason, throughout the whole of
Scripture, not only is the divine nature spoken of in human words, but the human
nature is adorned by appellations of divine dignity. More truly indeed of this
than of any other can the statement be affirmed, "They shall both be in one
flesh, and are no longer two, but one flesh."85 For the Word of God is to be
considered as being more in one flesh with the soul than a man with his wife.
But to whom is it more becoming to be also one spirit with God, than to this
soul which has so joined itself to God by love as that it may justly be said to
be one spirit with Him?

4. That the perfection of his love and the sincerity of his deserved affection86
formed for it this inseparable union with God, so that the assumption of that
soul was not accidental, or the result of a personal preference, but was
conferred as the reward of its virtues, listen to the prophet addressing it
thus: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness: therefore God, thy
God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."87 As a
reward for its love, then, it is anointed with the oil of gladness; i.e., the
soul of Christ along with the Word of God is made Christ. Because to be anointed
with the oil of gladness means nothing else than to be filled with the Holy
Spirit. And when it is said "above thy fellows," it is meant that the grace of
the Spirit was not given to it as to the prophets, but that the essential
fulness of the Word of God Himself was in it, according to the saying of the
apostle, "In whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."88 Finally, on
this account he has not only said, "Thou hast loved righteousness; "but he adds,
"and Thou hast hated wickedness." For to have hated wickedness is what the
Scripture says of Him, that "He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His
mouth,"89 and that "He was tempted in all things like as we are, without sin."90
Nay, the Lord Himself also said, "Which of you will convince Me of sin? "91 And
again He says with reference to Himself, "Behold, the prince of this world
cometh, and findeth nothing in Me."92 All which (passages) show that in Him
there was no sense of sin; and that the prophet might show more clearly that no
sense of sin had ever entered into Him, he says, "Before the boy could have
knowledge to call upon father or mother, He turned away from wickedness."93

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,94 is God in all that it does, feels, and
understands, and therefore can be called neither convertible nor mutable,
inasmuch as, being incessantly heated, it possessed immutability from its union
with the Word of God. To all the saints, finally, some warmth from the Word of
God must be supposed to have passed; and in this soul the divine fire itself
must be believed to have rested, from which some warmth may have passed to
others. Lastly, the expression, "God, thy God, anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows,"95 shows that that soul is anointed in one way with
the oil of gladness, i.e., with the word of God and wisdom; and his fellows,
i.e., the holy prophets and apostles, in another. For they are said to have "run
in the odour of his ointments; "96 and that soul was the vessel which contained
that very ointment of whose fragrance all the worthy prophets and apostles were
made partakers. As, then, the substance of an ointment is one thing and its
odour another, so also Christ is one thing and His fellows another. And as the
vessel itself, which contains the substance of the ointment, can by no means
admit any foul smell; whereas it is possible that those who enjoy its odour may,
if they remove a little way from its fragrance, receive any foul odour which
comes upon them: so, in the same way, was it impossible that Christ, being as it
were the vessel itself, in which was the substance of the ointment, should
receive an odour of an opposite kind, while they who are His "fellows" will be
partakers and receivers of His odour, in proportion to their nearness to the
vessel.

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."97 And inasmuch as the shadow of our body is inseparable from the body,
and unavoidably performs and repeats its movements and gestures, I think that
he, wishing to point out the work of Christ's soul, and the movements
inseparably belonging to it, and which accomplished everything according to His
movements and will, called this the shadow of Christ the Lord, under which
shadow we were to live among the nations. For in the mystery of this assumption
the nations live, who, imitating it through faith, come to salvation. David
also, when saying, "Be mindful of my reproach, O Lord, with which they
reproached me in exchange for Thy Christ,"98 seems to me to indicate the same.
And what else does Paul mean when he says, "Your life is hid with Christ in God;
"99 and again in another passage, "Do you seek a proof of Christ, who speaketh
in me? "100 And now he says that Christ was hid in God. The meaning of which
expression, unless it be shown to be something such as we have pointed out above
as intended by the prophet in the words "shadow of Christ," exceeds, perhaps,
the apprehension of the human mind. But we see also very many other statements
in holy Scripture respecting the meaning of the word "shadow," as that
well-known one in the Gospel according to Luke, where Gabriel says to Mary, "The
Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee."101 And the apostle says with reference to the law, that they
who have circumcision in the flesh, "serve for the similitude and shadow of
heavenly things."102 And elsewhere, "Is not our life upon the earth a shadow?
"103 If, then, not only the law which is upon the earth is a shadow, but also
all our life which is upon the earth is the same, and we live among the nations
under the shadow of Christ, we must see whether the truth of all these shadows
may not come to be known in that revelation, when no longer through a glass, and
darkly, but face to face, all the saints shall deserve to behold the glory of
God, and the causes and truth of things. And the pledge of this truth being
already received through the Holy Spirit, the apostle said, "Yea, though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more."104 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.105 For how could they maintain this out of Scripture, or what distinction
could they lay down between Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit, if indeed any
definition or description of Holy Spirit can be discovered? For although we
should concede to Marcion or to Valentinus that it is possible to draw
distinctions in the question of Deity, and to describe the nature of the good
God as one, and that of the just God as another, what will he devise, or what
will he discover, to enable him to introduce a distinction in the Holy Spirit? I
consider, then, that they are able to discover nothing which may indicate a
distinction of any kind whatever.

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,"106 which is similar to the well-known statement, "All
nations shall serve Him."107 By the grace, then, of the Holy Spirit, along with
numerous other results, this most glorious consequence is clearly demonstrated,
that with regard to those things which were written in the prophets or in the
law of Moses, it was only a few persons at that time, viz., the prophets
themselves, and scarcely another individual out of the whole nation, who were
able to look beyond the mere corporeal meaning and discover something greater,
i.e., something spiritual, in the law or in the prophets; but now there are
countless multitudes of believers who, although unable to unfold methodically
and clearly the results of their spiritual understanding,108 are nevertheless
most firmly persuaded that neither ought circumcision to be understood
literally, nor the rest of the Sabbath, nor the pouring out of the blood of an
animal, nor that answers were given by God to Moses on these points. And this
method of apprehension is undoubtedly suggested to the minds of all by the power
of the Holy Spirit.

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.109 These divisions and differences
not being perceived by those who hear Him called Paraclete in the Gospel, and
not duly considering in consequence of what work or act He is named the
Paraclete, they have compared Him to some common spirits or other, and by this
means have tried to disturb the Churches of Christ, and so excite dissensions of
no small extent among brethren; whereas the Gospel shows Him to be of such power
and majesty, that it says the apostles could not yet receive those things which
the Saviour wished to teach them until the advent of the Holy Spirit, who,
pouring Himself into their souls, might enlighten them regarding the nature and
faith of the Trinity. But these persons, because of the ignorance of their
understandings, are not only unable themselves logically to state the truth, but
cannot even give their attention to what is advanced by us; and entertaining
Unworthy ideas of His divinity, have delivered themselves over to errors and
deceits, being depraved by a spirit of error, rather than instructed by the
teaching of the Holy Spirit, according to the declaration of the apostle,
"Following the doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, to the destruction and
ruin of many, and to abstain from meats, that by an ostentatious exhibition of
stricter observance they may seduce the souls of the innocent."110

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,"111 i.e., which
cannot be indicated by human language. The phrase "it is not lawful" is, we
think, used by the apostle instead of "it is not possible; "as also is the case
in the passage where he says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are
not expedient: all things are lawful for me; but all things edify not."112 For
those things which are in our power because we may have them, he says are lawful
for us. But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, is so called from His
work of consolation, paraclesis being termed in Latin consolatio. For if any one
has deserved to participate in the Holy Spirit by the knowledge of His ineffable
mysteries, he undoubtedly obtains comfort and joy of heart. For since he comes
by the teaching of the Spirit to the knowledge of the reasons of all things
which happen-how or why they occur-his soul can in no respect be troubled, or
admit any feeling of sorrow; nor is he alarmed by anything, since, clinging to
the Word of God and His wisdom, he through the Holy Spirit calls Jesus Lord. And
since we have made mention of the Paraclete, and have explained as we were able
what sentiments ought to be entertained regarding Him; and since our Saviour
also is called the Paraclete in the Epistle of John, when he says, "If any of us
sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is
the propitiation for our sins; "113 let us consider whether this term Paraclete
should happen to have one meaning when applied to the Saviour, and another when
applied to the Holy Spirit. Now Paraclete, when spoken of the Saviour, seems to
mean intercessor. For in Greek, Paraclete has both significations-that of
intercessor and comforter. On account, then, of the phrase which follows, when
he says, "And He is the propitiation for our sins," the name Paraclete seems to
be understood in the case of our Saviour as meaning intercessor; for He is said
to intercede with the Father because of our sins. In the case of the Holy
Spirit, the Paraclete must be understood in the sense of comforter, inasmuch as
He bestows consolation upon the souls to whom He openly reveals the apprehension
of spiritual knowledge.

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;114 and,
beginning with points of inferior importance, to ascend to those that are of
greater. Now, that there are souls115 in all living things, even in those which
live in the waters, is, I suppose, doubted by no one. For the general opinion of
all men maintains this; and confirmation from the authority of holy Scripture is
added, when it is said that "God made great whales, and every living creature116
that moveth which the waters brought forth after their kind."117 It is confirmed
also from the common intelligence of reason, by those who lay down in certain
words a definition of soul. For soul is defined as follows: a substance
fantastikh/ and o9rmhtikh/, which may be rendered into Latin, although not so
appropriately, sensibilis et mobilis.118 This certainly may be said
appropriately of all living beings, even of those which abide in the waters; and
of winged creatures too, this same definition of anima may be shown to hold
good. Scripture also has added its authority to a second opinion, when it says,
"Ye shall not eat the blood, because the life119 of all flesh is its blood; and
ye shall not eat the life with the flesh; "120 in which it intimates most
clearly that the blood of every animal is its life. And if any one now were to
ask how it can be said with respect to bees, wasps, and ants, and those other
things which are in the waters, oysters and cockles, and all others which are
without blood, and are most clearly shown to be living things, that the "life of
all flesh is the blood," we must answer, that in living things of that sort the
force which is exerted in other animals by the power of red blood is exerted in
them by that liquid which is within them, although it be of a different colour;
for colour is a thing of no importance, provided the substance be endowed with
life.121 That beasts of burden or cattle of smaller size are endowed with
souls,122 there is, by general assent, no doubt whatever. The opinion of holy
Scripture, however, is manifest, when God says, "Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after its kind, four-footed beasts, and creeping things, and
beasts of the earth after their kind."123 And now with respect to man, although
no one entertains any doubt, or needs to inquire, yet holy Scripture declares
that "God breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became a
living soul."124 It remains that we inquire respecting the angelic order whether
they also have souls, or are souls; and also respecting the other divine and
celestial powers, as well as those of an opposite kind. We nowhere, indeed, find
any authority in holy Scripture for asserting that either the angels, or any
other divine spirits that are ministers of God, either possess souls or are
called souls, and yet they are felt by very many persons to be endowed with
life. But with regard to God, we find it written as follows: "And I will put My
soul upon that soul which has eaten blood, and I will root him out from among
his people; "125 and also in another passage, "Your new moons, and sabbaths, and
great days, I will not accept; your fasts, and holidays, and festal days, My
soul hateth."126 And in the Psalms 22, regarding Christ-for it is certain, as
the Gospel bears witness, that this Psalm is spoken of Him-the following words
occur: "O Lord, be not far from helping me; look to my defence: O God, deliver
my soul from the sword, and my beloved one from the hand of the dog; "127
although there are also many other testimonies respecting the soul of Christ
when He tabernacled in the flesh.

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-man128 who, he says, cannot receive the things of the
Spirit of God, but declares that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems to him
foolish, and that he cannot understand what is to be spiritually discerned. In
another passage he says it is sown an animal body, and arises a spiritual body,
pointing out that in the resurrection of the just there will be nothing of an
animal nature. And therefore we inquire whether there happen to be any substance
which, in respect of its being anima, is imperfect. But whether it be imperfect
because it falls away from perfection, or because it was so created by God, will
form the subject of inquiry when each individual topic shall begin to be
discussed in order. For if the animal man receive not the things of the Spirit
of God, and because he is animal, is unable to admit the understanding of a
better, i.e., of a divine nature, it is for this reason perhaps that Paul,
wishing to teach us more plainly what that is by means of which we are able to
comprehend those things which are of the Spirit, i.e., spiritual things,
conjoins and associates with the Holy Spirit an understanding129 rather than a
soul.130 For this, I think, he indicates when he says, "I will pray with the
spirit, I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, I
will sing with the understanding also.131 And he does not say that "I will pray
with the soul," but with the spirit and the understanding. Nor does he say, "I
will sing with the soul," but with the spirit and the understanding.

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? "132 If the soul neither prays nor sings with the
spirit, how shall it hope for salvation? or when it attains to blessedness,
shall it be no longer called a soul?133 Let us see if perhaps an answer may be
given in this way, that as the Saviour came to save what was lost, that which
formerly was said to be lost is not lost when it is saved; so also, perhaps,
this which is saved is called a soul, and when it has been placed in a state of
salvation will receive a name from the Word that denotes its more perfect
condition. But it appears to some that this also may be added, that as the thing
which was lost undoubtedly existed before it was lost, at which time it was
something else than destroyed, so also will be the case when it is no longer in
a ruined condition. In like manner also, the soul which is said to have perished
will appear to have been something at one time, when as yet it had not perished,
and on that account would be termed soul, and being again freed from
destruction, it may become a second time what it was before it perished, and be
called a soul. But from the very signification of the name soul which the Greek
word conveys, it has appeared to a few curious inquirers that a meaning of no
small importance may be suggested. For in sacred language God is called a fire,
as when Scripture says," Our God is a consuming fire."134 Respecting the
substance of the angels also it speaks as follows: "Who maketh His angels
spirits, and His ministers a burning fire; "135 and in another place, "The angel
of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire in the bush."136 We have, moreover,
received a commandment to be "fervent in spirit; "137 by which expression
undoubtedly the Word of God is shown to be hot and fiery. The prophet Jeremiah
also hears from Him, who gave him his answers, "Behold, I have given My words
into thy mouth a fire."138 As God, then, is a fire, and the angels a flame of
fire, and all the saints are fervent in spirit, so, on the contrary, those who
have fallen away from the love of God are undoubtedly said to have cooled in
their affection for Him, and to have become cold. For the Lord also says, that,
"because iniquity has abounded, the love of many will grow cold."139 Nay, all
things, whatever they are, which in holy Scripture are compared with the hostile
power, the devil is said to be perpetually finding cold; and what is found to be
colder than he? In the sea also the dragon is said to reign. For the prophet140
intimates that the serpent and dragon, which certainly is referred to one of the
wicked spirits, is also in the sea. And elsewhere the prophet says, "I will draw
out my holy sword upon the dragon the flying serpent, upon the dragon the
crooked serpent, and will slay him."141 And again he says: "Even though they
hide from my eyes, and descend into the depths of the sea, there will I command
the serpent, and it shall bite them."142 In the book of Job also, he is said to
be the king of all things in the waters.143 The prophet144 threatens that evils
will be kindled by the north wind upon all who inhabit the earth. Now the north
wind is described in holy Scripture as cold, according to the statement in the
book of Wisdom, "That cold north wind; "145 which same thing also must
undoubtedly be understood of the devil. If, then, those things which are holy
are named fire, and light, and fervent, while those which are of an opposite
nature are said to be cold; and if the love of many is said to wax cold; we have
to inquire whether perhaps the name soul, which in Greek is termed yukh/, be so
termed from growing cold146 out of a betterand more divine condition, and be
thence derived, because it seems to have cooled from thatnatural and divine
warmth, and therefore has been placed in its present position, and called by its
present name. Finally, see if you caneasily find a place in holy Scripture where
thesoul is properly mentioned in terms of praise: it frequently occurs, on the
contrary, accompanied with expressions of censure, as in the passage, "An evil
soul ruins him who possesses it; "147 and, "The soul which sinneth, it shall
die."148 For after it has been said, "All souls are Mine; as the soul of the
father, so also the soul of the son is Mine,"149 it seemed to follow that He
would say, "The soul that doeth righteousness, it shall be saved," and "The soul
which sinneth, it shall die." But now we see that He has associated with the
soul what is censurable, and has been silent as to that which was deserving of
praise. We have therefore to see if, perchance, as we have said is declared by
the name itself, it was called yukh/, i.e., anima, because it has waxed cold
from the fervour of just things,150 and from participation in the divine fire,
and yet has not lost the power of restoring itself to that condition of fervour
in which it was at the beginning. Whence the prophet also appears to point out
some such state of things by the words, "Return, O my soul, unto thy rest."151
From all which this appears to be made out, that the understanding, falling away
from its status and dignity, was made or named soul; and that, if repaired and
corrected, it returns to the condition of the understanding.152

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 understanding is converted into
a soul, or whatever else seems to have such a meaning, the reader must carefully
consider and settle for himself, as these views are not be regarded as advanced
by us in a dogmatic manner, but simply as opinions, treated in the style of
investigation and discussion. Let the reader take this also into consideration,
that it is observed with regard to the soul of the Saviour, that of those things
which are written in the Gospel, some are ascribed to it under the name of soul,
and others under that of spirit. For when it wishes to indicate any suffering or
perturbation affecting Him, it indicates it under the name of soul; as when it
says, "Now is My soul troubled; "153 and, "My soul is sorrowful, even unto
death; "154 and, "No man taketh My soul155 from Me, but I lay it down of
Myself."156 Into the hands of His Father He commends not His soul, but His
spirit; and when He says that the flesh is weak, He does not say that the soul
is willing, but the spirit: whence it appears that the soul is something
intermediate between the weak flesh and the willing spirit.

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."157 Finally,
I am aware that certain critics, in explaining the words used in the Gospel by
the Saviour, "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death," have interpreted them of
the apostles, whom He termed His soul, as being better than the rest of His
body. For as the multitude of believers is called His body, they say that the
apostles, as being better than the rest of the body, ought to be understood to
mean His soul.

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,158 then, we are to suppose that
God created so great a number of rational or intellectual creatures (or by
whatever name they are to be called), which we have formerly termed
understandings, as He foresaw would be sufficient. It is certain that He made
them according to some definite number, predetermined by Himself: for it is not
to be imagined, as some would have it, that creatures have not a limit, because
where there is no limit there can neither be any comprehension nor any
limitation. Now if this were the case, then certainly created things could
neither be restrained nor administered by God. For, naturally, whatever is
infinite will also be incomprehensible. Moreover, as Scripture says, "God has
arranged all things in number and measure; "159 and therefore number will be
correctly applied to rational creatures or understandings, that they may be so
numerous as to admit of being arranged, governed, and controlled by God. But
measure will be appropriately applied to a material body; and this measure, we
are to believe, was created by God such as He knew would be sufficient for the
adorning of the world. These, then, are the things which we are to believe were
created by God in the beginning, i.e., before all things. And this, we think, is
indicated even in that beginning which Moses has introduced in terms somewhat
ambiguous, when he says, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the
earth."160 For it is certain that the firmament is not spoken of, nor the dry
land, but that heaven and earth from which this present heaven and earth which
we now see afterwards borrowed their names.

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."161 Certain beings are called earthly, and among them, i.e.,
among men, there is no small difference; for some of them are Barbarians, others
Greeks; and of the Barbarians some are savage and fierce, and others of a milder
disposition. And certain of them live under laws that have been thoroughly
approved; others, again, under laws of a more common or severe kind;162 while
some, again, possess customs of an inhuman and savage character, rather than
laws. And certain of them, from the hour of their birth, are reduced to
humiliation and subjection, and brought up as slaves, being placed under the
dominion either of masters, or princes, or tyrants. Others, again, are brought
up in a manner more consonant with freedom and reason: some with sound bodies,
some with bodies diseased from their early years; some defective in vision,
others in hearing and speech; some born in that condition, others deprived of
the use of their senses immediately after birth, or at least undergoing such
misfortune on reaching manhood. And why should I repeat and enumerate all the
horrors of human misery, from which some have been free, and in which others
have been involved, when each one can weigh and consider them for himself? There
are also certain invisible powers to which earthly things have been entrusted
for administration; and amongst them no small difference must be believed to
exist, as is also found to be the case among men. The Apostle Paul indeed
intimates that there are certain lower powers,163 and that among them, in like
manner, must undoubtedly be sought a ground of diversity. Regarding dumb
animals, and birds, and those creatures which live in the waters, it seems
superfluous to require; since it is certain that these ought to be regarded not
as of primary, but of subordinate rank.

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; "164 and as in his Gospel John indicates the same thing, 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 not anything made; "165 and as in the Psalm also it is written," In wisdom
hast Thou made them all; "166 -seeing, then, Christ is, as it were, the Word and
Wisdom, and so also the Righteousness, it will undoubtedly follow that those
things which were created in the Word and Wisdom are said to be created also in
that righteousness which is Christ; that in created things there may appear to
be nothing unrighteous or accidental, but that all things may be shown to be in
conformity with the law of equity and righteousness. How, then, so great a
variety of things, and so great a diversity, can be understood to be altogether
just and righteous, I am sure no human power or language can explain, unless as
prostrate suppliants we pray to the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness Himself,
who is the only-begotten Son of God, and who, pouring Himself by His graces into
our senses, may deign to illuminate what is dark, to lay open what is concealed,
and to reveal what is secret; if, indeed, we should be found either to seek, or
ask, or knock so worthily as to deserve to receive when we ask, or to find when
we seek, or to have it opened to us when we knock. Not relying, then, on our own
powers, but on the help of that Wisdom which made all things, and of that
Righteousness which we believe to be in all His creatures, although we are in
the meantime unable to declare it, yet, trusting in His mercy, we shall
endeavour to examine and inquire how that great variety and diversity in the
world may appear to be consistent with all righteousness and reason. I mean, of
course, merely reason in general; for it would be a mark of ignorance either to
seek, or of folly to give, a special reason for each individual case.

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 word 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 dearly 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 things, is good, and just, and all-powerful. When He in the beginning
created those beings which He desired to create, i.e., rational natures, He had
no other reason for creating them than on account of Himself, i.e., His own
goodness. As He Himself, then, was the cause of the existence of those things
which were to be created, in whom there was neither any variation nor change,
nor want of power, He created all whom He made equal and alike, because there
was in Himself no reason for producing variety and diversity. But since those
rational creatures themselves, as we have frequently shown, and will yet show in
the proper place, were endowed with the power of free-will, this freedom of will
incited each one either to progress by imitation of God, or reduced him to
failure through negligence. And this, as we have already stated, is the cause of
the diversity among rational creatures, deriving its origin not from the will or
judgment of the Creator, but from the freedom of the individual will. Now God,
who deemed it just to arrange His creatures according to their merit, brought
down these different understandings into the harmony of one world, that He might
adorn, as it were, one dwelling, in which there ought to be not only vessels of
gold and silver, but also of wood and clay (and some indeed to honour, and
others to dishonour), with those different vessels, or souls, or understandings.
And these are the causes, in my opinion, why that world presents the aspect of
diversity, while Divine Providence continues to regulate each individual
according to the variety of his movements, or of his feelings and purpose. On
which account the Creator will neither appear to be unjust in distributing (for
the causes already mentioned) to every one according to his merits; nor will the
happiness or unhappiness of each one's birth, or whatever be the condition that
falls to his lot, be deemed accidental; nor will different creators, or souls of
different natures, be believed to exist.

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."167 And after that,
he answers himself, and says, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness
with God? "And that he might furnish us with an opportunity of inquiring into
these matters, and of ascertaining how these things do not happen without a
reason, he answers himself, and says, "God forbid."168 For the same question, as
it seems to me, which is raised concerning Jacob and Esau, may be raised
regarding all celestial and terrestrial creatures, and even those of the lower
world as well. And in like manner it seems to me, that as he there says, "The
children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," so it might
also be said of all other things, "When they were not yet" created, "neither had
yet done any good or evil, that the decree of God according to election may
stand," that (as certain think) some things on the one hand were created
heavenly, some on the other earthly, and others, again, beneath the earth, "not
of works" (as they think), "but of Him who calleth," what shall we say then, if
these things are so? "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." As,
therefore, when the Scriptures are carefully examined regarding Jacob and Esau,
it is not found to be unrighteousness with God that it should be said, before
they were born, or had done anything in this life, "the elder shall serve the
younger; "and as it is found not to be unrighteousness that even in the womb
Jacob supplanted his brother, if we feel that he was worthily beloved by God,
according to the deserts of his previous life, so as to deserve to be preferred
before his brother; so also is it with regard to heavenly creatures, if we
notice that diversity was not the original condition of the creature, but that,
owing to causes that have previously existed, a different office is prepared by
the Creator for each one in proportion to the degree of his merit, on this
ground, indeed, that each one, in respect of having been created by God an
understanding, or a rational spirit, has, according to the movements of his mind
and the feelings of his soul, gained for himself a greater or less amount of
merit, and has become either an object of love to God, or else one of dislike to
Him; while, nevertheless, some of those who are possessed of greater merit are
ordained to suffer with others for the adorning of the state of the world, and
for the discharge of duty to creatures of a lower grade, in order that by this
means they themselves may be participators in the endurance of the Creator,
according to the words of the apostle: "For the creature was made subject to
vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in
hope."169 Keeping in view, then, the sentiment expressed by the apostle, when,
speaking of the birth of Esau and Jacob, he says, "Is there unrighteousness with
God? God forbid," I think it fight that this same sentiment should be carefully
applied to the case of all other creatures, because, as we formerly remarked,
the righteousness of the Creator ought to appear in everything. And this, it
appears to me, will be seen more clearly at last, if each one, whether of
celestial or terrestrial or infernal beings, be said to have the causes of his
diversity in himself, and antecedent to his bodily birth. For all things were
created by the Word of God, and by His Wisdom, and were set in order by His
Justice. And by the grace of His compassion He provides for all men, and
encourages all to the use of whatever remedies may lead to their cure, and
incites them to salvation.

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; "170 and those which he adds, saying, "If a man
purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the
Master's use, unto every good work,"171 undoubtedly point out this, that he who
shall purge himself when he is in this life, will be prepared for every good
work in that which is to come; while he who does not purge himself will be,
according to the amount of his impurity, a vessel unto dishonour, i.e.,
unworthy. It is therefore possible to understand that there have been also
formerly rational vessels, whether purged or not, i.e., which either purged
themselves or did not do so, and that consequently every vessel, according to
the measure of its purity or impurity, received a place, or region, or condition
by birth, or an office to discharge, in this world. All of which, down to the
humblest, God providing for and distinguishing by the power of His wisdom,
arranges all things by His controlling judgment, according to a most impartial
retribution, so far as each one ought to be assisted or cared for in conformity
with his deserts. In which certainly every principle of equity is shown, while
the inequality of circumstances preserves the justice of a retribution according
to merit. But the grounds of the merits in each individual case are only
recognised truly and clearly by God Himself, along with His only-begotten Word,
and His Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit.

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.172 But that these subjects may be arrived at in proper order, it seems to me
that we ought first to consider the nature of the resurrection, that we may know
what that (body) is which shall come either to punishment, or to rest, or to
happiness; which question in other treatises which we have composed regarding
the resurrection we have discussed at greater length, and have shown what our
opinions were regarding it. But now, also, for the sake of logical order in our
treatise, there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works,
especially since some take offence at the creed of the Church, as if our belief
in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are
principally heretics, who, I think, are to be answered in the following manner.
If they also admit that there is a resurrection of the dead, let them answer us
this, What is that which died? Was it not a body? It is of the body, then, that
there will be a resurrection. Let them next tell us if they think that we are to
make use of bodies or not. I think that when the Apostle Paul says, that "it is
sown a natural body, it will arise a spiritual body,"173 they cannot deny that
it is a body which arises, or that in the resurrection we are to make use of
bodies. What then? If it is certain that we are to make use of bodies, and if
the bodies which have fallen are declared to rise again (for only that which
before has fallen can be properly said to rise again), it can be a matter of
doubt to no one that they rise again, in order that we may be clothed with them
a second time at the resurrection. The one thing is closely connected with the
other. For if bodies rise again, they undoubtedly rise to be coverings for us;
and if it is necessary for us to be invested with bodies, as it is certainly
necessary, we ought to be invested with no other than our own. But if it is true
that these rise again, and that they arise "spiritual" bodies, there can be no
doubt that they are said to rise from the dead, after casting away corruption
and laying aside mortality; otherwise it will appear vain and superfluous for
any one to arise from the dead in order to die a second time. And this, finally,
may be more distinctly comprehended thus, if one carefully consider what are the
qualities of an animal body, which, when sown into the earth, recovers the
qualities of a spiritual body. For it is out of the animal body that the very
power and grace of the resurrection educe the spiritual body, when it transmutes
it from a condition of indignity to one of glory.

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? "174 According to
that gradation, then, which exists among heavenly bodies, let them show to us
the differences in the glory of those who rise again; and if they have
endeavoured by any means to devise a principle that may be in accordance with
the differences in heavenly bodies, we shall ask them to assign the differences
in the resurrection by a comparison of earthly bodies. Our understanding of the
passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference
among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison
from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One is the glory of the sun, another the
glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars." And wishing again to teach
us the differences among those who shall come to the resurrection, without
having purged themselves in this life, i.e., sinners, he borrowed an
illustration from earthly things, saying, "There is one flesh of birds, another
of fishes." For heavenly things are worthily compared to the saints, and earthly
things to sinners. These statements are made in reply to those who deny the
resurrection of the dead, i.e., the resurrection of bodies.

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, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe
punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from
the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire.

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."175 By these words it seems to be indicated
that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not
plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in
existence before himself. Of this fire the fuel and food are our sins, which are
called by the Apostle Paul wood, and hay, and stubble."176 And I think that, as
abundance of food, and provisions of a contrary kind and amount, breed fevers in
the body, and fevers, too, of different sorts and duration, according to the
proportion in which the collected poison177 supplies material and fuel for
disease (the quality of this material, gathered together from different poisons,
proving the causes either of a more acute or more lingering disease); so, when
the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance of
sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up to
punishment, and is set on fire to chastisements; when the mind itself, or
conscience, receiving by divine power into the memory all those things of which
it had stamped on itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will
see a kind of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy
deeds which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience itself
harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness
against itself. And this, I think, was the opinion of the Apostle Paul himself,
when he said, "Their thoughts mutually accusing or excusing them in the day when
God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel."178
From which it is understood that around the substance of the soul certain
tortures are produced by the hurtful affections of sins themselves.

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,179 and with the pains of feebleness of
vision, and alienation of mind and paralysis, and blindness, and weakness of the
reins. If any one, then, at his leisure gather together out of the whole of
Scripture all the enumerations of diseases which in the threatenings addressed
to sinners are called by the names of bodily maladies, he will find that either
the vices of souls, or their punishments, are figuratively indicated by them. To
understand now, that in the same way in which physicians apply remedies to the
sick, in order that by careful treatment they may recover their health, God so
deals towards those who have lapsed and fallen into sin, is proved by this, that
the cup of God's fury is ordered, through the agency of the prophet Jeremiah,180
to be offered to all nations, that they may drink it, and be in a state of
madness, and vomit it forth. In doing which, He threatens them, saying, That if
any one refuse to drink, he shall not be cleansed.181 By which certainly it is
understood that the fury of God's vengeance is profitable for the purgation of
souls. That the punishment, also, which is said to be applied by fire, is
understood to be applied with the object of healing, is taught by Isaiah, who
speaks thus of Israel: "The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons or
daughters of Zion, and shall purge away the blood from the midst of them by the
spirit of judgment, and the spirit of burning."182 Of the Chaldeans he thus
speaks: "Thou hast the coals of fire; sit upon them: they will be to thee a
help."183 And in other passages he says, "The Lord will sanctify in a burning
fire"184 and in the prophecies of Malachi he says, "The Lord sitting will blow,
and purify, and will pour forth the cleansed sons of Judah."185

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 nay 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.186

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 think it evident, is in all living things. Much
more, then, must a rational animal, i.e., the nature of man, be in perpetual
movement and activity. If, indeed, he is forgetful of himself, and ignorant of
what becomes him, all his efforts are directed to serve the uses of the body,
and in all his movements he is occupied with his own pleasures and bodily lusts;
but if he be one who studies to care or provide for the general good, then,
either by consulting for the benefit of the state or by obeying the magistrates,
he exerts himself for that, whatever it is, which may seem certainly to promote
the public advantage. And if now any one be of such a nature as to understand
that there is something better than those things which seem to be corporeal, and
so bestow his labour upon wisdom and science, then he will undoubtedly direct
all his attention towards pursuits of that kind, that he may, by inquiring into
the truth, ascertain the causes and reason of things. As therefore, in this
life, one man deems it the highest good to enjoy bodily pleasures, another to
consult for the benefit of the community, a third to devote attention to study
and learning; so let us inquire whether in that life which is the true one
(which is said to be hidden with Christ in God, i.e., in that eternal life),
there will be for us some such order and condition of existence.

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 structures187 as may
never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the
functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul
regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently they say, that
after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children,
imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its
foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls constructed of jasper, and
its battlements of crystal; that it is to have a wall composed of many precious
stones, as jasper, and sapphire, and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and
onyx, and chrysolite, and chrysoprase, and jacinth, and amethyst. Moreover, they
think that the natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers
of their pleasures, whom they are to employ either as tillers of the field or
builders of walls, and by whom their ruined and fallen city is again to be
raised up; and they think that they are to receive the wealth of the nations to
live on, and that they will have control over their riches; that even the camels
of Midian and Kedar will come, and bring to them gold, and incense, and precious
stones. And these views they think to establish on the authority of the prophets
by those promises which are written regarding Jerusalem; and by those passages
also where it is said, that they who serve the Lord shall eat and drink, but
that sinners shall hunger and thirst; that the righteous shall be joyful, but
that sorrow shall possess the wicked. And from the New Testament also they quote
the saying of the Saviour, in which He makes a promise to His disciples
concerning the joy of wine, saying, "Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup,
until I drink it with you new in My Father's kingdom."188 They add, moreover,
that declaration, in which the Saviour calls those blessed who now hunger and
thirst,189 promising them that they shall be satisfied; and many other
scriptural illustrations are adduced by them, the meaning of which they do not
perceive is to be taken figuratively. Then, again, agreeably to the form of
things in this life, and according to the gradations of the dignities or ranks
in this world, or the greatness of their powers, they think they are to be kings
and princes, like those earthly monarchs who now exist; chiefly, as it appears,
on account of that expression in the Gospel: "Have thou power over five
cities."190 And to speak shortly, according to the manner of things in this life
in all similar matters, do they desire the fulfilment of all things looked for
in the promises, viz., that what now is should exist again. Such are the views
of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a
sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.

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."191 By
this food of wisdom, the understanding, being nourished to an entire and perfect
condition like that in which man was made at the beginning, is restored to the
image and likeness of God; so that, although an individual may depart from this
life less perfectly instructed, but who has done works that are approved of,192
he will be capable of receiving instruction in that Jerusalem, the city of the
saints, i.e., he will be educated and moulded, and made a living stone, a stone
elect and precious, because he has undergone with firmness and constancy the
struggles of life and the trials of piety; and will there come to a truer and
clearer knowledge of that which here has been already predicted, viz., that "man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth
of God."193 And they also are to be understood to be the princes and rulers who
both govern those of lower rank, and instruct them, and teach them, and train
them to divine things.

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.194 Now,
as in those arts which are usually performed by means of manual labour, the
reason why a thing is done, or why it is of a special quality, or for a special
purpose, is an object of investigation to the mind,195 while the actual work
itself is unfolded to view by the agency of the hands; so, in those works of God
which were created by Him, it is to be observed that the reason and
understanding of those things which we see done by Him remains undisclosed. And
as, when our eye beholds the products of an artist's labour, the mind,
immediately on perceiving anything of unusual artistic excellence, burns to know
of what nature it is, or how it was formed, or to what purposes it was
fashioned; so, in a much greater degree, and in one that is beyond all
comparison, does the mind burn with an inexpressible desire to know the reason
of those things which we see done by God. This desire, this longing, we believe
to be unquestionably implanted within us by God; and as the eye naturally seeks
the light and vision, and our body naturally desires food and drink, so our mind
is possessed with a becoming and natural desire to become acquainted with the
truth of God and the causes of things. Now we have received this desire from
God, not in order that it should never be gratified or be capable of
gratification; otherwise the love of truth would appear to have been implanted
by God into our minds to no purpose, if it were never to have an opportunity of
satisfaction. Whence also, even in this life, those who devote themselves with
great labour to the pursuits of piety and religion, although obtaining only some
small fragments from the numerous and immense treasures of divine knowledge,
yet, by the very circumstance that their mind and soul is engaged in these
pursuits, and that in the eagerness of their desire they outstrip themselves, do
they derive much advantage; and, because their minds are directed to the study
and love of the investigation of truth, are they made fitter for receiving the
instruction that is to come; as if, when one would paint an image, he were first
with a light pencil to trace out the outlines of the coming picture, and prepare
marks for the reception of the features that are to be afterwards added, this
preliminary sketch in outline is found to prepare the way for the laying on of
the true colours of the painting; so, in a measure, an outline and sketch may be
traced on the tablets of our heart by the pencil of our Lord Jesus Christ. And
therefore perhaps is it said, "Unto every one that hath shall be given, and be
added."196 By which it is established, that to those who possess in this life a
kind of outline of truth and knowledge, shall be added the beauty of a perfect
image in the future.

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; "197 knowing that when he should have returned to Christ he would
then know more clearly the reasons of all things which are done on earth, either
respecting man, or the soul of man, or the mind; or regarding any other subject,
such as, for instance, what is the Spirit that operates, what also is the vital
spirit, or what is the grace of the Holy Spirit that is given to believers. Then
also will he understand what Israel appears to be, or what is meant by the
diversity of nations; what the twelve tribes of Israel mean, and what the
individual people of each tribe. Then, too, will he understand the reason of the
priests and Levites, and of the different priestly orders, the type of which was
in Moses, and also what is the true meaning of the jubilees, and of the weeks of
years with God. He will see also the reasons for the festival days, and holy
days, and for all the sacrifices and purifications. He will perceive also the
reason of the purgation from leprosy, and what the different kinds of leprosy
are, and the reason of the purgation of those who lose their seed. He will come
to know, moreover, what are the good influences,198 and their greatness, and
their qualities; and those too which are of a contrary kind, and what the
affection of the former, and what the strife-causing emulation of the latter is
towards men. He will behold also the nature of the soul, and the diversity of
animals (whether of those which live in the water, or of birds, or of wild
beasts), and why each of the genera is subdivided into so many species; and what
intention of the Creator, or what purpose of His wisdom, is concealed in each
individual thing. He will become acquainted, too, with the reason why certain
properties are found associated with certain roots or herbs, and why, on the
other hand, evil effects are averted by other herbs and roots. He will know,
moreover, the nature of the apostate angels, and the reason why they have power
to flatter in some things those who do not despise them with the whole power of
faith, and why they exist for the purpose of deceiving and leading men astray.
He will learn, too, the judgment of Divine Providence on each individual thing;
and that, of those events which happen to men, none occur by accident or chance,
but in accordance with a plan so carefully considered, and so stupendous, that
it does not overlook even the number of the hairs of the heads, not merely of
the saints, but perhaps of all human beings, and the plan of which providential
government extends even to caring for the sale of two sparrows for a denarius,
whether sparrows there be understood figuratively or literally. Now indeed this
providential government is still a subject of investigation, but then it will be
fully manifested. From all which we are to suppose, that meanwhile not a little
time may pass by until the reason of those things only which are upon the earth
be pointed out to the worthy and deserving after their departure from life, that
by the knowledge of all these things, and by the grace of full knowledge, they
may enjoy an unspeakable joy. Then, if that atmosphere which is between heaven
and earth is not devoid of inhabitants, and those of a rational kind, as the
apostle says, "Wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this
world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now
worketh in the children of disobedience."199 And again he says, "We shall be
caught up in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so shall we ever be with
the Lord."200

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 fury
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."201 And of this diversity of places
He speaks, when He says, "In My Father's house are many mansions." He Himself is
everywhere, and passes swiftly through all things; nor are we any longer to
understand Him as existing in those narrow Limits in which He was once confined
for our sakes, i.e., not in that circumscribed body which He occupied on earth,
when dwelling among men, according to which He might be considered as enclosed
in some one place.

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 understand whether they
are endued with life, or their condition, whatever it is. And they will
comprehend also the other reasons for the works of God, which He Himself will
reveal to them. For He will show to them, as to children, the causes of things
and the power of His creation,202 and will explain why that star was placed in
that particular quarter of the sky, and why it was separated from another by so
great an intervening space; what, e.g., would have been the consequence if it
had been nearer or more remote; or if that star had been larger than this, how
the totality of things would not have remained the same, but all would have been
transformed into a different condition of being. And so, when they have finished
all those matters which are connected with the stars, and with the heavenly
revolutions, they will come to those which are not seen, or to those whose names
only we have heard, and to things which are invisible, which the Apostle Paul
has informed us are numerous, although what they are, or what difference may
exist among them, we cannot even conjecture by our feeble intellect. And thus
the rational nature, growing by each individual step, not as it grew in this
life in flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in understanding and in power of
perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no longer
at all impeded by those carnal senses, but increased in intellectual growth; and
ever gazing purely, and, so to speak, face to face, on the causes of things, it
attains perfection, firstly, viz., that by which it ascends to (the truth),203
and secondly, that by which it abides in it, having problems and the
understanding of things, and the causes of events, as the food on which it may
feast. For as in this life our bodies grow physically to what they are, through
a sufficiency of food in early life supplying the means of increase, but after
the due height has been attained we use food no longer to grow, but to live, and
to be preserved in life by it; so also I think that the mind, when it has
attained perfection, eats and avails itself of suitable and appropriate food in
such a degree, that nothing ought to be either deficient or superfluous. And in
all things this food is to be understood as the contemplation and understanding
of God, which is of a measure appropriate and suitable to this nature, which was
made and created; and this measure it is proper should be observed by every one
of those who are beginning to see God, i.e., to understand Him through purity of
heart.

1: The words "in aquis" are omitted in Redepenning's edition.

2: The original of this sentence is found at the close of the Emporer
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
( thj enadoj ) in different ways?" - Ruaeus. Lommatzsch adds a clause not
contained in the note of the Benedictine editor: "And sometimes the soul selects
the life that is in water" ( enudron ).

3: Lit. "into various qualities of mind."

4: "Et diversi motus porpositi earum (rationabilium subsistentiarum) ad unius
mundi consonantiam competenter atque utiliter aptarentur, dum aliae juvari
indigent, aliae juvare possunt, aliae vero proficientibus certamina atque agones
movent, in quibus eorum probabilior haberetur industria, et certior post
victoriam reparati gradus statio teneretur, quae per difficultates laborantium
constitisset."

5: Jer. xxiii. 24.

6: Isa. lxvi. 1.

7: Matt. v. 34.

8: Acts xvii. 28.

9: 2 Mac. vii. 28.

10: Hermae Past ., book ii. [See vol. ii. p. 20, of this series. S] 11: Ps.
cxlviii. 5.

12: 1 Cor. xv. 53-56; cf. Hos. xiii. 14 and Isa. xxv. 8.

13: Dogmatibus. Schnitzer says that "dogmatibus" here yields no sense. He
conjectures deigmasi , and renders "proofs," "marks."

14: Rom. xiii. 14.

15: 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 ( analusij ) of the
nature of bodies into non-existence ( eij to mh on ), to come a second time into
existence, if rational (beings) should again gradually come down ( upokatabh )."

16: Heb. ix. 26.

17: Eph. ii. 7.

18: In saeculum et adhuc.

19: Cf. John xvii. 24, 21, 22.

20: Cf. Isa. iii. 24. Origen here quotes the Septuagint, which differs both from
the Hebrew and the Vulgate: kai anti tou kosmou thj kefalhj tou xrusiou
falakrwma eceij dia ta erga sau .

21: Wisd. xviii. 24. Poderis, lit. "reaching to the feet."

22: 1 John v. 19.

23: Clemens Rom., Ep. i., ad Cor ., c. 20. [See vol. i. p. 10, of this series.
S.] 24: 1 Cor. vii. 31.

25: John xvii. 16.

26: 2 Cor. iv. 18-v. 1.

27: Ps. viii. 3.

28: Isa. lxvi. 2.

29: 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 aplanh , and whatever is contained within its
circumference ( circulo ), will be dissolved into nothing, but that one by which
the anti-zone ( antizwnh ) 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."

30: Omnique hoc mundi statu, in quo planetarum dicuntur sphaerae, supergresso
atque superato.

31: Matt. v. 5.

32: Matt. v. 3.

33: Ps. xxxvii. 34.

34: Matt. v. 48, 45.

35: Matt. vi. 9.

36: Matt. v. 34, 35.

37: Isa. lxvi. 1.

38: John ii. 16.

39: Matt. xxii. 31, 32; cf. Ex. iii. 6.

40: Isa. xlv. 6.

41: Acts vii.

42: Matt. xxii. 37, 39, 40.

43: 2 Tim. i. 3.

44: 2 Cor. xi. 22.

45: Rom. i. 1-4.

46: 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10; cf. Deut. xxv. 4.

47: Eph. vi. 2, 3; cf. Ex. xx. 12.

48: John i. 18.

49: Col. i. 15.

50: John xiv. 9.

51: Ex. xxxiii. 20, cf. 23.

52: Aliud sit videre et videri, et aliud nôsse et nosci, vel cognoscere atque
cognosci.

53: Matt. xi. 27.

54: Luke xix. 14.

55: Ps. ii. 5.

56: Ezek. xviii. 3.

57: [Cum nihil dignum poena commiserint. S.] 58: Poenitentiam egissent.

59: Matt. xxii. 12, 13.

60: Phil. iv. 8, 9.

61: 1 Pet. iii. 18-21.

62: Ezek. xvi. 55, cf. 53.

63: Isa. xlvii. 14, 15. The Septuagint here differs from the Hebrew: exeij
anqrakaj puroj, kaqisai ep autousoutoi esontai soi bohqeia .

64: Ps. lxxviii. 34.

65: Matt. vii. 18, cf. xii. 33.

66: Rom. vii. 12.

67: Rom. vii. 13.

68: Rom. vii. 13.

69: Matt. xii. 35.

70: Matt. xix. 17.

71: Ps. lxxiii. 1.

72: Ps. cxviii. 2.

73: Lam. iii. 25.

74: John xvii. 25: Juste Pater.

75: Col. i. 15.

76: Col. i. 16, 17.

77: 1 Cor. xi. 3.

78: Matt. xi. 27.

79: John xxi. 25.

80: Virtutibus, probably for dunamesin .

81: Matt. xxvi. 38.

82: John x. 18. "No other soul which descended into a human body has stamped on
itself a pure and unstained resemblance of its former stamp, save that one of
which the Savior says, `No one will take my soul from me, but I lay it down of
myself. 0'" - Jerome, Epistle to Avitus , p. 763.

83: Principaliter.

84: 1 Cor. vi. 17.

85: Gen. ii. 24; cf. Mark x. 8.

86: Meriti affectus.

87: Ps. xlv. 7.

88: Col. ii. 9.

89: Isa. liii. 9.

90: Heb. iv. 15.

91: John viii. 46.

92: John xiv. 30.

93: This quotation is made up of two different parts of Isaiah: chap. viii. 4,
"Before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mother;" and
chap. vii. 16, "Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
good."

94: Semper in verbo, semper in sapientia, semper in Deo.

95: Ps. xlv. 7.

96: Illi enim in odore unguentorum ejus circumire dicuntur; perhaps an allusion
to Song of Sol. i. 3 or to Ps. xlv. 8.

97: Lam. iv. 20.

98: Ps. lxxxix. 50, 51.

99: Col. iii. 3.

100: 2 Cor. xiii. 3.

101: Luke i. 35.

102: Heb. viii. 5.

103: Job viii. 9.

104: 2 Cor. v. 16.

105: According to Pamphilus in his Apology , Origen, in a note on Tit. iii. 10,
has made a statment the opposit of this. His words are: "But there are some also
who say, that it was one Holy Spirit who was in the prophets, and another who
was in the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." - Ruaeus.

106: Joel ii. 28.

107: Ps. lxxii. 11.

108: Qui licet non omnes possint per ordinem atque ad liquidum spiritualis
intelligentiae explanare consequentiam.

109: 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."

110: 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

111: 2 Cor. xii. 4.

112: 1 Cor. x. 23.

113: 1 John ii. 1, 2

114: Anima.

115: Animae.

116: Animam animantium.

117: Gen. i. 21: pasan yuxhn zwwn , Sept.

118: Erasmus remarks, that fantastikh may be rendered imaginitiva , which is the
understanding: ormhtikh , impulsiva , which refers to the affections
(Schnitzer).

119: Animam.

120: Lev. xvii. 14: h yuxh pashj sarkoj aima autou esti , Sept.

121: Vitalis.

122: Animantia.

123: Gen. i. 24, living creature, animam .

124: Gen. ii. 7, animam viventem .

125: Lev. xvii. 10. It is clear that in the text which Origen or his translator
had before him he must have read yuxh instead of proswpon : otherwise the
quotation would be inappropriate (Schnitzer).

126: Isa. i. 13, 14.

127: Ps. xxii. 19, 20, unicam meam, monogenh mou .

128: Animalem.

129: Mens.

130: Anima.

131: 1 Cor. xiv. 15.

132: 1 Pet. i. 9.

133: 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 Emporer Justinian's Letter to
Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople.

134: Deut. iv. 24.

135: Ps. civ. 4; cf. Heb. i. 7.

136: Ex. iii. 2.

137: Rom. xii. 11.

138: Cf. Jer. i. 9. The word "fire" is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the
Septuagint.

139: Matt. xxiv. 12.

140: Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 2 seqq.

141: Isa. xxvii. 1.

142: Amos ix. 3.

143: Job xli. 34 [LXX.].

144: Jer. i. 14.

145: Ecclus. xliii. 20.

146: yuxh from yuxesqai .

147: Ecclus. vi. 4.

148: Ezek. xviii. 4, cf. 20.

149: Ezek. xviii. 4, 19.

150: "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, 0' so as to be wholly this." - Epistle of Justinian to
Partriarch of Constantinople .

151: Ps. cxvi. 7.

152: "The understanding ( Nouj ) 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.

153: John xii. 27.

154: Matt. xxvi. 38.

155: Animam.

156: John x. 18.

157: Ps. xliv. 19.

158: 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 ( tosauthn ulhn ) as He had the power to
ornament."

159: Wisdom xi. 20: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and
weight."

160: Gen. i. 1.

161: 1 Cor. xv. 41.

162: Vilioribus et asperioribus.

163: Inferna.

164: Col. i. 16.

165: John i. 1, 2.

166: Ps. civ. 24.

167: Rom. ix. 11, 12.

168: The text runs, "Respondet sibi ipse, et ait," on which Ruaeus remarks that
the sentence is incomplete, and that "absit" probably should be supplied. This
conjecture has been adopted in the translation.

169: Rom. viii. 20, 21.

170: 2 Tim. ii. 20.

171: 2 Tim. ii. 21.

172: [Elucidation I.] 173: 1 Cor. xv. 44: natural, animale ( yuxikon ).

174: 1 Cor. xv. 39-42.

175: Isa. l. 11.

176: 1 Cor. iii. 12.

177: Intemperies.

178: Rom. ii. 15, 16.

179: Aurigine [aurugine]. Deut. xxviii.

180: Cf. Jer. xxv. 15, 16.

181: Cf. Jer. xxv. 28, 29.

182: Isa. iv. 4.

183: Isa. xlvii. 14, 15; vid. note, chap. v. §3 [p. 280, supra . S].

184: Isa. x. 17, cf. lxvi. 16.

185: Cf. Mal. iii. 3.

186: Repromissionibus.

187: Carnes.

188: Matt. xxvi. 29.

189: Matt. v. 6.

190: Cf. Luke xix. 19 and 17.

191: Cf. Prov. ix. 1-5.

192: Opera probablilia.

193: Deut. viii. 3.

194: The passage is somewhat obscure, but the rendering in the text seems to
convey the meaning intended.

195: Versatur in sensu.

196: Luke xix. 26; cf. Matt. xxv. 29.

197: Phil. i. 23.

198: Virtutes.

199: Eph. ii. 2. There is an evident omission of some words in the text, such
as, "They will enter into it," etc.

200: 1 Thess. iv. 17.

201: John xvii. 24.

202: Virtutem suae conditionis. Seine Schopferkraft (Schnitzer).

203: In id: To that state of the soul in which it gazes purely on the causes of
things.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 33: DE PRINCIPIIS - BOOK 3
========================================================================

Book III.

Preface of Rufinus. sChapter I.-On the Freedom of the Will.6

Chapter I.-On the Freedom of the Will,7 With an Explanation and Interpretation
of Those Statements of Scripture Which Appear to Nullify It.

Chapter II.-On the Opposing Powers.

Chapter III.-On Threefold Wisdom.

Chapter IV.-On Human Temptations.

Chapter V.-That the World Took Its Beginning in Time.

Chapter VI.-On the End of the World.

Book III.

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;1 but as you, my devout brother Macarius, were not only living near me
during that time, but had more leisure at your command than now, so I also
worked the harder; whereas I have been longer in explaining these two latter
books, seeing you came less frequently from a distant extremity of the city to
urge on my labour. Now if you remember what I warned you of in my former
preface,-that certain persons would be indignant, if they did not hear that we
spoke some evil of Origen,-that, I imagine, you have forthwith experienced, has
come to pass. But if those demons2 who excite the tongues of men to slander were
so infuriated by that work, in which he had not as yet fully unveiled their
secret proceedings, what, think you, will be the case in this, in which he will
expose all those dark and hidden ways, by which they creep into the hearts of
men, and deceive weak and unstable souls? You will immediately see all things
thrown into confusion, seditions stirred up, clamours raised throughout the
whole city, and that individual summoned to receive sentence of condemnation who
endeavoured to dispel the diabolical darkness of ignorance by means of the light
of the Gospel lamp.3 Let such things, however, be lightly esteemed by him who is
desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity
the rule of the Catholic faith.4 I think it necessary, however, to remind you
that the principle observed in the former books has been observed also in these,
viz., not to translate what appeared contrary to Origen's other opinions, and to
our own belief, but to pass by such passages as being interpolated and forged by
others. But if he has appeared to give expression to any novelties regarding
rational creatures (on which subject the essence of our faith does not depend),
for the sake of discussion and of adding to our knowledge, when perhaps it was
necessary for us to answer in such an order some heretical opinions, I have not
omitted to mention these either in the present or preceding books, unless when
he wished to repeat in the following books what he had already stated in the
previous ones, when I have thought it convenient, for the sake of brevity, to
curtail some of these repetitions. Should any one, however, peruse these
passages from a desire to enlarge his knowledge, and not to raise captious
objections, he will do better to have them expounded by persons of skill. For it
is an absurdity to have the fictions of poetry and the ridiculous plays of
comedy5 interpreted by grammarians, and to suppose that without a master and an
interpreter any one is able to learn those things which are spoken either of God
or of the heavenly virtues, and of the whole universe of things, in which some
deplorable error either of pagan philosophers or of heretics is confuted; and
the result of which is, that men would rather rashly and ignorantly condemn
things that are difficult and obscure, than ascertain their meaning by diligence
and study.

Translated From Latin OF Rufinus.

Translation From The Greek. sChapter I.-On the Freedom of the Will.6

Chapter I.-On the Freedom of the Will,7 With an Explanation and Interpretation
of Those Statements of Scripture Which Appear to Nullify It.

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.8

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,9 that this being declared with precision, the subject may be
placed before us.

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.10 That view must indeed be dismissed
which would regard the dissolution of bodies by corruption as motion, for it has
no bearing upon our present purpose. Others, again, have the cause of motion in
themselves, as animals, or trees, and all things which are held together by
natural life or soul; among which some think ought to be classed the veins of
metals. Fire, also, is supposed to be the cause of its own motion, and perhaps
also springs of water. And of those things which have the causes of their motion
in themselves, some are said to be moved out of themselves, others by
themselves. And they so distinguish them, because those things are moved out of
themselves which are alive indeed, but have no soul;11 whereas those things
which have a soul are moved by themselves, when a phantasy,12 i.e., a desire or
incitement, is presented to them, which excites them to move towards something.
Finally, in certain things endowed with a soul, them is such a phantasy, i.e., a
will or feeling,13 as by a kind of natural instinct calls them forth, and
arouses them to orderly and regular motion; as we see to be the case with
spiders, which are stirred up in a most orderly manner by a phantasy, i.e., a
sort of wish and desire for weaving, to undertake the production of a web, some
natural movement undoubtedly calling forth the effort to work of this kind. Nor
is this very insect found to possess any other feeling than the natural desire
of weaving; as in like manner bees also exhibit a desire to form honeycombs, and
to collect, as they say, aërial honey.14

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.15 And let that view be removed from
consideration which calls the flux of bodies motion, since it is not needed for
our present purpose. But animals and plants have the cause of their motion
within themselves, and in general whatever is held together by nature and a
soul, to which class of things they say that metals also belong. And besides
these, fire too is self-moved, and perhaps also fountains of water. Now, of
those things which have the cause of their movement within themselves, some,
they say, are moved out of themselves, others from themselves: things without
life, out of themselves; animate things, from themselves. For animate things are
moved from themselves, a phantasy16 springing up in them which incites to
effort. And again, in certain animals phantasies are formed which call forth an
effort, the nature of the phantasy17 stirring up the effort in an orderly
manner, as in the spider is formed the phantasy of weaving; and the attempt to
weave follows, the nature of its phantasy inciting the insect in an orderly
manner to this alone. And besides its phantasial nature, nothing else is
believed to belong to the insect.18 And in the bee there is formed the phantasy
to produce wax.

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 movement19 than in others, as in
hunting-dogs or war-horses, so that they may appear to some to be moved by a
kind of rational sense. But we must believe this to be the result not so much of
reason as of some natural instinct,20 largely bestowed for purposes of that
kind. Now, as we had begun to remark, seeing that such is the nature of a
rational animal, some things may happen to us human beings from without; and
these, coming in contact with our sense of sight, or hearing, or any other of
our senses, may incite and arouse us to good movements, or the contrary; and
seeing they come to us from an external source, it is not within our own power
to prevent their coming. But to determine and approve what use we ought to make
of those things which thus happen, is the duty of no other than of that reason
within us, i.e., of our own judgment; by the decision of which reason we use the
incitement, which comes to us from without for that purpose, which reason
approves, our natural movements being determined by its authority either to good
actions or the reverse.

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
quantity21 among animals, both in a greater and a less degree; so that the
instinct in hunting-dogs and in war-horses approaches somehow, so to speak, to
the faculty of reason. Now, to fall under some one of those external causes
which stir up within us this phantasy or that, is confessedly not one of those
things that are dependent upon ourselves; but to determine that we shall use the
occurrence in this way or differently, is the prerogative of nothing else than
of the reason within us, which, as occasion offers,22 arouses us towards efforts
inciting to what is virtuous and becoming, or turns us aside to what is the
reverse.

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 mind, unless he has discovered
already, that when an enticement to any desire arises, nothing is accomplished
until the assent of the soul is gained, and the authority of the mind has
granted indulgence to the wicked suggestion; so that a claim might seem to be
made by two parties on certain probable grounds as to a judge residing within
the tribunals of our hurt, in order that, after the statement of reasons, the
decree of execution may proceed from the judgment of reason.23 For, to take an
illustration: if, to a man who has determined to live continently and chastely,
and to keep himself free from all pollution with women, a woman should happen to
present herself, inciting and alluring him to act contrary to his purpose, that
woman is not a complete and absolute cause or necessity of his transgressing,24
since it is in his power, by remembering his resolution, to bridle the
incitements to lust, and by the stern admonitions of virtue to restrain the
pleasure of the allurement that solicits him; so that, all feeling of indulgence
being driven away, his determination may remain firm and enduring. Finally, if
to any men of learning, strengthened by divine training, allurements of that
kind present themselves, remembering forthwith what they are, and calling to
mind what has long been the subject of their meditation and instruction, and
fortifying themselves by the support of a holier doctrine, they reject and repel
all incitement to pleasure, and drive away opposing lusts by the interposition
of the reason implanted within them.

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 is not an
approval, and assent, and inclination of the controlling principle towards some
object on account of some specious arguments.25 For, to take an instance, a
woman who has appeared before a man that has determined to be chaste, and to
refrain from carnal intercourse, and who has incited him to act contrary to his
purpose, is not a perfects cause of annulling his determination. For, being
altogether pleased with the luxury and allurement of the pleasure, and not
wishing to resist it, or to keep his purpose, he commits an act of
licentiousness. Another man, again (when the same things have happened to him
who has received more instruction, and has disciplined himself26 ), encounters,
indeed, allurements and enticements; but his reason, as being strengthened to a
higher point, and carefully trained, and confirmed in its views towards a
virtuous course, or being near to confirmation,27 repels the incitement, and
extinguishes the desir

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 disorder28 of the body,
such a theory is proved to be contrary to the reason of all teaching.29 For, as
we see in very many individuals, that after living unchastely and intemperately,
and after being the captives of luxury and lust, if they should happen to be
aroused by the word of teaching and instruction to enter upon a better course of
life, there takes place so great a change, that from being luxurious and wicked
men, they are converted into those who are sober, and most chaste and gentle;
so, again, we see in the case of those who are quiet and honest, that after
associating with restless and shameless individuals, their good morals are
corrupted by evil conversation, and they become like those whose wickedness is
complete.30 And this is the case sometimes with men of mature age, so that such
have lived more chastely in youth than when more advanced years have enabled
them to indulge in a freer mode of life. The result of our reasoning, therefore,
is to show that those things which happen to us from without are not in our own
power; but that to make a good or bad use of those things which do so happen, by
help of that reason which is within us, and which distinguishes and determines
how these things ought to be used, is within our power.

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 destroy31 the conception of free-will. For if we were to ask such an
one what was free-will, he would say that it consisted in this, that when
purposing to do some thing, no external cause came inciting to the reverse. But
to blame, on the other hand, the mere constitution of the body,32 is absurd; for
the disciplinary reason,33 taking hold of those who are most intemperate and
savage (if they will follow her exhortation), effects a transformation, so that
the alteration and change for the better is most extensive,-the most licentious
men frequently becoming better than those who formerly did not seem to be such
by nature; and the most savage men passing into such a state of mildness,34 that
those persons who never at any time were so savage as they were, appear savage
in comparison, so great a degree of gentleness having been produced within them.
And we see other men, most steady and respectable, driven from their state of
respectability and steadiness by intercourse with evil customs, so as to fall
into habits of licentiousness, often beginning their wickedness in middle age,
and plunging into disorder after the period of youth has passed, which, so far
as its nature is concerned, is unstable. Reason, therefore, demonstrates that
external events do not depend on us, but that it is our own business to use them
in this way or the opposite, having received reason as a judge and an
investigator35 of the manner in which we ought to meet those events that come
from without.

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."36 Moses also speaks
as follows: "I have placed before thy face the way of life and the way of death:
choose what is good, and walk in it."37 Isaiah, moreover, makes this
declaration: "If you are willing, and hear me, ye shall eat the good of the
land. But if you be unwilling, and will not hear me, the sword shall consume
you; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken this."38 In the Psalm, too, it is
written: "If My people had heard Me, if Israel had walked in My ways, I would
have humbled her enemies to nothing; "39 by which he shows that it was in the
power of the people to hear, and to walk in the ways of God. The Saviour also
saying, "I say unto you, Resist not evil; "40 and, "Whoever shall be angry with
his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment; "41 and, "Whosoever shall look
upon a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his
heart; "42 and in issuing certain other commands,-conveys no other meaning than
this, that it is in our own power to observe what is commanded. And therefore we
are rightly rendered liable to condemnation if we transgress those commandments
which we are able to keep. And hence He Himself also declares: "Every one who
hears my words, and doeth them, I will show to whom he is like: he is like a
wise man who built his house upon a rock," etc.43 So also the declaration:
"Whoso heareth these things, and doeth them not, is like a foolish man, who
built his house upon the sand," etc.44 Even the words addressed to those who are
on His right hand, "Come unto Me, all ye blessed of My Father," etc.; "for I was
an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink,"45
manifestly show that it depended upon themselves, that either these should be
deserving of praise for doing what was commanded and receiving what was
promised, or those deserving of censure who either heard or received the
contrary, and to whom it was said, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire."
Let us observe also, that the Apostle Paul addresses us as having power over our
own will, and as possessing in ourselves the causes either of our salvation or
of our ruin: "Dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and of His patience,
and of His long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou art
treasuring up for thyself wrath on the day of judgment and of the revelation of
the just judgment of God, who will render to every one according to his work: to
those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and immortality,
eternal life;46 while to those who are contentious, and believe not the truth,
but who believe iniquity, anger, indignation, tribulation, and distress, on
every soul of man that worketh evil, on the Jew first, and (afterwards) on the
Greek; but glory, and honour, and peace to every one that doeth good, to the Jew
first, and (afterwards) to the Greek."47 You will find also innumerable other
passages in holy Scripture, which manifestly show that we possess freedom of
will. Otherwise there would be a contrariety in commandments being given us, by
observing which we may be saved, or by transgressing which we may be condemned,
if the power of keeping them were not implanted in us.

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? "48 Moses also: "I have
placed before thy face the way of life, and the way of death: choose what is
good, and walk in it."49 Isaiah too: "If you are willing, and hear me, ye shall
eat the good of the land; but if ye be unwilling, and Will not hear me, the
sword will consume you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."50 And in the
Psalms: "If My people had heard Me, and Israel had walked in My ways, I would
have humbled their enemies to nothing, and laid My hand upon those that
afflicted them; "51 showing that it was in the power of His people to hear and
to walk in the ways of God. And the Saviour also, when He commands, "But I say
unto you, Resist not evil; "52 and, "Whosoever shall be angry with his brother,
shall be in danger of the judgment; "53 and, "Whosoever shall look upon a woman
to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart; "54
and by any other commandment which He gives, declares that it lies with
ourselves to keep what is enjoined, and that we shall reasonably55 be liable to
condemnation if we transgress. And therefore He says in addition: "He that
heareth My words, and doeth them, shall be likened to a prudent man, who built
his house upon a rock," etc., etc.; "while he that heareth them, but doeth them
not, is like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand," etc.56 And when
He says to those on His right hand, "Come, ye blessed of My Father," etc.; "for
I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat; I was athirst, and ye gave Me to
drink,"57 it is exceedingly manifest that He gives the promises to these as
being deserving of praise. But, on the contrary, to the others, as being
censurable in comparison with them, He says, "Depart, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire!"58 And let us observe how Paul also converses59 with us as
having freedom of will, and as being ourselves the cause of ruin or salvation,
when he says, "Dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and of His
patience, and of His long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God
leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart,
thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of
the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every one according to his
works: to those who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and
immortality, eternal life; while to those who are contentious, and believe not
the truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, wrath, tribulation, and distress, on
every soul of man that worketh evil; on the Jew first, and on the Greek: but
glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good; to the Jew first,
and to the Greek."60 There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures
which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.

7. But, seeing there are found in the sacred Scriptures themselves certain
expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of this may appear
capable of being understood from them, let us bring them forth before us, and,
discussing them according to the rule of piety,61 let us furnish an explanation
of them, in order that from those few passages which we now expound, the
solution of those others which resemble them, and by which any power over the
will seems to be excluded, may become clear. Those expressions, accordingly,
make an impression on very many, which are used by God in speaking of Pharaoh,
as when He frequently says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."62 For if he is
hardened by God, and commits sin in consequence of being so hardened, the cause
of his sin is not himself. And if so, it will appear that Pharaoh does not
possess freedom of will; and it will be maintained, as a consequence, that,
agreeably to this illustration, neither do others who perish owe the cause of
their destruction to the freedom of their own will. That expression, also, in
Ezekiel, when he says, "I will take away their stony hearts, and will give them
hearts of flesh, that they may walk in My precepts, and keep My ways,"63 may
impress some, inasmuch as it seems to be a gift of God, either to walk in His
ways or to keep His precepts,64 if He take away that stony heart which is an
obstacle to the keeping of His commandments, and bestow and implant a better and
more impressible heart, which is called now65 a heart of flesh. Consider also
the nature of the answer given in the Gospel by our Lord and Saviour to those
who inquired of Him why He spoke to the multitude in parables. His words are:
"That seeing they may not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand;
lest they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them."66 The words,
moreover, used by the Apostle Paul, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy; "67 in another passage also,
"that to will and to do are of God: "68 and again, elsewhere, "Therefore hath He
mercy upon whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why cloth He yet find fault? For who shall resist His will? O man, who art
thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who hath
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 to dishonour?69
-these and similar declarations seem to have no small influence in preventing
very many from believing that every one is to be considered as having freedom
over his own will, and in making it appear to be a consequence of the will of
God whether a man is either saved or lost.

7. But, since certain declarations of the Old Testament and of the New lead to
the opposite conclusion-namely, that it does not depend on ourselves to keep the
commandments and to be saved, or to transgress them and to be lost-let us adduce
them one by one, and see the explanations of them, in order that from those
which we adduce, any one selecting in a similar way all the passages that seem
to nullify free-will, may consider what is said about them by way of
explanation. And now, the statements regarding Pharaoh have troubled many,
respecting whom God declared several times, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."70
For if he is hardened by God, and commits sin in consequence of being hardened,
he is not the cause of sin to himself; and if so, then neither does Pharaoh
possess free-will. And some one will say that, in a similar way, they who perish
have not free-will, and will not perish of themselves. The declaration also in
Ezekiel, "I will take away their stony hearts, and will put in them hearts of
flesh, that they may walk in My precepts, and keep My commandments,"71 might
lead one to think that it was God who gave the power to walk in His
commandments, and to keep His precepts, by His withdrawing the hindrance-the
stony heart, and implanting a better-a heart of flesh. And let us look also at
the passage in the Gospel-the answer which the Saviour returns to those who
inquired why He spake to the multitude in parables. His words are: "That seeing
they might not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they
should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them."72 The passage also in
Paul: "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
showeth mercy."73 The declarations, too, in other places, that "both to will and
to do are of God; "74 "that God hath mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and
whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then, Why doth He yet find fault? For
who hath resisted His will? ""The persuasion is of Him that calleth, and not of
us."75 "Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing
formed say to him that hath 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? "76 Now these passages are sufficient of themselves to
trouble the multitude, as if man were not possessed of free-will, but as if it
were God who saves and destroys whom He will.

8. Let us begin, then, with those words which were spoken to Pharaoh, who is
said to have been hardened by God, in order that he might not let the people go;
and, along with his case, the language of the apostle also will be considered,
where he says, "Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He
hardeneth."77 For it is on these passages chiefly that the heretics rely,
asserting that salvation is not in our own power, but that souls are of such a
nature as must by all means be either lost or saved; and that in no way can a
soul which is of an evil nature become good, or one which is of a virtuous
nature be made bad. And hence they maintain that Pharaoh, too, being of a ruined
nature, was on that account hardened by God, who hardens those that are of an
earthly nature, but has compassion on those who are of a spiritual nature. Let
us see, then, what is the meaning of their assertion; and let us, in the first
place, request them to tell us whether they maintain that the soul of Pharaoh
was of an earthly nature, such as they term lost. They will undoubtedly answer
that it was of an earthly nature. If so, then to believe God, or to obey Him,
when his nature opposed his so doing, was an impossibility. And if this were his
condition by nature, what further need was there for his heart to be hardened,
and this not once, but several times, unless indeed because it was possible for
him to yield to persuasion? Nor could any one be said to be hardened by another,
save him who of himself was not obdurate. And if he were not obdurate of
himself, it follows that neither was he of an earthly nature, but such an one as
might give way when overpowered78 by signs and wonders. But he was necessary for
God's purpose, in order that, for the saving of the multitude, He might manifest
in him His power by his offering resistance to numerous miracles, and struggling
against the will of God, and his heart being by this means said to be hardened.
Such are our answers, in the first place, to these persons; and by these their
assertion may be overturned, according to which they think that Pharaoh was
destroyed in consequence of his evil nature.79 And with regard to the language
of the Apostle Paul, we must answer them in a similar way. For who are they whom
God hardens, according to your view? Those, namely, whom you term of a ruined
nature, and who, I am to suppose, would have done something else had they not
been hardened. If, indeed, they come to destruction in consequence of being
hardened, they no longer perish naturally, but in virtue of what befalls them.
Then, in the next place, upon whom does God show mercy? On those, namely, who
are to be saved. And in what respect do those persons stand in need of a second
compassion, who are to be saved once by their nature, and so come naturally to
blessedness, except that it is shown even from their case, that, because it was
possible for them to perish, they therefore obtain mercy, that so they may not
perish, but come to salvation, and possess the kingdom of the good. And let this
be our answer to those who devise and invent the fable80 of good or bad natures,
i.e., of earthly or spiritual souls, in consequence of which, as they say, each
one is either saved or lost.

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."81 And certain of those who hold different
opinions misuse these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by
introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved which it is
impossible can be lost; and Pharaoh, they say, as being of a ruined nature, is
therefore hardened by God, who has mercy upon the spiritual, but hardens the
earthly. Let us see now what they mean. For we shall ask them if Pharaoh was of
an earthy nature; and when they answer, we shall say that he who is of an earthy
nature is altogether disobedient to God: but if disobedient, what need is there
of his heart being hardened, and that not once, but frequently? Unless perhaps,
since it was possible for him to obey (in which case he would certainly have
obeyed, as not being earthy, when hard pressed by the signs and wonders), God
needs him to be disobedient to a greater degree,82 in order that He may manifest
His mighty deeds for the salvation of the multitude, and therefore hardens his
heart. This will be our answer to them in the first place, in order to overturn
their supposition that Pharaoh was of a ruined nature. And the same reply must
be given to them with respect to the statement of the apostle. For whom does God
harden? Those who perish, as if they would obey unless they were hardened, or
manifestly those who would be saved because they are not of a ruined nature. And
on whom has He mercy? Is it on those who are to be saved? And how is there need
of a second mercy for those who have been prepared once for salvation, and who
will by all means become blessed on account of their nature? Unless perhaps,
since they are capable of incurring destruction, if they did not receive mercy,
they will obtain mercy, in order that they may not incur that destruction of
which they are capable, but may be in the condition of those who are saved. And
this is our answer to such persons.

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.83 For we must observe the conception of a God84
who in our opinion is both just and good, but according to them only just. And
let them show us how a God whom they also acknowledge to be just, can with
justice cause the heart of a man to be hardened, that, in consequence of that
very hardening, he may sin and be ruined. And how shall the justice of God be
defended, if He Himself is the cause of the destruction of those whom, owing to
their unbelief (through their being hardened), He has afterwards condemned by
the authority of a judge? For why does He blame him, saying, "But since thou
wilt not let My people go, lo, I will smite all the first-born in Egypt, even
thy first-born,"85 and whatever else was spoken through Moses by God to Pharaoh?
For it behoves every one who maintains the truth of what is recorded in
Scripture, and who desires to show that the God of the law and the prophets is
just, to render a reason for all these things, and to show how there is in them
nothing at all derogatory to the justice of God, since, although they deny His
goodness, they admit that He is a just judge, and creator of the world.
Different, however, is the method of our reply to those who assert that the
creator of this world is a malignant being, i.e., a devil.

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
conception86 of a God who is in reality just and good; but if they will not
allow this, let it be conceded to them for the present that He is just; and let
them show how the good and just God, or the just. God only, appears to be just,
in hardening the heart of him who perishes because of his being hardened: and
how the just God becomes the cause of destruction and disobedience, when men are
chastened by Him on account of their hardness and disobedience. And why does He
find fault with him, saying, "Thou wilt not let My people go; "87 "Lo, I will
smite all the first-born in Egypt, even thy first-born; "88 and whatever else is
recorded as spoken from God to Pharaoh through the intervention of Moses? For he
who believes that the Scriptures are true, and that God is just, must
necessarily endeavour, if he be honest,89 to show how God, in using such
expressions, may be distinctly90 understood to be just. But if any one should
stand, declaring with uncovered head that the Creator of the world was inclined
to wickedness,91 we should need other words to answer them.

10. But since we acknowledge the God who spoke by Moses to be not only just, but
also good, let us carefully inquire how it is in keeping with the character of a
just and good Deity to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh. And let us see
whether, following the example of the Apostle Paul, we are able to solve the
difficulty by help of some parallel instances: if we can show, e.g., that by one
and the same act God has pity upon one individual, but hardens another; not
purposing or desiring that he who is hardened should be so, but because, in the
manifestation of His goodness and patience, the heart of those who treat His
kindness and forbearance with contempt and insolence is hardened by the
punishment of their crimes being delayed; while those, on the other hand, who
make His goodness and patience the occasion of their repentance and reformation,
obtain compassion. To show more clearly, however, what we mean, let us take the
illustration employed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where
he says, "For the earth, which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and
bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, will receive blessing
from God; but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto
cursing, whose end is to be burned."92 Now from those words of Paul which we
have quoted, it is clearly shown that by one and the same act on the part of
God-that, viz., by which He sends rain upon the earth-one portion of the ground,
when carefully cultivated, brings forth good fruits; while another, neglected
and uncared for, produces thorns and thistles. And if one, speaking as it were
in the person of the rain,93 were to say, "It is I, the rain, that have made the
good fruits, and it is I that have caused the thorns and thistles to grow,"
however hard94 the statement might appear, it would nevertheless be true; for
unless the rain had fallen, neither fruits, nor thorns, nor thistles would have
sprung up, whereas by the coming of the rain the earth gave birth to both. Now,
although it is due to the beneficial action of the rain that the earth has
produced herbs of both kinds, it is not to the rain that the diversity of the
herbs is properly to be ascribed; but on those will justly rest the blame for
the bad seed, who, although they might have turned up the ground by frequent
ploughing, and have broken the clods by repeated harrowing, and have extirpated
all useless and noxious weeds, and have cleared and prepared the fields for the
coming showers by all the labour and toil which cultivation demands, have
nevertheless neglected to do this, and who will accordingly reap briers and
thorns, the most appropriate fruit of their sloth. And the consequence therefore
is, that while the rain falls in kindness and impartiality95 equally upon the
whole earth, yet, by one and the same operation of the rain, that soil which is
cultivated yields with a blessing useful fruits to the diligent and careful
cultivators, while that which has become hardened through the neglect of the
husbandman brings forth only thorns and thistles. Let us therefore view those
signs and miracles which were done by God, as the showers furnished by Him from
above; and the purpose and desires of men, as the cultivated and uncultivated
soil, which is of one and the same nature indeed, as is every soil compared with
another, but not in one and the same state of cultivation. From which it follows
that every one's will,96 if untrained, and fierce, and barbarous, is either
hardened by the miracles and wonders of God, growing more savage and thorny than
ever, or it becomes more pliant, and yields itself up with the whole mind to
obedience, if it be cleared from vice and subjected to training.

10. But since they say that they regard Him as a just God, and we as one who is
at the same time good and just, let us consider how the good and just God could
harden the heart of Pharaoh. See, then, whether, by an illustration used by the
apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are able to prove that by one
operation97 God has mercy upon one man while He hardens another, although not
intending to harden; but, (although) having a good purpose, hardening follows as
a result of the inherent principle of wickedness in such persons,98 and so He is
said to harden him who is hardened. "The earth," he says, "which drinketh in the
rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whom it
is dressed, receiveth blessing from God; but that which beareth thorns and
briers is rejected, and is nigh to cursing, whose end is to be burned."99 As
respects the rain, then, there is one operation; and there being one operation
as regards the rain, the ground which is cultivated produces fruit, while that
which is neglected and is barren produces thorns. Now, it might seem profane100
for Him who rains to say, "I produced the fruits, and the thorns that are in the
earth; "and yet, although profane, it is true. For, had rain not fallen, there
would have been neither fruits nor thorns; but, having fallen at the proper time
and in moderation, both were produced. The ground, now, which drank in the rain
which often fell upon it, and yet produced thorns and briers, is rejected and
nigh to cursing. The blessing, then, of the rain descended even upon the
inferior land; but it, being neglected and uncultivated, yielded thorns and
thistles. In the same way, therefore, the wonderful works also done by God are,
as it were, the rain; while the differing purposes are, as it were, the
cultivated and neglected land, being (yet), like earth, of one nature.

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:101 not
that its power operates One way upon mud, and in another way upon wax; but that
the qualities of mud and wax are different, although according to nature they
are one thing,102 both being from the earth. In this way, then, one and the same
working upon the part of God, which was administered by Moses in signs and
wonders, made manifest the hardness of Pharaoh, which he had conceived in the
intensity of his wickedness103 but exhibited the obedience of those other
Egyptians who were intermingled with the Israelites, and who are recorded to
have quitted Egypt at the same time with the Hebrews. With respect to the
statement that the heart of Pharaoh was subdued by degrees, so that on one
occasion he said, "Go not far away; ye shall go a three days' journey, but leave
your wives, and your children, and your cattle,"104 and as regards any other
statements, according to which he appears to yield gradually to the signs and
wonders, what else is shown, save that the power of the signs and miracles was
making some impression on him, but not so much as it ought to have done? For if
the hardening were of such a nature as many take it to be, he would not indeed
have given way even in a few instances. But I think there is no absurdity in
explaining the tropical or figurative105 nature of that language employed in
speaking of "hardening," according to common usage. For those masters who are
remarkable for kindness to their slaves, are frequently accustomed to say to the
latter, when, through much patience and indulgence on their part, they have
become insolent and worthless: "It is I that have made you what you are; I have
spoiled you; it is my endurance that has made you good for nothing: I am to
blame for your perverse and wicked habits, because I do not have you immediately
punished for every delinquency according to your deserts." For we must first
attend to the tropical or figurative meaning of the language, and so come to see
the force of the expression, and not find fault with the word, whose inner
meaning we do not ascertain. Finally, the Apostle Paul, evidently treating of
such, says to him who remained in his sins: "Despisest thou the riches of His
goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance? but, after thy hardness and impenitent heart,
treasurest up unto thyself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God."106 Such are the words of the apostle to him who is
in his sins. Let us apply these very expressions to Pharaoh, and see if they
also are not spoken of him with propriety, since, according to his hardness and
impenitent heart, he treasured and stored up for himself wrath on the day of
wrath, inasmuch as his hardness could never have been declared and manifested,
unless signs and wonders of such number and magnificence had been performed.

11. And as if the sun, uttering a voice, were to say, "I liquefy and dry up,"
liquefaction and drying up being opposite things, he would not speak falsely as
regards the point in question;107 wax being melted and mud being dried by the
same heat; so the same operation, which was performed through the
instrumentality of Moses, proved the hardness of Pharaoh on the one hand, the
result of his wickedness, and the yielding of the mixed Egyptian multitude who
took their departure with the Hebrews. And the brief statement108 that the heart
of Pharaoh was softened, as it were, when he said, "But ye shall not go far: ye
will go a three days' journey, and leave your wives,"109 and anything else which
he said, yielding little by little before the signs, proves that the wonders
made some impression even upon him, but did not accomplish all (that they
might). Yet even this would not have happened, if that which is supposed by the
many-the hardening of Pharaoh's heart-had been produced by God Himself. And it
is not absurd to soften down such expressions agreeably to common usage:110 for
good masters often say to their slaves, when spoiled by their kindness and
forbearance, "I have made you bad, and I am to blame for offences of such
enormity." For we must attend to the character and force of the phrase, and not
argue sophistically," disregarding the meaning of the expression. Paul
accordingly, having examined these points clearly, says to the sinner: "Or
despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering;
not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but, after thy
hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day
of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."111 Now, let what the
apostle says to the sinner be addressed to Pharaoh, and then the announcements
made to him will be understood to have been made with peculiar fitness, as to
one who, according to his hardness and unrepentant heart, was treasuring up to
himself wrath; seeing that his hardness would not have been proved nor made
manifest unless miracles had been performed, and miracles, too, of such
magnitude and importance.

12. But if the proofs which we have adduced do not appear full enough, and the
similitude of the apostle seem wanting in applicability,112 let us add the voice
of prophetic authority, and see what the prophets declare regarding those who at
first, indeed, leading a righteous life, have deserved to receive numerous
proofs of the goodness of God, but afterwards, as being human beings, have
fallen astray, with whom the prophet, making himself also one, says:"Why, O
Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? and hardened our heart, that we
should not fear Thy name? Return, for Thy servants' sake, for the tribes of
Thine inheritance, that we also for a little may obtain some inheritance from
Thy holy hill."113 Jeremiah also employs similar language: "O Lord, Thou hast
deceived us, and we were deceived; Thou hast held (us), and Thou hast
prevailed."114 The expression, then, "Why, O Lord, hast Thou hardened our heart,
that we should not fear Thy name? "used by those who prayed for mercy, is to be
taken in a figurative, moral acceptation,115 as if one were to say, "Why hast
Thou spared us so long, and didst not requite us when we sinned, but didst
abandon us, that so our wickedness might increase, and our liberty of sinning be
extended when punishment ceased? "In like manner, unless a horse continually
feel the spur116 of his rider, and have his mouth abraded by a bit,117 he
becomes hardened. And a boy also, unless constantly disciplined by chastisement,
will grow up to be an insolent youth, and one ready to fall headlong into vice.
God accordingly abandons and neglects those whom He has judged undeserving of
chastisement: "For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son
whom He receiveth."118 From which we are to suppose that those are to be
received into the rank and affection of sons, who have deserved to be scourged
and chastened by the Lord, in order that they also, through endurance of trials
and tribulations, may be able to say, "Who shall separate us from the love of
God which is in Christ Jesus? shall tribulation, or anguish, or famine, or
nakedness, or peril, or sword? "119 For by all these is each one's resolution
manifested and displayed, and the firmness of his perseverance made known, not
so much to God, who knows all things before they happen, as to the rational and
heavenly virtues,120 who have obtained a part in the work of procuring human
salvation, as being a sort of assistants and ministers to God. Those, on the
other hand, who do not yet offer themselves to God with such constancy and
affection, and are not ready to come into His service, and to prepare their
souls for trial, are said to be abandoned by God, i.e., not to be instructed,
inasmuch as they are not prepared for instruction, their training or care being
undoubtedly postponed to a later time. These certainly do not know what they
will obtain from God, unless they first entertain the desire of being
bene-fired; and this finally will be the case, if a man come first to a
knowledge of himself, and feel what are his defects, and understand from whom he
either ought or can seek the supply of his deficiencies. For he who does not
know beforehand of his weakness or his sickness, cannot seek a physician; or at
least, after recovering his health, that man will not be grateful to his
physician who did not first recognise the dangerous nature of his ailment. And
so, unless a man has first ascertained the defects of his life, and the evil
nature of his sins, and made this known by confession from his own lips, he
cannot be cleansed or acquitted, lest he should be ignorant that what he
possesses has been bestowed on him by favour, but should consider as his own
property what flows from the divine liberality, which idea undoubtedly generates
arrogance of mind and pride, and finally becomes the cause of the individual's
ruin. And this, we must believe, was the case with the devil, who viewed as his
own, and not as given him by God, the primacy121 which he held at the time when
he was unstained;122 and thus was fulfilled in him the declaration, that "every
one who exalteth himself shall be abased."123 From which it appears to me that
the divine mysteries were concealed from the wise and prudent, according to the
statement of Scripture, that "no flesh should glory before God,"124 and revealed
to children-to those, namely, who, after they have become infants and little
children, i.e., have returned to the humility and simplicity of children, then
make progress; and on arriving at perfection, remember that they have obtained
their state of happiness, not by their own merits, but by the grace and
compassion of God.

12. But since such narratives are slow to secure assent,125 and are considered
to be forced,126 let us see from the prophetical declarations also, what those
persons say, who, although they have experienced the great kindness of God, have
not lived virtuously, but have afterwards sinned. "Why, O Lord, hast Thou made
us to err from Thy ways? Why hast Thou hardened our heart, so as not to fear Thy
name? Return for Thy servants' sake, for the tribes of Thine inheritance, that
we may inherit a shall portion of Thy holy mountain."127 And in Jeremiah: "Thou
hast deceived me, O Lord, and I was deceived; Thou wert strong, and Thou didst
prevail."128 For the expression, "Why hast Thou hardened our hear, so as not to
fear Thy name? "uttered by those who are begging to receive mercy, is in its
nature as follows: "Why hast Thou spared us so long, not visiting us because of
our sins, but deserting us, until our transgressions come to a height? "Now He
leaves the greater part of men unpunished, both in order that the habits of each
one may be examined, so far as it depends upon ourselves, and that the virtuous
may be made manifest in consequence of the test applied; while the others, not
escaping notice from God-for He knows all things before they exist-but from the
rational creation and themselves, may afterwards obtain the means of cure,
seeing they would not have known the benefit had they not condemned themselves.
It is of advantage to each one, that he perceive his own peculiar nature129 and
the grace of God. For he who does not perceive his own weakness and the divine
favour, although he receive a benefit, yet, not having made trial of himself,
nor having condemned himself, will imagine that the benefit conferred upon him
by the grace of Heaven is his own doing. And this imagination, producing also
vanity,130 will be the cause of a downfall: which, we conceive, was the case
with the devil, who attributed to himself the priority which he possessed when
in a state of sinlessness.131 "For every one that exalteth himself shall be
abased," and "every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted."132 And observe,
that for this reason divine things have been concealed from the wise and
prudent, in order, as says the apostle, that "no flesh should glory in the
presence of God; "133 and they have been revealed to babes, to those who after
childhood have come to better things, and who remember that it is not so much
from their own effort, as by the unspeakable goodness (of God), that they have
reached the greatest possible extent of blessedness.

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.134 Nay, the very fact that He is long-suffering
conduces to the advantage of those very persons, since the soul over which He
exercises this providential care is immortal; and, as being immortal and
everlasting, it is not, although not immediately cared for, excluded from
salvation, which is postponed to a more convenient time. For perhaps it is
expedient for those who have been more deeply imbued with the poison of
wickedness to obtain this salvation at a later period. For as medical men
sometimes, although they could quickly cover over the scars of wounds, keep back
and delay the cure for the present, in the expectation of a better and more
perfect recovery, knowing that it is more salutary to retard the treatment in
the cases of swellings caused by wounds, and to allow the malignant humours to
flow off for a while, rather than to hasten a superficial cure, by shutting up
in the veins the poison of a morbid humour, which, excluded from its customary
outlets, will undoubtedly creep into the inner parts of the limbs, and penetrate
to the very vitals of the viscera, producing no longer mere disease in the body,
but causing destruction to life; so, in like manner, God also, who knows the
secret things of the heart, and foreknows the future, in much forbearance allows
certain events to happen, which, coming from without upon men, cause to come
forth into the light the passions and vices which are concealed within, that by
their means those may be cleansed and cured who, through great negligence and
carelessness, have admitted within themselves the roots and seeds of sins, so
that, when driven outwards and brought to the surface, they may in a certain
degree be cast forth and dispersed.135 And thus, although a man may appear to be
afflicted with evils of a serious kind, suffering convulsions in all his limbs,
he may nevertheless, at some future time, obtain relief and a cessation from his
trouble; and, after enduring his afflictions to satiety, may, after many
sufferings, be restored again to his (proper) condition. For God deals with
souls not merely with a view to the short space of our present life, included
within sixty years136 or more, but with reference to a perpetual and
never-ending period, exercising His providential care over souls that are
immortal, even as He Himself is eternal and immortal. For He made the rational
nature, which He formed in His own image and likeness, incorruptible; and
therefore the soul, which is immortal, is not excluded by the shortness of the
present life from the divine remedies and cures.

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,137 that they be not quickly brought138 into a state
of salvation, but be conducted to it more slowly, after having experienced many
evils. For as physicians, who are able to cure a man quickly, when they suspect
that a hidden poison exists in the body, do the reverse of healing, making this
more certain through their very desire to heal, deeming it better for a
considerable time to retain the patient under inflammation and sickness, in
order that he may recover his health more surely, than to appear to produce a
rapid recovery, and afterwards to cause a relapse, and (thus) that hasty cure
last only for a time; in the same way, God also, who knows the secret things of
the heart, and foresees future events, in His long-suffering, permits (certain
events to occur), and by means of those things which happen from without
extracts the secret evil, in order to cleanse him who through carelessness has
received the seeds of sin, that having vomited them forth when they came to the
surface, although he may have been deeply involved in evils, he may afterwards
obtain healing after his wickedness, and be renewed? For God governs souls not
with reference, let me say, to the fifty139 years of the present life, but with
reference to an illimitable140 age: for He made the thinking principle immortal
in its nature, and kindred to Himself; and the rational soul is not, as in this
life, excluded from cure.

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? Now this rock
undoubtedly represents the human soul, hardened on account of its own
negligence, and converted into stone because of its wickedness. For God gave no
one a stony heart by a creative act; but each individual's heart is said to
become stony through his own wickedness and disobedience. As, therefore, if one
were to blame a husbandman for not casting his seed more quickly upon rocky
ground, because seed cast upon other rocky soil was seen to spring up speedily,
the husbandman would certainly say in reply: "I sow this soil more slowly, for
this reason, that it may retain the seed which it has received; for it suits
this ground to be sown somewhat slowly, lest perhaps the crop, having sprouted
too rapidly, and coming forth from the mere surface of a shallow soil, should be
unable to withstand the rays of the sun." Would not he who formerly found fault
acquiesce in the reasons and superior knowledge of the husbandman, and approve
as done on rational grounds what formerly appeared to him as rounded on no
reason? And in the same way, God, the thoroughly skilled husbandman of all His
creation, undoubtedly conceals and delays to another time those141 things which
we think ought to have obtained health sooner, in order that not the outside of
things, rather than the inside, my be cured. But if any one now were to object
to us that certain seeds do even fall upon rocky ground, i.e., on a hard and
stony heart, we should answer that even this does not happen without the
arrangement of Divine Providence; inasmuch as, but for this, it would not be
known what condemnation was incurred by rashness in hearing and indifference in
investigation,142 nor, certainly, what benefit was derived from being trained in
an orderly manner. And hence it happens that the soul comes to know its defects,
and to cast the blame upon itself, and, consistently with this, to reserve and
submit itself to training, i.e., in order that it may see that its faults must
first be removed, and that then it must come to receive the instruction of
wisdom. As, therefore, souls are innumerable, so also are their manners, and
purposes, and movements, and appetencies, and incitements different, the variety
of which can by no means be grasped by the human mind; and therefore to God
alone must be left the art, and the knowledge, and the power of an arrangement
of this kind, as He alone can know both the remedies for each individual soul,
and measure out the time of its cure. It is He alone then who, as we said,
recognises the ways of individual men, and determines by what way He ought to
lead Pharaoh, that through him His name might be named in all the earth, having
previously chastised him by many blows, and finally drowning him in the sea. By
this drowning, however, it is not to be supposed that God's providence as
regards Pharaoh was terminated; for we must not imagine, because he was drowned,
that therefore he had forthwith completely143 perished: "for in the hand of God
are both we and our words; all wisdom, also, and knowledge of workmanship,"144
as Scripture declares. But these points we have discussed according to our
ability, treating of that chapter145 of Scripture in which it is said that God
hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and agreeably to the statement, "He hath mercy on
whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth."146

14. Come now, and let us use the following image147 from the Gospel. There is a
certain rock, with a little surface-soil, on which, if seeds fall, they quickly
spring up; but when sprung up, as not having root, they are burned and withered
when the sun has arisen. Now this rock is a human soul, hardened on account of
its negligence, and converted to stone because of its wickedness; for no one
receives from God a heart created of stone, but it becomes such in consequence
of wickedness. If one, then, were to find fault with the husbandman for not
sowing his seed sooner upon the rocky soil, when he that it may retain the seed
which it has received; for it suits this ground to be sown somewhat slowly, lest
perhaps the crop, having sprouted too rapidly, and coming forth from the mere
surface of a shallow soil, should be unable to withstand the rays of the sun."
Would not he who formerly found fault acquiesce in the reasons and superior
knowledge of the husbandman, and approve as done on rational grounds what
formerly appeared to him as rounded on no reason? And in the same way, God, the
thoroughly skilled husbandman of all His creation, undoubtedly conceals and
delays to another time those148 things which we think ought to have obtained
health sooner, in order that not the outside of things, rather than the inside,
my be cured. But if any one now were to object to us that certain seeds do even
fall upon rocky ground, i.e., on a hard and stony heart, we should answer that
even this does not happen without the arrangement of Divine Providence; inasmuch
as, but for this, it would not be known what condemnation was incurred by
rashness in hearing and indifference in investigation,149 nor, certainly, what
benefit was derived from being trained in an orderly manner. And hence it
happens that the soul comes to know its defects, and to cast the blame upon
itself, and, consistently with this, to reserve and submit itself to training,
i.e., in order that it may see that its faults must first be removed, and that
then it must come to receive the instruction of wisdom. As, therefore, souls are
innumerable, so also are their manners, and purposes, and movements, and
appetencies, and incitements different, the variety of which can by no means be
grasped by the human mind; and therefore to God alone must be left the art, and
the knowledge, and the power of an arrangement of this kind, as He alone can
know both the remedies for each individual soul, and measure out the time of its
cure. It is He alone then who, as we said, recognises the ways of individual
men, and determines by what way He ought to lead Pharaoh, that through him His
name might be named in all the earth, having previously chastised him by many
blows, and finally drowning him in the sea. By this drowning, however, it is not
to be supposed that God's providence as regards Pharaoh was terminated; for we
must not imagine, because he was drowned, that therefore he had forthwith
completely150 perished: "for in the hand of God are both we and our words; all
wisdom, also, and knowledge of workmanship,"151 as Scripture declares. But these
points we have discussed according to our ability, treating of that chapter152
of Scripture in which it is said that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and
agreeably to the statement, "He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom
He will He hardeneth."153

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.154 For if God, when He
pleases, takes away a heart of stone and bestows a heart of flesh, that His
ordinances may be observed and His commandments may be obeyed, it will then
appear that it is not in our power to put away wickedness. For the taking away
of a stony heart seems to be nothing else than the removal of the wickedness by
which one is hardened, from whomsoever God pleases to remove it. Nor is the
bestowal of a heart of flesh, that the precepts of God may be observed and His
commandments obeyed, any other thing than a man becoming obedient, and no longer
resisting the truth, but performing works of virtue. If, then, God promises to
do this, and if, before He takes away the stony heart, we are unable to remove
it from ourselves, it follows that it is not in our power, but in God's only, to
cast away wickedness. And again, if it is not our doing to form within us a
heart of flesh, but the work of God alone, it will not be in our power to live
virtuously, but it will in everything appear to be a work of divine grace. Such
are the assertions of those who wish to prove from the authority of Holy
Scripture that nothing lies in our own power. Now to these we answer, that these
passages are not to be so understood, but in the following manner. Take the case
of one who was ignorant and untaught, and who, feeling the disgrace of his
ignorance, should, driven either by an exhortation from some person, or incited
by a desire to emulate other wise men, hand himself over to one by whom he is
assured that he will be carefully trained and competently instructed. If he,
then, who had formerly hardened himself in ignorance, yield himself, as we have
said, with full purpose of mind to a master, and promise to obey him in all
things, the master, on seeing clearly the resolute nature of his determination;
will appropriately promise to take away all ignorance, and to implant knowledge
within his mind; not that he undertakes to do this if the disciple refuse or
resist his efforts, but only on his offering and binding himself to obedience in
all things. So also the Word of God promises to those who draw near to Him, that
He will take away their stony heart, not indeed from those who do not listen to
His word, but from those who receive the precepts of His teaching; as in the
Gospels we find the sick approaching the Saviour, asking to receive health, and
thus at last be cured. And in order that the blind might be healed and regain
their sight, their part consisted in making supplication to the Saviour, and in
believing that their cure could be effected by Him; while His part, on the other
hand, lay in restoring to them the power of vision. And in this way also does
the Word of God promise to bestow instruction by taking away the stony heart,
i.e., by the removal of wickedness, that so men may be able to walk in the
divine precepts, and observe the commandments of the law.

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 may
walk in My statutes and keep My precepts."155 For if God, when He wills, takes
away the stony hearts, and implants hearts of flesh, so that His precepts are
obeyed and His commandments are observed, it is not in our power to put away
wickedness. For the taking away of the stony hearts is nothing else than the
taking away of the wickedness, according to which one is hardened, from him from
whom God wills to take it; and the implanting of a heart of flesh, so that a man
may walk in the precepts of God and keep His commandments, what else is it than
to become somewhat yielding and unresistent to the truth, and to be capable of
practising virtues? And if God promises to do this, and if, before He takes away
the stony hearts, we do not lay them aside, it is manifest that it does not
depend upon ourselves to put away wickedness; and if it is not we who do
anything towards the production within us of the heart of flesh, but if it is
God's doing, it will not be our own act to live agreeably to virtue, but
altogether (the result of) divine grace. Such will be the statements of him who,
from the mere words (of Scripture), annihilates free-will.156 But we shall
answer, saying, that we ought to understand these passages thus: That as a man,
e.g., who happened to be ignorant and uneducated, on perceiving his own defects,
either in consequence of an exhortation from his teacher, or in some other way,
should spontaneously give himself up to him whom he considers able to
introduce157 him to education and virtue; and, on his yielding himself up, his
instructor promises that he will take away his ignorance, and implant
instruction, not as if it contributed nothing to his training, and to the
avoiding of ignorance, that he brought himself to be healed, but because the
instructor promised to improve him who desired improvement; so, in the same way,
the Word of God promises to take away wickedness, which it calls a stony heart,
from those who come to it, not if they are unwilling, but (only) if they submit
themselves to the Physician of the sick, as in the Gospels the sick are found
coming to the Saviour, and asking to obtain healing, and so are cured. And, let
me say, the recovery of sight by the blind is, so far as their request goes, the
act of those who believe that they are capable of being healed; but as respects
the restoration of sight, it is the work of our Saviour. Thus, then, does the
Word of God promise to implant knowledge in those who come to it, by taking away
the stony and hard heart, which is wickedness, in order that one may walk in the
divine commandments, and keep the divine injunctions.

16. There is next brought before us that declaration uttered by the Saviour in
the Gospel: "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may
hear, and not understand; lest they should happen to be converted, and their
sins be forgiven them."158 On which our opponent will remark: "If those who
shall hear more distinctly are by all means to be corrected and converted, and
converted in such a manner as to be worthy of receiving the remission of sins,
and if it be not in their own power to hear the word distinctly, but if it
depend on the Instructor to teach more openly and distinctly, while he declares
that he does not proclaim to them the word with clearness, lest they should
perhaps hear and understand, and be converted, and be saved, it will follow,
certainly, that their salvation is not dependent upon themselves. And if this be
so, then we have no free-will either as regards salvation or destruction." Now
were it not for the words that are added, "Lest perhaps they should be
converted, and their sins be forgiven them," we might be more inclined to return
the answer, that the Saviour was unwilling that those individuals whom He
foresaw would not become good, should understand the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, and that therefore He spoke to them in parables; but as that addition
follows, "Lest perhaps they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven
them," the explanation is rendered more difficult. And, in the first place, we
have to notice what defence this passage furnishes against those heretics who
are accustomed to hunt out of the Old Testament any expressions which seem,
according to their view, to predicate severity and cruelty of God the Creator,
as when He is described as being affected with the feeling of vengeance or
punishment, or by any of those emotions, however named, from which they deny the
existence of goodness in the Creator; for they do not judge of the Gospels with
the same mind and feelings, and do not observe whether any such statements are
found in them as they condemn and censure in the Old Testament. For manifestly,
in the passage referred to, the Saviour is shown, as they themselves admit, not
to speak distinctly, for this very reason, that men may not be converted, and
when converted, receive the remission of sins. Now, if the words be understood
according to the letter merely, nothing less, certainly, will be contained in
them than in those passages which they find fault with in the Old Testament. And
if they are of opinion that any expressions occurring in such a connection in
the New Testament stand in need of explanation, it will necessarily follow that
those also occurring in the Old Testament, which are the subject of censure, may
be freed from aspersion by an explanation of a similar kind, so that by such
means the passages found in both Testaments may be shown to proceed from one and
the same God. But let us return, as we best may, to the question proposed.

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."159 Now, our opponent will say, "If
some persons are assuredly converted on hearing words of greater clearness, so
that they become worthy of the remission of sins, and if it does not depend upon
themselves to hear these words of greater clearness, but upon him who teaches,
and he for this reason does not announce them to them more distinctly, lest they
should see and understand, it is not within the power of such to be saved; and
if so, we are not possessed of free-will as regards salvation and destruction."
Effectual, indeed, would be the reply to such arguments, were it not for the
addition, "Lest they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven
them,"-namely, that the Saviour did not wish those who were not to become good
and virtuous to understand the more mystical (parts of His teaching), and for
this reason spake to them in parables; but now, on account of the words, "Lest
they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them," the defence is more
difficult. In the first place, then, we must notice the passage in its bearing
on the heretics, who hunt out those portions from the Old Testament where is
exhibited, as they themselves daringly assert, the cruelty160 of the Creator of
the world161 in His purpose of avenging and punishing the wicked,162 or by
whatever other name they wish to designate such a quality, so speaking only that
they may say that goodness does not exist in the Creator; and who do not deal
with the New Testament in a similar manner, nor in a spirit of candour,163 but
pass by places similar to those which they consider censurable in the Old
Testament. For manifestly, and according to the Gospel, is the Saviour shown, as
they assert, by His former words, not to speak distinctly for this reason, that
men might not be converted, and, being converted, might become deserving of the
remission of sins: which statement of itself is nothing inferior164 to those
passages from the Old Testament which are objected to. And if they seek to
defend the Gospel, we must ask them whether they are not acting in a blameworthy
manner in dealing differently with the same questions; and, while not stumbling
against the New Testament, but seeking to defend it, they nevertheless bring a
charge against the Old regarding similar points, whereas they ought to offer a
defence in the same way of the passages from the New. And therefore we shall
force them, on account of the resemblances, to regard all as the writings of one
God. Come, then, and let us, to the best of our ability, furnish an answer to
the question submitted to us.

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 health165 should render them
incurable. It is therefore possible that, in the case of those to whom, as being
"without," the words of our Lord and Saviour were addressed, He, seeing from His
scrutiny of the hearts and reins that they were not yet able to receive teaching
of a clearer type, veiled by the covering of language the meaning of the
profounder mysteries, lest perhaps, being rapidly converted and healed, i.e.,
having quickly obtained the remission of their sins, they should again easily
slide back into the same disease which they had found could be healed without
any difficulty. For if this be the case, no one can doubt that the punishment is
doubled, and the amount of wickedness increased; since not only are the sins
which had appeared to be forgiven repeated, but the court166 of virtue also is
desecrated when trodden by deceitful and polluted beings,167 filled within with
hidden wickedness. And what remedy can there ever be for those who, after eating
the impure and filthy food of wickedness, have tasted the pleasantness of
virtue, and received its sweetness into their mouths, and yet have again betaken
themselves to the deadly and poisonous provision of sin? And who doubts that it
is better for delay and a temporary abandonment to occur, in order that if, at
some future time, they should happen to be satiated with wickedness, and the
filth with which they are now delighted should become loathsome, the word of God
may at last be appropriately made clear to them, and that which is holy be not
given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine, which will trample them
under foot, and turn, moreover, and rend and assault those who have proclaimed
to them the word of God? These, then, are they who are said to be "without,"
undoubtedly by way of contrast with those who are said to be "within," and to
hear the word of God with greater clearness. And yet those who are "without" do
hear the word, although it is covered by parables, and overshadowed by proverbs.
There are others, also, besides those who are without, who are called Tyrians,
and who do not hear at all, respecting whom the Saviour knew that they would
have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, if the miracles
performed among others had been done amongst them, and yet these do not hear
those things which are heard even by those who are "without: "and I believe, for
this reason, that the rank of such in wickedness was far lower and worse than
that of those who are said to be "without," i.e., who are not far from those who
are within, and who have deserved to hear the word, although in parables; and
because, perhaps, their cure was delayed to that time when it will be more
tolerable for them on the day of judgment, than for those before whom those
miracles which are recorded were performed, that so at last, being then relieved
from the weight of their sins, they may enter with more ease and power of
endurance upon the way of safety. And this is a point which I wish impressed
upon those who peruse these pages, that with respect to topics of such
difficulty and obscurity we use our utmost endeavour, not so much to ascertain
clearly the solutions of the questions (for every one will do this as the Spirit
gives him utterance), as to maintain the rule of faith in the most unmistakeable
manner,168 by striving to show that the providence of God, which equitably
administers all things, governs also immortal souls on the justest principles,
(conferring rewards) according to the merits and motives of each individual; the
present economy of things169 not being confined within the life of this world,
but the pre-existing state of merit always furnishing the ground for the state
that is to follow,170 and thus by an eternal and immutable law of equity, and by
the controlling influence of Divine Providence, the immortal soul is brought to
the summit of perfection. If one, however, were to object to our statement, that
the word of preaching was purposely put aside by certain men of wicked and
worthless character, and (were to inquire) why the word was preached to those
over whom the Tyrians, who were certainly despised, are preferred in comparison
(by which proceeding, certainly, their wickedness was increased, and their
condemnation rendered more severe, that they should hear the word who were not
to believe it), they must be answered in the following manner: God, who is the
Creator of the minds of all men, foreseeing complaints against His providence,
especially on the part of those who say, "How could we believe when we neither
beheld those things which others saw, nor heard those words which were preached
to others? in so far is the blame removed from us, since they to whom the word
was announced, and the signs manifested, made no delay whatever, but became
believers, overpowered by the very force of the miracles; "wishing to destroy
the grounds for complaints of this kind, and to show that it was no concealment
of Divine Providence, but the determination of the human mind which was the
cause of their ruin, bestowed the grace of His benefits even upon the unworthy
and the unbelieving, that every mouth might indeed be shut, and that the mind of
man might know that all the deficiency was on its own part, and none on that of
God; and that it may, at the same time, be understood and recognised that he
receives a heavier sentence of condemnation who has despised the divine benefits
conferred upon him than he who has not deserved to obtain or hear them, and that
it is a peculiarity of divine compassion, and a mark of the extreme justice of
its administration, that it sometimes conceals from certain individuals the
opportunity of either seeing or hearing the mysteries of divine power, lest,
after beholding the power of the miracles, and recognising and hearing the
mysteries of its wisdom, they should, on treating them with contempt and
indifference, be punished with greater severity for their impiety.

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
advantage. It is probable, then, that those "without," of whom we are speaking,
having been foreseen by the Saviour, according to our supposition, as not
(likely) to prove steady in their conversion,171 if they should hear more
clearly the words that were spoken, were (so) treated by the Saviour as not to
hear distinctly the deeper (things of His teaching),172 lest, after a rapid
conversion, and after being healed by obtaining remission of sins, they should
despise the wounds of their wickedness, as being slight and easy of healing, and
should again speedily relapse into them. And perhaps also, suffering punishment
for their former transgressions against virtue, which they had committed when
they had forsaken her, they had not yet filled up the (full) time; in order
that, being abandoned by the divine superintendence, and being filled to a
greater degree by their own evils which they had sown, they may afterwards be
called to a more stable repentance; so as not to be quickly entangled again in
those evils in which they had formerly been involved when they treated with
insolence the requirements of virtue, and devoted themselves to worse things.
Those, then, who are said to be "without" (manifestly by comparison with those
"within "), not being very far from those "within," while those "within" hear
clearly, do themselves hear indistinctly, because they are addressed in
parables; but nevertheless they do hear. Others, again, of those "without," who
are called Tyrians, although it was foreknown that they would have repented long
ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, had the Saviour come near their borders, do
not hear even those words which are heard by those "without" (being, as is
probable, very far inferior in merit to those "without"173 ), in order that at
another season, after it has been more tolerable for them than for those who did
not receive the word (among whom he mentioned also the Tyrians), they may, on
hearing the word at a more appropriate time, obtain a more lasting repentance.
But observe whether, besides our desire to investigate (the truth), we do not
rather strive to maintain an attitude of piety in everything regarding God and
His Christ,174 seeing we endeavour by every means to prove that, in matters so
great and so peculiar regarding the varied providence of God, He takes an
oversight of the immortal soul. If, indeed, one were to inquire regarding those
things that are objected to, why those who saw wonders and who heard divine
words are not benefited, while the Tyrians would have repented if such had been
performed and spoken amongst them; and should ask, and say, Why did the Saviour
proclaim such to these persons, to their own hurt, that their sin might be
reckoned to them as heavier? we must say, in answer to such an one, that He who
understands the dispositions175 of all those who find fault with His
providence-(alleging) that it is owing to it that they have not believed,
because it did not permit them to see what it enabled others to behold, and did
not arrange for them to hear those words by which others, on hearing them, were
benefited-wishing to prove that their defence is not founded on reason, He
grants those advantages which those who blame His administration asked; in order
that, after obtaining them, they may notwithstanding be convicted of the
greatest impiety in not having even then yielded themselves to be benefited, and
may cease from such audacity; and having been made free in respect to this very
point, may learn that God occasionally, in conferring benefits upon certain
persons, delays and procrastinates, not conferring the favour of seeing and
hearing those things which, when seen and heard, would render the sin of those
who did not believe, after acts so great and peculiar, heavier and more serious.

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."176 For our opponents assert,
that if it does not depend upon him that willeth, nor on him that runneth, but
on God that showeth mercy, that a man be saved, our salvation is not in our own
power. For our nature is such as to admit of our either being saved or not, or
else our salvation rests solely on the will of Him who, if He wills it, shows
mercy, and confers salvation. Now let us inquire, in the first place, of such
persons, whether to desire blessings be a good or evil act; and whether to
hasten after good as a final aim177 be worthy of praise. If they were to answer
that such a procedure was deserving of censure, they would evidently he mad; for
all holy men both desire blessings and run after them, and certainly are not
blameworthy. How, then, is it that he who is not saved, if he be of an evil
nature, desires blessing, and runs after them, but does not find them? For they
say that a bad tree does not bring forth good fruits, whereas it is a good fruit
to desire blessings. And how is the fruit of a bad tree good? And if they assert
that to desire blessings, and to run after them, is an act of indifference,178
i.e., neither good nor bad, we shall reply, that if it be an indifferent act to
desire blessings, and to run after them, then the opposite of that will also he
an indifferent act, viz., to desire evils, and to run after them; whereas it is
certain that it is not an indifferent act to desire evils, and to run after
them, but one that is manifestly wicked. It is established, then, that to desire
and follow after blessings is not an indifferent, but a virtuous
proceeding.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."179 In the book of Psalms-in the Songs of Degrees, which are
ascribed to Solomon-the following statement occurs: "Except the Lord build the
house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the
watchman waketh but in vain."180 By which words he does not indeed indicate that
we should cease from building or watching over the safe keeping of that city
which is within us; but what he points out is this, that whatever is built
without God, and whatever is guarded without him, is built in vain, and guarded
to no purpose. For in all things that are well built and well protected, the
Lord is held to be the cause either of the building or of its protection. As if,
e.g., we were to behold some magnificent structure and mass of splendid building
reared with beauteous architectural skill, would we not justly and deservedly
say that such was built not by human power, but by divine help and might? And
yet from such a statement it will not be meant that the labour and industry of
human effort were inactive, and effected nothing at all. Or again, if we were to
see some city surrounded by a severe blockade of the enemy, in which threatening
engines were brought against the walls, and the place hard pressed by a vallum,
and weapons, and fire, and all the instruments of war, by which destruction is
prepared, would we not rightly and deservedly say, if the enemy were repelled
and put to flight, that the deliverance had been wrought for the liberated city
by God? And yet we would not mean, by so speaking, that either the vigilance of
the sentinels, or the alertness of the young men,181 or the protection of the
guards, had been wanting. And the apostle also must be understood in a similar
manner, because the human will alone is not sufficient to obtain salvation; nor
is any mortal running able to win the heavenly (rewards), and to obtain the
prize of our high calling182 of God in Christ Jesus, unless this very good will
of ours, and ready purpose, and whatever that diligence within us may be, be
aided or furnished with divine help. And therefore most logically183 did the
apostle say, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but
of God that showeth mercy; "in the same manner as if we were to say of
agriculture what is actually written: "I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave
the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that
watereth; but God that giveth the increase."184 As, therefore, when a field has
brought good and rich crops to perfect maturity, no one would piously and
logically assert that the husbandman had made those fruits, but would
acknowledge that they had been produced by God; so also is our own perfection
brought about, not indeed by our remaining inactive and idle,185 (but by some
activity on our part): and yet the consummation of it will not be ascribed to
us, but to God, who is the first and chief cause of the work. So, when a ship
has overcome the dangers of the sea, although the result be accomplished by
great labour on the part of the sailors, and by the aid of all the art of
navigation, and by the zeal and carefulness of the pilot, and by the favouring
influence of the breezes, and the careful observation of the signs of the stars,
no one in his sound senses would ascribe the safety of the vessel, when, after
being tossed by the waves, and wearied by the billows, it has at last reached
the harbour in safety, to anything else than to the mercy of God. Not even the
sailors or pilot venture to say, "I have saved the ship," but they refer all to
the mercy of God; not that they feel that they have contributed no skill or
labour to save the ship, but because they know that while they contributed the
labour, the safety of the vessel was ensured by God. So also in the race of our
life we ourselves must expend labour, and bring diligence and zeal to bear; but
it is from God that salvation is to be hoped for as the fruit of our labour.
Otherwise, if God demand none of our labour, His commandments will appear to be
superfluous. In vain, also, does Paul blame some for having fallen from the
truth, and praise others for abiding in the faith; and to no purpose does he
deliver certain precepts and institutions to the Churches: in vain, also, do we
ourselves either desire or run after what is good. But it is certain that these
things are not done in vain; and it is certain that neither do the apostles give
instructions in vain, nor the Lord enact laws without a reason. It follows,
therefore, that we declare it to be in vain, rather, for the heretics to speak
evil of these good declarations.

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."186 For they who find
fault say: If "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy," salvation does not depend upon ourselves, but upon the
arrangement187 made by Him who has formed188 us such as we are, or on the
purpose189 of Him who showeth mercy when he pleases. Now we must ask these
persons the following questions: Whether to desire what is good is virtuous or
vicious; and whether the desire to run in order to reach the goal in the pursuit
of what is good be worthy of praise or censure? And if they shall say that it is
worthy of censure, they will return an absurd answer;190 since the saints desire
and run, and manifestly in so acting do nothing that is blameworthy. But if they
shall say that it is virtuous to desire what is good, and to run after what is
good, we shall ask them how a perishing nature desires better things;191 for it
is like an evil tree producing good fruit, since it is a virtuous act to desire
better things. They will give (perhaps) a third answer, that to desire and run
after what is good is one of those things that are indifferent,192 and neither
beautiful193 nor wicked. Now to this we must say, that if to desire and to run
after what is good be a thing of indifference, then the opposite also is a thing
of indifference, viz., to desire what is evil, and to run after it. But it is
not a thing of indifference to desire what is evil, and to run after it. And
therefore also, to desire what is good, and to run after it, is not a thing of
indifference. Such, then, is the defence which I think we can offer to the
statement, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy."194 Solomon says in the book of Psalms (for the Song of
Degrees195 is his, from which we shall quote the words): "Unless the Lord build
the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the
watchman waketh in vain: "196 not dissuading us from building, nor teaching us
not to keep watch in order to guard the city in our soul, but showing that what
is built without God, and does not receive a guard from Him, is built in vain
and watched to no purpose, because God might reasonably be entitled the Lord of
the building; and the Governor of all things, the Ruler of the guard of the
city. As, then, if we were to say that such a building is not the work of the
builder, but of God, and that it was not owing to the successful effort of the
watcher, but of the God who is over all, that such a city suffered no injury
from its enemies, we should not be wrong,197 it being understood that something
also had been done by human means, but the benefit being gratefully referred to
God who brought it to pass; so, seeing that the (mere) human desire is not
sufficient to attain the end, and that the running of those who are, as it were,
athletes, does not enable them to gain the prize of the high calling of God in
Christ Jesus-for these things are accomplished with the assistance of God-it is
well said that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy." As if also it were said with regard to husbandry what
also is actually recorded: "I planted, Apollos watered; and God gave the
increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that
watereth; but God that giveth the increase."198 Now we could not piously assert
that the production of full crops was the work of the husbandman, or of him that
watered, but the work of God. So also our own perfection is brought about, not
as if we ourselves did nothing;199 for it is not completed200 by us, but God
produces the greater part of it. And that this assertion may be more clearly
believed, we shall take an illustration from the art of navigation. For in
comparison with the effect of the winds,201 and the mildness of the air,202 and
the light of the stars, all co-operating in the preservation of the crew, what
proportion203 could the art of navigation be said to bear in the bringing of the
ship into harbour?-since even the sailors themselves, from piety, do not venture
to assert often that they had saved the ship, but refer all to God; not as if
they had done nothing, but because what had been done by Providence was
infinitely204 greater than what had been effected by their art. And in the
matter of our salvation, what is done by God is infinitely greater than what is
done by ourselves; and therefore, I think, is it said that "it is not of him
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." For if in
the manner which they imagine we must explain the statement,205 that "it is not
of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,"
the commandments are superfluous; and it is in vain that Paul himself blames
some for having fallen away, and approves of others as having remained upright,
and enacts laws for the Churches: it is in vain also that we give ourselves up
to desire better things, and in vain also (to attempt) to run. But it is not in
vain that Paul gives such advice, censuring some and approving of others; nor in
vain that we give ourselves up to the desire of better things, and to the chase
after things that are pre-eminent. They have accordingly not well explained the
meaning of the passage.206

19. After this there followed this point, that "to will and to do are of
God."207 Our opponents maintain that if to will be of God, and if to do be of
Him, or if, whether we act or desire well or ill, it be of God, then in that
case we are not possessed of free-will. Now to this we have to answer, that the
words of the apostle do not say that to will evil is of God, or that to will
good is of Him; nor that to do good or evil is of God; but his statement is a
general one, that to will and to do are of God. For as we have from God this
very quality, that we are men208 that we breathe, that we move; so also we have
from God (the faculty) by which we will, as if we were to say that our power of
motion is from God,209 or that the performing of these duties by the individual
members, and their movements, are from God. From which, certainly, I do not
understand this, that because the hand moves, e.g., to punish unjustly, or to
commit an act of theft, the act is of God, but only that the power of motion210
is from God; while it is our duty to turn those movements, the power of
executing which we have from God, either to purposes of good or evil. And so
what the apostle says is, that we receive indeed the power of volition, but that
we misuse the will either to good or evil desires. In a similar way, also, we
must judge of results.

19. Besides these, there is the passage, "Both to will and to do are of God."211
And some assert that, if to will be of God, and to do be of God, and if, whether
we will evil or do evil, these (movements) come to us from God, then, if so, we
are not possessed of free-will. But again, on the other hand, when we will
better things, and do things that are more excellent,212 seeing that willing and
doing are from God, it is not we who have done the more excellent things, but we
only appeared (to perform them), while it was God that bestowed them;213 so that
even in this respect we do not possess free-will. Now to this we have to answer,
that the language of the apostle does not assert that to will evil is of God, or
to will good is of Him (and similarly with respect to doing better and worse);
but that to will in a general214 way, and to run in a general way, (are from
Him). For as we have from God (the property) of being living things and human
beings, so also have we that of willing generally, and, so to speak, of motion
in general. And as, possessing (the property) of life and of motion, and of
moving, e.g., these members, the hands or the feet, we could not rightly say215
that we had from God this species of motion,216 whereby we moved to strike, or
destroy, or take away another's goods, but that we had received from Him simply
the generic217 power of motion, which we employed to better or worse purposes;
so we have obtained from God (the power) of acting, in respect of our being
living things, and (the power) to will from the Creator218 while we employ the
power of will, as well as that of action, for the noblest objects, or the
opposite.

20. But with respect to the declaration of the apostle, "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? "219 Some one will perhaps say, that as the potter out of the same
lump makes some vessels to honour, and others to dishonour, so God creates some
men for perdition, and others for salvation; and that it is not therefore in our
own power either to be saved or to perish; by which reasoning we appear not to
be possessed of free-will. We must answer those who are of this opinion with the
question, Whether it is possible for the apostle to contradict himself? And if
this cannot be imagined of an apostle, how shall he appear, according to them,
to be just in blaming those who committed fornication in Corinth, or those who
sinned, and did not repent of their unchastity, and fornication, and
uncleanness, which they had committed? How, also, does he greatly praise those
who acted rightly, like the house of Onesiphorus, saying, "The Lord give mercy
to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my
chain: but, when he had come to Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and
found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that
day."220 Now it is not consistent with apostolic gravity to blame him who is
worthy of blame, i.e., who has sinned, and greatly to praise him who is
deserving of praise for his good works; and again, as if it were in no one's
power to do any good or evil, to say that it was the Creator's doing that every
one should act virtuously or wickedly, seeing He makes one vessel to honour, and
another to dishonour. And how can he add that statement, "We must all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive in his
body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad? "221 For what
reward of good will be conferred on him who could not commit evil, being formed
by the Creator to that very end? or what punishment will deservedly be inflicted
on him who was unable to do good in consequence of the creative act of his
Maker?222 Then, again, how is not this opposed to that other declaration
elsewhere, that "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. If a
man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour,
sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work."223
He, accordingly, who purges himself, is made a vessel unto honour, while he who
has disdained to cleanse himself from his impurity is made a vessel unto
dishonour. From such declarations, in my opinion, the cause of our actions can
in no degree be referred to the Creator. For God the Creator makes a certain
vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonour; but that vessel which has
cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honour, while that
which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto
dishonour. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of
each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to his
deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honour or dishonour. Therefore
every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes
and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honour or
one unto dishonour. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and
in harmony with all piety, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel
be prepared by God either to honour or to dishonour, it does not appear absurd
that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we
should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and (believe)
that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this
world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother.

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? "224 For it will be
said: If the potter of the same lump make some vessels to hon-our and others to
dishonour, and God thus form some men for salvation and others for ruin, then
salvation or ruin does not depend upon ourselves, nor are we possessed of
free-will. Now we must ask him who deals so with these passages, whether it is
possible to conceive of the apostle as contradicting himself. I presume,
however, that no one will venture to say so. If, then, the apostle does not
utter contradictions, how can he, according to him who so understands him,
reasonably find fault, censuring the individual at Corinth who had committed
fornication, or those who had fallen away, and had not repented of the
licentiousness and impurity of which they had been guilty? And how can he bless
those whom he praises as having done well, as he does the house of Onesiphorus
in these words: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft
refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he
sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant to him that he may
find mercy of the Lord in that day."225 It is not consistent for the same
apostle226 to blame the sinner as worthy of censure, and to praise him who had
done well as deserving of approval; and again, on the other hand, to say, as if
nothing depended on ourselves, that the cause was in the Creator227 why the one
vessel was formed to honour, and the other to dishonour. And how is this
statement correct:228 "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,"229 since they who have done evil
have advanced to this pitch of wickedness230 because they were created vessels
unto dishonour, while they that have lived virtuously have done good because
they were created from the beginning for this purpose, and became vessels unto
honour? And again, how does not the statement made elsewhere conflict with the
view which these persons draw from the words which we have quoted (that it is
the fault of the Creator that one vessel is in honour and another in dishonour),
viz., "that 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. If a man
therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet
for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work; "231 for if he who
purges himself becomes a vessel unto honour, and he who allows himself to remain
unpurged232 becomes a vessel unto dishonour, then, so far as these words are
concerned, the Creator is not at all to blame. For the Creator makes vessels of
honour and vessels of dishonour, not from the beginning according to His
foreknowledge,233 since He does not condemn or justify beforehand234 according
to it; but (He makes) those into vessels of honour who purged themselves, and
those into vessels of dishonour who allowed themselves to remain unpurged: so
that it results from older causes235 (which operated) in the formation of the
vessels unto honour and dishonour, that one was created for the former
condition, and another for the latter. But if we once admit that there were
certain older causes (at work) in the forming of a vessel unto honour, and of
one unto dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back to the subject of the
soul, and (in supposing) that a more ancient cause for Jacob being loved and for
Esau being hated existed with respect to Jacob before his assumption of a body,
and with regard to Esau before he was conceived in the womb of Rebecca?

21. Nay, that very declaration, that from the same lump a vessel is formed both
to honour and to dishonour, will not push us hard; for we assert that the nature
of all rational souls is the same, as one lump of clay is described as being
under the treatment of the potter. Seeing, then, the nature of rational
creatures is one, God, according to the previous grounds of merit,236 created
and formed out of it, as the potter out of the one lump, some persons to honour
and others to dishonour. Now, as regards the language of the apostle, which he
utters as if in a tone of censure, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God? "he means, I think, to point out that such a censure does not refer
to any believer who lives tightly and justly, and who has confidence in God,
i.e., to such an one as Moses was, of whom Scripture says that "Moses spake, and
God answered him by a voice; "237 and as God answered Moses, so also does every
saint answer God. But he who is an unbeliever, and loses confidence in answering
before God owing to the unworthiness of his life and conversation, and who, in
relation to these matters, does not seek to learn and make progress, but to
oppose and resist, and who, to speak more plainly, is such an one as to be able
to say those words which the apostle indicates, when he says, "Why, then, does
He yet find fault? for who will resist His will? "-to such an one may the
censure of the apostle rightly be directed, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that
repliest against God? "This censure accordingly applies not to believers and
saints, but to unbelievers and wicked men.Now, to those who introduce souls of
different natures,238 and who turn this declaration of the apostle to the
support of their own opinion, we have to reply as follows: If even they are
agreed as to what the apostle says, that out of the one lump are formed both
those who are made to honour and those who are made to dishonour, whom they term
of a nature that is to be saved and destroyed, there will then be no longer
souls of different natures, but one nature for all. And if they admit that one
and the same potter may undoubtedly denote one Creator, there will not be
different creators either of those who are saved, or of those who perish. Now,
truly, let them choose whether the), will have a good Creator to be intended who
creates had and ruined men, or one who is not good, who creates good men and
those who are prepared to honour. For the necessity of returning an answer will
extort from them one of these two alternatives. But according to our
declaration, whereby we say that it is owing to preceding causes that God makes
vessels either to honour or to dishonour, the approval of God's justice is in no
respect limited. For it is possible that this vessel, which owing to previous
causes was made in this world to honour, may, if it behave negligently, be
converted in another world, according to the deserts of its conduct, into a
vessel unto dishonour: as again, if any one, owing to preceding causes, was
formed by his Creator in this life a vessel unto dishonour, and shall mend his
ways and cleanse himself from all filth and vice, he may, in the new world, be
made a vessel to honour, sanctified and useful, and prepared unto every good
work. Finally, those who were formed by God in this world to be Israelites, and
who have lived a life unworthy of the nobility of their race, and have fallen
away from the grandeur of their descent, will, in the world to come, in a
certain degree239 be converted, on account of their unbelief, from vessels of
honour into vessels of dishonour; while, on the other hand, many who in this
life were reckoned among Egyptian or Idumean vessels, having adopted the faith
and practice of Israelites, when they shall have done the works of Israelites,
and shall have entered the Church of the Lord, will exist as vessels of honour
in the revelation of the sons of God. From which it is more agreeable to the
rule of piety to believe that every rational being, according to his purpose and
manner of life, is converted, sometimes from had to good, and falls away
sometimes from good to bad: that some abide in good, and others advance to a
better condition, and always ascend to higher things, until they reach the
highest grade of all; while others, again, remain in evil, or, if the wickedness
within them begin to spread itself further, they descend to a worse condition,
and sink into the lowest depth of wickedness. Whence also we must suppose that
it is possible there may be some who began at first indeed with small offences,
but who have poured out wickedness to such a degree, and attained such
proficiency in evil, that in the measure of their wickedness they are equal even
to the opposing powers: and again, if, by means of many severe administrations
of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and
gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from
their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness. Whence we are of opinion
that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it
is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the
immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the
lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good.

21. And at the same time, it is clearly shown that, as far as regards the
underlying nature,240 as there is one (piece of) clay which is under the hands
of the potter, from which piece vessels are formed unto honour and dishonour; so
the one nature of every soul being in the hands of God, and, so to speak, there
being (only) one lump of reasonable beings,241 certain causes of more ancient
date led to some being created vessels unto hon-our, and others vessels unto
dishonour. But if the language of the apostle convey a censure when he says,
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? "it teaches us that he
who has confidence before God, and is faithful, and has lived virtuously, would
not hear the words, "Who art thou that repliest against God? "Such an one, e.g.,
as Moses was, "For Moses spake, and God answered him with a voice; "242 and as
God answers Moses, so does a saint also answer God. But he who does not possess
this confidence, manifestly, either because he has lost it, or because he
investigates these matters not from a love of knowledge, but from a desire to
find fault,243 and who therefore says, "Why does He yet find fault? for who hath
resisted His will? "would merit the language of censure, which says, "Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God? "Now to those who introduce
different natures, and who make use of the declaration of the apostle (to
support their view), the following must be our answer. If they maintain244 that
those who perish and those who are saved are formed of one lump, and that the
Creator of those who are saved is the Creator also of them who are lost, and if
He is good who creates not only spiritual but also earthy (natures) (for this
follows from their view), it is nevertheless possible that be who, in
consequence of certain former acts of righteousness,245 had now been made a
vessel of honour, but who had not (afterwards) acted in a similar manner, nor
done things befitting a vessel of honour, was converted in another world into a
vessel of dishonour; as, on the other hand, it is possible that he who, owing to
causes more ancient than the present life, was here a vessel of dishonour, may
after reformation become in the new creation "a vessel of honour, sanctified and
meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work." And perhaps those who
are now Israelites, not having lived worthily of their descent, will be deprived
of their rank, being changed, as it were, from vessels of honour into those of
dishonour; and many of the present Egyptians and Idumeans who came near to
Israel, when they shall have borne fruit to a larger extent, shall enter into
the Church of the Lord, being no longer accounted Egyptians and Idumeans, but
becoming Israelites: so that, according to this view, it is owing to their
(varying) purposes that some advance from a worse to a better condition, and
others fall from better to worse; while others, again, are preserved in a
virtuous course, or ascend from good to better; and others, on the contrary,
remain in a course of evil, or from bad become worse, as their wickedness flows
on.

22. But since the words of the apostle, in what he says regarding vessels of
honour or dishonour, that "if a man therefore purge himself, he will be a vessel
unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's service, and prepared unto
every good work," appear to place nothing in the power of God, but all in
ourselves; while in those in which he declares that "the potter hath power over
the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel to honour, another to dishonour,"
he seems to refer the whole to God,-it is not to be understood that those
statements are contradictory, but the two meanings are to be reduced to
agreement, and one signification must be drawn from both, viz., that we are not
to suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done
without the help of God, or that those which are in God's hand can be brought to
completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires, and intention;
because we have it not in our own power so to will or do anything, as not to
know that this very faculty, by which we are able to will or to do, was bestowed
on us by God, according to the distinction which we indicated above. Or again,
when God forms vessels, some to honour and others to dishonour, we are to
suppose that He does not regard either our wills, or our purposes, or our
deserts, to be the causes of the honour or dishonour, as if they were a sort of
matter from which He may form the vessel of each one of us either to honour or
to dishonour; whereas the very movement of the soul itself, or the purpose of
the understanding, may of itself suggest to him, who is not unaware of his heart
and the thoughts of his mind, whether his vessel ought to be formed to honour or
to dishonour. But let these points suffice, which we have discussed as we best
could, regarding the questions connected with the freedom of the will.246

22. But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the becoming of a
vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but refers back the whole to
ourselves, saying, "If, then, a man purge himself, he will be a vessel unto
honour, sanctified, meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good
work; "and elsewhere does not even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves,
but appears to attribute the whole to God, saying, "The potter hath power over
the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to
dishonour; "and as his statements are not contradictory, we must reconcile them,
and extract one complete statement from both. Neither does our own power,247
apart from the knowledge248 of God, compel us to make progress; nor does the
knowledge of God (do so), unless we ourselves also contribute something to the
good result; nor does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the
use of the power that worthily belongs to us,249 make a man become (a vessel)
unto honour or dishonour; nor does the will of God alone250 form a man to honour
or to dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of
variation,251 and that inclines to a better or worse course of conduct. And
these observations are sufficient to have been made by us on the subject of
free-will.

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,252
the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work
entitled The Ascension of Moses253 (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude
makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the
devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the
devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve's transgression. This also is made a
subject of inquiry by some, viz., who the angel was that, speaking from heaven
to Abraham, said, "Now I know that thou fearest God, and on my account hast not
spared thy beloved son, whom thou lovedst."254 For he is manifestly described as
an angel who said that he knew then that Abraham feared God, and had not spared
his beloved son, as the Scripture declares, although he did not say that it was
on account of God that Abraham had done this, but on his, that is, the speaker's
account. We must also ascertain who that is of whom it is stated in the book of
Exodus that he wished to slay Moses, because he was taking his departure for
Egypt;255 and afterwards, also, who he is that is called the destroying256
angel, as well as he who in the book of Leviticus is called Apopompaeus, i.e.,
Averter, regarding whom Scripture says, "One lot for the Lord, and one lot for
Apopompaeus, i.e., the Averter."257 In the first book of Kings, also, an evil
spirit is said to strangle258 Saul; and in the third book, Micaiah the prophet
says, "I saw the Lord of Israel sitting on His throne, and all the host of
heaven standing by Him, on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said,
Who will deceive Achab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at
Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And
there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will deceive
him. And the Lord said to him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I
will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, Thou shalt
deceive him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so quickly. And now therefore
the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets: the Lord hath
spoken evil concerning thee."259 Now by this last quotation it is clearly shown
that a certain spirit, from his own (free) will and choice, elected to deceive
(Achab), and to work a lie, in order that the Lord might mislead the king to his
death, for he deserved to suffer. In the first book of Chronicles also it is
said, "The devil, Satan, stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
the people."260 In the Psalms, moreover, an evil angel is said to harass261
certain persons. In the book of Ecclesiastes, too, Solomon says, "If the spirit
of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for soundness will
restrain many transgressions."262 In Zechariah263 we read that the devil stood
on the right hand of Joshua, and resisted him. Isaiah says that the sword of the
Lord arises against the dragon, the crooked264 serpent.265 And what shall I say
of Ezekiel, who in his second vision prophesies most unmistakeably to the prince
of Tyre regarding an opposing power, and who says also that the dragon dwells in
the rivers of Egypt?266 Nay, with what else are the contents of the whole work
which is written regarding Job occupied, save with the (doings) of the devil,
who asks that power may be given him over all that Job possesses, and over his
sons, and even over his person? And yet the devil is defeated through the
patience of Job. In that book the Lord has by His answers imparted much
information regarding the power of that dragon which opposes us. Such,
meanwhile, are tree statements made in the Old Testament, so far as we can at
present recall them, on the subject of hostile powers being either named in
Scripture, or being said to oppose the human race, and to be afterwards
subjected to punishment.

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."267 And the Apostle Paul teaches us that we ought not to give
place to the devil; but "put on," he says, "the armour of God, that ye may be
able to resist the wiles of the devil: "268 pointing out that the saints have to
"wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places."269 Nay, he says that the Saviour even was crucified
by the princes of this world, who shall come to nought,270 whose wisdom also, he
says, he does not speak. By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that
there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it
commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the more simple among the believers
in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have committed
are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the
minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle these powers are found to
be superior (to man). For if, for example, there were no devil, no single human
being271 would go astray.

2. We, however, who see the reason (of the thing) more clearly, do not hold this
opinion, taking into account those (sins) which manifestly originate as a
necessary consequence of our bodily constitution.272 Must we indeed suppose that
the devil is the cause of our feeling hunger or thirst? Nobody, I think, will
venture to maintain that. If, then, he is not the cause of our feeling hunger
and thirst, wherein lies the difference when each individual has attained the
age of puberty, and that period has called forth the incentives of the natural
heat? It will undoubtedly follow, that as the devil is not the cause of our
feeling hunger and thirst, so neither is he the cause of that appetency which
naturally arises at the time of maturity, viz., the desire of sexual
intercourse. Now it is certain that this cause is not always so set in motion by
the devil that we should be obliged to suppose that bodies would nor possess a
desire for intercourse of that kind if the devil did not exist. Let us consider,
in the next place, if, as we have already shown, food is desired by human
beings, not from a suggestion of the devil, but by a kind of natural instinct,
whether, if there were no devil, it were possible for human experience to
exhibit such restraint in partaking of food as never to exceed the proper
limits; i.e., that no one would either take otherwise than the case required, or
more than reason would allow; and so it would result that men, observing due
measure and moderation in the matter of eating, would never go wrong. I do not
think, indeed, that so great moderation could be observed by men (even if there
were no instigation by the devil inciting thereto), as that no individual, in
partaking of food, would go beyond due limits and restraint, until he had
learned to do so from long usage and experience. What, then, is the state of the
case? In the matter of eating and drinking it was possible for us to go wrong,
even without any incitement from the devil, if we should happen to be either
less temperate or less careful (than we ought); and are we to suppose, then, in
our appetite for sexual intercourse, or in the restraint of our natural desires,
our condition is not something similar?273 I am of opinion, indeed, that the
same course of reasoning must be understood to apply to other natural movements
as those of covetousness, or of anger, or of sorrow, or of all those generally
which through the vice of intemperance exceed the natural bounds of moderation.
There are therefore manifest reasons for holding the opinion, that as in good
things the human will274 is of itself weak to accomplish any good (for it is by
divine help that it is brought to perfection in everything); so also, in things
of an opposite nature we receive certain initial elements, and, as it were,
seeds of sins, from those things which we use agreeably to nature;275 but when
we have indulged them beyond what is proper, and have not resisted the first
movements to intemperance, then the hostile power, seizing the occasion of this
first transgression, incites and presses us hard in every way, seeking to extend
our sins over a wider field, and furnishing us human beings with occasions and
beginnings of sins, which these hostile powers spread far and wide, and, if
possible, beyond all limits. Thus, when men at first for a little desire money,
covetousness begins to grow as the passion increases, and finally the fall into
avarice takes place. And after this, when blindness of mind has succeeded
passion, and the hostile powers, by their suggestions, hurry on the mind, money
is now no longer desired, but stolen, and acquired by force, or even by shedding
human blood. Finally, a confirmatory evidence Of the fact that vices of such
enormity proceed from demons, may be easily seen in this, that those individuals
who are oppressed either by immoderate love, or incontrollable anger, or
excessive sorrow, do not suffer less than those who are bodily vexed by devils.
For it is recorded in certain histories, that some have fallen into madness from
a state of love, others from a state of anger, not a few from a state of sorrow,
and even from one of excessive joy; which results, I think, from this, that
those opposing powers, i.e., those demons, having gained a lodgment in their
minds which has been already laid open to them by intemperance, have taken
complete possession of their sensitive nature,276 especially when no feeling of
the glory of virtue has aroused them to resistance.

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."277 If, then,
the flesh lust against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, we have
occasionally to wrestle against flesh and blood, i.e., as being men, and walking
according to the flesh, and not capable of being tempted by greater than human
temptations; since it is said of us, "There hath no temptation taken you, but
such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be
tempted above that ye are able."278 For as the presidents of the public games do
not allow the competitors to enter the lists indiscriminately or fortuitously,
but after a careful examination, pairing in a most impartial consideration
either of size or age, this individual with that-boys, e.g., with boys, men with
men, who are nearly related to each other either in age or strength; so also
must we understand the procedure of divine providence, which arranges on most
impartial principles all who descend into the struggles of this human life,
according to the nature of each individual's power, which is known only to Him
who alone beholds the hearts of men: so that one individual fights against one
temptation of the flesh,279 another against a second; one is exposed to its
influence for so long a period of time, another only for so long; one is tempted
by the flesh to this or that indulgence, another to one of a different kind; one
has to resist this or that hostile power, another has to combat two or three at
the same time; or at one time this hostile influence, at another that; at some
particular date having to resist one enemy, and at another a different one;
being, after the performance of certain acts, exposed to one set of enemies,
after others to a second. And observe whether some such state of things be not
indicated by the language of the apostle: "God is faithful, who will not suffer
you to be tempted above what ye are able,"280 i.e., each one is tempted in
proportion to the amount of his strength or power of resistance.281 Now,
although we have said that it is by the just judgment of God that every one is
tempted according to the amount of his strength, we are not therefore to suppose
that he who is tempted ought by all means to prove victorious in the struggle;
in like manner as he who contends in the lists, although paired with his
adversary on a just principle of arrangement, will nevertheless not necessarily
prove conqueror. But unless the powers of the combatants are equal, the prize of
the victor will not be justly won; nor will blame justly attach to the
vanquished, because He allows us indeed to be tempted, but not "beyond what we
are able: "for it is in proportion to our strength that we are tempted; and it
is not written that, in temptation, He will make also a way to escape so as that
we should bear it, but a way to escape so as that we should be able to bear
it.282 But it depends upon ourselves to use either with energy or feebleness
this power which He has given us. For there is no doubt that under every
temptation we have a power of endurance, if we employ properly the strength that
is granted us. But it is not the same thing to possess the power of conquering
and to be victorious, as the apostle himself has shown in very cautious
language, saying, "God will make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear
it,"283 not that you will bear it. For many do not sustain temptation, but are
overcome by it. Now God enables us not to sustain (temptation), (otherwise there
would appear to be no struggle), but to have the power of sustaining it.284 But
this power which is given us to enable us to conquer may be used, according to
our faculty of free-will, either in a diligent manner, and then we prove
victorious, or in a slothful manner, and then we are defeated. For if such a
power were wholly given us as that we must by all means prove victorious, and
never be defeated, what further reason for a struggle could remain to him who
cannot be overcome? Or what merit is there in a victory, where the power of
successful resistance285 is taken away? But if the possibility of conquering be
equally conferred on us all, and if it be in our own power how to use this
possibility, i.e., either diligently or slothfully, then will the vanquished be
justly censured, and the victor be deservedly lauded. Now from these points
which we have discussed to the best of our power, it is, I think, clearly
evident that there are certain transgressions which we by no means commit under
the pressure of malignant powers; while there are others, again, to which we are
incited by instigation on their part to excessive and immoderate indulgence.
Whence it follows that we have to inquire how those opposing powers produce
these incitements within us.

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,286 unless it be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture,
That, then, thoughts arise within ourselves, David testifies in the Psalms,
saying, "The thought of a man will make confession to Thee, and the rest of the
thought shall observe to Thee a festival day."287 That this, however, is also
brought about by the opposing powers, is shown by Solomon in the book of
Ecclesiastes in the following manner: "If the spirit of the ruler rise up
against thee, leave not thy place; for soundness restrains great offences."288
The Apostle Paul also will bear testimony to the same point in the words:
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalted itself against the
knowledge of Christ."289 That it is an effect due to God, nevertheless, is
declared by David, when he says in the Psalms, "Blessed is the man whose help is
in Thee, O Lord, Thy ascents (are) in his heart."290 And the apostle says that
"God put it into the heart of Titus."291 That certain thoughts are suggested to
men's hearts either by good or evil angels, is shown both by the angel that
accompanied Tobias,292 and by the language of the prophet, where he says, "And
the angel who spoke in me answered."293 The book of the Shepherd294 declares the
same, saying that each individual is attended by two angels; that whenever good
thoughts arise in our hearts, they are suggested by the good angel; but when of
a contrary kind, they are the instigation of the evil angel. The same is
declared by Barnabas in his Epistle,295 where he says there are two ways, one of
light and one of darkness, over which he asserts that certain angels are
placed;-the angels of God over the way of light, the angels of Satan over the
way of darkness. We are not, however, to imagine that any other result follows
from what is suggested to our heart, whether good or bad, save a (mental)
commotion only, and an incitement instigating us either to good or evil. For it
is quite within our reach, when a malignant power has begun to incite us to
evil, to cast away from us the wicked suggestions, and to resist the vile
inducements, and to do nothing that is at all deserving of blame. And, on the
other hand, it is possible, when a divine power calls us to better things, not
to obey the call; our freedom of will being preserved to us in either case. We
said, indeed, in the foregoing pages, that certain recollections of good or evil
actions were suggested to us either by the act of divine providence or by the
opposing powers, as is shown in the book of Esther, when Artaxerxes had not
remembered the services of that just man Mordecai, but, when wearied out with
his nightly vigils, had it put into his mind by God to require that the annals
of his great deeds should be read to him; whereon, being reminded of the
benefits received from Mordecai, he ordered his enemy Haman to be hanged, but
splendid honours to be conferred on him, and impunity from the threatened danger
to be granted to the whole of the holy nation. On the other hand, however, we
must suppose that it was through the hostile influence of the devil that the
suggestion was introduced into the minds of the high priests and the scribes
which they made to Pilate, when they came and said, "Sir, we remember that that
deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again."296
The design of Judas, also, respecting the betrayal of our Lord and Saviour, did
not originate in the wickedness of his mind alone. For Scripture testifies that
the "devil had already put it into his heart to betray Him."297 And therefore
Solomon rightly commanded, saying, "Keep thy heart with all diligence."298 And
the Apostle Paul warns us: "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to
the things which we have heard, lest perhaps we should let them slip."299 And
when he says, "Neither give place to the devil,"300 he shows by that injunction
that it is through certain acts, or a kind of mental slothfulness, that room is
made for the devil, so that, if he once enter our heart, he will either gain
possession of us, or at least will pollute the soul, if he has not obtained the
entire mastery over it, by casting on us his fiery darts; and by these we are
sometimes deeply wounded, and sometimes only set on fire. Seldom indeed, and
only in a few instances, are these fiery darts quenched, so as not to find a
place where they may wound, i.e., when one is covered by the strong and mighty
shield of faith. The declaration, indeed, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, "We
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness
in high places,"301 must be so understood as if "we" meant, "I Paul, and you
Ephesians, and all who have not to wrestle against flesh and blood: "for such
have to struggle against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, not like the Corinthians, whose struggle was as yet
against flesh and blood, and who had been overtaken by no temptation but such as
is common to man.

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.302 But as, for example, if fifty soldiers were to say that they
were about to engage with fifty others, they would not be understood to mean
that one of them had to contend against the whole fifty, but each one would
rightly say that "our battle was against fifty," all against all; so also this
is to be understood as the apostle's meaning, that all the athletes and soldiers
of Christ have to wrestle and struggle against all the adversaries
enumerated,-the struggle having, indeed, to be maintained against all, but by
single individuals either with individual powers, or at least in such manner as
shall be determined by God, who is the just president of the struggle. For I am
of opinion that there is a certain limit to the powers of human nature, although
there may be a Paul, of whom it is said, "He is a chosen vessel unto Me; "303 or
a Peter, against whom the gates of hell do not prevail; or a Moses, the friend
of God: yet not one of them could sustain, without destruction to himself,304
the whole simultaneous assault of these opposing powers, unless indeed the might
of Him alone were to work in him, who said, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome
the world."305 And therefore Paul exclaims with confidence, "I can do all things
through Christ, who strengtheneth me; "306 and again, "I laboured more
abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."307
On account, then, of this power, which certainly is not of human origin
operating and speaking in him, Paul could say, "For I am persuaded that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,
nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor power, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord."308 For I do not think that human nature can alone of itself maintain a
contest with angels, and with the powers of the height and of the abyss,309 and
with any other creature; but when it feels the presence of the Lord dwelling
within it, confidence in the divine help will lead it to say, "The Lord is my
light, and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the protector of my
life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the enemies draw near to me, to eat my
flesh, my enemies who trouble me, they stumbled and fell. Though an host encamp
against me, my heart shall not fear; though war should rise against me, in Him
shall I be confident."310 From which I infer that a man perhaps would never be
able of himself to vanquish an opposing power, unless he had the benefit of
divine assistance. Hence, also, the angel is said to have wrestled with Jacob.
Here, however, I understand the writer to mean, that it was not the same thing
for the angel to have wrestled with Jacob, and to have wrestled against him; but
the angel that wrestles with him is he who was present with him in order to
secure his safety, who, after knowing also his moral progress, gave him in
addition the name of Israel, i.e., he is with him in the struggle, and assists
him in the contest; seeing there was undoubtedly another angel against whom he
contended, and against whom he had to carry on a contest. Finally, Paul has not
said that we wrestle with princes, or with powers, but against principalities
and powers. And hence, although Jacob wrestled, it was unquestionably against
some one of those powers which, Paul declares, resist and contend with the human
race, and especially with the saints. And therefore at last the Scripture says
of him that "he wrestled with the angel, and had power with God," so that the
struggle is supported by help of the angel, but the prize of success conducts
the conqueror to God.

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;311 but
spirit contends with spirit, according to the declaration of Paul, that our
struggle is against principalities, and powers, and the rulers of the darkness
of this world. Nay, the following is to be understood as the nature of the
struggles; when, e.g., losses and dangers befall us, or calumnies and false
accusations are brought against us, it not being the object of the hostile
powers that we should suffer these (trials) only, but that by means of them we
should be driven either to excess of anger or sorrow, or to the last pitch of
despair; or at least, which is a greater sin, should be forced, when fatigued
and overcome by any annoyances, to make complaints against God, as one who does
not administer human life justly and equitably; the consequence of which is,
that our faith may be weakened, or our hopes disappointed, or we may be
compelled to give up the truth of our opinions, or be led to entertain
irreligious sentiments regarding God. For some such things are written regarding
Job, after the devil had requested God that power should be given him over his
goods. By which also we are taught, that it is not by any accidental attacks
that we are assailed, whenever we are visited with any such loss of property,
nor that it is owing to chance when one of us is taken prisoner, or when the
dwellings in which those who are dear to us are crushed to death, fall in ruins;
for, with respect to all these occurrences, every believer ought to say, "Thou
couldst have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from
above."312 For observe that the house of Job did not fall upon his sons until
the devil had first received power against them; nor would the horsemen have
made an irruption in three bands,313 to carry away his camels or his oxen, and
other cattle, unless they had been instigated by that spirit to whom they had
delivered themselves up as the servants of his will. Nor would that fire, as it
seemed to be, or thunderbolt, as it has been considered, have fallen upon the
sheep of the patriarch, until the devil had said to God, "Hast Thou not made a
hedge about all that is without and within his house and around all the rest of
his property? But now put forth Thy hand, and touch all that he hath, (and see)
if he do not renounce Thee to Thy face."314

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."315 But the necessity of the case has drawn us away in a
lengthened digression on the subject of the struggle waged by the hostile powers
against men, and of those sadder events which happen to human life, i.e., its
temptations-according to the declaration of Job, "Is not the whole life of man
upon the earth a temptation? "316 -in order that the manner of their occurrence,
and the spirit in which we should regard them, might be clearly shown. Let us
notice next, how men fall away into the sin of false knowledge, or with what
object the opposing powers are wont to stir up conflict with us regarding such
things.

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."317 In this passage, wishing to
describe the different kinds of wisdom, he points out that there is a wisdom of
this world, and a wisdom of the princes of this world, and another wisdom of
God. But when he uses the expression "wisdom of the princes of this world," I do
not think that he means a wisdom common to all the princes of this world, but
one rather that is peculiar to certain individuals among them. And again, when
he says, "We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which
God ordained before the world unto our glory,"318 we must inquire whether his
meaning be, that this is the same wisdom of God which was hidden from other
times and generations, and was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now
been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets, and Which was also that wisdom
of God before the advent of the Saviour, by means of which Solomon obtained his
wisdom, and in reference to which the language of the Saviour Himself declared,
that what He taught was greater than Solomon, in these words, "Behold, a greater
than Solomon is here,"319 -words which show, that those who were instructed by
the Saviour were instructed in something higher than the knowledge of Solomon.
For if one were to assert that the Saviour did indeed Himself possess greater
knowledge, but did not communicate more to others than Solomon did, how will
that agree with the statement which follows: "The queen of the south shall rise
up in the judgment, and condemn the men of this generation, because she came
from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater
than Solomon is here? "There is therefore a wisdom of this world, and also
probably a wisdom belonging to each individual prince of this world. But with
respect to the wisdom of God alone, we perceive that this is indicated, that it
operated to a less degree in ancient and former times, and was (afterwards)more
fully revealed and manifested through Christ. We shall inquire, however,
regarding the wisdom of God in the proper place.

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.320 I am
of opinion, therefore, as I have stated above, that there is another wisdom of
this world besides those (different kinds of) wisdom321 which belong to the
princes of this world, by which wisdom those things seem to be understood and
comprehended which belong to this world. This wisdom, however, possesses in
itself no fitness for forming any opinion either respecting divine things,322 or
the plan of the world's government, or any other subjects of importance, or
regarding the training for a good or happy life; but is such as deals wholly
with the art of poetry, e.g., or that of grammar, or rhetoric, or geometry, or
music, with which also, perhaps, medicine should be classed. In all these
subjects we are to suppose that the wisdom of this world is included. The wisdom
of the princes of this world, on the other hand, we understand to be such as the
secret and occult philosophy, as they call it, of the Egyptians, and the
astrology of the Chaldeans and Indians, who make profession of the knowledge of
high things,323 and also that manifold variety of opinion which prevails among
the Greeks regarding divine things. Accordingly, in the holy Scriptures we find
that there are princes over individual nations; as in Daniel324 we read that
there was a prince of the kingdom of Persia, and another prince of the kingdom
of Graecia, who are clearly shown, by the nature of the passage, to be not human
beings, but certain powers. In the prophecies of Ezekiel,325 also, the prince of
Tyre is unmistakeably shown to be a kind of spiritual power. When these, then,
and others of the same kind, possessing each his own wisdom, and building up his
own opinions and sentiments, beheld our Lord and Saviour professing and
declaring that He had for this purpose come into the world, that all the
opinions of science, falsely so called, might be destroyed, not knowing what was
concealed within Him, they forthwith laid a snare for Him: for "the kings of the
earth set themselves, and the rulers assembled together, against the Lord and
His Christ."326 But their snares being discovered, and the plans which they had
attempted to carry out being made manifest when they crucified the Lord of
glory, therefore the apostle says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,
but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who are
brought to nought, which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they
known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."327

3. We must, indeed, endeavour to ascertain whether that wisdom328 of the princes
of this world, with which they endeavour to imbue men, is introduced into their
minds by the opposing powers, with the purpose of ensnaring and injuring them,
or only for the purpose of deceiving them, i.e., not with the object of doing
any hurt to man; but, as these princes of this world esteem such opinions to be
true, they desire to impart to others what they themselves believe to be the
truth: and this is the view which I am inclined to adopt. For as, to take an
illustration, certain Greek authors, or the leaders of some heretical sect,
after having imbibed an error in doctrine instead of the truth, and having come
to the conclusion in their own minds that such is the truth, proceed, in the
next place, to endeavour to persuade others of the correctness of their
opinions; so, in like manner, are we to suppose is the procedure of the princes
of this world, in which to certain spiritual powers has been assigned the rule
over certain nations, and who are termed on that account the princes of this
world. There are besides, in addition to these princes, certain special
energies329 of this world, i.e., spiritual powers, which bring about certain
effects, which they have themselves, in virtue of their freedom of will, chosen
to produce, and to these belong those princes who practise the wisdom of this
world: there being, for example, a peculiar energy and power, which is the
inspirer of poetry; another, of geometry; and so a separate power, to remind us
of each of the arts and professions of this kind. Lastly, many Greek writers
have been of opinion that the art of poetry cannot exist without madness;330
whence also it is several times related in their histories, that those whom they
call poets331 were suddenly filled with a kind of spirit of madness. And what
are we to say also of those whom they call diviners,332 from whom, by the
working of those demons who have the mastery over them, answers are given in
carefully constructed verses? Those persons, too, whom they term Magi or
Malevolent,333 frequently, by invoking demons over boys of tender years, have
made them repeat poetical compositions which were the admiration and amazement
of all. Now these effects we are to suppose are brought about in the following
manner: As holy and immaculate souls, after devoting themselves to God with all
affection and purity, and after preserving themselves free from all contagion of
evil spirits,334 and after being purified by lengthened abstinence, and imbued
with holy and religious training, assume by this means a portion of divinity,
and earn the grace of prophecy, and other divine gifts; so also are we to
suppose that those who place themselves in the way of the opposing powers, i.e.,
who purposely admire and adopt their manner of life and habits,335 receive their
inspiration, and become partakers of their wisdom and doctrine. And the result
of this is, that they are filled with the working of those spirits to whose
service they have subjected themselves.

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,336 and, so to
speak, through their prophets, introduced various errors contrary to the rule of
Christian truth. Now we are to suppose rather that apostate and refugee
powers,337 which have departed from God out of the very wickedness of their mind
and will,338 or from envy of those for whom there is prepared (on their becoming
acquainted with the truth) an ascent to the same rank, whence they themselves
had fallen, did, in order to prevent any progress of that kind, invent these
errors and delusions of false doctrine. It is then clearly established, by many
proofs, that while the soul of man exists in this body, it may admit different
energies, i.e., operations, from a diversity of good and evil spirits. Now, of
wicked spirits there is a twofold mode of operation: i.e., when they either take
complete and entire possession of the mind,339 so as to allow their captives340
the power neither of understanding nor feeling; as, for instance, is the case
with those commonly called possessed,341 whom we see to be deprived of reason,
and insane (such as those were who are related in the Gospel to have been cured
by the Saviour); or when by their wicked suggestions they deprave a sentient and
intelligent soul with thoughts of various kinds, persuading it to evil, of which
Judas is an illustration, who was induced at the suggestion of the devil to
commit the crime of treason, according to the declaration of Scripture, that
"the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray
him."342 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.343 Now,
that by the suggestions of a good spirit the memory of man is aroused to the
recollection of better things, we have already shown by previous instances, when
we mentioned the cases of Mordecai and Artaxerxes.

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.344 And again, on the
other hand it is shown beyond a doubt, that some have been possessed by hostile
spirits from the very beginning of their lives: i.e., some were born with an
evil spirit; and others, according to credible histories, have practised
divination.345 from childhood. Others have been under the influence of the demon
called Python, i.e., the ventriloquial spirit, from the commencement of their
existence. To all which instances, those who maintain that everything in the
world is under the administration of Divine Providence (as is also our own
belief), can, as it appears to me, give no other answer, so as to show that no
shadow of injustice rests upon the divine government, than by holding that there
were certain causes of prior existence, in consequence of which the souls,
before their birth in the body, contracted a certain amount of guilt in their
sensitive nature, or in their movements, on account of which they have been
judged worthy by Divine Providence of being placed in this condition. For a soul
is always in possession of free-will, as well when it is in the body as when it
is without it; and freedom of will is always directed either to good or evil.
Nor can any rational and sentient being, i.e., a mind or soul, exist without
some movement either good or bad. And it is probable that these movements
furnish grounds for merit even before they do anything in this world; so that
onaccount of these merits or grounds they are, immediately on their birth, and
even before it, so to speak, assorted by Divine Providence for the endurance
either of good or evil.

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."346 On which account
our heart must be kept with all carefulness both by day and night, and no place
be given to the devil; but every effort must be used that the ministers of
God-those spirits, viz., who were sent to minister to them who are called to be
heirs of salvation347 -may find a place within us, and be delighted to enter
into the guest-chamber348 of our soul, and dwelling within us may guide us by
their counsels; if, indeed, they shall find the habitation of our heart adorned
by the practice of virtue and holiness. But let that be sufficient which we have
said, as we best could, regarding those powers which are hostile to the human
race.

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.

2. Now, of these opinions, let us first discuss that which is maintained by
some, that there is in us a good and heavenly soul, and another earthly and
inferior; and that the better soul is implanted within us from heaven, such as
was that which, while Jacob was still in the womb, gave him the prize of victory
in supplanting his brother Esau, and which in the case of Jeremiah was
sanctified from his birth, and in that of John was filled by the Holy Spirit
from the womb. Now, that which they term the inferior soul is produced, they
allege, along with the body itself out of the seed of the body, whence they say
it cannot live or subsist beyond the body, on which account also they say it is
frequently termed flesh. For the expression, "The flesh lusteth against the
Spirit,"349 they take to be applicable not to the flesh, but to this soul, which
is properly the soul of the flesh. From these words, moreover, they endeavour
notwithstanding to make good the declaration in Leviticus: "The life of all
flesh is the blood thereof."350 For, from the circumstance that it is the
diffusion of the blood throughout the whole flesh which produces life in the
flesh, they assert that this soul, which is said to be the life of all flesh, is
contained in the blood. This statement, moreover, that the flesh struggles
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and the further statement,
that "the life of all flesh is the blood thereof," is, according to these
writers, simply calling the wisdom of the flesh by another name, because it is a
kind of material spirit, which is not subject to the law of God, nor can be so,
because it has earthly wishes and bodily desires. And it is with respect to this
that they think the apostle uttered the words: "I see another law in my members,
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of
sin which is in my members."351 And if one were to object to them that these
words were spoken of the nature of the body, which indeed, agreeably to the
peculiarity of its nature, is dead, but is said to have sensibility, or
wisdom352 which is hostile to God, or which struggles against the spirit; or if
one were to say that, in a certain degree, the flesh itself was possessed of a
voice, which should cry out against the endurance of hunger, or thirst, or cold,
or of any discomfort arising either from abundance or poverty,-they would
endeavour to weaken and impair the force of such (arguments), by showing that
there were many other mental perturbations353 which derive their origin in no
respect from the flesh, and yet against which the spirit struggles, such as
ambition, avarice, emulation, envy, pride, and others like these; and seeing
that with these the human mind or spirit wages a kind of contest, they lay down
as the cause of all these evils, nothing else than this corporal soul, as it
were, of which we have spoken above, and which is generated from the seed by a
process of traducianism. They are accustomed also to adduce, in support of their
assertion, the declaration of the apostle, "Now the works of the flesh are
manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry,
poisonings,354 hatred, contentions, emulations, wrath, quarrelling, dissensions,
heresies, sects, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the like; "355 asserting
that all these do not derive their origin from the habits or pleasures of the
flesh, so that all such movements are to be regarded as inherent in that
substance which has not a soul, i.e., the fresh. The declaration, moreover, "For
ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men among you according to
the flesh are called,"356 would seem to require to be understood as if there
were one kind of wisdom, carnal and material, and another according to the
spirit, the former of which cannot indeed be called wisdom, unless there be a
soul of the flesh, which is wise in respect of what is called carnal wisdom. And
in addition to these passages they adduce the following: "Since the flesh
lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, so that we cannot
do the things that we would."357 What are these things now respecting which he
says, "that we cannot do the things that we would? "It is certain, they reply,
that the spirit cannot be intended; for the will of the spirit suffers no
hindrance. But neither can the flesh be meant, because if it has not a soul of
its own, neither can it assuredly possess a will. It remains, then, that the
will of this soul be intended which is capable of having a Will of its own, and
which certainly is opposed to the will of the spirit. And if this be the case,
it is established that the will of the soul is something intermediate between
the flesh add the spirit, undoubtedly obeying and serving that one of the two
which it has elected to obey. And if it yield itself up to the pleasures of the
flesh, it renders men carnal; but when it unites itself with the spirit, it
produces men of the Spirit, and who on that account are termed spiritual. And
this seems to be the meaning of the apostle in the words, "But ye are not in the
flesh, but in the Spirit."358

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 everything which is said to be a work of
the spirit is (a product of) the will of the spirit, and everything that is
called a work of the flesh (proceeds from) the will of the flesh. What else
then, besides these, is that will of the soul which receives a separate name,359
and which will, the apostle being opposed to our executing, says: "Ye cannot do
the things that ye would? "By this it would seem to be intended, that it ought
to adhere to neither of these two, i.e., to neither flesh nor spirit. But some
one will say, that as it is better for the soul to execute its own will than
that of the flesh; so, on the other hand, it is better to do the will of the
spirit than its own will. How, then, does the apostle say, "that ye cannot do
the things that ye would? "Because in that contest which is waged between flesh
and spirit, the spirit is by no means certain of victory, it being manifest that
in very many individuals the flesh has the mastery.

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,360 let us see
whether some such point as this may not be determined: that as it is better for
the soul to follow the spirit when the latter has overcome the flesh, so also,
if it seem to be a worse course for the former to follow the flesh in its
struggles against the spirit, when the latter would recall the soul to its
influence, it may nevertheless appear a more advantageous procedure for the soul
to be under the mastery of the flesh than to remain under the power of its own
will. For, since it is said to be neither hot nor cold, but to continue in a
sort of tepid condition, it will find conversion a slow and somewhat difficult
undertaking. If indeed it clung to the flesh, then, satiated at length, and
filled with those very evils which it suffers from the vices of the flesh, and
wearied as it were by the heavy burdens of luxury and lust, it may sometimes be
converted with greater ease and rapidity from the filthiness of matter to a
desire for heavenly things, and (to a taste for) spiritual graces. And the
apostle must be supposed to have said, that "the Spirit contends against the
flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we
would" (those things, undoubtedly, which are designated as being beyond the will
of the spirit, and the will of the flesh), meaning (as if we were to express it
in other words) that it is better for a man to be either in a state of virtue or
in one of wickedness, than in neither of these; but that the soul, before its
conversion to the spirit, and its union with it,361 appears during its adherence
to the body, and its meditation of carnal things, to be neither in a good
condition nor in a manifestly bad one, but resembles, so to speak, an animal. It
is better, however, for it, if possible, to be rendered spiritual through
adherence to the spirit; but if that cannot be done, it is more expedient for it
to follow even the wickedness of the flesh, than, placed under the influence of
its own will, to retain the position of an irrational animal.

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 commotions362 of the soul are which we suffer, when we feel
ourselves inwardly drawn in different directions; when there arises a kind of
contest of thoughts in our hearts, and certain probabilities are suggested us,
agreeably to which we lean now to this side, now to that, and by which we are
sometimes convicted of error, and sometimes approve of our acts.363 It is
nothing remarkable, however, to say of wicked spirits, that they have a varying
and conflicting judgment, and one out of harmony with itself, since such is
found to be the case in all men, whenever, in deliberating upon an uncertain
event, council is taken, and men consider and consult what is to be chosen as
the better and more useful course. It is not therefore surprising that, if two
probabilities meet, and suggest opposite views, they should drag the mind in
contrary directions. For example, if a man be led by reflection to believe and
to fear God, it cannot then be said that the flesh contends against the Spirit;
but, amidst the uncertainty of what may he true and advantageous, the mind is
drawn in opposite directions. So, also, when it is supposed that the flesh
provokes to the indulgence of lust, but better counsels oppose allurements of
that kind, we are not to suppose that it is one life which is resisting another,
but that it is the tendency of the nature of the body, which is eager to empty
out and cleanse the places filled with seminal moisture; as, in like manner, it
is not to be supposed that it is any opposing power, or the life of another
soul, which excites within us the appetite of thirst, and impels us to drink, or
which causes us to feel hunger, and drives us to satisfy it. But as it is by the
natural movements of the body that food and drink are either desired or
rejected,364 so also the natural seed, collected together in course of time in
the various vessels, has an eager desire to be expelled and thrown away, and is
so far from never being removed, save by the impulse of some exciting cause,
that it is even sometimes spontaneously emitted. When, therefore, it is said
that "the flesh struggles against the Spirit," these persons understand the
expression to mean that habit or necessity, or the delights of the flesh, arouse
a man, and withdraw him from divine and spiritual things. For, owing to the
necessity of the body being drawn away, we are not allowed to have leisure for
divine things, which are to be eternally advantageous. So again, the soul,
devoting itself to divine and spiritual pursuits, and being united to the
spirit, is said to fight against the flesh, by not permitting it to be relaxed
by indulgence, and to become unsteady through the influence of those pleasures
for which it feels a natural delight. In this way, also, they claim to
understand the words, "The wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God,"365 not that
the flesh really has a soul, or a wisdom of its own. But as we are accustomed to
say, by an abuse366 of language, that the earth is thirsty, and wishes to drink
in water, this use of the word "wishes" is not proper, but catachrestic,-as if
we were to say again, that this house wants to be rebuilt,367 and many other
similar expressions; so also is the wisdom of the flesh to be understood, or the
expression, that "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit." They generally connect
with these the expression, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from
the ground."368 For what cries unto the Lord is not properly the blood which was
shed; but the blood is said improperly to cry out, vengeance being demanded upon
him who had shed it. The declaration also of the apostle, "I see another law in
my members, warring against the law of my mind,"369 they so understand as if he
had said, That he who wishes to devote himself to the word of God is, on account
of his bodily necessities and habits, which like a sort of law are ingrained in
the body, distracted, and divided, and impeded, lest, by devoting himself
vigorously to the study of wisdom, he should be enabled to behold the divine
mysteries.

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.370 They also make this further inquiry, "Who will be found, or who will
be said to be, the creator of this evil sense, called the sense of the flesh?
"Because they defend the opinion that there is no other creator of soul and
flesh than God. And if we were to assert that the good God created anything in
His own creation that was hostile to Himself, it would appear to be a manifest
absurdity. If, then, it is written, that "carnal wisdom is enmity against
God,"371 and if this be declared to be a result of creation, God Himself will
appear to have formed a nature hostile to Himself, which cannot be subject to
Him nor to His law, as if it were (supposed to be) an animal of which such
qualities are predicated. And if this view be admitted, in what respect will it
appear to differ from that of those who maintain that souls of different natures
are created, which, according to their natures,372 are destined either to be
lost or saved? But this is an opinion of the heretics alone, who, not being able
to maintain the justice of God on grounds of piety, compose impious inventions
of this kind. And now we have brought forward to the best of our ability, in the
person of each of the parties, what might be advanced by way of argument
regarding the several views, and let the reader choose out of them for himself
that which he thinks ought to be preferred.

Chapter V.-That the World Took Its Beginning in Time.

1. And now, since there is one of the articles of the Church373 which is held
principally in consequence of our belief in the truth of our sacred history,
viz. that this world was created and took its beginning at a certain time, and,
in conformity to the cycle of time374 decreed to all things, is to be destroyed
on account of its corruption, there seems no absurdity in re-discussing a few
points connected with this subject. And so far, indeed, as the credibility of
Scripture is concerned, the declarations on such a matter seem easy of proof.
Even the heretics, although widely opposed on many other things, yet on this
appear to be at one, yielding to the authority of Scripture.

Concerning, then, the creation of the world, *83tion 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 pro-founder
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."375 If, then,
there be "last days," or a period "succeeding the last days," the days which had
a beginning must necessarily come to an end. David, too, declares: "The heavens
shall perish, but Thou shall endure; yea, all of them shall wax old as doth a
garment: as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed: but
Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end."376 Our Lord and Saviour,
indeed, in the words, "He who made them at the beginning, made them male and
female,"377 Himself bears witness that the world was created; and again, when He
says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away,"378 He
points out that they are perishable, and must come to an end. The apostle,
moreover, in declaring that "the creature was made subject to vanity, not
willingly, but by reason of Him who hath 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,"379 manifestly announces the end of the
world; as he does also when he again says, "The fashion of this world passeth
away."380 Now, by the expression which he employs, "that the creature was made
subject to vanity," he shows that there was a beginning to this world: for if
the creature were made subject to vanity on account of some hope, it was
certainly made subject from a cause; and seeing it was from a cause, it must
necessarily have had a beginning: for, without some beginning, the creature
could not be subject to vanity, nor could that (creature) hope to be freed from
the bondage of corruption, which had not begun to serve. But any one who chooses
to search at his leisure, will find numerous other passages in holy Scripture in
which the world is both said to have a beginning and to hope for an end.

2. Now, if there be any one who would here oppose either the authority or
credibility of our Scriptures,381 we would ask of him whether he asserts that
God can, or cannot, comprehend all things? To assert that He cannot, would
manifestly be an act of impiety. If then he answer, as he must, that God
comprehends all things, it follows from the very fact of their being capable of
comprehension, that they are understood to have a beginning and an end, seeing
that which is altogether without any beginning cannot be at all comprehended.
For however far understanding may extend, so far is the faculty of comprehending
illimitably withdrawn and removed when there is held to be no beginning.

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,382 when we say that not then for the first time
did God begin to work when He made this visible world; but as, after its
destruction, there will be another world, so also we believe that others existed
before the present came into being. And both of these positions will be
confirmed by the authority of holy Scripture. For that there will be another
world after this, is taught by Isaiah, who says, "There will be new heavens, and
a new earth, which I shall make to abide in my sight, saith the Lord; "383 and
that before this world others also existed is shown by Eccelesiastes, in the
words: "What is that which hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is that
which has been created? Even this which is to be created: and there is nothing
altogether new under the sun. Who shall speak and declare, Lo, this is new? It
hath already been in the ages which have been before us."384 By these
testimonies it is established both that there were ages385 before our own, and
that there will be others after it. It is not, however, to be supposed that
several worlds existed at once, but that, after the end of this present world,
others will take their beginning; respecting which it is unnecessary to repeat
each particular statement, seeing we have already done so in the preceding
pages.

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
katabolh/, which has been very improperly translated into Latin by "constitutio;
"for in Greek katabolh/ 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 mun-di," 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; "386 in which passage katabolh/ is
rendered by beginning (constitutio), which is to be understood as above
explained. The apostle also, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, has employed the
same language, saying, "Who hath chosen us before the foundation of the world;
"387 and this foundation he calls katabolh/, to be understood in the same sense
as before. It seems worth while, then, to inquire what is meant by this new
term; and I am, indeed, of opinion388 that, as the end and consummation of the
saints will be in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal, we must
conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from a
contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a similar
beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for which they hope, they
existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in those (ages) which are not seen,
and are eternal.389 And if this is so, then there has been a descent from a
higher to a lower condition, on the part not only of those souls who have
deserved the change by the variety of their movements, but also on that of those
who, in order to serve the whole world, were brought down from those higher and
invisible spheres to these lower and visible ones, although against their
will-"Because the creature was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because
of Him who subjected the same in hope; "390 so that both sun, and moon, and
stars, and angels might discharge their duty to the world, and to those souls
which, on account of their excessive mental defects, stood in need of bodies of
a grosser and more solid nature; and for the sake of those for whom this
arrangement was necessary, this visible world was also called into being. From
this it follows, that by the use of the word a descent from a higher to a lower
condition, shared by all in common, would seem to be pointed out. The hope
indeed of freedom is entertained by the whole of creation-of being liberated
from the corruption of slavery-when the sons of God, who either fell away or
were scattered abroad,391 shall be gathered together into one, or when they
shall have fulfilled their other duties in this world, which are known to God
alone, the Disposer of all things. We are, indeed, to suppose that the world was
created of such quality and capacity as to contain not only all those souls
which it was determined should be trained in this world, but also all those
powers which were prepared to attend, and serve, and assist them. For it is
established by many declarations that all rational creatures are of one nature:
on which ground alone could the justice of God in all His dealings with them be
defended, seeing every one has the reason in himself, why he has been placed in
this or that rank in life.

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
Himself392 of it, and, taking the form of a servant, was made obedient unto
death, that He might teach obedience to those who could not otherwise than by
obedience obtain salvation. He restored also the laws of rule and government393
which had been corrupted, by subduing all enemies under His feet, that by this
means (for it was necessary that He should reign until He had put all enemies
under His feet, and destroyed the last enemy-death) He might teach rulers
themselves moderation in their government. As He had come, then, to restore the
discipline, not only of government, but of obedience, as we have said,
accomplishing in Himself first what He desired to be accomplished by others, He
became obedient to the Father, not only to the death of the cross, but also, in
the end of the world, embracing in Himself all whom He subjects to the Father,
and who by Him come to salvation, He Himself, along with them, and in them, is
said also to be subject to the Father; all things subsisting in Him, and He
Himself being the Head of all things, and in Him being the salvation and the
fulness of those who obtain salvation. And this consequently is what the apostle
says of Him: "And when all things shall be subjected to Him, then shall the Son
also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be
all in all."

7. I know not, indeed, how the heretics, not understanding the meaning of the
apostle in these words, consider the term394 "subjection" degrading as applied
to the Son; for if the propriety of the title be called in question, it may
easily be ascertained from making a contrary supposition. Because if it be not
good to be in subjection, it follows that the opposite will be good, viz., not
to be in subjection. Now the language of the apostle, according to their view,
appears to indicate by these words, "And when all things shall be subdued unto
Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things
under Him,"395 that He, who is not now in subjection to the Father, will become
subject to Him when the Father shall have first subdued all things unto Him. But
I am astonished how it can be conceived to be the meaning, that He who, while
all things are not yet subdued to Him, is not Himself in subjection, should-at a
time when all things have been subdued to Him, and when He has become King of
all men, and holds sway over all things-be supposed then to be made subject,
seeing He was not formerly in subjection; for such do not understand that the
subjection of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to
perfection, and that the work undertaken by Him has been brought to a victorious
termination, seeing He has not only purified the power of supreme government
over the whole of creation, but presents to the Father the principles of the
obedience and subjection of the human race in a corrected and improved
condition.396 If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which
the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and
logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said
to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and
useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect
restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are
said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the
restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist.

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,397 they have unquestionably
obtained salvation;398 -from what causes or on what occasions these results take
place, or what the divine wisdom sees within them, or what movements of their
will leads God so to arrange all these things, is known to Him alone, and to His
only-begotten Son, through whom all things were created and restored, and to the
Holy Spirit, through whom all things are sanctified, who proceedeth from the
Father,399 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

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,400 is defined by many
philosophers as follows: The highest good, they say, is to become as like to God
as possible. But this definition I regard not so much as a discovery of theirs,
as a view derived from holy Scripture. For this is pointed out by Moses, before
all other philosophers, when he describes the first creation of man in these
words: "And God said, Let Us make man in Our own image, and after Our likeness;
"401 and then he adds the words: "So God created man in His own image: in the
image of God created He him; male and female created He them, and He blessed
them."402 Now the expression, "In the image403 of God created He him," without
any mention of the word" likeness,"404 conveys no other meaning than this, that
man received the dignity of God's image at his first creation; but that the
perfection of his likeness has been reserved for the consummation,-namely, that
he might acquire it for himself by the exercise of his own diligence in the
imitation of God, the possibility of attaining to perfection being granted him
at the beginning through the dignity of the divine image, and the perfect
realization of the divine likeness being reached in the end by the fulfilment of
the (necessary) works. Now, that such is the case, the Apostle John points out
more clearly and unmistakeably, when he makes this declaration: "Little
children, we do not yet know what we shall be; but if a revelation be made to us
from the Saviour, ye will say, without any doubt, we shall be like Him."405 By
which expression he points out with the utmost certainty, that not only was the
end of all things to be hoped for, which he says was still unknown to him, but
also the likeness to God, which will be conferred in proportion to the
completeness of our deserts. The Lord Himself, in the Gospel, not only declares
that these same results are future, but that they are to be brought about by His
own intercession, He Himself deigning to obtain them from the Father for His
disciples, saying, "Father, I will that where I am, these also may be with Me;
and as Thou and I are one, they also may be one in Us."406 In which the divine
likeness itself already appears to advance, if we may so express ourselves, and
from being merely similar, to become the same,407 because undoubtedly in the
consummation or end God is "all and in all." And with reference to this, it is
made a question by some408 whether the nature of bodily matter, although
cleansed and purified, and rendered altogether spiritual, does not seem either
to offer an obstruction towards attaining the dignity of the (divine) likeness,
or to the property of unity,409 because neither can a corporeal nature appear
capable of any resemblance to a divine nature which is certainly incorporeal;
nor can it be truly and deservedly designated one with it, especially since we
are taught by the truths of our religion that that which alone is one, viz., the
Son with the Father, must be referred to a peculiarity of the (divine) nature.

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.410 But this subject we have discussed at
greater length, as may be seen in the preceding pages.

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,"411 i.e., in the mansions of the
blessed. And from this statement we may form a conjecture, how pure, how
refined, and how glorious are the qualities of that body, if we compare it with
those which, although they are celestial bodies, and of most brilliant
splendour, were nevertheless made with hands, and are visible to our sight. But
of that body it is said, that it is a house not made with hands, but eternal in
the heavens. Since, then, those things "which are seen are temporal, but those
things which are not seen are eternal,"412 all those bodies which we see either
on earth or in heaven, and which are capable of being seen, and have been made
with hands, but are not eternal, are far excelled in glory by that which is not
visible, nor made with hands, but is eternal. From which comparison it may be
conceived how great are the comeliness, and splendour, and brilliancy of a
spiritual body; and how true it is, that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor
hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive, what God hath prepared for
them that love Him."413 We ought not, however, to doubt that the nature of this
present body of ours may, by the will of God, who made it what it is, be raised
to those qualities of refinement, and purity, and splendour (which characterize
the body referred to), according as the condition of things requires, and the
deserts of our rational nature shall demand. Finally, when the world required
variety and diversity, matter yielded itself with all docility throughout the
diverse appearances and species of things to the Creator, as to its Lord and
Maker, that He might educe from it the various forms of celestial and
terrestrial beings. But when things have begun to hasten to that consummation
that all may be one, as the Father is one with the Son, it may be understood as
a rational inference, that where all are one, there will no longer be any
diversity.

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 restoration414 to its Creator: for He made all things that
they might exist, and those things which were made for existence cannot cease to
be.415 For this reason also will they admit of change and variety, so as to be
placed, according to their merits, either in a better or worse position; but no
destruction of substance can befall those things which were created by God for
the purpose of permanent existence.416 For those things which agreeably to the
common opinion are believed to perish, the nature either of our faith or of the
truth will not permit us to suppose to be destroyed. Finally, our flesh is
supposed by ignorant men and unbelievers to be destroyed after death, in such a
degree that it retains no relic at all of its former substance. We, however, who
believe in its resurrection, understand that a change only has been produced by
death, but that its substance certainly remains; and that by the will of its
Creator, and at the time appointed, it will be restored to life; and that a
second time a change will take place in it, so that what at first was flesh
(formed) out of earthly soil, and was afterwards dissolved by death, and again
reduced to dust and ashes ("For dust thou art,"417 it is said, "and to dust
shall thou return"), will be again raised from the earth, and shall after this,
according to the merits of the indwelling soul, advance to the glory of a
spiritual body.

6. Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily substance
of ours will be brought, when all things shall be re-established in a state of
unity, and when God shall be all in all. And this result must be understood as
being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the
process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the
individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some
outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection,418
while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and
thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are
being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally
reached, who is called death, so that he also may be destroyed, and no longer be
an enemy. When, therefore, all rational souls shall have been restored to a
condition of this kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a
change into the glory of a spiritual body. For as we see it not to be the case
with rational natures, that some of them have lived in a condition of
degradation owing to their sins, while others have been called to a state of
happiness on account of their merits; but as we see those same souls who had
formerly been sinful, assisted, after their conversion and reconciliation to
God, to a state of happiness; so also are we to consider, with respect to the
nature of the body, that the one which we now make use of in a state of
meanness, and corruption, and weakness, is not a different body from that which
we shall possess in incorruption, and in power, and in glory; but that the same
body, when it has cast away the infirmities in which it is now entangled, shall
be transmuted into a condition of glory, being rendered spiritual, so that what
was a vessel of dishonour may, when cleansed, become a vessel unto honour, and
an abode of blessedness. And in this condition, also, we are to believe, that by
the will of the Creator, it will abide for ever without any change, as is
confirmed by the declaration of the apostle, when he says, "We have a house, not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens." For the faith of the Church419 does
not admit the view of certain Grecian philosophers, that there is besides the
body, composed of four elements, another fifth body, which is different in all
its parts, and diverse from this our present body; since neither out of sacred
Scripture can any produce the slightest suspicion of evidence for such an
opinion, nor can any rational inference from things allow the reception of it,
especially when the holy apostle manifestly declares, that it is not new bodies
which are given to those who rise from the dead, but that they receive those
identical ones which they had possessed when living, transformed from an
inferior into a better condition. For his words are: "It is sown an animal body,
it will rise a spiritual body; it is sown in corruption, it will arise in
incorruption: it is sown in weakness, it will arise in power: it is sown in
dishonour, it will arise in glory."420 As, therefore, there is a kind of advance
in man, so that from being first an animal being, and not understanding what
belongs to the Spirit of God, he reaches by means of instruction the stage of
being made a spiritual being, and of judging all things, while he himself is
judged by no one; so also, with respect to the state of the body, we are to hold
that this very body which now, on account of its service to the soul, is styled
an animal body, will, by means of a certain progress, when the soul, united to
God, shall have been made one spirit with Him (the body even then ministering,
as it were, to the spirit), attain to a spiritual condition and quality,
especially since, as we have often pointed out, bodily nature was so formed by
the Creator, as to pass easily into whatever condition he should wish, or the
nature of the case demand.

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,421 and is on this account found sometimes to be
engaged in the practice of good, and sometimes in that of the opposite. But this
corporeal nature admits of a change in substance; whence also God, the arranger
of all things, has the service of this matter at His command in the moulding, or
fabrication, or re-touching of whatever He wishes, so that corporeal nature may
be transmuted, and transformed into any forms or species whatever, according as
the deserts of things may demand; which the prophet evidently has in view when
he says, "It is God who makes and transforms all things."422

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."423 For this is the beginning of all
creation: to this beginning the end and consummation of all things must be
recalled, i.e., in order that that heaven and that earth may be the habitation
and resting-place of the pious; so that all the holy ones, and the meek, may
first obtain an inheritance in that land, since this is the teaching of the law,
and of the prophets, and of the Gospel. In which land I believe there exist the
true and living forms of that worship which Moses handed down under the shadow
of the law; of which it is said, that "they serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things"424 -those, viz., who were in subjection in the law. To Moses
himself also was the injunction given, "Look that thou make them after the form
and pattern which were showed thee on the mount."425 From which it appears to
me, that as on this earth the law was a sort of schoolmaster to those who by it
were to he conducted to Christ, in order that, being instructed and trained by
it, they might more easily, after the training of the law, receive the more
perfect principles of Christ; so also another earth, which receives into it all
the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the institutions of the true and
everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect
institutions of heaven, to which nothing can be added; in which there will be,
of a truth, that Gospel which is called everlasting, and that Testament, ever
new, which shall never grow old.

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 condition426 to which
nothing more can be added. Having discussed, up to this point, the quality of
bodily nature, or of spiritual body, we leave it to the choice of the reader to
determine what he shall consider best. And here we may bring the third book to a
conclusion.

1: Diebus quadragesimae.

2: Daemones.

3: Evangelicae lucernae lumine diabolicas ignorantiae tenebras.

4: Salvâ fidei Catholicae 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 mean what is contrary to the faith, as reduced to technical formula, at
Nicaea; i.e., Salva regula fidei . Note examples in the parallel columns
following.] 5: Comoediarum ridiculas fabulas.

6: 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.

7: peri tou autecousiou .

8: Natura ipsius arbitrii voluntatisque.

9: thn ennoian autou anaptucai .

10: Quaecunque hujusmodi sunt, quae solo habitu materiae suae vel corporum
constant.

11: Non tamen animantia sunt.

12: Phantasia.

13: Voluntas vel sensus.

14: Mella, ut aiunt, aeria congregandi. Rufinus seems to have read, in the
original, aeroplastein instead of khroplastein , - an evidence that he followed
in general the worst readings (Redepenning).

15: upo ecewj monhj .

16: fantasiaj .

17: fusewj fantastikhj .

18: kai oudenoj allou meta thn fantastikhn autou fusin pepisteumenou tou zwou .

19: Ordinatior quidem motus.

20: Incentivo quodam et naturali motu.

21: poswj .

22: para taj aformaj .

23: 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.

24: Causa ei perfecta et absoluta vel necessitas praevaricandi.

25: dia tasde taj piqanothtaj .

26: hskhkoti .

27: egguj ge tou bebaiwqhnai gegenhmenoj .

28: Naturalem corporis intemperiem; uilhn thn kataskeuhn .

29: Contra rationem totius eruditionis. In the Greek, "contra rationem" is
expressed by para to enargej esti : and the words logou paideutikou (rendered by
Rufinus "totius eruditionis," and connected with "contra rationem") belong to
the following clause.

30: Quibus nihil ad turpitudinem deest.

31: paraxarattein .

32: yilhn thn kataskeuhn .

33: logou paideutikou .

34: hmerothtoj

35: ecetasthn .

36: Mic. vi. 8.

37: Deut. xxx. 15.

38: Isa. i. 19, 20.

39: Ps. lxxxi. 13, 14.

40: Matt. v. 39.

41: Matt. v. 39.

42: Matt. v. 28.

43: Matt. vii. 24.

44: Matt. vii. 26.

45: Matt. xxv. 34 sq.

46: The words in the text are: His qui secundum patientiam boni operis, gloria
et incorruptio, qui quaerunt vitam eternam.

47: Rom. ii. 4-10.

48: Mic. vi. 8.

49: Cf. Deut. xxx. 15, 16, cf. 19.

50: Isa. i. 19, 20.

51: Ps. lxxxi. 13, 14.

52: Matt. v. 39.

53: Matt. v. 39.

54: Matt. v. 28.

55: eulogwj .

56: Cf. Matt. vii. 26.

57: Matt. xxv. 34.

58: Matt. xxv. 41.

59: dialegetai .

60: Rom. ii. 4-10.

61: Secundum pietatis reuglam.

62: Ex. iv. 21, etc.

63: Ezek. xi. 19, 20.

64: Justificationes.

65: The word "now" is added, as the term "flesh" is frequently used in the New
Testament in a bad sense (Redepenning).

66: Mark iv. 12.

67: Rom. ix. 16.

68: Phil. ii. 13.

69: Rom. ix. 18 sq.

70: Ex. iv. 21, cf. vii. 3.

71: Ezek. xi. 19, 20.

72: Cf. Mark iv. 12 and Luke viii. 10.

73: Rom. ix. 16.

74: Cf. Phil. ii. 13.

75: Gal. v. 8.

76: Rom. ix. 20, 21.

77: Rom. ix. 18.

78: Obstupefactus.

79: Naturaliter.

80: Commentitias fabulas introducunt.

81: Cf.Rom. ix. 18.

82: xrhzei de autou o Qeoj ... epi pleion apeiqountoj .

83: Quid faciente vel quid prospiciente.

84: Prospectus et intuitus Dei. Such is the rendering of ennoia by Rufinus.

85: Ex. ix. 17, cf. xi. 5 and xii. 12.

86: ennoian .

87: Cf. Ex. iv. 23 and ix. 17.

88: Cf. Ex. xii. 12.

89: eugnwmonh .

90: tranwj .

91: apograyamenoj tij gumnh th kefalh istato proj to ponhron einai ton
dhmiourgan .

92: Heb. vi. 7, 8.

93: Ex personâ imbrium.

94: Dure.

95: Bonitas et aequitas imbrium.

96: Propositum.

97: energeia .

98: dia to thj kakiaj upokeimenon tou par eautoiskakou .

99: Heb. vi. 7, 8.

100: dusfhmon .

101: Limum.

102: Cum utique secundum naturam unum sit.

103: Malitiae suae intentione conceperat.

104: Cf. Ex. viii. 27-29.

105: Tropum vel figuram sermonis.

106: Rom. ii. 4, 5.

107: para to upokeimenon .

108: kai to kata to braxu de anagegrafqai .

109: Cf. Ex. viii. 28, 29.

110: ouk atopon de kai pop sunhqeiaj ta toiauta paramuqhsasqai .

111: Rom. ii. 4, 5.

112: Et apostolicae similitudinis munimenti habere adhus videtur assertio.

113: Isa. lxiii. 17, 18. Here the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic text
114: Jer. xx. 7.

115: Morali utique tropo accipiendum.

116: Ferratum calcem.

117: Frenis ferratis.

118: Heb. xii. 6.

119: Rom. viii. 35.

120: Rationabilibus coelestibusque virtutibus.

121: Primatus.

122: Immaculatus.

123: Luke xviii. 14.

124: 1 Cor. i. 29.

125: duspeiqeij .

126: biaioi .

127: Isa. lxiii. 17, 18.

128: Jer. xx. 7.

129: idiothtoj .

130: fusiwsin .

131: amwmoj .

132: Cf. Luke xiv. 11.

133: Cf. 1 Cor. i. 29.

134: Non tamen sine certâ ratione.

135: Digeri. The rendering "dispersed" seems to agree best with the meaning
intended to be conveyed.

136: In the Greek the term is penthkontaetian .

137: tonapeiron aiwna .

138: ton apeiron aiwna .

139: penthkontaetian . Rufinus has " sexaginta annos ."

140: aperanton aiwna .

141: Haec.

142: Persecrutationis improbitas.

143: Substantialiter.

144: Wisd. vii. 16.

145: Capitulum.

146: Rom. ix. 18.

147: eikoni .

148: Haec.

149: Persecrutationis improbitas.

150: Substantialiter.

151: Wisd. vii. 16.

152: Capitulum.

153: Rom. ix. 18.

154: Ezek. xi. 19, 20.

155: Ezek. xi. 19, 20.

156: apo twn yilwn rhtwn to ef hmin anairwn .

157: xeiragwghsein .

158: Mark iv. 12.

159: Mark iv. 12.

160: wmothj .

161: dhmiourgou .

162: h amuntikh kai antapodotikh twn xeironwn proairesij .

163: eugnwmonwj .

164: oudenoj elatton .

165: Prospera sanitas.

166: Aula.

167: Mentes.

168: Evidentissimâ assertione pietatis regulam teneamus.

169: Dispensatio humana.

170: Futuri status casusam praestat semper anterior meritorum status.

171: ewramenouj ou bebaiouj esesqai en th epistrofh .

172: twn baquterwn .

173: wj eikoj mallon porrw ontej thj aciaj twn ecw .

174: ei mh mallon hmeij proj tw ecetastikw kai to eusebej panth agwnizomeqa
threin peri Qeou , etc.

175: diaqeseij .

176: Rom. ix. 16.

177: Ad finem boni.

178: Medium est velle bona.

179: Rom. ix. 16.

180: Ps. cxxvii. 1.

181: Procinctum juvenum.

182: Supernae vocationis.

183: Valde consequenter.

184: 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.

185: "Nostra perfectio non quidem nobis cessantibus et otiosis efficitur." There
is an ellipsis of some such words as, "but by activity on our part."

186: Rom. ix. 16.

187: kataskeuhj .

188: kataskeuasantoj .

189: proairesewj .

190: para thn enargeian .

191: ta kreittona .

192: twn meswn esti .

193: asteion .

194: Rom. ix. 16.

195: wdh twn anabaqmwn .

196: Ps. cxxvii. 1.

197: ouk an ptaioimen .

198: 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.

199: h hmetera teleiwsij ouxi mhden hmwn pracantwn hinetai .

200: apartizetai .

201: pnohn .

202: eukrasian .

203: ariqmon .

204: eij uperbolhn pollaplasion .

205: eklambanein .

206: eceilhfasi ta kata ton topon .

207: Cf. Phil. ii. 13.

208: Hoc ipsum, quod homines sumus.

209: Sicut dicamus, quod movemur, ex Deo est.

210: Hoc ipsum, quod movetur.

211: Cf. Phil. ii. 13.

212: ta diaferonta .

213: hmeij men edocamen, o de Qeoj tauta edwrhsato .

214: to kaqolou qelein .

215: eulogwj .

216: to eidikon tode .

217: to men genidon, to kineisqai.

218: dhmiourgou .

219: Rom. ix. 18-21.

220: 2 Tim. i. 16-18.

221: 2 Cor. v. 10.

222: Ex ipsâ conditoris creatione.

223: 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.

224: Rom. ix. 18-21.

225: 2 Tim. i. 16-18.

226: ou kata ton auton dh apostolon esti .

227: para thn aitian tou dhmiourgou .

228: ugiej .

229: 2 Cor. v. 10.

230: epi touto pracewj .

231: 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.

232: aperikaqarton eauton periidwn .

233: prognwsin .

234: prokatakrinei h prodikaioi .

235: ek presbuterwn aitiwn .

236: Secundum praecedentes meritorum causas.

237: Ex. xix. 19.

238: Diversas animarum naturas.

239: Quodammodo.

240: oson epi th upokeimenh fusei .

241: enoj furamatoj twn logikwn upostasewn .

242: Cf. Ex. xix. 19.

243: kata filoneikian .

244: swzousi .

245: ekproterwn tinwn katorqwmatwn .

246: [Elucidation II.] 247: to ef hmin .

248: episthmh : probably in the sense of prognwsij .

249: thj kataxrhsewj tou kat acian tou ef hmin . "Nec sine usu liberi nostri
arbitrii, quod peculiare nobis et meriti nostri est" (Redepenning).

250: oute tou epi tw Qew monon .

251: ulhn tina diaforaj .

252: Gen. iii.

253: This apocryphal work, entitled in Hebrew hm try+p

254: Gen. xxii. 12. The reading in the text is according to the Septuagint and
Vulgate, with the exception of the words "quem dilexisyi," which are an
insertion.

255: Cf. Ex. iv. 24-26.

256: Ex. xii. 23, exterminator. Percussor , Vulgate; oloqreuwn , Sept.

257: Lev. xvi. 8. Apopompaioj is the reading of the Sept., "Caper emissarius" of
the Vulgate, lz)z( 258: 1 Sam. xviii. 10, effocare. Septuagint has epese :
Vulgate, "invasit;" the Masoretic text xlct 259: 1 Kings xxii. 19-23.

260: 1 Chron. xxi. 1.

261: Atterere.

262: Eccles. x. 4. "For yielding pacifieth great offences." The words in the
text are, "Quniam sanitas compescet multa peccata." The Vulgate has, "Curatio
faciet cessare peccata maxima." The Septuagint reads, Iama katapausei amartiaj
megalaj : while the Masoretic text has )brm 263: Zech. iii. 1.

264: Isa. xxvii. 1.

265: Isa. xxvii. 1.

266: Ezek. xxviii. 12 sq.

267: Cf. John xiii. 27.

268: Eph. vi. 13.

269: Eph. vi. 12.

270: Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.

271: Nemo hominum omnino.

272: Ex corporali necessitate descendunt.

273: Quod non simile aliquid pateremur?

274: Propositum.

275: Quae in usu naturaliter habentur.

276: Sensum eorum penitus possederint.

277: Gal. v. 17.

278: 1 Cor. x. 13.

279: Carnem talem.

280: 1 Cor. x. 13.

281: Pro virtutis suae quantitate, vel possibilitate.

282: Nec tamen scriptum est, quia faciet in tentatione etiam exitum sustinendi,
sed exitum ut sustinere possimus.

283: 1 Cor. x. 13.

284: Ut sustinere possimus.

285: Repugnandi vincendique.

286: Fabulosum.

287: Ps. lxxvi. 10. Such is the reading of the Vulgate and of the Septuagint.
The authorized version follows the Masoretic text.

288: Eccles. x. 4; cf. note 8, p. 329.

289: 2 Cor. x. 5.

290: Ps. lxxxiv. 5. The words in the text are: Beatus vir, cujus est susceptio
apud te, Domine, adscensus in corde ejus. The Vulgate reads: Beatus vir, cujus
est auxilium abs te: ascensiones in corde suo disposuit. The Septuagint the
same. The Masoretic text has twlsm 291: 2 Cor. viii. 16.

292: [See book of Tobit, chaps. v. vi. S.]

293: Zech. i. 14. The Vulgate, Septuagint, and Masoretic text all have "in me,"
although the Authorized Version reads "with me."

294: Shepherd of Hermas , Command. vi. 2. See vol. ii. p. 24.

295: Epistle of Barnabas . See vol. i. pp. 148, 149.

296: Matt. xxvii. 63.

297: John xiii. 2.

298: Prov. iv. 23.

299: Heb. ii. 1.

300: Eph. iv. 27.

301: Eph. vi. 12.

302: Sine maxima subversione sui.

303: Acts ix. 15.

304: Sine aliquâ pernicie sui.

305: John xvi. 33.

306: Phil. iv. 13.

307: 1 Cor. xv. 10.

308: Rom. viii. 38, 39. The word "virtus," dunamij , occurring in the text, is
not found in the text. recept . Tischendorf reads Dunameij in loco (edit. 7). So
also Codex Siniaticus.

309: Excelsa et profunda.

310: Ps. xxvii. 1-3.

311: Palaestricae artis exercitiis.

312: John xix. 11.

313: Tribus ordinibus.

314: Cf. Job i. 10, 11. "Nisi in faciem benedixerit tibi." The Hebrew verb r7b@
315: Matt. x. 29.

316: Cf. Job vii. 1. The Septuagint reads, poteron ouxi peirathrion , etc.; the
Vulgate, "militia," the Masoretic text has )bc 317: 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.

318: 1 Cor. ii. 7.

319: Matt. xii. 42.

320: Sapientiarum harum.

321: Sapientias illas.

322: De divinitate.

323: De scientiâ excelsi pollicentium.

324: Cf. Dan. x.

325: Cf. Ezek. xxvi.

326: Ps. ii. 2.

327: 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.

328: Istae sapientiae.

329: Energiae.

330: Insania.

331: Vates.

332: Divinos.

333: Magi vel malefici.

334: Daemonum.

335: Id est, industria vita, vel studio amico illis et accepto.

336: Per vasa opportuna sibi.

337: Apostatae et refugae virtutes.

338: Propositi.

339: Penitus ex integro.

340: Eos quos obsederint.

341: Energumenos.

342: John xix. 2.

343: [See Oehler's Old Testament Theology , §207, "Psychological Definition of
the Prophetic State in Ancient Times," pp. 468, 469. S.] 344: Jer. i. 5, 6.

345: Divinasse.

346: 1 Pet. v. 8.

347: Heb. i. 14.

348: Hospitium.

349: Gal. v. 17.

350: Lev. xvii. 14.

351: Rom. vii. 23.

352: Sensum vel sapientiam.

353: Passiones animae.

354: Veneficia. Farmakeia . "Witchcraft" (Auth. Version).

355: Gal. v. 19-21.

356: 1 Cor. i. 26.

357: Gal. v. 17.

358: Rom. viii. 9.

359: The text here is very obscure, and has given some trouble to commentators.
The words are: "Quae ergo ista est praeter haec voluntas animae quae 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
facta, Rom. i. 3, 4) apostolus non nominat, sed carnem tantum vel spiritum,"
etc. Schnitzer supposes that in the Greek the words were, Thj ecw kaloumenhj ,
where ecw is to be taken in the sense of katw , so that the expression would
mean "anima inferior."

360: In quâ necesse est ex singulis quibusque partibus quae possunt moveri
discutere.

361: Priusquam - unum efficiatur cum eo.

362: Passiones.

363: Quibus nunc quidem arguimur, nunc vero nosmet ipsos amplectimur.

364: Evacuantur.

365: Cf. Rom. viii. 2.

366: Abusive = improperly used.

367: Recomponi vult.

368: Gen. iv. 10.

369: Rom. vii. 23.

370: Plus studii vel propositi.

371: Rom. viii. 7.

372: Naturaliter.

373: De ecclesiasticis definitionibus unum.

374: Consummationem saeculi.

375: Gen. xlix. i. The Vulgate has, "In diebus novissimis;" the Sept. Ep esxatwn
twn hmerwn : the Masoretic text, tyrx)b@ 376: Ps. cii. 26, 27.

377: Matt. xix. 4.

378: Matt. xxiv. 35.

379: Rom. viii. 20, 21.

380: 1 Cor. vii. 31.

381: Auctoritate Scripturae nostrae, vel fidei.

382: Regulam pietatis.

383: Cf. Isa. lxvi. 22.

384: Cf. Eccles. i. 9, 10. The text is in conformity with the Septuag.: Ti to
gegonoj\ Auto to genhsomenon. Kai ti to pepoihmenon\ Auto to poihqhsomenon. Kai
ouk esti pan prosfaton upo ton hlion. Oj lalhsei kai erei. Ide touto kainon
estin hdh gegonen en toij aiwsi toij genomenoij apo emtrosqen hmwn .

385: Saecula.

386: Matt. xxiv. 21.

387: Eph. i. 4.

388: 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 0' by the apostle, received the
more elevated places of the world. Which `creature 0' 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 befog 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 disimilar, 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"
(Ruaeus).

389: [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.] 390: Cf. Rom.. viii. 20, 21.

391: Dispersi.

392: Exinanivit semet ipsum.

393: Regendi regnandique.

394: [Elucidation II.] 395: 1 Cor. xv. 28.

396: Cum non solum regendi ac regnandi summam, quam in universam emendaverit
creaturam, verum etiam obedientae et subjectione correcta reparataque humani
generis Patri offerat instituta.

397: By a profession of faith in baptism.

398: Indubitatam ceperit salutem.

399: It was not until the third Synod of Toledo, a.d. 589, that the "Filoque"
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.] 400:
Finis omnium: "bonorum" understood.

401: Gen. i. 26.

402: Gen. i. 27, 28.

403: Imago.

404: Similitudo.

405: Cf. 1 John iii. 2.

406: Cf. John xvii. 24; cf. 21.

407: Ex simili unum fieri.

408: 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
0' (Rom.. viii. 21). we so understand, that we say it was the first creation of
rational and incorporeal beings which is not subject to corruption, because it
was not clothed with bodies: for wherever bodies are, corruption immediately
follows. But afterwards it will be freed from the bondage of corruption, when
they shall have received the glory of the sons of God, and God shall be all in
all." And in the same place: "That we must believe the end of all things to be
incorporeal, the language of the Saviour Himself leads us to think, when He
says, `As I and Thou are one, so may they also be one in Us 0' (John xvii., 21),
For we ought to know what God is, and what the Saviour will be in the end, and
how the likeness of the Father and the Son has been promised to the saints; for
as they are one in Him, so they also are one in them. For we must adopt the
view, either that the God of all things is clothed with a body, and as we are
enveloped with flesh, so He also with some material covering, that the likeness
of the life of God may be in the end produced also in the saints: or if this
hypothesis is unbecoming, especially in the judgment of those who desire, even
in the smallest degree, to feel the majesty of God, and to look upon the glory
of His uncreated and all-surpassing nature we are forced to adopt the other
alternative, and despair either of attaining any likeness to God, if we are to
inhabit for ever the same bodies, or if the blessedness of the same life with
God is promised to us, we must live in the same state as that in which God
lives." All these points have been omitted by Rufinus as erroneous, and
statements of a different kind here and there inserted instead (Ruaeus).

409: Ad unitatis proprietatem

410: "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, 0' 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. I,
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 (Job xl. 19), to be mocked by the angels who have
lost the virtue of their original condition 0' ( exordii virtutem )." -Ruaeus.

411: 2 Cor. v. 1.

412: 2 Cor. iv. 18.

413: 1 Cor. ii. 9; cf. Isa. lxiv., 4.

414: 400 Insanabile.

415: ["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.] 416: Ut essent et permanerent.

417: Gen. iii. 19.

418: Ad summa.

419: [Elucidation IV.] 420: 1 Cor. xv. 28.

421: [Elucidation V.] 422: Cf. Ps. cii. 25, 26.

423: Gen. i. 1.

424: Heb. viii. 5.

425: Ex. xxv. 40.

426: 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, 0' 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 (Ruaeus).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 34: DE PRINCIPIIS - BOOK 4
========================================================================

Book IV. From the Latin.

Summary (of Doctrine) Regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
the Other Topics Discussed in the Preceding Pages.

Book IV. From the Latin.

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."1 And
now it follows that, agreeably to this view, ought the statement to be accepted
and explained that Egypt was scourged with ten plagues, to allow the people of
God to depart, or the account of what was done with the people in the
wilderness, or of the building of the tabernacle by means of contributions from
all the people, or of the wearing of the priestly robes, or of the vessels of
the public service, because, as it is written, they truly contain within them
the "shadow and form of heavenly things." For Paul openly says of them, that
"they serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."2 There are,
moreover, contained in this same law the precepts and institutions, according to
which men are to live in the holy land. Threatenings also are held out as
impending over those who shall transgress the law; different kinds of
purifications are moreover prescribed for those who required purification, as
being persons who were liable to frequent pollution, that by means of these they
may arrive at last at that one purification after which no further pollution is
permitted. The very people are numbered, though not all; for the souls of
children are not yet old enough to be numbered according to the divine command:
nor are those souls who cannot become the head of another, but are themselves
subordinated to others as to a head, who are called "women," who certainly are
not included in that numbering which is enjoined by God; but they alone are
numbered who are called "men," by which it might be shown that the women could
not be counted separately,3 but were included in those called men. Those,
however, especially belong to the sacred number, who are prepared to go forth to
the battles of the Israelites, and are able to fight against those public and
private enemies4 whom the Father subjects to the Son, who sits on His right hand
that He may destroy all principality and power, and by means of these bands of
His soldiery, who, being engaged in a warfare for God, do not entangle
themselves in secular business, He may overturn the Kingdom of His adversary; by
whom the shields of faith are borne, and the weapons of wisdom brandished; among
whom also the helmet of hope and salvation gleams forth, and the breastplate of
brightness fortifies the breast that is filled with God. Such soldiers appear to
me to be indicated, and to be prepared for wars of this kind, in those persons
who in the sacred books are ordered by God's command to be numbered. But of
these, by far the more perfect and distinguished are shown to be those of whom
the very hairs of the head are said to be numbered. Such, indeed, as were
punished for their sins, whose bodies fell in the wilderness, appear to possess
a resemblance to those who had made indeed no little progress, but who could not
at all, for various reasons, attain to the end of perfection; because they are
reported either to have murmured, or to have worshipped idols, or to have
committed fornication, or to have done some evil work which the mind ought not
even to conceive. I do not consider the following even to be without some
mystical meaning,5 viz., that certain (of the Israelites), possessing many
flocks and animals, take possession by anticipation of a country adapted for
pasture and the feeding of cattle, which was the very first that the right hand
of the Hebrews had secured in war.6 For, making a request of Moses to receive
this region, they are divided off by the waters of the Jordan, and set apart
from any possession in the holy land. And this Jordan, according to the form of
heavenly things, may appear to water and irrigate thirsty souls, and the senses
that are adjacent to it.7 In connection with which, even this statement does not
appear superfluous, that Moses indeed hears from God what is described in the
book of Leviticus, while in Deuteronomy it is the people that are the auditors
of Moses, and who learn from him what they could not hear from God. For as
Deuteronomy is called, as it were, the second law, which to some will appear to
convey this signification, that when the first law which was given through Moses
had come to an end, so a second legislation seems to have been enacted, which
was specially transmitted by Moses to his successor Joshua, who is certainly
believed to embody a type8 of our Saviour, by whose second law-that is, the
precepts of the Gospel-all things are brought to perfection.

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; "9 at the time, viz.,
when He will more worthily transfer all the saints from a temporal to an
everlasting Gospel, according to the designation, employed by John in the
Apocalypse, of "an everlasting Gospel."10

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,"11 and that the treasure of divine meaning is
enclosed within the flail vessel of the common letter. And if any curious reader
were still to ask an explanation of individual points, let him come and hear,
along with ourselves, how the Apostle Paul, seeking to penetrate by help of the
Holy Spirit, who searches even the "deep things" of God, into the depths of
divine wisdom and knowledge, and yet, unable to reach the end, so to speak, and
to come to a thorough knowledge, exclaims in despair and amazement, "Oh the
depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God!"12 Now, that it was from
despair of attaining a perfect understanding that he uttered this exclamation,
listen to his own words: "How unsearchable are God's judgments! and His ways,
how past finding out! "13 For he did not say that God's judgments were difficult
to discover, but that they were altogether inscrutable; nor that it was (simply)
difficult to trace out His ways, but that they were altogether past finding out.
For however far a man may advance in his investigations, and how great soever
the progress that he may make by unremitting study, assisted even by the grace
of God, and with his mind enlightened, he will not be able to attain to the end
of those things which are the object of his inquiries. Nor can any created mind
deem it possible in any way to attain a full comprehension (of things); but
after having discovered certain of the objects of its research, it sees again
others which have still to be sought out. And even if it should succeed in
mastering these, it will see again many others succeeding them which must form
the subject of investigation. And on this account, therefore, Solomon, the
wisest of men, beholding by his wisdom the nature of things, says, "I said, I
will become wise; and wisdom herself was made far from me, far further than it
was; and a profound depth, who shall find? "14 Isaiah also, knowing that the
beginnings of things could not be discovered by a mortal nature, and not even by
those natures which, although more divine than human, were nevertheless
themselves created or formed; knowing then, that by none of these could either
the beginning or the end be discovered, says, "Tell the former things which have
been, and we know that ye are gods; or announce what are the last things, and
then we shall see that ye are gods."15 For my Hebrew teacher also used thus to
teach, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no
one, save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a
vision Isaiah spake of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the
countenance of God, and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each
other alternately, and saying, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth; the
whole earth is full of Thy glory."16 That the seraphim alone have both their
wings over the face of God, and over His feet, we venture to declare as meaning
that neither the hosts of holy angels, nor the "holy seats," nor the
"dominions," nor the "principalities," nor the "powers," can fully understand
the beginning of all things, and the limits of the universe. But we are to
understand that those "saints" whom the Spirit has enrolled, and the "virtues,"
approach very closely to those very beginnings, and attain to a height which the
others cannot reach; and yet whatever it be that these "virtues" have learned
through revelation from the Son of God and from the Holy Spirit-and they will
certainly be able to learn very much, and those of higher rank much more than
those of a lower-nevertheless it is impossible for them to comprehend all
things, according to the statement, "The most part of the works of God are
hid."17 And therefore also it is to be desired that every one, according to his
strength, should ever stretch out to those things that are before, "forgetting
the things that are behind," both to better works and to a clearer apprehension
and understanding, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, to whom be glory for ever!

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
a0sw/maton, 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,18 i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time
when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that
the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without
any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the
understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of (His) love, will it appear
absurd if in this way He be called the Son of (His) will. Nay, John also
indicates that "God is Light,"19 and Paul also declares that the Son is the
splendour of everlasting light.20 As light, accordingly, could never exist
without splendour, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the
Father; for He is called the "express image of His person,"21 and the Word and
Wisdom. How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not
the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He
was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is
judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be
severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these
qualities are said to be many in understanding,22 yet in their nature and
essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this
expression which we employ-"that there never was a time when He did not
exist"-is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words "when" or
"never" have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made
regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all
time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the
comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other
things which are not included in it23 are to be measured by times and ages. This
Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning
with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in
respect of His being "Wisdom," or "Truth," or the "Life," or "Righteousness," or
"Sanctification," or "Redemption: "for all these properties do not require space
to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as
meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working.

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? "24 and again, "I live, yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me."25 Seeing, then, He was in Paul, who will doubt that He was
in a similar manner in Peter and in John, and in each one of the saints; and not
only in those who are upon the earth, but in those also who are in heaven? For
it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and in Paul, but not in Michael the
archangel, nor in Gabriel. And from this it is distinctly shown that the
divinity of the Son of God was not shut up in some place; otherwise it would
have been in it only, and not in another. But since, in conformity with the
majesty of its incorporeal nature, it is confined to no place; so, again, it
cannot be understood to be wanting in any. But this is understood to be the sole
difference, that although He is in different individuals as we have said-as
Peter, or Paul, or Michael, or Gabriel-He is not in a similar way in all beings
whatever. For He is more fully and clearly, and, so to speak, more openly in
archangels than in other holy men.26 And this is evident from the statement,
that when all Who are saints have arrived at the summit of perfection, they are
said to be made like, or equal to, the angels, agreeably to the declaration in
the Gospels.27 Whence it is clear that Christ is in each individual in as great
a degree as the amount of his deserts allows.28

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."29 In conformity
with which John also in his Gospel says: "All things were created by Him; and
without Him was not anything made."30 And David, intimating that the mystery of
the entire Trinity was (concerned) in the creation of all things, says: "By the
Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit
of His mouth."31

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 by John the Baptist,
when he said to the multitude in the bodily absence of Jesus, "There standeth
one among you whom ye know not: He it is who cometh after me, the latchet of
whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose."32 For it certainly could not be said of
Him, who was absent, so far as His bodily presence is concerned, that He was
standing in the midst of those among whom the Son of God was not bodily present.

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
power33 resembling Himself, and such as might unfailingly accomplish all the
desires and arrangements of the "word" and "wisdom." Now, that He had a soul,34
is most clearly shown by the Saviour in the Gospels, when He said, "No man
taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay down my
life, and I have power to take it again."35 And again, "My soul is sorrowful
even unto death."36 And again, "Now is my soul troubled."37 For the "Word" of
God is not to be understood to be a "sorrowful and troubled" soul, because with
the authority of divinity He says, "I have power to lay down my life." Nor yet
do we assert that the Son of God was in that soul as he was in the soul of Paul
or Peter and the other saints, in whom Christ is believed to speak as He does in
Paul. But regarding all these we are to hold, as Scripture declares, "No one is
clean from filthiness, not even if his life lasted but a single day."38 But this
soul which was in Jesus, before it knew the evil, selected the good; and because
He loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God "anointed Him with the
oil of gladness above His fellows."39 He is anointed, then, with the oil of
gladness when He is united to the "word" of God in a stainless union, and by
this means alone of all souls was incapable of sin, because it was capable of
(receiving) well and fully the Son of God; and therefore also it is one with
Him, and is named by His titles, and is called Jesus Christ, by whom all things
are said to be made. Of which soul, seeing it had received into itself the whole
wisdom of God, and the truth, and the life, I think that the apostle also said
this: "Our life is hidden with Christ in God; but when Christ, who is our life,
shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory."40 For what other
Christ can be here understood, who is said to be hidden in God, and who is
afterwards to appear, except Him who is related to have been anointed with the
oil of gladness, i.e., to have been filled with God essentially,41 in whom he is
now said to be hidden? For on this account is Christ proposed as an example to
all believers, because as He always, even before he knew evil at all, selected
the good, and loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, and therefore God
anointed Him with the oil of gladness; so also ought each one, after a lapse or
sin, to cleanse himself from his stains, making Him his example, and, taking Him
as the guide of his journey, enter upon the steep way of virtue, that so
perchance by this means, as far as possible we may, by imitating Him, be made
partakers of the divine nature. according to the words of Scripture: "He that
saith that he believeth in Christ, ought so to walk, as He also walked."42 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."43 Finally,
to the Corinthians who were weak, Paul declares that he "knew nothing, save
Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."44

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,45 viz., "Who, being
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but divested
Himself (of His glory)46 taking upon Himself the form of a servant; "47 since He
undoubtedly restored it to the form of God by means of better examples and
training, and recalled it to that fulness of which He had divested Himself. As
now by participation in the Son of God one is adopted as a son,48 and by
participating in that wisdom which is in God is rendered wise, so also by
participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered holy and spiritual. For it is
one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit)
of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and
incorporeal. And what we have said regarding the participation of the soul is to
be understood of angels and heavenly powers in a similar way as of souls,
because every rational creature needs a participation in the Trinity.

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
about49 the word "matter," which they have not yet been able to understand; of
which subject I now deem it necessary briefly to remind (the reader).

33. And, in the first place, it is to be noted that we have nowhere found in the
canonical Scriptures,50 up to the present time, the word "matter" used for that
substance which is said to underlie bodies. For in the expression of Isaiah,
"And he shall devour u\ #lh," i.e., matter, "like hay,"51 when speaking of those
who were appointed to undergo their punishments, the word "matter" was used
instead of "sins." And if this word "matter" should happen to occur in any other
passage, it will never be found, in my opinion, to have the signification of
which we are now in quest, unless perhaps in the book which is called the Wisdom
of Solomon, a work which is certainly not esteemed authoritative by all.52 In
that book, however, we find written as follows: "For thy almighty hand, that
made the world out of shapeless matter, wanted not means to send among them a
multitude of bears and fierce lions."53 Very many, indeed, are of opinion that
the matter of which things are made is itself signified in the language used by
Moses in the beginning of Genesis: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth;
and the earth was invisible, and not arranged: "54 for by the words "invisible
and not arranged" Moses would seem to mean nothing else than shapeless matter.
But if this be truly matter, it is clear then that the original elements of
bodies55 are not incapable of change. For those who posited "atoms"-either those
particles which are incapable of subdivision, or those which are subdivided into
equal parts-or any one element, as the principles of bodily things, could not
posit the word "matter" in the proper sense of the term among the first
principles of things. For if they will have it that matter underlies every
body-a substance convertible or changeable, or divisible in all its parts-they
will not, as is proper, assert that it exists without qualities. And with them
we agree, for we altogether deny that matter ought to be spoken of as
"unbegotten" or "uncreated," agreeably to our former statements, when we pointed
out that from water, and earth, and air or heat, different kinds of fruits were
produced by different kinds of trees; or when we showed that fire, and air, and
water, and earth were alternately converted into each other, and that one
element was resolved into another by a kind of mutual consanguinity; and also
when we proved that from the food either of men or animals the substance of the
flesh was derived, or that the moisture of the natural seed was converted into
solid flesh and bones;-all which go to prove that the substance of the body is
changeable, and may pass from one quality into all others.

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 nature56 is
nothing else than qualities. For if hardness and softness, heat and cold,
moisture and aridity, be qualities; and if, when these or other (qualities) of
this sort be cut away, nothing else is understood to remain, then all things
will appear to be "qualities." And therefore also those persons who make these
assertions have endeavoured to maintain, that since all who say that matter was
uncreated will admit that qualities were created by God, it may be in this way
shown that even according to them matter was not uncreated; since qualities
constitute everything, and these are declared by all without contradiction to
have been made by God. Those, again, who would make out that qualities are
superimposed from without upon a certain underlying matter, make use of
illustrations of this kind: e.g., Paul undoubtedly is either silent, or speaks,
or watches, or sleeps, or maintains a certain attitude of body; for he is either
in a sitting, or standing, or recumbent position. For these are "accidents"
belonging to men, without which they are almost never found. And yet our
conception of man does not lay down any of these things as a definition of him;
but we so understand and regard him by their means, that we do not at all take
into account the reason of his (particular) condition either in watching, or in
sleeping, or in speaking, or in keeping silence, or in any other action that
must necessarily happen to men.57 If any one, then, can regard Paul as being
without all these things which are capable of happening, he will in the same way
also be able to understand this underlying (substance) without qualities. When,
then, our mind puts away all qualities from its conception, and gazes, so to
speak, upon the underlying element alone, and keeps its attention closely upon
it, without any reference to the softness or hardness, or heat or cold, or
humidity or aridity of the substance, then by means of this somewhat simulated
process of thought58 it will appear to behold matter clear from qualities of
every kind.

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; "59 by which the mind of the prophet, examining with keener glance
the first principles of things, and separating in thought and imagination only
between matter and its qualities, perceived the imperfection of God, which
certainly is understood to be perfected by the addition of qualities. Enoch
also, in his book, speaks as follows: "I have walked on even to imperfection;
"60 which expression I consider may be understood in a similar manner, viz.,
that the mind of the prophet proceeded in its scrutiny and investigation of all
visible things, until it arrived at that first beginning in which it beheld
imperfect matter (existing) without "qualities." For it is written in the same
book of Enoch, "I beheld the whole of matter; "61 which is so understood as if
he had said: "I have clearly seen all the divisions of matter which are broken
up from one into each individual species either of men, or animals, or of the
sky, or of the sun, or of all other things in this world." After these points,
now, we proved to the best of our power in the preceding pages that all things
which exist were made by God, and that there was nothing which was not made,
save the nature of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that God,
who is by nature good, desiring to have those upon whom He might confer
benefits, and who might rejoice in receiving His benefits, created creatures
worthy (of this), i.e., who were capable of receiving Him in a worthy manner,
who, He says, are also begotten by Him as his sons. He made all things,
moreover, by number and measure. For there is nothing before God without either
limit or measure. For by His power He comprehends: all things, and He Himself is
comprehended by the strength of no created thing, because that nature is known
to itself alone. For the Father alone knoweth the Son, and the Son alone knoweth
the Father, and the Holy Spirit alone searcheth even the deep things of God. All
created things, therefore, i.e., either the number of rational beings or the
measure of bodily matter, are distinguished by Him as being within a certain
number or measurement; since, as it was necessary for an intellectual nature to
employ bodies, and this nature is shown to be changeable and convertible by the
very condition of its being created (for what did not exist, but began to exist,
is said by this very circumstance to be of mutable nature), it can have neither
goodness nor wickedness as an essential, but only as an accidental attribute of
its being. Seeing, then, as we have said, that rational nature was mutable and
changeable, so that it made use of a different bodily covering of this or that
sort of quality, according to its merits, it was necessary, as God foreknew
there would be diversities in souls or spiritual powers, that He should create
also a bodily nature the qualities of which might be changed at the will of the
Creator into all that was required. And this bodily nature must last as long as
those things which require it is a covering: for there will be always rational
natures which need a bodily covering; and there will therefore always be a
bodily nature whose coverings must necessarily be used by rational creatures,
unless some one be able to demonstrate by arguments that a rational nature can
live without a body. But how difficult-nay, how almost impossible-this is for
our understanding, we have shown in the preceding pages, in our discussion of
the individual topics.

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 of rational
natures. Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one
essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. For example, as
all eyes participate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the
light are of one nature; but although every eye partakes of the light, yet,
inasmuch as one sees more dearly, and another more obscurely, every eye does not
equally share in the light. And again, all hearing receives voice or sound, and
therefore all hearing is of one nature; but each one hears more rapidly or more
slowly, according as the quality of his hearing is clear and sound. Let us pass
now from these sensuous illustrations to the consideration of intellectual
things. Every mind which partakes of intellectual light ought undoubtedly to be
of one nature with every mind which partakes in a similar manner of intellectual
light. If the heavenly virtues, then, partake of intellectual light, i.e., of
divine nature, because they participate in wisdom and holiness, and if human
souls, have partaken of the same light and wisdom, and thus are mutually of one
nature and of one essence,-then, since the heavenly virtues are incorruptible
and immortal, the essence of the human soul will also be immortal and
incorruptible. And not only so, but because the nature of Father, and Son, and
Holy Spirit, whose intellectual light alone all created things have a share, is
incorruptible and eternal, it is altogether consistent and necessary that every
substance which partakes of that eternal nature should last for ever, and be
incorruptible and eternal, so that the eternity of divine goodness may be
understood also in this respect, that they who obtain its benefits are also
eternal. But as, in the instances referred to, a diversity in the participation
of the light was observed, when the glance of the beholder was described as
being duller or more acute, so also a diversity is to be noted in the
participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the degree of zeal
or capacity of mind. If such were not the case,62 we have to consider whether it
would not seem to be an act of impiety to say that the mind which is capable of
(receiving) God should admit of a destruction of its essence;63 as if the very
fact that it is able to feel and understand God could not suffice for its
perpetual existence, especially since, if even through neglect the mind fall
away from a pure and complete reception of God, it nevertheless contains within
it certain seeds of restoration and renewal to a better understanding, seeing
the "inner," which is also called the "rational" man, is renewed after "the
image and likeness of God, who created him." And therefore the prophet says,
"All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the
kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee."64

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.65 Or he who holds this opinion would certainly impugn the
authority of Scripture, which says that man was made in the image of God; and in
him are manifestly to be discovered traces of the divine image, not by any
appearance of the bodily frame, which is corruptible, but by mental wisdom, by
justice, moderation, virtue, wisdom, discipline; in fine, by the whole band of
virtues, which are innate in the essence of God, and which may enter into man by
diligence and imitation of God; as the Lord also intimates in the Gospel, when
He says, "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful; "66 and,
"Be ye perfect, even as your Father also is perfect."67 From which it is clearly
shown that all these virtues are perpetually in God, and that they can never
approach to or depart from Him, whereas by men they are acquired only slowly,
and one by one. And hence also by these means they seem to have a kind of
relationship with God; and since God knows all things, and none of things
intellectual in themselves can elude His notice68 (for God the Father alone, and
His only-begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, not only possess a knowledge of
those things which they have created, but also of themselves), a rational
understanding also, advancing from small things to great, and from things
visible to things invisible, may attain to a more perfect knowledge. For it is
placed in the body, and advances from sensible things themselves, which are
corporeal, to things that are intellectual. But lest our statement that things
intellectual are not cognisable by the senses should appear unbecoming, we shall
employ the instance of Solomon, who says, "You will find also a divine sense;
"69 by which he shows that those things which are intellectual are to be sought
out not by means of a bodily sense, but by a certain other which he calls
"divine." And with this sense must we look on each of those rational beings
which we have enumerated above; and with this sense are to be understood those
words which we speak, and those statements to be weighed which we commit to
writing. For the divine nature knows even those thoughts which we revolve within
us in silence. And on those matters of which we have spoken, or on the others
which follow from them, according to the rule above laid down, are our opinions
to be formed.

1: Cf. Gen. xxxii. 28-30.

2: Heb. viii. 5.

3: Extrinsecus.

4: Hostes inimicosque.

5: Ne illud quidem sacramento aliquo vacuum puto.

6: Quem primum omnium Israelitici belli dextra defenderat.

7: Rigare et inundare animas sitientes, et sensus adjacentes sibi.

8: Formam.

9: Lam. iv. 20.

10: Cf. Rev. xiv. 6.

11: Omnis gloria regis intrinsecus est. Heb., Sept., and Vulgate all read,
"daughter of the king." Probably the omission of "filiae" in the text may be due
to an error of the copyists. [Cf. Ps. xlv. 13.] 12: Rom. xi. 33.

13: Rom. xi. 33.

14: [Eccles. vii. 23, 24.] The Septuagint reads: Eipa, Sofisqhsomai 15: Cf. Isa.
xli. 22, 23.

16: Isa. vi. 3.

17: Cf. Ecclus. xvi. 21.

18: Ex nullis substantibus.

19: 1 John i. 5.

20: Cf. Heb. i. 3.

21: Cf. Heb. i. 3.

22: Quae quidem quamvis intellectu multa esse dicantur.

23: Quae sunt extra Trinitatem.

24: Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 3.

25: Gal. ii. 20.

26: Quam in aliis sanctis viris. "Aliis" is found in the mss., but is wanting in
many editions.

27: Cf. Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36.

28: Unde constat in singulis quibusque tantum effici Christum, quantum ratio
indulserit meritorum.

29: Cf. Col. i. 16-18.

30: John i. 3.

31: Ps. xxxiii. 6.

32: Cf. John i. 26, 27.

33: Proposito vero et virtute similem sibi.

34: Animam.

35: John x. 18.

36: Matt. xxvi. 38.

37: John xii. 27.

38: Cf. Job xv. 14.

39: Ps. xlv. 7.

40: Cf. Col. iii. 3, 4.

41: Substantialiter.

42: Cf. 1 John ii. 6.

43: 2 Cor. xiii. 4.

44: 1 Cor. ii. 2.

45: De Maria corpus assumsit.

46: Semet ipsum exinanivit.

47: Phil. ii. 6, 7.

48: In filium adoptatur.

49: Ventilare.

50: In Scripturis canonicis.

51: Isa. x. 17, kai fagetai wsei xorton thn ulhn , Sept. The Vulgate follows the
Masoretic text.

52: [Elucidation VI].

53: Wisd. xi. 17.

54: Gen. i. 2, "invisibilis et incomposita;" "inanis et vacua," Vulg.

55: Initia corporum.

56: Naturam corpoream.

57: Nec tamen sensus noster manifeste de eo aliquid horum definit, sed ita eum
per haec 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, quae accidere necesse est hominibus.

58: Tunc simulata quodammodo cogitatione.

59: Ps. cxxxix. 16, to akatergaston mou eidosan oi ofqalmoi sou , Sept.;
"Imperfectum meum viderunt oculi tui," Vulg. (same as in the text.) yCny( w@)r
ymln% 60: Ambulavi usque ad imperfectum; cf. Book of Enoch, chap. xvii.

61: Universas materias perspexi: cf. Book of Enoch, chap. xvii. [On this
apocryphal book, see the learned remarks of Dr. Pusey in his reply to Canon
Farrar, What is of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment ; pp. 52-59. London,
1881.]

62: Alioquin.

63: Substantialem interitum.

64: Ps. xxii. 27.

65: Cf. Col. i. 15 and 2 Cor. iv. 4.

66: Luke vi. 36.

67: Matt. v. 48.

68: Nihil eum rerum intellectualium ex se lateat.

69: Cf. Prov. ii. 5, epignwsin Qeou eurhseij (Sept.), Scientiam Dei invenies
(Vulg.). )cmxsyhl) t(r@


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 35: HOMILIES ON LUKE
========================================================================

Homilies on Luke, Translated by ChatGPT Want a professionally translated
(non-free) version? Check out the Fathers of the Church translation.

Just as in the old people, many claimed to prophesy, but some of them were false
prophets and some were truly prophets, and the people had the gift of discerning
spirits, by which the true prophet and the false one were distinguished; so also
now in the New Testament many have desired to write the Gospels, but the
reliable money changers did not approve everything, but chose some of them.
Perhaps also the term "attempted" contains a hidden accusation against those who
came to the writing of the Gospels without a gift. For Matthew did not
"attempt," but wrote by the Holy Spirit, as did Mark and John, and similarly
Luke. However, those who wrote the Gospel according to the Egyptians and the
Gospel according to the Twelve "attempted" to write. And already Basilides also
dared to write his Gospel according to Basilides. "Many, therefore, have taken
in hand" - for there is also the Gospel according to Thomas and the Gospel
according to Matthias and several others. These are attempts; the church of God
has approved only the four. However, Luke, when he said, "concerning the things
fully believed among us," shows his disposition, that he confirmed everything
with confidence as one who knew well, not doubting nor guessing. For he was
assured and in no way doubted whether it was so or not. This occurs among those
who firmly believe and pray and obtain and say, "confirm me in your words." For
the apostle also speaks about those who are firm, saying, "that you may be
rooted and established in the faith." Nothing so confirms as mind and reason;
for vision does not confirm, since things are not judged by visible signs and
wonders, but by reason, which determines what is true and what is false. "The
eyewitnesses," he says, "and ministers of the word." In Exodus it is written
that "the people saw the voice of the Lord." Although a voice is heard, not
seen, it is strangely indicated that the voice of God is seen by those who see
it. But in the Gospel, the voice is not seen, but the word that is greater than
the voice is seen. Therefore, "as they delivered them to us, who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Thus, the apostles were
"eyewitnesses of the word," not only having seen Jesus in the flesh but also the
word of God. For if seeing Jesus in the flesh made one an "eyewitness of the
word," then Pilate, condemning him, and Judas the betrayer, and all those who
said, "crucify him, crucify him," would have been "eyewitnesses of the word."
But it is unreasonable to say that those were "eyewitnesses of the word." Thus
the seeing of the Word is understood there, where the Savior said: "He who has
seen me has seen the Father who sent me." And something good, which is also
hidden, is taught to us by Luke here, that of certain contemplations the end is
contemplation itself, but of certain contemplations the end is action.
Therefore, to indicate this through the word "eyewitnesses" he speaks of the
contemplative aspect, and through the word "ministers" he presents the practical
aspect of those things, saying "eyewitnesses and ministers." "It seemed good to
me also, having followed all things closely from the first," he says, "I do not
write mere hearsay, but having followed all things accurately from the start, I
affirm it, that I have followed not just some of the things said, but all." The
Apostle also praises the blessed Luke, saying: "whose praise is in the gospel."
It is reasonable to think that he wrote the gospel for someone named Theophilus.
But all of us, if we are such as to be loved by God and be dear to Him, we are
Theophili. And if one is 'Theophilus,' he is also 'most excellent;' for no
'Theophilus' is weak. And just as it was written regarding the people coming out
of Egypt that "there was no one feeble among their tribes," so I would say that
every 'Theophilus' is 'most excellent,' having strength and power from God and
his Word; and thus one will know "the certainty of the words" regarding which he
was instructed, understanding the Word of the gospel. "And they were both
righteous," it says.

Those who wish to justify their own sins think it impossible for anyone to be
entirely without sin and use the words of Job: "No one is clean from filth."
Sinlessness is understood in two ways: one, in never having sinned; the other,
in no longer sinning. Therefore, from never having sinned, no one would be
sinless; for all humans have sinned at some point, even if they become
'righteous' later. But it is possible from no longer sinning to become sinless;
for thus Christ "presented to Himself the Church without spot or wrinkle," not
because the Church was never spotted or was never in the wrinkle of the 'old
man,' but because it no longer has 'wrinkle.' An example of a person being able
to be called sinless, apart from not sinning anymore, is found in the case of
Zacharias and Elizabeth. For it says, "They were righteous and walked
blamelessly." It could have been written, "They were righteous in the
commandments," but now the addition is necessary of "before God." For it is
possible for someone to be righteous in appearance before men, but in the
hiddenness of their mind not to be such, having acquired evil thoughts lurking
within. For when a man has nothing base to say about me, but observing my
visible actions, he praises me, I am righteous "before" men. However, men do not
know my hidden things, such as when I sinned by looking at a woman to lust after
her, so that adultery in my heart is accounted to me. Paul indicates something
similar when he says concerning some, "whose praise is not from men, but from
God." For men do not know how to praise worthily, but only God knows how to both
praise the praiseworthy worthily and to judge the blameworthy worthily. Thus, it
is necessarily added, "they were righteous before God." Solomon also calls for
this when he says, "Take care to do what is right before the Lord and men." Let
us consider the praise of these blessed ones: "walking in the commandments," it
says, "and ordinances of the Lord." When we judge others rightly, we "walk in
the ordinances of the Lord," and when we do this or that, we "walk in the
commandments of God." Perhaps knowing this distinction, Luke, seeing that they
lived by these things, rendered this praise, "walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly." Perhaps someone might say: why is
"blameless" added to these things? It would have sufficed for them to "walk in
all the ways of God and the ordinances," unless it is indeed possible to "walk
in all the commandments and ordinances," but not "blamelessly." How then, [he
says], is it possible to "walk in all the commandments" and yet not
"blamelessly"? I say to him, therefore, that if it were not so, it would not be
said, "justly pursue justice"; for even what is good is not good when it is not
done rightly. Therefore, when we do the commandments so as to have in our
conscience the stain of vanity or human-pleasing or something else of this sort,
even if we seem to be doing the commandment, we are not doing it "blamelessly."
Therefore, it is work to walk "in all the commandments and justifications of the
Lord blamelessly" in order to be praised by God in the divine judgment.

Sensible things, for the purpose of being seen, do nothing, but the healthy eye,
having placed them whether it wants the sensible thing to be seen or not, sees
it. But divine things are not like this, nor are they seen in the present apart
from their own activity. And indeed, by grace, God "appeared" to Abraham or some
of the saints, not because the eye of the soul of Abraham alone was the cause of
seeing God, but because God presented himself to the righteous for
manifestation, being worthy of his vision. But even an angel, as long as he does
not wish to be seen by any of us, being present, is not seen. Do not wonder,
therefore, if God, willing, "appeared" to Abraham, but not willing, did not
"appear" to another, and "an angel appeared" to Zechariah, and not willing,
would not have "appeared" to him. But even after the "present age," if we
depart, know that God or the angels do not appear to everyone, but each of those
seeing, with a pure heart and prepared to see God, will see God. And in the same
place, two, one having a pure heart, the other a defiled one; the one will see,
for God is not seen in place, but in a pure heart, and the other will not see
him. Thus also one must think about Christ. Do not think that all those who saw
Christ saw him. They saw the body of Christ, but Christ, as he is Christ, they
did not see. He was seen only by those worthy to see his greatness. And the
scripture has also promised: "for he is found by those who do not tempt him, and
he is revealed to those who do not disbelieve him."

"Zechariah was troubled," it says, "seeing"; for a vision appearing to a man is
not customary for him to endure; however, the angel turns him from fear, saying,
"Do not be afraid, Zechariah," and reassures him by announcing the birth of
John, saying, "Your prayer has been heard." But the saying, "He will be great,"
signifies the greatness of John's soul, and the greatness seen by God. There is
a certain greatness of soul according to virtue, which is seen by the Lord, and
there is a certain smallness of soul. I thus understand the word in the gospel:
"Do not despise one of these little ones," those in the church. For there,
"little one" denotes the opposite of "great," not needing a command concerning
the great, so that he also says this; for the great is never despised. That "the
little one" is not just anyone is clear from: "whoever causes one of these
little ones to stumble." For the great is not caused to stumble; the great is
above all scandal. The people do not yet know the Savior already performing
"signs and wonders," but John, still in his mother's womb, leaps for joy when
the mother of Jesus comes. "For behold," she says, "as soon as the voice of your
greeting sounded in my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy." John thus had
the Holy Spirit even while in his mother's womb. He himself is said "to have
turned many." John "turned many of the children of Israel to the Lord their
God," according to the angel’s voice, but our Lord Jesus Christ enlightened all
to the knowledge of the truth. For this is his work: "And he will turn many of
the children of Israel to the Lord their God." For it is not said "in the soul
of Elijah" – for there is no transmigration of souls – but "in the spirit and
power of Elijah." For the spirit and power were upon Elijah, whether a spiritual
gift, as also upon each of the prophets. Thus, the spirit which was in Elijah
came to be in John. That one was taken up, while this one became the forerunner
of the Savior. He died before the Savior, so that, having become the forerunner
of the Savior even to those in Hades, he might proclaim the descent of Jesus
Christ.

Zacharias the priest, the minister of God who offered sacrifices, is condemned
to be silent, and he is silent and only made signs, and he remained mute until
the birth of John. What is the meaning of these things? The silence of Zacharias
is the silence of the prophets in the ancient people of God. For God no longer
speaks to them, but the Word that was in the beginning— the Word that was with
God, the Word that was God—has passed over to us and does not remain silent with
us, but has ceased to speak with them. Therefore, the prophet Zacharias is
silent; for he is also said to have become a prophet. What is meant by "he made
signs to them"? To "make signs" is to remain mute. Actions without words are no
different from signs, but actions with words are not signs; they are adorned by
the Word. So if you see the conduct of the Jews as irrational, unable to give an
account of what they are doing, observe the type that occurred with Zacharias,
who remained mute and made signs to them. Thus, circumcision is a sign without
words to them, as are Passover and prayers. For the people are now mute and
without speech; and how could they not be mute, irrational, and without speech,
having cast out the Word from themselves and being unable to give an account of
anything legal or prophetic? every time is given even to those in marriage for
marital intercourse, but there is a time when it is necessary for those already
advanced in years and prevented by providence from conceiving due to the works
of marriage to abstain from it.

Therefore, this happened for the purpose of the angel's word "she conceived,"
she was ashamed if [not] being an elder she lay with a man, and "she hid herself
for five months" until Mary also conceives. For when Mary conceived and came to
her, and "when the greeting" of Mary "came to her ears," "the child leaped with
joy in Elizabeth's womb," and Elizabeth prophesied and spoke the recorded words
"from the Holy Spirit." And "all these things were spoken about in the hill
country." Therefore, speaking of them as concerning a divine conception and a
prophet about to be born among the people, she no longer "hid herself," but, if
it is necessary to speak thus, she spoke freely, asserting that her offspring
was the forerunner of the Lord. Then, after these things, it is written that "in
the sixth month," i.e., from Elizabeth’s conception, "the angel Gabriel was sent
by God to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph." For what reason
did God, deciding that the Savior should be born from a virgin, not choose a
virgin who was not betrothed? Might it have been, then, an economy for her to
conceive while having a betrothed, so that it might not appear as a disgrace
upon her body for her to conceive? For it is rightly written in one of the
letters of a certain martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after
the blessed Peter, who fought with beasts in Rome during the persecution—“and
the virginity of Mary escaped the notice of the ruler of this age.” So, if it
had not been for what seemed to be a marriage, it would not have escaped his
notice, but the ruler of this age would have known that Mary, having never slept
with a man, conceived, and thus the conception must be divine. The Savior wished
through the entire economy to elude the devil, and indeed ordered the disciples
not to make him manifest. But even when he was tempted by the devil, nowhere did
he openly declare that he is the Son of God, but merely said: it is not
necessary for me to worship you, it is not necessary for me to make stones into
bread, it is not necessary for me to throw myself down from above. Also, the
Apostle says that the economy of the passion was done in forgetfulness of the
opposing power: “which none of the rulers of this age understood; for if they
had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” If it was not hidden from
the demon—for it said: “We know who you are, the Son of God”—see, the lesser in
evil knew the Savior, but the greater in evil was hindered by the magnitude of
his wickedness from beholding him. And our wickedness, if it is lesser, we are
helped by it being lesser to live well; if our wickedness is found to be
greater, there is a greater struggle to cast it off. He spoke a strange greeting
to her which I have found in no scripture: come, let us examine this. The phrase
“Rejoice, favored one” is said nowhere; nor has this been said to any man, but
this greeting was kept for her. Why then was the virgin troubled by a strange
greeting as one learned in the law? She was troubled by the saying, which is why
he said to her: “Do not be afraid.” “He will be great,” he says. This was also
said of John; but when the truly “great” one came, that one was small. For “he
was the burning and shining lamp.” But the greatness of him was not then so
manifested as it now appears. See the magnitude of his power: “for their voice
has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” And
with those in Britain and with those in Mauritania and with those believing
everywhere and generally extending. For ascend with the word into heaven and see
him fulfilling the things there: "He was seen by angels." Descend with the word
into the abyss; for he also descended there. "He who descended is also the one
who ascended, that he might fill all things," "that at the name of him every
knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." Behold this power:
for he passed through the whole world; it is said that Jesus, the Son of God,
has passed through the heavens. If then you see these things, you will see that
it is not a mere word: "He shall be great," but it is shown by deed that "great
is our Lord Jesus Christ both absent and present." The greater ones come to the
lesser, that they may benefit them. Thus also the Savior came to John, that he
might sanctify his baptism; thus Mary, having heard from the angel that she will
conceive the Savior and having learned that her relative Elizabeth has
conceived, came to her. For Jesus in her was already about to benefit John,
already in Elizabeth. And this is evident from John not leaping before Mary came
and greeted Elizabeth, but as soon as Mary's greeting, imparted by the word of
God, Christ, was heard, moved by the activity of the Holy Spirit, the forerunner
leapt in joy in Elizabeth's womb and as if from then started to make him a
prophet. It was necessary for the blessed Mary, after Gabriel's visit and the
annunciation, to go up "to the hill country" and not delay but proceed with
haste, led by the Holy Spirit who had come upon her and by the power of the Most
High overshadowing her. Thus, in the greeting, "Elizabeth was filled with the
Holy Spirit" because of her son; for it was not the mother who was first filled
with the Holy Spirit but John, and then the mother, having him who was filled
with the Holy Spirit. It must not be neglected to say, lest anyone be deceived
by those using specious arguments and falsely teaching, that someone dared to
speak against Mary, asserting that the Savior rejected her since, it is said,
she was joined with Joseph after giving birth to the Savior. If such words are
ever promoted by heretics, one must respond thus: Elizabeth, filled with the
Holy Spirit, said: "Blessed are you among women." If she is blessed by the Holy
Spirit, how did the Savior deny her? But neither do they have proof that He
engaged in intercourse with her after the birth of the Savior; for the sons of
Joseph were not from Mary, nor does anyone have this demonstration from
Scripture. As for the phrase, "How can this be?" Elizabeth, being filled with
the Holy Spirit, does not say, "I am ignorant that from God the mother of 'my
Lord' came to me," but rather, "How did this happen to me?" meaning, "What great
good deed has been done to me, 'that the mother of my Lord should come to me?'
From what righteousness or good deeds have I obtained this?" "For behold, as
soon as the voice of your greeting reached my ears, the babe in my womb leaped
for joy." The soul of John was marvelous, and already existing in the womb of
the mother and about to come into being, it recognized Him whom Israel did not
know. It did not simply "leap," but "for joy"; for it sensed that the Lord came
in the mother, to sanctify him beforehand. Because "you believed that what was
spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled," you are blessed. Why? Because
there will be a fulfillment of those things, and they were not spoken in vain by
the angel.

Before John, Elizabeth prophesies, and before the birth of our Savior, Mary
prophesies. And just as sin began "from the woman" and then reached the man, so
too the good things began with women to show that women, laying aside weakness
and femininity, should aspire to the lives of these blessed ones. Let us then
consider the virginal prophecy, which says: "My soul magnifies the Lord," not
only the body but also "my soul." How does "the soul magnify the Lord" must be
understood. For someone might say: the Lord neither becomes greater nor lesser
but remains as He is; how then can a soul magnify the Lord? Because "He is the
image of the invisible God," not a created image, but "according to the image"
pre-existing before itself, if we live worthily according to the image of the
Creator and resemble the prototype through good works to the extent possible.
Each of us, perfecting and advancing our soul to blessedness, presents it as an
image of Christ, either imitating the prototype, the Son of God, the image of
God. When then I make significant the image of the image, meaning the soul,
magnifying it with words, deeds, thoughts, then it is said to magnify. Just as
"the soul" of the righteous "magnifies the Lord" according to the greatness of
life and word, so too does someone belittle Him correspondingly according to the
wickedness inherent in them. Thus Mary's "soul magnifies the Lord," and "her
spirit rejoices in God her Savior." Well, it ascends with the advancements of
works; first, her soul magnified, then her spirit rejoiced. For one rejoices in
spirit in God the Savior in the progress of lives, coming from magnification to
this. "For He has regarded," she says, "the lowliness of His handmaiden."
"Lowliness" is indeed no different from humility; it is therefore fitting for
God to look upon virtues, and humility is a virtue, "He has regarded the
lowliness of His handmaiden." For many think it redundant: "the time came for
her to give birth, and she gave birth to a son." For what woman is able to bear
a son without the time of conception being fulfilled? It must be observed in all
the Old and New Scriptures if anywhere it is found concerning the birth of a
sinner the saying, "the time was fulfilled to give birth"; for it will never be
found, I think, but where such a thing is named, the one born is righteous.
Therefore, the days are fulfilled for the birth of the righteous and his coming
into the world. Fulfillment pertains to the righteous, whereas emptiness
pertains to the coming of the wicked. Thus it is now said, "Elizabeth’s time to
give birth was fulfilled," since she bore a holy one. When the relatives wished,
in honor of the father, to name the child Zacharias, Elizabeth, being a
prophetess and moved by the Holy Spirit, although she had not heard the
revelation the name of the child had been made known to her husband, recognized
by the Spirit the name given by the angel and said the child was to be called
John. When they also made signs to the father to learn of the name, as he could
not hear or speak, Zacharias, agreeing with his wife, wrote the name of the
child on a tablet, causing all to marvel, and they began to wonder, "What then
will this child be?" John means "the grace of God"; therefore, after Zacharias
wrote on the tablet, "His name is John," by the grace of God, his mouth was
immediately opened, the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he regained his
speech, no longer bound by unbelief; for when his tongue was bound by unbelief,
it was human, but when it was loosed, it was so no longer, for he now "spoke
blessing God" and prophesied the things written. Zacharias prophesies two
general prophecies, the former concerning Christ and the latter concerning John;
and it’s evident from the words that the former are about Christ as already
present and living among us, and later concerning John. He says, "Blessed be the
Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people." It may be that
during the three months Mary stayed with him, receiving aid through mysterious
power, he gradually came to be filled with the Spirit and to prophesy the things
written. For since "Christ came in the flesh from the seed of David and was
truly a ‘horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant’," he
prophesies these things. And that Christ is the horn is indicated by the
prophecy, "A vineyard was produced in a horn." In what horn? This Christ,
concerning whom it is said, "He has raised up a horn for us." "He has raised
up," he says, "a horn of salvation for us"—Christ—according to the proclamation
of his "holy prophets"; for the mystery concerning Christ has been announced by
all the prophets, who has saved "us from our enemies and from the hand of all
who hate us", not of perceptible enemies, but of intelligible ones. For Christ
the Lord came, "mighty in war," to destroy all our enemies. But the phrase "to
perform mercy with our fathers" I think this indicates how, perhaps during the
coming of Christ, both our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the whole
chorus of his holy prophets and righteous ones enjoyed the mercy of God. For I
do not say that they were previously benefited, but were not benefited during
the coming of Christ. What do I say about this regarding the fathers? I will
rise with the word and say, being convinced by the Scriptures, that during the
presence of Christ, not only the things on earth benefited from his coming and
his dispensation, but also those in the heavens. For the apostle indeed says,
"making peace through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth or things
in heaven"; and if he made peace, why do you hesitate to accept that even
towards the fathers the visitation occurred during the coming of Christ, and
this was what his descent to Hades accomplished, in order to fulfill: "to show
mercy with our fathers; to remember the covenant made with Abraham." "To grant
us," it says, "that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might
serve him without fear." Often some are delivered out of the hand of enemies,
but with fear. But now the coming of Christ has made us "to be delivered out of
the hand of our enemies without fear"; for we were not aware of the plot of the
enemies, but it took us suddenly, not being aware of the plot of the enemies;
and if it needs to be said thus, it transported us insensibly away from them "to
his lot and portion." Therefore, we also ought "to serve him in holiness and
righteousness before him," which happens through the fulfillment of all his holy
commandments, not only for a short time, but "all the days of our life." "And
you, child," it says. I wondered to myself why it didn't say the prophecy about
John as referring to him, but as addressing him; for it says, "And you, child,
shall be called the prophet of the Highest." For it is superfluous to speak to
one not hearing; why then does he say these things as if addressing one who
hears? Might it be then that John, having received an extraordinary birth—since
an archangel announced it and since Mary after conceiving the Lord was present
with Elizabeth and he was already being born—already had an extraordinary
follow-up from the beginning? But if you are incredulous, if John followed
instantly upon birth the prophecy and heard the words: "And you, child, shall be
called the prophet of the Highest," consider a more marvelous thing, that "he
leaped in joy in the womb, as soon as the voice of the greeting came." But if,
while in the womb, he leaped and rejoiced, why do you disbelieve if, being born,
he immediately upon birth heard his father prophesying and saying to him: "And
you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Highest; for you shall go before
the face of the Lord to prepare His ways?" Therefore, the father prophesied
promptly with him present, knowing that, as a prophet, shortly he would not have
him in his care, but that he would dwell "in the deserts." For "the child was in
the deserts until the day of his manifestation to Israel." For John was indeed a
marvelous being, about whom it was also said: "I send My messenger before Your
face"; thus, as an angel sent forth, he heard his father prophesying the written
things. For "growth" is twofold: one is bodily, where human free will does not
cooperate; the other is spiritual, where free will is the cause of growth.
Therefore, he recorded the superior growth; for the whole saying is: "he grew in
spirit"; for not remaining in himself, as he was from the beginning, did the
spirit grow, but the spirit grew in itself, and as it grew daily in greater
measure, his soul grew accordingly with the spirit. And if God commands saying
imperatively: "Grow and multiply," those who hear it according to the flesh, I
do not know how they can grow. For let us understand "multiply," as
multiplication increases the number of those being multiplied—how then does God
command growth in the saying? Every person wishes to grow in stature, but not
all succeed; therefore, if the imperative exists and it is possible to fulfill
the command, it is within our power to "grow." An example is written concerning
Isaac: "And Isaac advanced and became greater, until he became very great"; this
means increasing in the measure of free will towards the good, the growth of the
soul towards excellence, the growth of the mind towards greater insight, the
growth of memory towards greater effectiveness, so as to remember more. Thus the
one who cultivates all the powers of his soul fulfills the command that says:
"Grow." So John, being blessed and still a child, grew; and it was rare among us
to find a child growing with the spirit. There is a difference between “growing”
and “becoming strong.” Human nature is weak and, in order to become strong,
needs the help of a stronger power. What help then is necessary for it to be
strengthened? The Spirit. Therefore, the one who is truly going to be
strengthened is strengthened “in spirit”; for many are strengthened according to
the flesh, in flesh, but the athletes of God are strengthened “in spirit” and by
being strengthened in it, become powerful against “the disposition of the
flesh”; for when the spirit wrestles with the flesh, it is the spirit that
prevails in the one in whom the spirit’s strengthening takes place. “And he was
in the deserts,” it says. Just as his birth was extraordinary—for he “leapt for
joy” recognizing Christ—and just as it was spoken to him [at that very moment]
as one hearing it from the father, “And you, child, will be called a prophet,”
so he did not remain with his father and mother, but withdrew, fleeing the city
noise and the disgust of the crowds, so that being in the deserts, since the
Lord had not yet willed him to serve the mystery of baptism, he might devote
himself to prayer, being raised in an extraordinary manner. "For," it says, “his
food was locusts and wild honey” according to Matthew; for since he was a
servant of Christ’s first coming, his food was not tame honey—for the tame and
refined honey was reserved for the Lord—and since he proclaimed and administered
the things before the coming, his food was a small winged creature taken from
the earth, locusts, a small and clean animal. The word wishes to present a great
mystery, that Jesus Christ should be recorded in the census of the whole world,
so that being recorded alongside those in the world, he might sanctify the world
and transform this registration “into the book of the living,” so that the
“names” of those recorded along with him and who believe in him “may be
inscribed in heaven.” Why then did the angel not go to Jerusalem, why did he not
seek out the scribes and Pharisees, why did he not enter the synagogue of the
Jews, but found “shepherds living out in the fields and keeping watch over their
flock by night” and announced it to them? Does the word not hint at anything but
truly the presenting matter, that the angel came to such ignorant shepherds, and
does it signify nothing other than that? But the angel announces Christ to the
shepherds of the churches. For they, unless that shepherd comes, cannot well
shepherd by themselves; their shepherding is incomplete, unless Christ co-works
with them. "For," he says, "we are co-workers with God." And indeed he has
appointed "in the church apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, shepherds,
all for the perfecting of the saints." These things are on the easiest level.
But if it is necessary to ascend and speak in a more mystical way, I say that
there were some shepherds, angels entrusted, if it must be said, with men; and
while each of these was keeping watch over his own charge and laboring and all
in need of help for the good management of the nations under them, the angel
came at the birth of Jesus saying, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you
good tidings of great joy." Truly, great joy has indeed come to those governing
men, because Christ Jesus has visited. As indeed there are two angels present to
each person, one of righteousness and one of wickedness, and when good things
rise in our heart, clearly it is the angel of God who converses with us; but
when evil things rise in our heart, it is the angel of the devil who converses
with us. Therefore, just as each person has two angels, so do I think that among
the nations there are angels, some better, some opposite. For instance, in
Ephesus it is likely that an angel was appointed over the sinners, as well as
over the believers, so that an angel was over the church of the Ephesians, in
this way everywhere, even before the visitation of Christ. Just as the angels
are empowered to establish churches everywhere from the nations because of the
proclamation of the angel concerning Christ. And the angelic host joins in the
hymn saying, "Glory to God in the highest," and, "Peace on earth among men of
goodwill," since they had labored to assist people and saw that they could not
accomplish the work entrusted to them without the Savior. Through "peace on
earth," it is revealed that good things be brought about on earth and in heaven
through His visitation. For since God's angels saw men as enemies due to sins,
they sought to make them friends and did what they could to heal them, yet they
were not healed; seeing Him who would heal, they glorified and said, "Peace on
earth." But one may inquire within the text: if the Savior says, "I did not come
to bring peace on earth, but a sword," how then do the angels at his birth say,
"Peace on earth"? He Himself says elsewhere, "Peace I leave with you." But if it
were only written, "Peace on earth," stopping there and the text ended at that
point, the question would have a point. Now the addition solves the inquiry,
which also follows: "peace on earth" is: "among men of good will." If the Savior
says that He does not give "peace on earth," it is not "peace of good will." For
He does not deny giving peace, but simply says: "I have not come to bring peace
on earth." He did not say "peace of good will;" but the angels spoke these
things to the shepherds. And even if holy shepherds do not have angels
shepherding with them, it will be said: "unless the Lord guards the city, the
watchman stays awake in vain." It is possible to say from the Scripture, that
there are two bishops of every church, one visible and sensed, the other
invisible and intelligible; and the man is praised for managing well, so is the
angel. For it is written in the Revelation of John: "but you have a few names in
Sardis who have not defiled their garments;" and again: "you have there those
who hold to this teaching," and He reproaches the angels. If He reproaches the
angels entrusted with the churches and caring for them, to whom are entrusted
angels, what should we say about humans, how much fear must they have, so that
they can be saved with the angels sailing together with them? For as both
bishops are co-workers in the work, I mean the angel entrusted with the church
is the intelligible one and the visible bishop. They hastened and came, not
walking nor sluggishly; therefore they found Him "in a manger." This is the
mystery spoken of by the prophet: "The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its
master's manger," which is a sign of the mystery; the ox a clean animal, the
donkey unclean. The people did not know their Lord's manger, that is, those from
Israel, but the unclean animal, those from the Gentiles. "Christ who died,"
"died to sin," not because He sinned—for "He committed no sin, and no deceit was
found in His mouth"—but because He died, so that we who died together with Him,
the One who died "to sin," might no longer live "for sin." Therefore it is said:
"if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;" just as we died with Him
dying then, so we were circumcised with Him circumcised then; and after that
circumcision, the administration through the former purification took place. For
this reason, we no longer circumcise, because His circumcision has taken place
on our behalf: "In whom you were circumcised," says Paul, "with a circumcision
made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision
of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised
up with Him through faith." Therefore, His death also happened on our behalf, as
well as the resurrection and the circumcision. The evangelist necessarily noted,
saying: "His name was called Jesus, which was named by the angel." For He did
not need to be first called by men nor glorified by them, but from those who are
superior to human nature (He was named) the name worthy of reverence and
honorable and "above every name." But if it was for the "purification" of Mary
alone, we would inquire nothing further; now it says for the "purification of
them." Does then Jesus need purification too? But look at the audacity of the
statement; remember the mystical sayings in Job: "No one is pure from filth,
even if his life is but one day upon the earth"; He did not say from sin, but
from "filth." And because these are not the same, says Isaiah: "The Lord will
wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion and cleanse the blood from
their midst"; thus, every soul clothed in a human body is soiled. Hear
Zechariah: "Jesus was clothed in filthy garments." This statement is also useful
against those who say that the Savior did not take human flesh, but brought a
spiritual body from heaven, considering that a spiritual body could be soiled.
Because they will be able to say and accept this, note them saying that in the
promises, when it says: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual
body," we are raised soiled, which ought not to be said. Therefore, the Savior
needed, as "clothed in filthy garments," the human and earthly body, to be
offered for cleansing also. The children are baptized "for the remission of
sins." Which sins? When have they sinned? But perhaps, since "no one is pure
from filth," someone removes the filth through the mystery of baptism, therefore
children are baptized as well. Mystically, "the days" being fulfilled; for
purification is not simultaneous with birth, but as it is written in the law:
"if a male is born, she shall be unclean for seven days in impure blood, then
thirty-three days in pure blood," both she and the child. Thus, since "the law
has a shadow of the good things to come," one can see the purification occurring
later. Perhaps if we arise from the dead, [we need] the mystery [of the one]
purifying us... I marvel if anyone arises cleansed from every impurity. In this
regeneration, therefore, there will be such a mystery of purification, which
Jesus performed at His own birth. Therefore, since males are holy "as they open
the womb," it was necessary to be offered to the Lord at the altar; only Christ,
having been born from a virgin, opened the womb, for nothing else before Christ
touched that sacred womb. Though all firstborns, being firstborn, do not open
the womb first, but the consort does. Being in the prison of the body and seeing
that no one releases him from it, so as to be released from the world with hope,
or the one whom he held "in his arms," he says: "now you release your servant
according to your word." And see the addition, "in peace"; he does not simply
wish to be released, but "in peace," according to what was said to Abraham, "you
shall be gathered to your fathers in peace." And who is the one released "in
peace" except the one who has understood that "God was in Christ reconciling the
world to Himself" and no longer having any work of enmity with God, but having
taken up all peace through good works. But on what kind of "things spoken about
him" were Joseph and his mother marveling? On those from the shepherds, of whom
the fame was spreading, that Christ had been born, and by Simeon in his very
words: "Now you release," which was the crowning statement spoken about him. And
to the father Joseph marvelously it was placed, not proclaiming him as father by
saying this, but further prophesying about the child, blessing the father and
the mother, and saying: "Behold, this one is set for the fall and rising of
many." And similar to it is in John: "for judgment I came into this world, that
those who do not see may see and those who see may become blind"; just as
therefore "those who do not see" from the Gentiles "see," and those from Israel
"become blind," thus he came for the "fall and rising" of many. For those
standing have fallen and those fallen have risen at Christ's coming. This also
has a deeper narration; I have something standing within me; let this fall, "the
inner man" of mine had fallen, my outer man had been standing. Before faith,
what condition did we have? The superior part had fallen, the inferior had been
raised. But when Christ came, then that which stood in me, the inferior, fell;
"put to death," it says, "the members which are upon the earth: fornication,
uncleanness," and so forth. But since a fall has occurred – "for where the
carcass is, there the vultures will gather" – this fall is good on which Jesus
first came. The blessed Luke, having clearly showed to us, that the Savior was a
virgin-born, not from a man, now called father Joseph. Why then did he call
father the one who neither begot nor was the cause of his birth? More simply, it
might be said, that the Holy Spirit honored him with the title of father,
because he had raised him. But if something deeper must be said, we will state:
since the genealogy traced Joseph back to David, so that the genealogy coming
upon Joseph might not seem needless as merely the betrothed of the virgin not
having begotten the Savior, for the genealogy to have a suitable reason, Joseph
was called the father of the Lord, even if "before they came together she was
found to be with child." I think "for the fall and rising" of many the Lord is,
not of different ones who fall and others who rise, but of the same person, "for
the fall" of the worse part "and the rising" of the better, with the worse part
falling and the better part being raised; for the appearance of the Lord brings
down bodily passions and raises the qualities of the soul. But one must think
thus, that the one standing in sin through repentance falls and dies to that
sin. The first benefit is for the one standing in sin to fall and die to sin,
then to live in righteousness and rise, the faith in Christ granting each to us;
let the worse things fall, so that the better may have the chance to rise. If
fornication does not fall, chastity does not rise; if folly is not crushed, the
rational part in us does not flourish; thus then, the fall and rise of many.
Then he says: "And a sword will pierce your own soul too"; and by sword he means
doubt and trial, which pierced her soul at the time of the crucifixion. It
appears that at the time of the passion everyone was scandalized; for he himself
said, "You will all be scandalized because of me." Do we think that Mary alone
was free from scandal? But if all fall short of the glory of God, being
justified ... by his grace ... Therefore Simeon also prophesies about the holy
virgin Mary, that: standing by the cross and seeing what happened and hearing
the voices of the murderers, after Gabriel's testimony, after the unspeakable
knowledge of the divine conception, after the great display of miracles, even
for you who have been taught from above about the Lord, there will be some
disturbance in your soul and some discernment will touch you, that is, the
"sword", when you see such a one crucified and suffering a human death. "So that
thoughts might be revealed"; there were evil thoughts in these people; then they
were revealed so that, once revealed, he who is dying for human sins might
destroy them. For as long as they were hidden, it was not possible to completely
destroy them; therefore we are also commanded to say if we sin: "I recognized my
iniquity, and my sin I did not hide." And the order is blameless; for the woman
is not first of the man, but first Simeon is introduced. Therefore it was not
written according to the word of her, but that "she confessed to God and spoke
about him." It seems that justly she became a prophetess, the Holy Spirit being
able to find a place in her because of her purity and cleanliness; for "having
lived seven years from her virginity with a husband", therefore she became a
prophetess; for the Holy Spirit did not dwell in her by chance. It is good
indeed if anyone can remain a virgin; but if not able to do this, let them be
widowed, if something human happens, and let them keep this in view even being
with a husband, so that their virginity may be justified before God. He could
have said: he advanced in wisdom, but since "he emptied himself", he said "being
filled", to show that what he emptied he refilled and took again these things
from which he had willingly emptied himself. "He grew" therefore, since "he did
not regard equality with God something to be grasped" but "humbled himself"; he
"became strong" "taking the form of a servant" and "bearing our weaknesses"; he
was being filled "with wisdom", since "he emptied himself"; for a mere man of
twelve years cannot contain the fullness of wisdom; but the cause of his growing
and becoming strong was his being filled with wisdom. What does it mean that
they “were seeking him”? Was he lost like a child or wandering about? Perish the
thought! This was neither fitting for Mary, who received many divine revelations
about him, nor for Joseph. It is rather like when you search for a scripture;
you seek it in anguish, not as one who is lost or deceived, but as something
that holds true and mystical meaning not yet revealed to you. In this way, they
were seeking our Lord Jesus Christ, worrying that he might have departed from
them or left them behind. They were “in agony” seeking the Son of God and did
not find him “among their relatives,” for he was beyond their kin. Therefore, he
said to them, “Why were you seeking me?” Can the Savior be lost? Did you not
leave me here?

Appropriately, as a child, Jesus was “in the midst of the teachers,” not
teaching but “listening and asking questions,” setting an example for the young
not to be rash, but to evoke thoughtful inquiries. “Did you not know that I must
be in my Father’s house?” As regards this saying, let us be armed against the
atheistic heresies that claim that the Creator is not the Father of Jesus
Christ, nor is the God of the Law or the God of the Temple, the Father of
Christ. Hearing his voice, those from Valentinus might be ashamed, for he said,
“I must be in my Father’s house,” acknowledging this saying. Would they have
been so obtuse to not understand that he was speaking about “my Father’s house,”
referring to the temple? Or does he hint at some mystery—if one is of the
Father, they have Christ within them. For I see the living temple of the Father,
the good and the noble, rather than that temple, for he “departed” from that
temple saying, “Your house is left to you desolate,” and went to the temple of
the Father, the churches everywhere.

Giving an example to all sons to honor their parents, not only by nature but
also by position, and to do whatever they command. So Mary kept all these things
as treasures, being knowledgeable of the matters. She was not listening as to a
twelve-year-old child, but as to a perfect being, she kept all his sayings. Not
the age of the body, which advances by nature, but the age of the soul, which is
within our power, and which he strengthened, “abolishing what pertains to
infancy.” In the prophetic word proclaimed only among the Jews, only the kingdom
of the Jews is mentioned. For “The vision which Isaiah saw concerning Judah and
Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah” and I know no
other king mentioned in the time of prophecy except the king of Judah, and in
some prophecies also the king of Israel. But when John had to proclaim the
mystery of the gospel, it is written not only about the Jewish king Herod nor
only Roman Tiberius. Since the mystery of the gospel had to be proclaimed in the
whole world, and Tiberius was considered the ruler of the whole world, therefore
it is written “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” and the
rest followed. And if indeed only those from the Gentiles were going to be
saved, and salvation was entirely closed to the sons of Israel, it would have
sufficed to say, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." But
since it was necessary for those from Galilee and those from Iturea and
Trachonitis and Abilene to also believe, these kingdoms or rather tetrarchies
are also recorded. Never did "the word of God" come to any of the prophets "in
the desert," except now for some mystical vision. Since "the children of the
deserted one"—that is, the church from the Gentiles—were destined to be many
"more than of the one having" as "a husband," I mean the synagogue of the Jews
having the law, therefore "the word of God came to John in the desert." For if
this were not so, it would be superfluous for him to be "preaching in the
desert." But he was the forerunner of Christ, "the voice of one crying in the
desert," to a soul not at war; and not just then, but even now the first
"burning and shining lamp" comes "preaching a baptism of repentance for the
forgiveness of sins," then after him comes "the true light," about which the
lamp says, "He must increase, but I must decrease." "And he went into all the
region around the Jordan." For where else should the baptist go except "into the
region around the Jordan," so that if anyone wishes to repent, he can easily
find the river? The Jordan is interpreted as "descending." Truly, the river of
God is a descent, the true water, the saving water. And he preaches "a baptism
of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." "For the forgiveness of sins" to
whom? To the one who no longer sins; for forgiveness of sins is not given to one
who still sins. Then he presents Isaiah saying the same thing. What does he say?
"The voice of one crying in the desert." He wishes to find the way of the Lord
within you so that He may accompany your souls. Since John was the forerunner of
the Word, he was rightly called a "voice," not a word; for the "voice" precedes
the word; first the "voice" reaches our ears, then the word heard through the
voice. He does not mean a physical "way" but the internal one in the heart,
which He travels walking in the hearts of the saints. "Every valley" that is
deep and hollow is every unbeliever, who, believing in Christ, is filled with
the fruits of the Spirit, that is, virtues; "mountain" and "hill" signify the
proud people of the Jews, being humbled. Among the Gentiles, this has happened,
but with the humbled people that: "every mountain and hill shall be brought
low"; once they were "a mountain" and "a hill," but now they have been leveled
and humbled. Or you may thus understand that "mountains" and "hills" are the
opposing powers, which were humbled through Christ's advent, and the "valleys"
are the people filled with good works. Also, "the crooked places have been made
straight." For each of us was crooked; hence, after the coming of Christ in the
soul, "the crooked places become straight." And again, our life was rough and
our word irregular; but our Lord, coming, has made all smooth. Those who once
were "flesh" in their mind, now with the spirit we see "the salvation of God";
or, while still carrying flesh, we paradoxically see "the salvation of God." And
you ask about "all" and "every," and when these things that have begun shall be
fully completed both generally and individually. See how great is "the coming
wrath"; it destroys the world, punishes those who have asked for correction; and
each one makes material for it out of what he has done. "Therefore, produce
fruits worthy of repentance." What are the fruits? "Peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control," and their likenesses, which are also
called "fruits of the spirit." Therefore, he prophesies the purification of that
people and the calling of the nations; for to those boasting of Abraham, he
says: "Do not begin to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,'"
then concerning the Gentiles, he says: "For I tell you that God is able from
these stones to raise up children to Abraham." For he says to Abraham: "I have
made you a father of many nations," that is, of those through faith in Christ.
What stones? He was not pointing to inanimate stones, but to people who, being
senseless, were stones, since they worshipped stones and wood, and what was
written came to pass concerning them: "May those who make them become like them,
and all who trust in them." Furthermore, it is also written concerning the
stones in the song in Exodus: "Let the nations be stunned until this people whom
you have acquired passes," clearly indicating that after the people had passed,
they should no longer be stunned, but should receive also a rational human soul.
He introduced three ranks of those questioning John; one he called "crowds
coming to baptism," another "tax collectors," the third "soldiers." What then
does John say to them? "The one who has two tunics should share with the one who
has none." When I was in that place, I sought whether this command, as far as it
concerns the stated matter, does not suit the crowd but the apostles: "the one
who has two tunics should share with the one who has none"; for it is clear from
what is written and said by the Savior to them, among which he told them "do not
take two tunics for the road." But see if you can understand what is said about
clothing in relation to the word concerning nakedness: "the one who has two
tunics should share with the one who has none." Going deeper, I say: the word
desires us not to have and wear "two tunics," in one part the old, in another
part the new, but to put off the one and have the other. At the same time, I
sought the meaning of: "should share with the one who has none." Who is the one
who does not have a single garment upon his skin and is not covered so that I
may give to him? – I do not say this, for it cannot also be excessively urging
towards the necessity of clothing the poor and not neglecting the commandment,
but because it can also be said more mystically; [otherwise] the devil who has
nothing good, he who does not have God. Just as it is written, that we ought to
remove our sins as “casting them into the depths of the sea,” so we must cast
our sins upon him as the cause and knowing us to be sinners. The same also
applies to food; on the surface, it should be shared with him who does not have
nourishment, and in hiding, the wicked things should be cast to the demons. “But
tax collectors also came to be baptized.” This should persuade tax collectors
that beyond the prescription, they should not take more from those who are
taxed; for whoever exceeds “more than what is required” violates the command,
not of John, but of the Holy Spirit within him. I know also other tax
collectors, who after our departure from here sit at the ends of the world, as
if they are taxing us and detaining us, unless something of them is in us.
Therefore it is written: “The prince of this world comes, and he finds nothing
in me.” What things, then, are we going to possess from those tax collectors who
search everything, whenever someone is taken in full as a payment? But Jacob was
not such; for he confidently says to the seeming tax collector Laban: “Recognize
if there is anything of yours with me.” And indeed the scripture testifies
concerning Jacob saying: “And Laban found nothing of his with Jacob.” If you are
holy, you are baptized “in the Holy Spirit”; but if you are sinful, you are
baptized “with fire”; for the same baptism becomes “fire” and judgment for those
unworthy and badly baptized, but for those who go down well and for salvation,
it becomes “Holy Spirit” and salvation. This baptizer “in the Holy Spirit and
fire” is said to “have his winnowing fork in his hand and to thoroughly cleanse
his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he
will burn with unquenchable fire.” And I wish to see, in what way my Lord Jesus
has a “winnowing fork,” and with what kind of wind blowing, and that
strongly—for in calm weather the winnowing fork is useless—the “chaff” is
separated into its own place, but the “wheat,” having overcome the wind, is
collected into itself. And see, lest the temptations separating the "chaff" are
the wind showing the "wheat," that it is wheat. So when your soul is tempted and
you are defeated, it is not the temptation that has made you "chaff," but being
"chaff" or light and unbelieving it has convicted you. But when, during a
temptation, you endure the temptation, it is not the temptation that made you
faithful and enduring, but it revealed the enduring power already within you.
The one teaching the word of the Gospel does not evangelize one thing but many,
for the proclamation has a mind that "many" things are evangelized. "Many other
things" John also evangelized, but it is not written, because, since it was
likely something greater than the writing, Luke remained silent. This man
unlawfully took his brother's wife against the law of Moses. But the undaunted
John, who showed no partiality, not fearing royal authority, nonetheless
fulfilling prophetic boldness, rebuked Herod for the illegality of his marriage.
Hence, he was also confined "in prison," and not worrying about death, he was
concerned with Christ. [Either] through meekness and purity, that we too might
imitate the meekness and purity of the dove and the ability to soar mentally
above earthly things. Our Lord Jesus Christ is genealogized, although being
without genealogy according to deity, he entered into genealogy for you. And he
is genealogized not similarly by the evangelists, which troubled many who
encountered the writing. For Matthew, starting from Abraham, genealogizes him
and continues until he says, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way."
And Matthew does not genealogize the one baptized but the one coming into the
world; while Luke, genealogizing, does not bring down the genealogy but brings
it up to God, the one being baptized. And the descent and ascent of the
genealogy are not through the same persons. For the one who brings him down with
the word brings him down also through sinful women, mentioning only those with
faults, but the one genealogizing the baptized does not mention women in his
genealogy: Tamar, who unlawfully came together with her father-in-law; Ruth the
Moabitess; Rahab, whom we do not even know; and the one of Uriah. For since he
came to take the sins of men, and "he who knew no sin, for our sake was made
sin" by God, thus descending he took on sinful persons and is born through
Solomon, whose sins are recorded, and Rehoboam, whose failings are mentioned in
the Kings, and the others of whom many "did evil in the sight of the Lord." He,
ascending from baptism, goes up through a genealogy not through Solomon, but
through Nathan, who rebuked his father over the birth of Solomon and over the
killing of Uriah. There the names of the birth are always mentioned, but here
the names of ancestry are omitted. "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob,
Jacob begot Judah and his brothers, Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar"; and
until the end the phrase "begot" is used. Here, however, Jesus ascends, "being,
as was supposed, the son of Joseph," and nowhere here is the term "birth" but
only "was supposed." There, it never begins with birth, but here, since he rises
from baptism, it is said "he began"; for it says, "Jesus himself began to be
about thirty years old." For at his baptism, when he took on the mystery of
regeneration, that you too might abolish the former birth and rise again through
rebirth, then it is said "to begin." Just as those being in Egypt had no start
to months nor a month for festivals, but when they already came out, it was
legislated to them, saying, "This month shall be the beginning of months, it
shall be the first month of the year to you." So the one not yet baptized has
not "begun," but the one baptized has "begun." For it was not without reason
that it added to "and Jesus himself" the phrase "began." Let us consider also
the phrase "being about thirty years old." Who, being thirty years old, began
his ministry concerning him? Joseph. For it is written, "he was thirty years
old," when he was released from bonds and interpreted the dream to Pharaoh and
was entrusted with the rule of Egypt and gathered abundant grain for Pharaoh, in
order to distribute it during the famine. Perhaps those thirty years of Joseph
were a type of the thirty years of my Christ. For this Joseph does not gather
similar grain as that Joseph, but the true grain, that he might gather during
his time of abundance, to distribute it when a famine comes upon the earth, "not
a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the
Lord." For he gathers the words of the prophets, the law, and the apostles
during the time of abundance, that when scripture is no longer written, the
teachings gathered by Jesus into the storehouses of the apostolic souls and
their successors might feed Egypt, the world, especially his brothers,
concerning whom it is written, "I will declare your name to my brothers." Other
people also have words about wisdom, words about righteousness, words about
other virtues. This is the grain that Joseph gave to the Egyptians. But another
grain, which he distributes to his own brothers from Goshen, from the eastern
land, this is the grain that Jesus gave to his disciples; the evangelical and
apostolic grain. Through this, we make bread, but let us not take up "old
leaven," so that we may make new bread from the sacred scriptures. "Tell this
stone to become bread." Every temptation, which humans were about to be tempted,
the Savior was first tempted as a human; what I say is this: If you see those
from heresies eating the false word as bread, know that this word is the stone
that the devil shows. For what was the temptation for the stone to become bread
and for the Savior to eat? But the Lord teaches by what he said, "Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word of God," because this was not the word of
God, but the word of God that nourishes and gives life. For it is by that word
that man lives. Note also that he speaks according to what is human, not because
he was God. For as he replies concerning man and says, "It is written, man shall
not live by bread alone," it is clear that as a man he is tempted. Having
arrived at this place, I have the reason to say why John did not write down the
temptation, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke did. Since John began from God, he did
not genealogize him as God. Therefore, because he is God, he was not tempted;
but the others, narrating the human aspects of the Savior, introduce him as
being tempted. "He showed him all the kingdoms of the world." The kingdoms of
the world, he says, of worldly men, in the way that some are ruled by
fornication, others by love of money, others by vanity and other passions. He
did not show him the kingdoms of the world, as if to say the administration of
the Persians or the Indians, but "he showed him the kingdoms of the world," in
the way they are powerful in ruling, to entice him to do what he thought would
prevail over Christ. If you want, he says, to rule over these and have come for
this, to fight and remove those ruled by me, do not struggle, I ask one thing:
"fall down and worship me," and take all the kingdom under me. But the Savior
wants to rule and subjugate all the nations, so that they become slaves of
righteousness and truth and every virtue, but to rule not with sin, nor does he
want immediately to subjugate himself to receive a crown, nor immediately to
take all "the kingdoms of the world" and their glory subject to his power.
Therefore, he says to him, "It is written: you shall worship the Lord your God
and serve only him." I want, he says, all of these to be ruled by me, so that
they may worship "the Lord God" and serve only him; this is the will of my
kingdom. But you want me to begin with sin, which I wish to abolish. See, how
wickedly he tempts using the scriptures. He wants to take away the glory of the
Lord, as if he needed angelic assistance, as if he were about to stumble if
angels did not help him. It was not spoken concerning Christ, nor does the
master of the angels need angels. But I say the opposite to you, o devil; if
Jesus does not help the angels, they stumble. And you have fallen "from heaven"
because you considered yourself self-sufficient and not needing the help of
Jesus. But to know that the things written are not spoken concerning Jesus, but
are referred to a righteous man, listen. For it is written: "He who dwells in
the help of the Most High shall lodge in the shelter of the God of heaven." This
applies more to a righteous man than to the Son of God. And again: "A thousand
shall fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand." This also refers
to the righteous man. These words are said in the ninety-first Psalm; but they
do not speak about Christ, but about the righteous. For Christ does not fear the
midday demon nor the night demon, nor does He need the help of angels, He
Himself keeping them unscathed to God; but even if it is said concerning Christ,
it skillfully omits the intermediate matter. For it continues: "You shall tread
upon the adder and the basilisk, and you shall trample the lion and the dragon."
For these things were He Himself. Since He was about to be tested in the
temptation against the devil, the term "spirit" is mentioned twice without any
addition; but when He had fought and overcome the three recorded temptations,
pay attention to the accuracy of the text, what it says about the spirit, that
"Jesus returned in the power of the spirit," and it added "in the power" because
of the athlete who had overcome. He said He had sent Himself "to preach the
gospel to the poor," meaning the Gentiles, the unbelievers; for they were poor,
having nothing, possessing neither God in knowledge, nor law, nor prophets; and
they all being spiritually impoverished and naked of all things, of prophecy, of
temple, and the like. To these, then, He preached the kingdom of heaven; He
rescued the captives, having overthrown the apostate tyrant, which is Satan. For
the people of circumcision were the homeland of the prophets, among whom they
are not accepted. But we, being strangers to the covenants and foreigners to the
promises, received the prophets with our whole soul, proclaiming Christ rather
than they did; just as the widow in Zarephath of Sidon received Elijah "when a
famine occurred" in Israel "to hear the word of God." Concerning this widow, the
prophet says that "many are the children of the desolate, more than of the one
who has the husband," and again another scripture says that "the barren has
borne seven and she who has many children has grown weak." Clearly in these it
is shown that the life proclaimed by God the creator of the world and His old
scriptures is eternal life, which also the Savior proclaims. When the lawyer
asked, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life," He referred him to the law,
that from there he might gather commands that lead the doer of them to eternal
life, saying to him, "You have answered correctly; do this and you will live,"
namely, the eternal life about which the lawyer inquired and the Savior teaches.
Therefore, He bears witness to him who received from the law: "You shall love
the Lord your God" from Deuteronomy and the following, and from Leviticus: "You
shall love your neighbor as yourself." And the Savior declared concerning these
two commandments, saying that on them "hang all the law and the prophets". The
Word teaches; for none other than the one who keeps the commandment becomes a
neighbor, each one making himself a neighbor to the one who needs help. For this
is what is spoken in the parable: "Which of these three do you think was a
neighbor to the one who fell among robbers?" And thus the lawyer said, "The one
who showed mercy on him," and he heard: "Go and do likewise." Man is related to
Adam; Jerusalem to Paradise; Jericho to the world; the robbers to adverse
actions; the priest to the law; the Levite to the prophetic word; the Samaritan
to Christ who took flesh from Mary; the wounds to disobedience; the beast to the
body of Christ; the inn to the church; the two denarii to the knowledge of the
Father and the Son; the innkeeper to the angels overseeing the church; the
return of the Samaritan to the second coming of Christ. Those who came before
Christ were false teachers; the wounds to ... the sins, the priest indicates the
law; the Levite the prophetic word; thus the Samaritan walking, which is
interpreted as guardian, who is Christ; who neither slumbers nor sleeps in
guarding Israel, he saw the one lying half-dead, and he thought it fitting to
lay him on his own beast, which is his body, out of love for humanity, by which
"all who labor and are heavily burdened" find rest; the inn is also the church,
which receives and contains all; hence also the innkeepers ... may be
interpreted as the angels of the churches; to whom the Savior, ascending into
the heavens, "gave two denarii," commanding them to take diligent care of the
sick; some say the "two denarii" signify the proper knowledge of the Father and
the Son; and adding that "whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay
you." And you note for me that in the Gospel of Matthew one of the characters is
missing and one is changed. The "ruler" is omitted, but instead of "executor"
there is "servant"; however, the "adversary" and the "judge" are kept. "For
there are two angels," as the Shepherd says, "with every person, one of justice
and one of injustice." Some of the little angels in the church "see the face of
the Father in heaven"; but those outside the church are not worthy of this,
being served by another. And the ruler, as some have said, is the leader of each
nation, such as the kingdom of the Persians or Medes, as Daniel says; and the
adversary is one of the angels under them. Note that the "ruler" is without the
article as one of many, but "adversary" with the article, and that it has
"your"; for the adversaries are not indefinite; each one has his own one
accompanying him. "So then," he says, "as you are going with your adversary,"
who wishes to bring you to his own ruler and separate you from your ruler—so
"while you are on the way with your adversary to the ruler," before you go "to
the judge," before you become worthy of imprisonment, while you are still on the
way, "give effort to be freed" from the adversary or the judge, to whom the
adversary is dragging you; this means doing good, being temperate, just, brave,
prudent, wise—"for behold, the man and his works are before him"—so that you may
be able to "be freed from your adversary"; becoming familiar with him, yet
estranged from God, making a covenant with the adversary. Therefore, standing on
the way that says, "I am the way," "give effort to be freed." The word "drag
you" is good, to show that we are dragged against our will, as if going to
condemnation unwillingly. The judge is our Lord Jesus Christ; the executor is
the angel appointed to each person; a "little thing" is the smallest sin, and a
"quadrant," as Matthew says, is the multitude of sins. Blessed is the one who
owes nothing, that is, the one who owes little and is worthy of forgiveness.
Therefore, let us do good to be freed from the adversary, so that we may become
familiar with our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power unto the
ages of ages. Bethany is interpreted as "house of obedience", while Bethphage as
"jaw bones", a place belonging to priests; for the jaw bones were given to the
priests, as it is written in the law. Therefore, where there is obedience and a
holy place, there the Lord sends the apostles to untie a "colt tied, on which no
man ever sat". Instead of: No rational man ever sat on it, neither Moses’ word
nor Isaiah's nor any other prophet’s. When Christ came, He told the disciples to
go and loosen the colt. He told them: "If anyone asks you, why are you untying
the colt, you will say that the Lord has need of it." Note, however, that Jesus
said: "If anyone asks you," and did not name the Lord, but the Evangelist says
that they said, "The Lords of it." Many were the lords of the donkey before
being dominated by the Savior, but we know that once one becomes the Lord’s, he
cannot have many masters; for when a man serves evil, he is a slave of many
passions. The disciples take the word and seat it into the souls of those who
listen; then they take off their garments and lay them in the way. Therefore,
the garments of the apostles are on us, their good deeds and words adorn us; the
disciples wish us to tread on their garments, that is to examine the apostolic
words. When do we remain silent? When the love of the many waxes cold, when what
the Savior said comes to pass: "When the Son of man comes, will He find faith on
earth?" I seek, lest the Lord's weeping comes upon us too. For we are the
Jerusalem that is wept over, the more discerning ones. If after the mysteries of
truth are revealed to us and the word of salvation preached, we sin, we are wept
over. No Gentile is wept over, but this kind of Jerusalem is wept over because
her enemies surround her in sin, the opposing forces, and they will barricade
her and hem her in and not leave one stone upon another in her; if after a long
time of sobriety or practicing another virtue, one is conquered, his building is
demolished. "For I will not remember," He says, "his former righteousness; in
the sin which he sins, in it I will judge him." He does not drive out the
buyers—the buyer takes what is bought—but those who sell their own useful things
and receive in exchange the supposed valuable things but not the valuable. Thus,
the Savior drives you out from the temple. If you sell, you become like the
prodigal son, who took his paternal inheritance and squandered everything; I
fear lest this happen to one of us. For if I sell what is spoken through the
Holy Spirit for a reward, what else do I do but sell the Holy Spirit for a
reward? Therefore, they ask: "In the resurrection," when all rise, "whose wife
will she be?" thinking to confound Him. Some, moreover, upon reading the
prophetic texts are led astray concerning the mind of scripture—let us cite from
Isaiah, "My chosen ones will not give birth for a curse," and in Deuteronomy
among the blessings, "Blessed are the offspring of your womb"—supposing these to
be in the "resurrection of the dead," not understanding the spiritual blessings.
Therefore, to those taking things bodily among the Sadducees from the Jews, the
Savior said, "You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures." Furthermore, man
became in the beginning, as it is written in Genesis, "in the image of God," but
later due to his disobedience, he also took on an "earthly" image. Just as a
coin bears the image of the ruling king of nations, thus the one doing the works
of the "ruler of the world" bears his image. The Savior exhorts to give up and
put away this image and to bear the image which was from the beginning created
in the likeness of God. Following this, Paul also says, "As we have borne the
image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly." Therefore,
this signifies: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God
the things that are God's." He asks from us, not because He has need of
anything, but so that He might reward us with His own things. For the one who
multiplies tenfold the mina and presents it to the Lord who gave it, receives,
in addition to such things, another. For He commands that it be taken from the
one who did not multiply the mina and given to the one having ten minas. "Take,
then," He says to those standing by, "the mina from him and give it to the one
who has the ten minas," for God rewards us with the good things in addition.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 36: LETTER OF ORIGEN TO GREGORY
========================================================================

Letter of Origen to Gregory.

1. Gregory is Urged to Apply His Gentile Learning to the Study of Scripture.

2. This Procedure is Typified by the Story of the Spoiling of the Egyptians.

3. Personal Appeal.

Letter of Origen to Gregory. When and to whom the Learning derived from
Philosophy may be of Service for the Exposition of the Holy Scriptures; with a
lively Personal Appeal. This letter to Gregory, afterwards bishop of Caesarea,
and called Thaumaturgus, was preserved in the Philocalia, or collection of
extracts from Origen's works drawn up by Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea.
It is printed by Delarue and Lommatzsch in the forefront of their editions of
the works. It forms a good preface to the commentaries, as it shows how Origen
considered the study of Scripture to be the highest of all studies, and how he
regarded scientific learning, in which he was himself a master, as merely
preparatory for this supreme learning. Dräseke1 has shown that it was written
about 235, when Origen, after having had Gregory as his pupil at Caesarea for
some years, had fled before the persecution under Maximinus Thrax to
Cappadocia;while Gregory, to judge from the tenor of this Epistle, had gone to
Egypt. The Panegyric on Origen,2 pronounced by Gregory at Caesarea about 239,
when the school had reassembled there after the persecution, shows that the
master's solicitude for his pupil's true advancement was not disappointed.

1. Gregory is Urged to Apply His Gentile Learning to the Study of Scripture.

All hail to thee in God, most excellent and reverend Sir, son Gregory, from
Origen. A natural quickness of understanding is fitted, as you are well aware,
if it be diligently exercised, to produce a work which may bring its owner so
far as is possible, if I may so express myself, to the consummation of the art
the which he desires to practise, and your natural aptitude is sufficient to
make you a consummate Roman lawyer and a Greek philosopher too of the most
famous schools. But my desire for you has been that you should direct the whole
force of your intelligence to Christianity as your end, and that in the way of
production. And I would wish that you should take with you on the one hand those
parts of the philosophy of the Greeks which are fit, as it were, to serve as
general or preparatory studies for Christianity, and on the other hand so much
of Geometry and Astronomy as may be helpful for the interpretation of the Holy
Scriptures. The children of the philosophers speak of geometry and music and
grammar and rhetoric and astronomy as being ancillary to philosophy; and in the
same way we might speak of philosophy itself as being ancillary to Christianity.

2. This Procedure is Typified by the Story of the Spoiling of the Egyptians.

It is something of this sort perhaps that is enigmatically indicated in the
directions God is represented in the Book of Exodus1 as giving to the children
of lsrael. They are directed to beg from their neighbours and from those
dwelling in their tents vessels of silver and of gold, and raiment; thus they
are to spoil the Egyptians, and to obtain materials for making the things they
are told to provide in connection with the worship of God. For out of the things
of which the children of lsrael spoiled the Egyptians the furniture of the Holy
of Holies was made, the ark with its cover, and the cherubim and the mercy-seat
and the gold jar in which the manna, that bread of angels, was stored. These
probably were made from the finest of the gold of the Egyptians, and from a
second quality, perhaps, the solid golden candlestick which stood near the inner
veil, and the lamps on it, and the golden table on which stood the shewbread,
and between these two the golden altar of incense. And if there was gold of a
third and of a fourth quality, the sacred vessels were made of it. And of the
Egyptian silver, too, other things were made; for it was from their sojourn in
Egypt that the children of lsrael derived the great advantage of being supplied
with such a quantity of precious materials for the use of the service of God.
Out of the Egyptian raiment probably were made all those requisites named in
Scripture in embroidered work; the embroiderers working2 with the wisdom of
God,3 such garments for such purposes, to produce the hangings and the inner and
outer courts. This is not a suitable opportunity to enlarge on such a theme or
to show in how many ways the children of Israel found those things useful which
they got from the Egyptians. The Egyptians had not made a proper use of them;
but the Hebrews used them, for the wisdom of God was with them, for religious
purposes. Holy Scripture knows, however, that it was an evil thing to descend
from the land of the children of lsrael into Egypt; and in this a great truth is
wrapped up. For some it is of evil that they should dwell with the Egyptians,
that is to say, with the learning of the world, after they have been enrolled in
the law of God and in the Israelite worship of Him. Ader the Edomite,4 as long
as he was in the land of Israel and did not taste the bread of the Egyptians,
made no idols; but when he fled from the wise Solomon and went down into Egypt,
as one who had fled from the wisdom of God he became connected with Pharaoh,
marrying the sister of his wife, and begetting a son who was brought up among
the sons of Pharaoh. Therefore, though he did go back to the land of Israel, he
came back to it to bring division into the people of God, and to cause them to
say to the golden calf, "These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out
of the land of Egypt." I have learned by experience and can tell you that there
are few who have taken of the useful things of Egypt and come out of it, and
have then prepared what is required for the service of God; but Ader the Edomite
on the other hand has many a brother. I mean those who, founding on some piece
of Greek learning, have brought forth heretical ideas, and have as it were made
golden calves in Bethel, which is, being interpreted, the house of God. This
appears to me to be intended to convey that such persons set up their own images
in the Scriptures in which the Word of God dwells, and which therefore are
tropically called Bethel. The other image is said in the word to have been set
up in Dan. Now the borders of Dan are at the extremities and are contiguous to
the country of the heathens, as is plainly recorded in the Book of Jesus, son of
Nave. Some of these images, then, are close to the borders of the heathen, which
the brothers, as we showed, of Ader have devised.

3. Personal Appeal. Do you then, sir, my son, study first of all the divine
Scriptures. Study them I say. For we require to study the divine writings
deeply, lest we should speak of them faster than we think; and while you study
these divine works with a believing and God-pleasing intention, knock at that
which is closed in them, and it shall be opened to thee by the porter, of whom
Jesus says,5 "To him the porter openeth." While you attend to this divine
reading seek aright and with unwavering faith in God the hidden sense which is
present in most passages of the divine Scriptures. And do not be content with
knocking and seeking, for what is most necessary for understanding divine things
is prayer, and in urging us to this the Saviour says not only,6 "Knock, and it
shall be opened to you," and "Seek, and ye shall find," but also "Ask, and it
shall be given you." So much I have ventured on account of my fatherly love to
you. Whether I have ventured well or not, God knows, and His Christ, and he who
has part of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. May you partake in
these; may you have an always increasing share of them, so that you may be able
to say not only, "We are partakers of Christ,"7 but also "We are partakers of
God."

1: Jahrbucher fur Prot. Theol. 1881, I.

2: see Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. vi.

1: ix. 2.

2: Reading with Draseke, rafideuoutwn, surraptontwn twn rafideutwn .

3: Exod. xxxi. 3, 6; xxxvi. 1, 2, 8.

4: 1 Kings xi. 14 (Hadad). Origen confuses him with Jeroboam

5: John x. 3.

6: Matt. vii. 7 7: Heb. iii. 14.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 37: ON PRAYER - ON PRAYER
========================================================================

Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Translation.

[Translated by William A. Curtis]

I. INTRODUCTION

Things in themselves so supremely great, so far above man, so utterly above our
perishable nature, as to be impossible for the race of rational mortals to
grasp, as the will of God became possible in the immeasurable abundance of the
Divine grace which streams forth from God upon men, through Jesus Christ the
minister of His unsurpassable grace toward us, and through the cooperant Spirit.
Thus, though it is a standing impossibility for human nature to acquire Wisdom,
by which all things have been established—for all things, according to David,
God made in wisdom—from being impossible it becomes possible through our Lord
Jesus Christ, who was made for us wisdom from God and righteousness and
sanctification and redemption. For what or who is man that he shall know the
counsel of God, or who shall conceive what that Lord willeth? Since the thoughts
of mortals are weakling and our purposes are prone to fail; for the body that is
corruptible weighs down soul, and mind with its store of thought is burdened by
it's earthly tabernacle; and things on earth we forecast with difficulty, but
things in heaven whoever yet traced out? Who would not say that it is impossible
for man to trace out things in heaven? Yet this impossible thing, by the
surpassing grace of God, becomes possible; for he who was caught up unto a third
heaven traced out things in the three heavens through having heard unutterable
utterances which it was not permitted for man to speak. Who can say that it is
possible for the mind of the Lord to be known by man? But this, too, God
graciously gives through Christ who said to His disciples: "No longer do I call
you servants, because the servant knows not what his lord's will is, but I have
called you friends, because all the things that I have heard from my Father I
have made known to you; so that through Christ there is made known to them the
will of one who, when He teaches them the will of the Lord, has no desire to be
their lord any longer but instead becomes a friend to those whose lord he was
before." Moreover, as no one knows the things of man save the Spirit of man that
is in him, so also no one knows the things of God save the Spirit of God.

Now if no one knows the things of God save the Spirit of God, it is impossible
that a man should know the things of God. But mark how this too becomes
possible: but we, he says, have received not the spirit of the world but the
spirit which is from God, that we may know the things graciously given to us by
God, and these also we speak not in words taught of human wisdom but in those
taught of the Spirit. But I think, right pious and industrious Ambrosius, and
right discreet and manful Tatiana, from whom I avow that womanly weakness has
disappeared as truly as it had from Sarah of old, you are wondering to what
purpose all this has been said in preface about things impossible for man
becoming possible by the grace of God, when the subject prescribed for our
discourse is Prayer. The fact is, I believe it to be itself one of those things
which, judged by our weakness, are impossible, clearly to set forth with
accuracy and reverence a complete account of prayer, and in particular of how
prayer ought to be offered, what ought to be said to God in prayer, which
seasons are more, which less, suitable for prayer . . . The very apostle who by
reason of the abundance of the revelations is anxious that no one should account
to him more than he sees or hears from him, confesses that he knows not how to
pray as he ought, for what we ought to pray, he says, we know not how to as we
ought. It is necessary not merely to pray but also to pray as we ought and to
pray what we ought. For even though we are enabled to understand what we ought
to pray, that is not adequate if we do not add to it the right manner also. On
the other hand what is the use of the right manner to us if we do not know to
pray for what we ought? Of these two things the one, I mean the 'what we ought'
of prayer, is the language of the prayer, while the 'as we ought' is the
disposition of him who prays. Thus the former is illustrated by "Ask for the
great things and the little shall be added unto you," and "Ask for the heavenly
things and the earthly shall be added unto you," and "Pray for them that abuse
you," and "Entreat therefore the Lord of the harvest that He send out workers
unto his harvest," and "Pray that you enter not into temptation," and "Pray that
your flight be not in winter or on a Sabbath," and "In praying babble not" and
the like passages: the latter by "I desire therefore that men pray in ever place
lifting up holy hands without anger and questioning, and in like manner that
women array themselves decently in simplicity, with modesty and discretion, not
in or gold or pearls or costly raiments, but, as becomes women of pious
profession, through good works. Instructive too, for prayer 'as we ought' is the
passage:

"If then you art offering your gift at the altar and there think you that your
brother hath aught against you, leave there your gift before the altar, and go
back—first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift;"
for what greater gift can be sent up to God from a rational creature than
fragrant words of prayer that is offered from a conscience devoid of taint from
Sin? Similarly instructive is "Deprive not one another, save by agreement for a
season that you may give yourselves to prayer and may be together at another
time again, in order that Satan may not have occasion to exalt over you by
reason of your incontinence. For prayer 'as we ought' is restrained unless the
marriage mysteries which claim our silence be consummated with more of solemnity
and deliberation and less of passion, the 'agreement' referred to in the passage
obliterating the discord of passion, and destroying incontinence, and preventing
Satan's malicious exultation. Yet again instructive for prayer 'as we ought' is
the passage: "If you are standing at prayer, forgive aught that you have against
any man;" and also the passage in Paul "Any man who prays or preaches with
covered head dishonours his head, and any woman who prays or preaches with
unveiled head dishonors her head" is descriptive of the right manner of prayer.

Paul knows all these sayings, and could cite, with subtle statement in each
case, manifold more from law and prophets and gospel fulfillment, but in the
moderation, yes, and in the truthfulness of his nature, and because he sees how
much, after all of them, is lacking to knowledge of the right way to pray what
he ought, he says "but what we ought to pray we know not how to as we ought,"
and adds thereto the source from which a man's deficiency is made up if though
ignorant he has rendered himself worthy to have the deficiency made up within
him:

"The Spirit himself more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable and He
that searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because His
intercession on behalf of saints is according to God." Thus the Spirit who cries
"Abba Father" in the hearts of the blessed, knowing with solicitude that their
sighing in this tabernacle can but weigh down the already fallen or
transgressors, "more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable," for the
great love and sympathy He feels for men taking our sighs upon himself; and, by
virtue of the wisdom that resides in Him, beholding our Soul humbled 'unto dust'
and shut within the body 'of humiliation,' He employs no common sighs when He
more than intercedes with God but unspeakable ones akin to the unutterable words
which a man may not speak. Not content to intercede with God, this Spirit
intensifies His intercession, "more than intercedes," for those who more than
conquer, as I believe such as Paul was, who says "Nay in all these we more than
conquer."

He simply "intercedes," I think, not for those who more than conquer, nor again
for those who are conquered, but for those who conquer. Akin to the saying "what
we ought to pray we know not how to as we ought, but the Spirit more than
intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable," is the passage "I will pray with the
Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the
spirit; and I will sing with the understanding also." For even our understanding
is unable to pray unless the spirit leads it in prayer within hearing of it as
it were, anymore than it can sing or hymn, with rhythmic cadence and in unison,
with true measure and in harmony, the Father in Christ, unless the Spirit who
searches all things even the depth of God first praise and hymn Him whose depth
He has searched and, as He had the power, comprehended. I think it must have
been the awakened consciousness of human weakness falling short of prayer in the
right way, above all realized as he listened to great words of intimate
knowledge falling from the Savior's lips in prayer to the Father, that moved one
of the disciples of Jesus to say to the Lord when He ceased praying, "Lord,
teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples." The whole train of
language is as follows: "And it came to pass, as He was at prayer in a certain
place, that one of His disciples said to Him when He ceased "Lord, teach us to
pray even as John also taught his disciples." For is it conceivable that a man
who had been brought up under instruction in the law and hearing of the words of
the prophets and was no stranger to the synagogue had no knowledge whatsoever of
prayer until he saw the Lord praying in a certain place? It is absurd to pretend
that he was one who did pray after the Jewish practice but saw that he needed
fuller knowledge as to the place in reference to prayer. What was it, too, in
reference to prayer that John used to teach the disciples who came to him for
baptism from Jerusalem and all Judea and the country round about, but certain
things of which, as one who was greater than a prophet, he had vision in
reference to prayer, which I believe he would not deliver to all who were
baptized but privately to those who were disciples with a view to baptism?

Such are the prayers, which are really spiritual because the spirit was praying
in the heart of the saints, recorded in scripture, and they are full of
unutterably wonderful declarations. In the first book of Kings there is the
prayer of Hannah, partially, because the whole of it was not committed to
writing since she was 'speaking in her heart' when she perservered in prayer
before the Lord; and in Psalms, the seventeenth psalm is entitled "A prayer of
David," and the ninetieth "A prayer of Moses, man of God," and the hundred and
second "A prayer of a poor man at a time he is weary and pours forth his
supplication before the Lord."

These are prayers which, because truly prayers made and spoken with the spirit,
are also full of the declarations of the wisdom of God, so that one may say of
the truths they proclaim "Who is wise that he shall understand them? And
understanding, then he shall fully know them." Since therefore it is so great an
undertaking to write about prayer, in order to think and speak worthily of so
great a subject, we need the special illumination of the Father, and the
teaching of the first born Word himself, and the inward working of the Spirit, I
pray as a man—for I by no means attribute to myself any capacity for prayer—that
I may obtain the Spirit of prayer before I discourse upon it, and I entreat that
a discourse full and spiritual may be granted to us and that the prayers
recorded in the Gospels may be elucidated. So let us now begin our discourse on
Prayer.

II. SCRIPTURAL USES OF THE GENERAL WORDS FOR PRAYER So far as I have observed,
the first instance of the term prayer that I find is when Jacob, a fugitive from
his brother Esau's wrath, was on his way to Mesopotamia at the suggestion of
Isaac and Rebecca. The passage runs: And Jacob vowed a vow (prayed a prayer),
saying—If the Lord God will be with me, and guard me in this way that I am
going, and give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, and bring me back in
safety to my father's house, then shall the Lord be my God and this stone which
I have set up as a pillar shall be for me God's house, and of all that you will
give me I will give you tithe.

It should also to be remarked that the term prayer is in many places is
different from prayer as we speak of it—as when applied in the case of one who
professes that he will do certain things in exchange for obtaining certain other
things from God. The expression prayer is, however, employed in our usual sense
[in early texts]. Thus in Exodus after the scourge of frogs, the second in order
of the ten, "Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron and said to them: Pray unto the
Lord for me that He withdraw the frogs from me and from my people; and I will
send the people forth that they may sacrifice to the Lord." And if, because
Pharaoh's word is aw-thar' anyone should be sceptical as to aw-thar' meaning
here prayer as well as vow, he should observe what follows: "Moses said to
Pharaoh, 'Kindly tell me when I am to pray (aw-thar') for you and for your
officials and for your people, that the frogs may be removed from you and your
houses and be left only in the Nile.'" In the case of the fleas, the third
scourge, I have observed that neither does Pharaoh entreat that prayer be made
nor does Moses pray. In the case of the flies, the fourth, he says: Pray
therefore unto the Lord for me.

Then Moses also said: I will go out from you and pray unto God and the flies
shall go away from Pharaoh and his servants and his people tomorrow. And shortly
after: So Moses went out from Pharaoh and prayed unto God. Again in the case of
the fifth and the sixth scourge neither did Pharaoh entreat that prayer should
be made nor did Moses pray, but in the case of the seventh Pharaoh sent and
called for Moses and Aaron and said to them: I have sinned this time; the Lord
is righteous, I and my people are impious. Therefore pray unto the Lord that
there be an end of thunder and hail and fire. And shortly after: Moses went out
from Pharaoh outside the city, and stretched forth his hands unto the Lord and
there was an end to the thunder. Why is it not as in the foregoing cases? And he
prayed, but he stretched forth his hands unto the Lord. That is a question to be
considered more conveniently elsewhere. In the case of the eighth scourge,
however, Pharaoh says . . . and pray (aw-thar') to the LORD your God that at the
least he remove this deadly thing from me." So Moses went out from Pharaoh and
prayed (aw-thar') unto God. We said that the term prayer (aw-thar') is, as in
Jacob's case, in many places employed in a sense other than the customary. In
Leviticus for instance: The Lord spoke to Moses saying: Speak to the children of
Israel; and you shall say unto them:

Whoever vows (naw-dar') a vow (neh'-der), setting a price upon his soul to the
Lord, his price, if a male from twenty to sixty years, shall be fifty didrachims
of silver, sanctuary standard. And in Numbers: And the Lord spoke to Moses
saying: Speak to the Children of Israel; and you shall say unto them: Man or
woman, whoever vows (naw-dar') a great vow of consecration to the Lord, shall be
consecrate from wine and strong drink—and so on of the so-called Nazarite; then,
shortly after: and shall hallow his head in that day in which he was hallowed to
the Lord for the days of the vow. And again shortly after: This is the law for
him that has vowed when he shall have fulfilled the days of his vow . . . ; and
again shortly after: And after that, he that has vowed will drink wine. This is
the law for him that has vowed, whoever has vowed his votive gift to the Lord,
apart from what his hand may find by virtue of his vow which he has vowed
according to the law of consecration. And towards the end of Numbers: And Moses
spoke to the rulers of the tribes of the Children of Israel saying, This is the
thing which the Lord has decreed: A man who has vowed a vow to the Lord or sworn
an oath or entered a bond, on his soul shall not desecrate his word: all that
has gone out of his mouth shall he do. And if a woman has vowed a vow to the
Lord or entered a bond in the house of her father in her youth, and her father
has heard her vows and her bonds that she entered into against her soul, and her
father has let them pass in silence, all her vows shall stand, and her bonds
that she entered into against her soul shall remain: after which he lays down
sundry other laws for such a woman. In this sense it is written in Proverbs: [I
have a peace offering: today I pay my vows; and a foolish son is a father's
shame: unhallowed are vows from a harlot's hire; and] it is a snare to a man to
hallow hastily anything of his own: for after vowing comes repenting. And in
Ecclesiastes: Better not vow than vow without paying; and in the Acts of the
Apostles: There are among us four men of their own accord under a vow. I thought
it not out of place first to distinguish the meaning of prayer (aw-thar') in its
two senses, and similarly of prayer (neh'-der), for the latter turn in addition
to its common and customary general usage, is also employed, in the sense which
we are accustomed to attach to vow in what is told of Hannah in the first book
of Samuel: Now Eli the priest was sitting on a seat at the doorway of the temple
of the Lord. And she was in bitterness of soul and prayed (paw-lal') unto the
Lord and wept sore. And she vowed (naw-dar') a vow (neh'-der) and said: O Lord
of hosts, if you will indeed look on the humiliation of your bondwoman and
remember me and forget not your bondwoman and will give to your bondwoman male
seed, then will I give him in gift to the Lord all the days of his life, and no
razor shall come upon his head. And yet in this instance, one may, not without
plausibility, with special regard to the words "she prayed (paw-lal') unto the
Lord," "and she vowed a vow," Ask whether, as she has done both of two things,
that is "prayed unto the Lord" "and vowed a vow," the word prayed ( paw-lal') on
the one hand is not employed in our customary signification of prayer
(aw-thar'), and "vowed a vow" on the other hand in the sense in which it is
employed in Leviticus and Numbers. For "I will give him in gift to the Lord all
the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head" is strictly not a
prayer but such a vow as Jephthah also vowed in the passage; and Jephthah vowed
a vow to the Lord and said: If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon
into my hand, then it shall be that whoever comes out of the doors of my house
to meet me on my return in peace from the Children of Ammon shall be the Lord's
and I will offer him up as a burnt offering.

III. OBJECTIONS TO PRAYER

If then I must next, as you have urged, set forth in the first place the
arguments of those who told that nothing is accomplished as a result of prayers
and therefore allege that prayer is superfluous, I shall not hesitate to do that
also according to my ability—the term prayer being now used in its more common
and general sense. In such disrepute indeed is the view and to such a degree has
it failed to obtain champions of distinction that, among those who admit a
Providence and set a God over the universe, not a soul can be found who does not
believe in prayer. The opinion (sentiment) belongs either to utter atheists who
deny the existence of God, or assume a God, as far as the name goes, but deprive
Him of providence. Already, it must be said, the adverse inworking, with intent
to wrap the most impious of opinions around the name of Christ and around the
teaching of the Son of God, has made some converts on the needlessness of
prayer—a sentiment which find champions in those who by every means do away with
outward forms, eschewing baptism and eucharist alike, misrepresenting the
Scriptures as not actually meaning this that we call prayer but as teaching
something quite different from it.

Those who reject prayers, while, that is to say, setting a God over the universe
and affirming Providence—for it is not my present task to consider the
statements of those who by every means do away with a God or Providence—might
reason as follows: God knows all things before they come to be. There is nothing
that upon its entrance into existence is then first known by Him as previously
unknown. What need to send up prayer to One who, even before we pray, knows what
things we have need of? For the heavenly Father knows what things we have need
of before we ask Him.

It is reasonable to believe that as Father and Artificer of the universe who
loves all things that are and abhors nothing that He has made, quite apart from
prayer He safely manages the affairs of each like a father who champions his
infant children without awaiting their entreaty when they are either utterly
incapable of asking or through ignorance often desirous of getting the opposite
of what is to their profit and advantage. We men come further short of God even
than the merest children of the intelligence of their parents. And in all
likelihood the things that are to be are not only foreknown but prearranged by
God, and nothing takes place contrary to His prearrangement. Were anyone to pray
for sunrise he would be thought a simpleton for entreating through prayer for
the occurrence of what was to take place quite apart from his prayer: In like
manner a man would be a fool to believe that his prayer was responsible for the
occurrence of what was to take place in any case even had he never prayed. And
again, as it is the height of madness to imagine that, because one suffers
discomfort and fever under the sun at Summer Solstice, the Sun is through prayer
to be transferred to the Springtime Zodiac, in order that one may have the
benefit of temperate air, so it would be the height of infatuation to imagine
that by reason of prayer one would not experience the misfortunes that meet the
race of men by necessity. Moreover, if it be true that sinners are estranged
from birth and the righteous man has been set apart from his mother's womb, and
if, while as yet they are unborn and have done neither good nor evil, it is said
the elder shall serve the younger, that the elective purpose of God may stand
based not on works but on the Caller, it is in vain that we entreat for
forgiveness of sins or to receive a spirit of strength to the end that, Christ
empowering us, we may have strength for all things.

If we are sinners, we are estranged from birth: if on the other hand we were set
apart from our mother's womb, the best of things will come our way even though
we do not pray. It is prophesied before his birth that Jacob shall be over Esau
and that his brother shall serve him: what has prayer to do with that? Of what
impiety is Esau guilty that he is hated before his birth? To what purpose does
Moses pray, as is found in the ninetieth psalm, if God is his refuge since
before the mountains were settled and the earth and world were formed. Besides,
of all that are to be saved, it is recorded in the Epistle to Ephesians that the
Father elected them in Him, in Christ, before the world's foundation, that they
should be holy and blameless before Him, preordaining them unto adoption as His
sons through Christ.

Either, therefore, a man is elect, of the number of those who are so since
before the world's foundation, and can by no means fall from his election in
which case he has therefore no need of prayer; or he is not elect nor yet
preordained, in which case he prays in vain, since, though he should pray ten
thousand times, he will not be listened to. For whom God foreknew, them He also
preordained to conformity with the image of His Son's glory; and whom He
preordained, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified;
and whom He justified, them He also glorified.

Why is Josiah distressed, or why has he anxiety as to whether or not he will be
listened to in prayer, when, many generations before, he was prophesied by name
and his future action not only foreknown but foretold in the hearing of many. To
what purpose, too, does Judas pray with the result that even his prayer turned
to sin, when from David's times it is pre-announced that he will lose his
overseership, another receiving it in his stead.

It is self-evidently absurd, God being unchangeable and having pre-comprehended
all things and adhering to His prearrangements, to pray in the belief that
through prayer one will change His purpose, or, as though He had not already
prearranged but awaited each individual's prayer, to make intercession that He
may arrange what suits the supplicant by reason of his prayer, there and then
appointing what He approves as reasonable though He has previously not
contemplated it. At this point the propositions you formulated in your letter to
me may be set down word for word thus: Firstly, if God is foreknower of the
future and it must come to pass, prayer is vain. Secondly, if all things come to
pass by virtue of God's will, and His decrees are fixed, and nothing that He
wills can be changed, prayer is vain. Towards a solution of the difficulties
which benumb the instinct of prayer, the following, as I believe, helpful
considerations may be advanced.

IV. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: MAN'S FREEWILL AND GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE Of objects that
move, some have the cause of motion outside them. Such are objects which are
lifeless and in passive motion simply by force of condition, and those which are
moved by force of nature and of life in the same manner and not like things
which move occasionally, for stones and stocks that have been quarried or cut
off from growth, being in passive motion simply by force of condition, have the
cause of motion outside them.

Such too are dead bodies of animals and movable parts of plants, which change
position under compulsion and not as animals and plants themselves change their
position but in the same manner as stones and stocks cut off from
growth—although even these may be said to move in respect that, all bodies in
decay being in flux, they possess the motion inherently attendant upon decay.
Besides these a second class of moving objects are those which move by force of
their internal nature or life, which are said by those who use terms in their
stricter sense to move of themselves. A third kind of movement is that in
animals, which is termed spontaneous movement, whereas, in my opinion, the
movement of rational beings is independent movement. If we withdraw from an
animal spontaneous movement, it cannot be any longer conceived as even an
animal; it will be like either a plant moving by mere force of nature or a stone
borne along by some force external to it: Whenever an object follows its own
peculiar movement, since that is what we have termed independent movement, it
must needs be rational. Thinkers therefore who will have it that nothing is in
our power, will necessarily assent to a most foolish statement, firstly that we
are not animals, and secondly that neither are we rational beings, but that,
what we are believed to do, we may be said to do by force as it were of some
external cause of motion and in no sense moving ourselves.

Let anyone, moreover, with special regard to his own feelings, see whether
without shame he can deny that it is himself that wills, eats, walks, gives
assent to and accepts certain opinions, dissents from others as false. There are
certain opinions to which a man cannot possibly assent though he puts them with
innumerable refinements of argument and with plausible reasoning: and similarly
it is impossible to assent to any view of human affairs in which our free will
is in no sense preserved. Who assents to the view that nothing is
comprehensible, or lives as in complete suspense of judgement: Who that has
received a sense perception of a domestic misdeed, forebears to reprove the
servant? And who is there that does not censure a son who fails to pay the duty
owed to parents, or does not blame and find fault with an adulteress as having
committed a shameful act? Truth forces and compels us, in spite of innumerable
refinements, to impulsive praise and blame, on the basis of our retention of
free will with the responsibility in which it involves us.

If our free will is in truth preserved with innumerable inclinations towards
virtue or vice, towards either duty or its opposite, its future must like other
things have been known by God, before coming to pass, from the world's creation
and foundation; and in all things prearranged by God in accordance with what He
has seen of each act of our free wills. He has with due regard to each movement
of our free wills prearranged what also is at once to occur in His providence
and to take place according to the train of future events. God's foreknowledge
is not the cause of all future events including those that are to have their
efficient cause in our freewill guided by impulse.

Even though we should suppose God ignorant of the future, we shall not on that
account be incapacitated for effecting this and willing that. Rather it ensues
from His foreknowledge that our individual free wills receive adjustment to suit
the universal arrangement needful for the constitution of the world. If,
therefore, our individual free wills have been known by Him, and if in His
providence He has on that account been careful to make due arrangement for each
one, it is reasonable to believe that He has also pre-comprehended what a
particular man is to pray in that faith, what his disposition, and what his
desire. That being so, in His arrangement it will accordingly have been ordained
somewhat after this wise: This man I will hear for the sake of the prayer that
he will pray, because he will pray wisely: but that man I will not hear, either
because he will be unworthy of being heard, or because his prayer will be for
things neither profitable for the suppliant to receive nor becoming me to
bestow: and in the case of this prayer, of some particular person, let us say, I
will not hear him, but in the case of that I will. Should the fact of God's
unerring foreknowledge of the future disquiet anyone by suggesting that things
have been necessarily determined, we must tell him that it is a real part of
God's fixed knowledge that a particular man will not with any fixed certainty
choose the better or so desire the worse as to become incapable of a change for
his good. And again I will do this for this man when he prays, as becomes me
seeing that he will pray without reproach and will not be negligent in prayer:
upon that man who will pray for a certain amount, I will bestow this abundantly
in excess of his asking or thinking, for it becomes me to surpass him in well
doing and to furnish more than he has been capable of asking. To this other man
of a particular character I will send this angel as minister, to cooperate from
a certain time in his salvation and to be with him for a certain period: to that
other, who will be a better man than he, that angel of higher rank than his.
From this man who, after having devoted himself to the higher views will
gradually relax and fall back upon the more material, I will withdraw this
superior cooperator, upon whose withdrawal that duly inferior power, having
found an opportunity to get at his slackness, will set upon him and when he has
given himself up in readiness to sin, will incite him to these particular sins.
So we may imagine the Prearranger of All saying:

Amos will beget Josiah, who will not emulate his father's faults but will find
his way leading on to virtue, and will by aid of these companions be noble and
good, so that he will tear down the evilly erected altar of Jeroboam. I also
know that Judas, in the sojourn of my son among the race of men, will at the
first be noble and good but later turn aside and fall away to human sins so that
he will rightly suffer thus for them. This foreknowledge, it may be in regard to
all things, certainly in regard to Judas and other mysteries, exists in the Son
of God also, who in His discernment of the evolution of the future has seen
Judas and the sins to be committed by him, so that, even before Judas came into
existence, He in His comprehension has said through David the words beginning "O
God, keep you not silence at my praise."—Knowing as I do the future and what an
influence Paul will have in the cause of religion, ere yet I set me to begin
creation and found the world I will make choice of him: I will commit him from
the moment of his birth to these powers that cooperate in men's salvation.

I will set him apart from his mother's womb. I will permit him at the first to
fall in youth into an ignorant zeal and in the avowed cause of religion to
persecute believers in my Christ and to keep the garments of them that stone my
servant and witness Stephen, so that later at the close of his youthful
wilfulness he may be given a fresh start and change for the best and yet not
boast before me but may say: "I am not fit to be called an apostle, because I
persecuted the church of God," and realizing the kindness that he will receive
from me after his faults committed in youth in the avowed cause of religion may
declare "It is by God's grace that I am what I am"; and, being restrained by
conscience by reason of the deeds he wrought while still young against Christ,
he will not be excessively elated by the exceeding abundance of the revelations
which in kindness I shall show him. To the objection in reference to prayer for
the rising of the Sun we may reply as follows. The Sun also possesses a certain
free will, since he with the moon joins in praising God, for "Praise Him, Sun
and Moon" it says: as also manifestly the moon and all the stars conformably,
for it says "Praise Him all the stars and light." As, therefore, we have said
that God has employed the free will of individual beings on earth for the
service of beings on earth in arranging them aright, so we may suppose that He
has employed the free will, fixed and certain and steadfast and wise as it is,
of sun, moon and stars in arranging the whole world of heaven with the course
and movement of the stars in harmony with the whole.

If I do not pray in vain for what concerns any other freewill, much more shall I
pray for what concerns the freewill of the stars which tread in heaven their
world-conserving measures. It may indeed be said of beings on earth that certain
appearances in our surroundings call out now our instability, now our better
inclination to act or speak in certain ways: but in the case of beings in heaven
what appearances can interpose to oust and remove from the course that benefit
the world beings which have each a life so adjusted by Reason independently of
them, and which enjoy so ethereal and supremely pure a frame?

V. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO PRAYER With a view to impel men
to pray and to turn them from neglect of prayer, we may not unreasonably further
use an illustration such as this. Just as, apart from woman and apart from
recourse to the function requisite for procreation, man cannot procreate, so one
may not obtain certain things without prayer in a certain manner, with a certain
disposition, with a certain faith, after a certain antecedent mode of life. Thus
we are not to babble or ask for little things or pray for earthly things or
enter upon prayer with anger and with thoughts disturbed. Nor again is it
possible to think of giving oneself to prayer apart from purification. Nor again
is forgiveness of sins possible to the supplicant unless from the heart he
forgives his brother who has done wrong and entreats him to obtain his pardon.
That benefit accrues to him who prays rightly or according to his ability
strives to do so, follows, I consider, in many ways: It is, first of all, surely
in every sense a spiritual advantage to him who is intent upon prayer, in the
very composure of prayer to present himself to God and in His presence to speak
to Him with a vivid sense that he looks on and is present. For just as certain
mental images and particular recollections connected with the objects
recollected may sully the thoughts suggested by certain other images, in the
same way we may believe that it is advantageous to remember God as the object of
our faith—the One who discerns the movements within the inner sanctuary of the
soul as it disposes itself to please the Examiner of Hearts and Inquisitor of
Reins as One who is present and beholds and penetrates into every mind.

Even though further benefit than this be supposed to accrue to him who has
composed his thoughts for prayer, no ordinary gain is to be conceived as gotten
by one who has devoutly disposed himself in the season of prayer. When this is
regularly practiced, how many sins it keeps us from, and how many achievements
it brings us to, is known only to those who have given themselves up with some
degree of constancy to prayer. For if the recollection and recontemplation of a
man who has found fame and benefit in wisdom incites us to evaluate him and
sometimes restrains our lower impulses, how much more does the recollection of
God the Father of All, along with prayer to Him, become advantageous to those
who are persuaded that they stand before and speak to a present and hearing God!

What I have said may be established from the divine scriptures in the following
way. He who prays must lift up holy hands, forgiving everyone who has wronged
him, with the passion of anger banished from his soul and in wrath with none.
And again, to prevent his mind from being made turbid by irrelevant thoughts, he
must while at prayer forget for the time everything outside prayer—surely a
state of supreme blessedness! As Paul teaches in the first Epistle to Timothy
when he says: "I desire therefore that men pray in every place lifting up holy
hands without anger and disputations. And further, a woman ought, most of all at
prayer, to preserve simplicity and decency in soul and body, above all and
especially while she prays reverencing God and expelling from her intellect
every wanton womanish recollection, arrayed not in chaplets and gold or pearls
or costly raiment, but in the things in which it becomes a woman of pious
profession to be arrayed, (and I marvel that anyone should hesitate, were it on
the strength of such a condition alone, to pronounce her blessed who has thus
presented herself for prayer) as Paul has taught in the same Epistle when he
says, "in like manner that women array themselves decently in simplicity with
modesty and discretion, not in chaplets and gold or pearls or costly raiment,
but, as becomes woman of pious profession, through good works." (1Tim.2:9) And
besides, the prophet David speaks of much else that the saint possesses in
prayer. We may, not irreverently, cite these passages as showing that, even if
this alone be considered, the attitude and preparation for prayer of one who has
offered himself to God is of the highest benefit. He says: "Unto you have I
lifted mine eyes, who dwellest in heaven and unto you have I lifted my soul, O
God." For when the eyes of thought are lifted up from dwelling on earthly things
and being filled with the imagination of material objects, and are elevated to
such a height as to look beyond begotten things and to be engaged solely in
contemplation of God and in solemn converse with Him becoming to the Hearer.

Surely those eyes themselves have already got the highest advantage in
reflecting the glory of the Lord with face unveiled and being transformed into
the same image from glory to glory, for they then partake of a certain divine
perception shown by the words: "the light of your face, O Lord, hath been
signalized upon us." (Ps.4:6) And indeed the soul being lifted up, and parting
from body to follow spirit, and not only following the spirit but also merging
in it, as is shown by the words "Unto you have I lifted my soul," is surely
already putting off its existence as soul and becoming spiritual. And if
forgiveness is a very high accomplishment, so high as according to the prophet
Jeremiah to embrace a summary of the whole law, for he says, "I laid not those
commands upon your fathers as they were gone forth from Egypt, but this command
I laid:

Let each man not be unforgiving to his neighbor in his heart," and if in
entering upon prayer with unforgiveness left behind us we keep the Savior's
command, "If you're standing at prayer forgive aught that you have against any
man." (Mk.11:25) It is plain that those who stand in that temper to pray have
already received the best of possessions.

VI. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: HE WHO PRAYS PRAYS NOT ALONE So far, I have said that,
even on the supposition that nothing else is going to follow our prayer, we
receive the best of gains when we have come to perceive the right way to pray
and when we achieve it. But it is certain that he who thus prays, having
previously cast aside all discontent with Providence, will, if intent to mark
the inworking of the Hearer, in the very act hear the response "Here am I." The
above condition is expressed in the words "If you withdraw your bonds and
protests and murmuring utterance," for he that is content with what comes to
pass becomes free from every bond, and does not protest against God for
ordaining what He wills for our discipline, and does not even in the secrecy of
his thoughts murmur inaudibly; for they who murmur thus, not daring to abuse
Providence roundly for what occurs with voice and soul but desiring as it were
to escape the observation even of the Lord of All in their discontent, are like
bad domestics who rail, but not openly, against their masters' orders. And I
think the same thing is meant in the passage in Job: "In all these ocurrences
Job sinned not with his lips in the sight of God"; and it is just this that the
saying in Deuteronomy enjoins must not happen, when it says: "Take heed lest a
secret utterance be ever in your heart to break the law, saying the seventh year
draws nigh" and so on. So then he who prays thus, becomes, as already so greatly
benefited, more fit to mingle with the Spirit of the Lord that fills the whole
world and fills all the earth and the heaven and says by the prophet: "'Do not I
fill the heaven and the earth?' says the Lord." And further, through the afore
mentioned purification as well as through prayer, he will enjoy the good office
of the Word of God, who is standing in the midst even of those who do not know
Him and who fails the prayer of none, to pray to the Father along with Him for
whom He mediates. For the Son of God is high priest of our offerings and our
pleader with the Father. He prays for those who pray, and pleads along with
those who plead. He will not, however, consent to pray, as for his intimates, on
behalf of those who do not with some constancy pray through Him, nor will he be
Pleader with the Father, as for men already His own, on behalf of those who do
not obey His teaching to the effect that they ought at all times to pray and not
lose heart. For it says, "He spoke a parable to the end that they ought at all
times to pray and not lose heart. 'There was a certain judge in a certain
city,'" and so on; and earlier he said unto them, "Who of you shall have a
friend, and shall go unto him at midnight and shall say to him:

Friend, lend me three loaves since a friend of mine has come to me after a
journey and I have naught to set before him"; and a little later, "I tell you,
even though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, he will yet
because of his being unabashed get up and give him as many as he wants." And who
that believes the guileless lips of Jesus can but be stirred to unhesitating
prayer when He says, "Ask and it shall be given you for everyone that asks
receives," since the kind Father gives to those who have received the spirit of
adoption from the Father, the living bread when we ask Him, not the stone which
the adversary would have become food for Jesus and His disciples, and since The
Father gives the good gift in rain from heaven to those that ask him. But these
pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest but also the
angels who "rejoice in heaven over one repenting sinner more than over
ninety-nine righteous that need not repentance," and also the souls of the
saints already at rest. Two instances make this plain. The first is where
Raphael offers their service to God for Tobit and Sarah. After both had prayed,
the scripture says, "The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the
great Raphael and he was sent to heal them both," and Raphael himself, when
explaining his angelic commission at God's command to help them, says:

"Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the
memorial of your prayer before the Holy One," and shortly after, "I am Raphael,
one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before
the glory of the Holy One. Thus, according to Raphael's account at least, prayer
with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness is a good thing. The second
instance is in the Books of the Maccabees where Jeremiah appears in exceeding
"white haired glory" so that a wondrous and most majestic authority was about
him, and stretches forth his right hand and delivers to Judas a golden sword,
and there witnesses to him another saint already at rest saying, "This is he who
prays much for the people and the sacred city, God's prophet Jeremiah." For it
is absurd when knowledge, though manifested to the worthy through a mirror and
in a riddle for the present, is then revealed face to face not to think that the
like is true of all other excellences as well, that they who prepare in this
life beforehand are made strictly perfect then.

Now one of these excellences in the strictest sense according to the divine word
is love for one's neighbor, and this accordingly we are compelled to think of as
possessed in a far higher degree by saints already at rest than by those who are
in human weakness and wrestle on along with the weaker. It is not only here that
"if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it and if one member is
glorified, all the members rejoice with it" in the experience of those who love
their brethren, for it beseems the love also of those who are beyond the present
life to say "I have anxiety for all the churches: Who is weak and I am not weak?
Who is made to stumble and I do not burn?" Especially when Christ avows that
according as such one of the saints may be weak, He is weak in like manner, and
in prison and naked and a stranger and hungry and athirst. For who that reads
the gospel is ignorant that Christ, in taking on himself whatever befalls
believers, counts their sufferings His own? And if angels of God came to Jesus
and ministered to Him, and if we are not to think of the ministry of the angels
to Jesus as having been limited to the brief space of His bodily sojourn among
men while He was still in the midst of believers not as one that reclined at
table but as one that ministered, how many angels, I wonder, must now be
ministering to Jesus when He would "bring together the Children of Israel one by
one" and gather them from the dispersion, saving those who fear God and call
upon Him, and must be cooperating more than the apostles in the increase and
enlargement of the church! Thus in John certain angels are spoken of in the
Apocalypse as actually presiding over the churches. Not in vain do angels of God
ascend and descend unto the Son of Man, beheld of eyes that have been
enlightened with the light of knowledge. In the very season of prayer,
accordingly, being reminded by the suppliant of his needs, they satisfy them as
they have ability by virtue of their general commission. To further the
acceptance of our view we may make use of some such image as the following in
support of this argument.

Suppose that a righteously minded physician is at the side of a sick man praying
for health, with knowledge of the right mode of treatment for the disease about
which the man is offering prayer. It is manifest that he will be moved to heal
the suppliant, surmising, it may well be not idly, that God has had this very
action in mind in answer to the prayer of the suppliant for release from the
disease. Or suppose that a man of considerable means, who is generous, hears the
prayer of a poor man offering intercession to God for his wants. It is plain
that he, too, will fulfil the objects of the poor man's prayer, becoming a
minister of the fatherly counsel of Him who at the season of the prayer had
brought together him who was to pray and him who was able to supply and by
virtue of the rightness of his principles, incapable of overlooking one who has
made that particular request. As therefore we are not to believe that these
events are fortuitous, when they take place because He who has numbered all the
hairs of the head of saints, has aptly brought together at the season of the
prayer the hearer who is to be minister of His benefaction to the suppliant and
the man who has made his request in faith; so we may surmise that the presence
of the angels who exercise oversight and ministry for God is sometimes brought
into conjunction with a particular suppliant in order that they may join in
breathing his petitions.

Nay more, beholding ever the face of the Father in heaven and looking on the
Godhead of our Creator, the angel of each man, even of "little ones" within the
church, both prays with us, and acts with us where possible, for the objects of
our prayer.

VII. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: THE TRUE PLACE OF PRAYER IN MAN'S LIFE

Again I believe the words of the prayer of the saints to be full of power above
all when praying "with the spirit," they pray "also with the understanding,"
which is like a light rising from the suppliant's mind and proceeding from his
lips to gradually weaken by the power of God the mental venom injected by the
adverse powers into the intellect of such as neglect prayer and fail to keep
that saying of Paul's in accordance with the exhortations of Jesus, "Pray
without ceasing." For it is as if a dart from the suppliant's soul, sped by
knowledge and reason or by faith, proceeds from the saint and wounds to their
destruction and dissolution the spirits adverse to God and desirous of casting
round us the bonds of sin.

Now, since the performance of actions enjoined by virtue or by the commandments
is also a constituent part of prayer, he prays without ceasing who combines
prayer with right actions, and becoming actions with prayer. For the saying
"pray without ceasing" can only be accepted by us as a possibility if we may
speak of the whole life of a saint as one great continuous prayer. Of such
prayer what is usually termed prayer is indeed a part, and ought to be performed
at least three times each day, as is plain from the account of Daniel who, in
spite of the grave danger that impended, prayed three times daily. Peter
furnishes an instance of the middle prayer of the three when he goes up to the
housetop about the sixth hour to pray on that occasion on which he also saw the
vessel which descended from heaven let down by four corners. The first is spoken
of by David: "In the morning shall you hear my prayer: in the morning will I
present myself to you and keep watch." The last is indicated in the words: "the
lifting up of my hands in evening sacrifice." Indeed we shall not rightly speak
even the season of night without such prayer as David refers to when he says "at
midnight I arose to make acknowledgment to you for your righteous judgments" and
as Paul exemplifies when, as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, along with
Silas he offers prayer and praise to God "about midnight" in Phillipi so that
the prisoners also heard them.

VIII. ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS: SIGNAL INSTANCES OF PRAYER

If Jesus prays and does not pray in vain, if He obtains His requests through
prayer and it may be would not have received them without prayer, who of us is
to neglect prayer? Mark tells us that "in the morning long before daybreak he
arose and went out and departed to a lonely place and there prayed." Luke says:
"And it came to pass, as He was at prayer in a certain place, that one of His
disciples said to Him when He ceased, . . . and elsewhere: And He passed the
night in prayer to God." John records a prayer of Him in the words:

"These things spoke Jesus, and lifting up His eyes unto heaven He said, 'Father
the hour is come; glorify your Son that your Son may also glorify you.'" And the
Lord's saying, "I knew that you hear me always," recorded in the same writer
shows that it is because He is always praying that He is always heard.

What need is there to tell the tale of those who, through right prayer, have
obtained the greatest of things from God, when it is open to everyone to select
any number of them for himself from the Scriptures? Hannah did service to the
birth of Samuel, who is numbered along with Moses, because though barren she
prayed in faith unto the Lord. Hezekiah, who while still childless learned from
Isaiah that he was about to die, is included in the Savior's genealogy because
he prayed. When the people were already on the point of perishing under a single
decree as the result of Haman's conspiracy, it was the heard prayer with fasting
of Mordecai and Esther that added to the Mosaic festivals and gave rise to the
Mordecaic day of rejoicing for the people.

It was, moreover, after offering holy prayer that Judith with God's help
overcame Holophernes, and thus a single woman of the Hebrews wrought shame upon
the house of Nebuchadnezzar. It was on being heard that Ananiah and Azariah and
Mishael became worthy to receive a hissing rain and wind which kept the flame of
the fire from taking effect. Through Daniel's prayers the lions in the
Babylonians' pit were muzzled.

Even Jonah, because he did not despair of being heard from the belly of the
monster that had swallowed him, was able to quit the monster's belly and
complete his interrupted prophet's mission to the Ninevites. And further, how
many things could each of us recount should he choose to recall with gratitude
the benefits conferred upon him and to offer praise to God for them! Souls that
have long been barren but have become conscious of their intellects' sterility
and the barrenness of their mind, through persevering prayer have conceived of
the Holy Spirit and given birth to thoughts and words of salvation full of
contemplated truth.

How many of our foes have been dispersed, when often countless thousands in the
adverse host were wearing us down with intent to sweep us away from the divine
faith, and we rejoiced, when their appeal was to chariots and horses but ours to
the name of the Lord, to see that in truth deceptive is a horse for safety! Many
a time indeed does he whose trust is in praise to God—for Judith means
praise—cut his way through guileful and persuasive speech, that chief commander
of the adversary who brings numbers even of reputed believers to their knees.

What need is there to go on to tell of all who many a time have fallen among
temptations hard to overcome, whose burn was sharper than any flame, and have
suffered naught under them but emerged from them in every way unscathed, without
so much of scathe as the slightest odor of the hostile fire; or again of all the
brutes exasperated against us, in the form of wicked spirits or cruel men, that
we have encountered and often muzzled by our prayers, so that they were impotent
to fasten their fangs in our members which had become those of Christ. Often in
each saint's experience has the Lord dashed together the teeth of lions, and
they were brought to nothing, as water flowing by.

We know that often fugitives from God's commands who have been swallowed by
death, which at the first prevailed against them, have been saved by reason of
repentance from so great an evil, because they did not despair of being able to
be saved though already overpowered in the belly of death: for death prevailed
and swallowed, and again God took away every tear from every face. What I have
said after my enumeration of persons who have been benefited through prayer, I
consider to have been most necessary to my purpose of turning aspirants after
the spiritual life in Christ from prayer for little earthly things, and urging
readers of this writing towards the mystical things of which the above mentioned
were types. For it is always and wholly prayer for the spiritual, mystical
things which we have instanced, that is practised by him who does not war
according to the flesh but with the Spirit mortifies the body's actions,
preference being given to the things suggested by analogy and study over the
benefaction apparently indicated by the language of scripture as having accrued
to those who had prayed. For in ourselves also we are to strive, hearing the
spiritual law with spiritual ears, that barrenness or sterility may not arise,
but that we may like Hannah and Hezekiah be heard, being freed from barrenness
or sterility, and like Mordecai and Esther and Judith be delivered from plotting
enemies—in our case the spiritual powers of evil. Inasmuch as Egypt is an iron
furnace and also a symbol of every earthly place, let every one who has escaped
from the wickedness of the life of men without having been scorched by sin or
having had his heart like an oven full of fire, give thanks no less than the men
who experienced rain amid fire.

Let him, too, who has been heard when he has prayed and said "Deliver not to the
brutes a soul that makes acknowledgment to you," and who has suffered naught
from asp and basilisk because through Christ he has trod on them, and who has
trampled lion and snake and enjoyed the good authority bestowed by Jesus to walk
over serpents and scorpions and upon the whole power of the enemy, without
having been injured by any of them, give thanks more than Daniel as having been
delivered from brutes more terrible and harmful.

Let him, moreover, who has learned by experience what manner of monster that
which swallowed Jonah typified, perceiving that it is of such that Job has
spoken, "May He curse it that curses that day, He that is to worst the great
monster," if he should ever come by reason of any disobedience to be in the
belly of the monster, pray in penitence, and he shall come out thence; and if,
after coming out, he abides in obedience to the commands of God, he shall be
able according to the kindness of the Spirit to be a prophet to perishing
Ninevites of today and to become a means to their salvation, without discontent
with the kindness of God or desire that He should abide in severity towards
penitents. The very highest thing that Samuel is said to have done through
prayer is spiritually possible of achievement today by every genuine dependant
upon God who has become worthy to be heard. It is written: "And now do but stand
and see this great thing which the Lord does under you eyes. Is it not wheat
harvest today? I will call upon the Lord and He will give thunders and rain."
And then shortly after it says "and Samuel called upon the Lord, and the Lord
gave thunders and rain in that day." To every saint who is genuinely in
discipleship to Jesus it is said by the Lord, "Lift up your eyes and behold how
the fields are white already unto harvest. He that harvests receives wages and
gathers fruit unto life eternal." In this time of harvest the Lord does a great
thing under the eyes of those who hear the prophets; for when he that is adorned
by the Spirit calls upon the Lord, God gives from heaven thunders and rain that
waters the Soul, in order that he who was before in vice may deeply fear the
Lord and the minister of God's benefaction whose claim to reverence and
veneration has been attested through the hearing of his prayers. Elijah indeed
by a divine word opened the heavens after they had been shut to the impious
three years and six months, a thing which anyone may accomplish at any time when
through prayer he receives the Soul's rain, if he be one who has hitherto been
deprived of it because of sin.

IX. THE CONTENT OF PRAYER: ITS FOUR MOODS

After thus interpreting the benefactions which have accrued to saints through
their prayers, let us turn our attention to the words "ask for the great things
and the little shall be added unto you: and ask for the heavenly things and the
earthly shall be added unto you." All symbolical and typical things may be
described as little and earthly in comparison with the true and the spiritual.

And, I believe, the divine Word, in urging us on to imitate the prayers of the
saints, speaks of the heavenly and great things set forth through those
concerned with the earthly and little, in order that we may make our requests
according to the reality of which their achievements were typical. He says in
effect: Do you who would be spiritual ask for the heavenly and great, in order
that obtaining in them heavenly things you may inherit a kingdom of heaven, and
as obtaining great things you may enjoy the greatest blessings, while as for the
earthly and little that you require by reason of your bodily necessities, your
Father will supply them to you in due measure. In the first Epistle to Timothy
the Apostle has employed four terms corresponding to four things in close
relation to the subject of devotion and prayer. It will therefore be of service
to cite his language and see whether we can satisfactorily determine the strict
meaning of each of the four. He says, "I exhort therefore first of all that
requests, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men,"
and so on.

Request I take to be that form of prayer which a man in some need offers with
supplication for its attainment; prayer, that which a man offers in the loftier
sense for higher things with ascription of glory; intercession, the addressing
of claim to God by a man who possesses a certain fuller confidence;
thanksgiving, the prayerful acknowledgment of the attainment of blessings from
God, he who returns the acknowledgment being impressed by the greatness, or what
seems to the recipient the greatness, of the benefactions conferred. Of the
first, examples are found in Gabriel's speech to Zachariah who, it is likely,
had prayed for the birth of John: "Fear not, Zachariah, because your request
hath been heard and your wife Elizabeth shall beget you a Son and you shall call
his name John;" in the account in Exodus of the making of the Calf: "And Moses
made request before the Lord God, and said: To what purpose, Lord, art you in
anger wroth with your people whom you hast brought out of the land of Egypt in
great might?" In Deuteronomy: "And I made request before the Lord a second time
even as also the former time forty days and forty nights bread I ate not and
water I drank not for all your sins that you sinned;" and in Esther: "Mordecai
made request of God, recalling all the works of the Lord, and said; Lord, Lord,
King Almighty," and Esther herself "made request of the Lord God of Israel and
said: Lord our King . . . " Of the second, examples are found in Daniel: "And
Azariah drew himself up and prayed thus, and opening his mouth amid the fire
said . . . ;" and in Tobit: "And with anguish I prayed saying, 'Righteous art
you, O Lord, and all your works; all your ways are mercy and truth, and judgment
true and righteous dost you judge forever.'" Since however, the circumcised have
marked the passage in Daniel spurious as not standing in the Hebrew, and dispute
the Book of Tobit as not within the Testament, I shall cite Hannah's case from
the first book of Kings.

"And she prayed unto the Lord, and wept exceedingly, and vowed a vow, and said,
'O Lord of Hosts, if you will indeed have regard unto the humiliation of your
bondmaid,'" and so on; and in Habakkuk: "A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, set
to song. O Lord, I have hearkened to your voice and was afraid; I did mark your
works and was in ecstasy. In the midst of two living beings you shall be known;
as the years draw nigh you shall be fully known;" a prayer which eminently
illustrates what I said in defining prayer that it is offered with ascription of
glory by the suppliant. And in Jonah also, Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God
from the belly of the monster, and said, "I cried in my affliction unto the Lord
my God, and he heard me. You heard my wail from the belly of death, my cry; you
flung me away into the depths of the heart of the sea, and streams encircled
me." Of the third, we have an example in the Apostle where he with good reason
employs prayer in our case, but intercession in that of the Spirit as excelling
us and having confidence in approaching Him with whom He intercedes; for as to
what we are to pray, he says, "as we ought we know not, but the Spirit Himself
more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable, and He that searches hearts
knows what is the mind of the Spirit because His intercession on behalf of
saints is according to God;" for the Spirit more than intercedes, and
intercedes, whereas we pray.

What Joshua said concerning the sun's making a stand over against Gabaoth is, I
think, also intercession: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD
delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, "Here spoke Joshua to
the Lord in the day when God delivered up the Amorites before the children of
Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon;
and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon;" and in Judges, it is, I think, in
intercession that Samson said, "Let my soul die together with the aliens" when
he leaned in might and the house fell upon the princes and upon all the people
in it. Even though it is not explicitly said that Joshua and Samson interceded
but that they said, their language seems to be intercession, which, if we accept
the terms in their strict sense, is in our opinion distinct from prayer. Of
thanksgiving an example is our Lord's utterance when He says: "I make
acknowledgment to you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you did hide
these things from the wise and understanding and reveal them to infants;" for I
make acknowledgment is equivalent to I give thanks.

X. THE RECIPIENT OF PRAYER IN ITS FOUR MOODS

Now request and intercession and thanksgiving, it is not out of place to offer
even to men—the two latter, intercession and thanksgiving, not only to saintly
men but also to others. But request to saints alone, should some Paul or Peter
appear, to benefit us by making us worthy to obtain the authority which has been
given to them to forgive sins—with this addition indeed that, even should a man
not be a saint and we have wronged him, we are permitted our becoming conscious
of our sin against him to make request even of such, that he extend pardon to us
who have wronged him.

Yet if we are offer thanksgiving to men who are saints, how much more should we
give thanks to Christ, who has under the Father's will conferred so many
benefactions upon us? Yes and intercede with Him as did Stephen when he said,
"Lord, set not this sin against them." In imitation of the father of the lunatic
we shall say, "I request, Lord, have mercy" either on my son, or myself, or as
the case may be. But if we accept prayer in its full meaning, we may not ever
pray to any begotten being, not even to Christ himself, but only to the God and
Father of All to whom our Savior both prayed himself, as we have already
instanced, and teaches us to pray. For when He has heard one say. "Teach you us
to pray," He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying,
"Our Father in heaven," and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is
other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the
Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone. That prayer to the Son
and not the Father is most out of place and only to be suggested in defiance of
manifest truth, one and all will admit. In prayer to both it is plain that we
should have to offer our claims in plural form, and in our prayers say, "Grant
you both, Bless you both, Supply you both, Save you both," or the like, which is
self-evidently wrong and also incapable of being shown by anyone to stand in the
scriptures as spoken by any.

It remains, accordingly, to pray to God alone, the Father of All, not however
apart from the High Priest who has been appointed by the Father with swearing of
an oath, according to the words He hath sworn and shall not repent, "You art a
priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." In thanksgiving to God,
therefore, during their prayers, saints acknowledge His favors through Christ
Jesus.

Just as the man who is scrupulous about prayer ought not to pray to one who
himself prays but to the Father upon whom our Lord Jesus has taught us to call
in our prayers, so we are not to offer any prayer to the Father apart from Him.
He clearly sets this forth himself when He says, "Verily, verily, I tell you,
whatsoever you may ask of my Father He shall give you in my house. Until but now
you have not asked aught in my name. Ask and you shall receive, that your joy
may be fulfilled."

He did not say, "Ask of me," nor yet simply "Ask of the father," but "Whatsoever
you may ask of the Father, He will give you in my name." For until Jesus taught
this, no one had asked of the Father in the name of the Son. True was the saying
of Jesus, "Until but now you have not asked aught in my name"; and true also the
words, "Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled." Should
anyone, however who believes that prayer ought to be made to Christ himself,
confused by the sense of the expression make obeisance, confront us with that
acknowledged reference to Christ in Deuteronomy, "Let all God's angels make
obeisance to Him," we may reply to him that the church, called Jerusalem by the
prophet, is also said to have obeisance made to her by kings and queens who
become her foster sires and nurses, in the words, "Behold, I lift up my hand
upon the nations, and upon the isles will I lift up my sign: and they shall
bring your sons in their bosom and your daughters they shall lift up on their
shoulders; and kings shall be your foster sires, their queens they nurses: to
the face of the earth shall they make obeisance to you, and the dust of your
feet shall they lick: and you shall know that I am the Lord and shall not be
ashamed." And how does it not accord with Him who said, "Why callest you me
good? None is good save One—God the Father" to suppose that He would say, "Why
pray you to me? To the Father alone ought you to pray, to whom I also pray, as
indeed you learn from the holy Scriptures. For you ought not to pray to one who
has been appointed high priest for you by the Father and has received it from
the Father to be advocate, but through a high priest and advocate able to
sympathize with your weaknesses, having been tried in all points like you but,
by reason of the Father's free gift to me, tried without sin.

Learn you therefore how great a free gift you have received from my Father in
having received through regeneration in me the Spirit of adoption, that you may
be called sons of God and my brethren. For you have read my utterance spoken
through David to the Father concerning you, 'I will proclaim your name to my
brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing hymns to you.' It is not
reasonable that those who have been counted worthy of one common Father should
pray to a brother.To the Father alone ought you, with me and through me, to send
up prayer." So then hearing Jesus speak to such effect, let us pray to God
through Him, all with one accord and without division concerning the manner of
prayer. Are we not indeed divided if we pray some to the Father, others to the
Son—those who pray to the Son, whether with the Father or without the Father,
committing a crude error in all simplicity for lack of discrimination and
examination?

Let us therefore pray as to God, intercede as with a Father, request as of a
Lord, give thanks as to God and Father and Lord, though in no way as to a
servant's lord; for the Father may reasonably be considered Lord not only of the
Son but also of those who through Him are become sons also, though, just as He
is not God of dead but of living men, so He is not Lord of baseborn servants but
of such as at the first are ennobled by means of fear because they are as
infants, but serve thereafter according to love in a service more blessed than
that which is in fear. For within the soul itself, visible to the Seer of Hearts
alone, these are distinctive characters of servants and sons of God.

XI. THE OBJECTS OF PRAYER

Everyone who asks for the earthly and little things from God disregards Him who
has enjoined the asking of heavenly and great things. God is incapable of
bestowing anything either earthly or little. Should anyone suggest instances to
the contrary in which the material things bestowed upon the saints in the past
as a result of prayer, and indeed the express language of the Gospel when it
teaches that the earthly and the little are to be added unto us, we may reply to
him as follows. When someone bestows upon us a particular material object, we
should not say that the person has bestowed upon us the shadow of the object,
for it is unintentional to present two things, object and shadow. The giver's
intention is to give a material object; our receipt of its shadow is a
consequence of the gift. In like manner if, with mind grown nobler, we have
discerned the gifts that are principally given to us by God, we shall most
properly describe as consequences of the great and heavenly spiritual gifts of
grace the material things which are given to each of the saints for his good or
in proportion to his faith or according as the Giver wills, and wisely does He
will, even though we are unable to describe a cause and reason worthy of the
Giver for each of His gifts.

Greater fruit had been borne by Hannah's soul in being turned from sterility
than was her body in conceiving Samuel. Diviner had been the offspring begotten
by Hezekiah's mind than that which was begotten of the material seed of his
body. Higher had been the deliverances of Esther and Morecai and the people from
spiritual plots than was that from Haman and his conspirators. Mightier was the
prince that sought to ruin her soul, whose power Judith had cut through than he
whom she met in Holophermes. Who would not acknowledge that in the spiritual
blessing which comes home to all the saints and which Isaac spoke of to Jacob,
"God give you of the rain of heaven," a higher rain had fallen to Ananiah and
those with him than the material rain that overcame Nebuchadnezzar's flame?
Greater had been the muzzling of the unseen lions by the prophet Daniel so that
they were unable to work anything against his soul, than that of the visible
lions to which all of us who read the passage have understood it to refer. And
who as a saint, becoming a fit recipient of the holy spirit, had ever, like
Jonah, escaped the belly of a monster that swallowed every fugitive from God and
which has been defeated by Jesus our Savior? It need not cause surprise if, to
keep the metaphor, the corresponding shadow is not given to all who receive
objects capable of making shadows, while to some a shadow is what is given.
Students of questions relating to sundials and of the relation of shadows to the
illuminating body clearly observe what is the case with bodies generally, that
at a particular time some projectors are shadowless, others are short shadowed,
others are more or less long-shadowed.

It is therefore not astonishing that, as the Giver's plan is to bestow the
principal things in accordance with certain unutterable and mystic guiding
principles and suitable to the recipients and occasions, when the principal
objects are being given there should sometimes go with them no shadows at all
for the recipients. At other times shadows are but few; at other times shadows
which are smaller in comparison accompany different objects. As the presence or
absence of the shadow of bodies neither pleases nor pains the man whose object
of search is solar beams, he possesses his chief necessity in being illumined or
freed from shadow or in having more or less of shadow as the case may be. If the
spiritual things are ours, and we are being illumined by God for complete
possession of true blessings, we shall not quibble over a matter so paltry as
concerns the shadow. For material and physical things count as fleeting feeble
shadow, in no way comparable to the saving holy gifts of the God of All. What
comparison is there between material riches and the riches that are in every
word and all wisdom? Who in his senses would compare health of flesh and bone
with health of mind, strength of soul, and consistency of thought—things which,
if kept in measure by God's word, make bodily sufferings a paltry scratch, and
even slighter if we can grasp it.

He that has discerned the meaning of the beauty of the bride whom the bridegroom
Word of God loves, a soul blooming with more than heavenly and more than mundane
beauty, will be ashamed to dignify with the same name of beauty the physical
beauty of woman or child or man. For of beauty in the strict sense flesh is not
capable, being deformity throughout. For all flesh is as grass, and the glory
thereof, which is manifest in the so called beauty of women and children, is
according to the prophet's language compared to a flower, "All people are grass,
their constancy is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower
fades, when the breath of the LORD blows upon it; surely the people are grass.
The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand
forever."

Again, who that has perceived the nobility of the sons of God shall any longer
give the name of nobility to what passes as such among men? After contemplating
Christ's kingship over kings, how shall the mind not dispel all kingship upon
earth? When the human mind, so far as capable while still bound to a body, has
once beheld as clearly as may be an army of angels, and among them
chief-commanders of the Lord's hosts, and archangels and thrones and lordships
and principalities and more than heavenly authorities, and has come to
understand that it can obtain from the Father their equivalent, how shall it not
despise those things which though frailer than shadow are the admiration of the
foolish, even if they should all be given to it, as most shadowy and in
comparison insignificant, and look beyond in order not to fall short of
obtaining the true principalities and diviner authorities?

We should therefore pray for the principal and truly great and heavenly things,
and as for those concerned with the shadows accompanying the principal, commit
them to the God who knows before we ask Him what things, by reason if our
perishable body, we have need.

XII. THE LORD'S PRAYER: THE PREFACE IN MATTHEW

What I have said, according to my capacity to receive the grace which has been
given by God through His Christ, and as I trust in the Holy Spirit also—whether
it be so you will judge when you read it—may suffice by way of examination of
the general subject of prayer. I shall now proceed to the next task, to consider
how full of meaning is the prayer outlined by the Lord. It is first of all to be
observed that to most people Matthew and Luke might seem to have recorded the
same prayer sketched as a pattern for right prayer. Matthew's words run thus:
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be
done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive
us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the
time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. But Luke's run as follows:

Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily
bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to
us. And do not bring us to the time of trial. To those who suppose it to be the
same prayer we may reply that the utterances, though they certainly resemble one
another, also appear to differ, as I shall set forth in investigating them. In
the second place it is not possible that the same prayer should be said on the
mountain where "When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he
sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them,
saying"—for it is in the course of the recital of the Beatitudes and the
subsequent injunctions that it is found recorded in Matthew. It also have been
said, "He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples."

It is surely impossible that the same words should be described as having been
spoken in the course of continuous utterance without any question to precede
them and as being announced in response to a disciple's request. One might,
however, say the prayers are equivalent and were spoken as one. On the one
occasion in continuous discourse, on the other in response to the request of a
different disciple who in all likelihood was not present when He spoke the form
in Matthew or had not mastered what had earlier been spoken. But perhaps it is
better that the prayers be regarded as different, with certain portions in
common. In Mark, though I have searched there also in case the record of an
equivalent should escape me, I have not found so much as a vestige of a prayer
contained. I have already said that before praying one must first be composed
and disposed in a particular manner. Let us therefore glance at the words
preceding the prayer contained in Matthew, which were uttered by our Savior.
They are as follows: And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for
they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that
they may be seen by others.

Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go
into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and
your Father who sees in secret will reward you. When you are praying, do not
heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard
because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you
need before you ask him.

Pray then in this way: Our Savior often appears as inveighing against the love
of glory as a deadly passion, just as He has done in this place where He
dissuades us from the practice of actors at the season of prayer, for it is a
practice of actors rather to plume themselves in piety before men rather than to
have communion with God.

Remembering then the words, "How can you believe when you accept glory from one
another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?" we
ought to despise all glory with men even though it be thought honorably gained
and to seek the strict and true glory which is from Him alone who glorifies the
deserving in a manner becoming to Himself and exceeding the desert of the person
glorified. The very act which would in itself be thought honorable and is
thought praiseworthy is polluted when we do it to be glorified by men or to
appear to men, and on that account it is attended by no recompense from God.
Unerring as the whole of Jesus' language is, it becomes even more so when it is
spoken with His accustomed oath. Of those who for human glory seem to do good to
their neighbor, or pray in synagogues and at broadway corners, he says. "Truly I
tell you, they have received their reward." For as the rich man according to
Luke had good things in his human life, being no longer capable of obtaining
them after the present life because he had had them, so he that has his reward,
as having sown not "unto the spirit" but "unto the flesh" shall "reap
corruption" but shall not "reap eternal life" in his giving or in his prayers.

It is sowing unto the flesh when one does alms, with trumpeting before him, in
synagogues and thoroughfares to be glorified by men, or likes to pray standing
in synagogues and at broadway corners to appear to men and thought a pious and a
holy person among the onlookers. Indeed every wayfarer along the broad and
spacious way leading to destruction without rightness or straightness but
crooked and cornered throughout, (for the straight line is broken in it to the
utmost), is standing no less than he who prays at broadway corners, not in one
but through his love of pleasure in a number of streets in which beings who as
men are perishing because they have fallen away from their divinity, are to be
found glorifying and pronouncing blessed those whom they have thought to act
piously.

There are always many who are rather pleasure-loving than God-loving in their
seeming prayer who debauch prayer amid banqueting and carousing, standing in
truth at the broadway corners and praying. For everyone who has made pleasure
his rule of life has in his passion for the spacious fallen out of the narrow
straitened way of Jesus Christ that is without a single bend and has no corner
at all.

There is a certain difference between Church and Synagogue. The church in the
strict sense is without "a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind," is holy and
blameless. Into it enters neither child of harlot, nor eunuch or emasenlate, nor
yet Egyptian or Edomite unless sons born to them in the third generation enables
them with difficulty to join the church, nor Moabite and Ammonite, unless the
tenth generation is complete and the aeon passed. The Synagogue on the other
hand may be built by a centurion, as was the case in times preceding the sojourn
of Jesus when as yet witness had not yet been borne that the man possessed faith
such as the Son of God did not find even in Israel. Now he who likes to pray in
synagogues is not far from broadway corners. But it is not so with the saint,
for he loves, not likes to pray, in churches, not broadway corners, in the
straightness of the narrow straitened way, not to appear to men, but to present
himself before the Lord God, a male in the sense that he observes the acceptable
year of the Lord and keeps the commandment which says, "Thrice in the year shall
every male present himself before the Lord God."

We are to attend to the word "appear" carefully, since no appearance is a good
inasmuch as it only seems to exist and not in truth, and misleads the senses and
expresses nothing exactly and truly. As actors of plays in theatres are not what
they profess nor are really what the mask they wear makes them look like, so too
all who appear to assume the outward sensible form of goodness and are not
righteous but actors of righteousness, acting moreover in a theatre of their
own—namely synagogues and broadway corners. But he that is no actor but has cast
off all that is alien to him and sets himself to please in that theatre which is
inconceivably greater than any which has been mentioned, enters into his own
storeroom to the riches therein treasured up, and shuts up after him his
treasury of wisdom and knowledge.

Never turning his glance outwards or doting on things outside, having shut up
every door of the senses that he may not be drawn away by sensations or have
their sensible presentation stealing into his mind, prays to the Father who does
not shun or desert a place so secret but dwells in it, the Only Begotten also
being present with Him. For He says "I and the Father will come unto him and
make abode with him." And plainly, if we do pray thus, we shall be interceding
not only with a God but also with a Father who is righteous, who does not desert
us as His children but is present in our secret place and watches it and
increases the contents of the storeroom if we shut up its door. When we pray let
us not babble but use godly speech. We babble when, without scrutiny of
ourselves or of the devotional words we are sending up, we speak of the corrupt
in deed or word or thought, things which are mean and reprehensible and alien to
the incorruptibleness of the Lord. He, then, that babbles in prayer is in a
synagogic disposition worse than any yet described and in a harder way than
those who are at broadway corners, preserving not as much as a vestige even of
acting in goodness. For according to the passage in the Gospel only heathen
babble, being quite insensible of great or heavenly petitions and therefore
sending up every prayer for the material and the external. To a babbling
heathen, then, is he like who asks for things below from the Lord who dwells in
heaven and above the heights of the heavens.

He who is wordy also seems to be a babbler and he who babbles to be wordy. There
is no unity in matter and in bodily substances, but every such supposed unity is
split up and divided and disintegrated into many units to the loss of its union.
Good is one; many are the base. Truth is one; many are the false. True
righteousness is one; many are the states that act it as a part. God's wisdom is
one; many are the wisdoms of this age and of the rulers of this age which come
to nought. The word of God is one, but many are the words alien to God.

Therefore no one shall escape Sin as the result of wordiness, and no one who
thinks to be heard as the result of wordiness can be heard. For this reason we
ought not to make our prayers like heathen babbling or wordiness or other
practice after the likeness of the serpent, for the God of saints, being a
Father, knows of what things His children have need, since such things are
worthy of Fatherly knowledge.

He who knows not God knows not the things of God also—knows not the things of
which he has need, for the things of which he thinks he has need are mistaken.
But he who has contemplated the better and diviner things of which he is in need
shall obtain the objects of his contemplation which are known by God and which
have been known by the Father even before asking. After these remarks upon the
preface to the prayer in the Gospel according to Matthew, let us now proceed to
consider what the prayer sets forth.

XIII. THE LORD'S PRAYER—OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN Our Father in Heaven. It deserves a
somewhat careful observation of the so-called Old Testament to discover whether
it is possible to find anywhere in it a prayer of one who addresses God as
Father. For though I have made examination to the best of my ability, I have up
to the present failed to find one. I do not say that God is not spoken of as
Father or that accounted believers in God are not called sons of God, but that I
have not yet found in prayer that confidence in calling God Father which the
Savior has proclaimed. That God is spoken of as Father and those who have waited
on God's word as sons, may be seen in many places, as in Deuteronomy, "You have
forsaken God your parent and forgotten God your nourisher," and again, "Is He
not your Father himself that got you and made you and created you?" and again,
"Sons who have not faith in them." And in Isaiah, "I have nourished and brought
up children, and they have rebelled against me"; and in Malachi, "A son honors
his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is my honor?
and if I be a master, where is my fear?" So then, even though God is termed
Father and their Sons who have been begotten by reason of their faith in Him,
yet sure and unchangeable sonship is not to be seen in the ancient people. The
very passages I have cited since the subjection of those so-called sons, since
according to the apostle "the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing
from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors
until the time appointed of the father." But the fullness of time is in the
sojourn of our Lord Jesus Christ, when they who desire receive adoption as sons,
as Paul teaches in the words, "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery unto
fear, but you received a spirit of adoption as sons, wherein we cry 'Abba
Father'"; and as it is in the Gospel according to John, "To as many as received
Him He gave authority to become children of God if believers on His name"; and
it is by reason of this Spirit of adoption as sons, we learn in the Catholic
Epistle of John regarding the begotten of God, that "Everyone that is begotten
of God does no sin because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin because he
is begotten of God." And yet if we think of the meaning of the words which are
written in Luke, "When you pray say: Father . . . ," we shall hesitate to
address this expression to Him unless we have become genuine sons in case, in
addition to our other sins, we should also become liable to a charge of impiety.
My meaning is as follows. In the first Epistle to Corinthians Paul says, "No one
can say 'Jesus is Lord' save in a holy spirit, and no one that speaks in God's
spirit says 'cursed be Jesus' calling the same thing a holy spirit and God's
spirit." What is meant by speaking in a holy spirit of Jesus as Lord is not
quite clear, as countless actors and numbers of heterodox people, and at times
even demons conquered by the power in the name, utter the expression. No one
therefore will venture to declare that anyone of these calls Jesus 'Lord' in a
holy spirit. For the same reason, indeed, they could not be shown to call Jesus
Lord at all, since they alone call Jesus Lord who express it from inward
disposition in service to the word of God and in proclaiming no other Lord than
Him in all their conduct. And if it be such who say Jesus is Lord, it may be
that everyone who sins, in that he curses the divine Word through his
transgression, has through his actions called out, "Cursed be Jesus." And
accordingly, as the one type of man says "Jesus is Lord," and the man of
opposite disposition "Cursed be Jesus," "so everyone that hath been begotten of
God and does not sin" because he is partaker of God's seed which turns him from
all sin, says through his conduct "Our Father in Heaven," the spirit himself
witnessing with their spirit that they are children of God and heirs to Him and
joint heirs with Christ, since as suffering with Him they reasonably hope with
Him also to be glorified. But in order that theirs may be no one-sided utterance
of the words "Our Father," in addition to their actions they have a heart—a
fountain and source of good actions—believing unto righteousness, in harmony
with which their mouth makes acknowledgment unto salvation. So then their every
act and word and thought, formed by the only begotten word in accord with Him,
imitates the image of the invisible God and has come to be "in accordance with
the image of the Creator" who makes "the sun to rise upon evil men and good and
rains upon righteous and unrighteous," that there may be in them the image of
the heavenly One who is himself also an image of God. Saints, therefore, as an
image of an Image himself, a son, receive the impress of Sonship, becoming
conformed not only to the glorified body of Christ but also to Him who is in
that body, and they become conformed to Him who is in a glorified body through
being transformed by the renewing of their mind. And if such men through out the
whole of life voice the words "Our Father in the Heavens," plainly he that does
sin, as John says in the Catholic Epistle, "is of the devil because the devil
sins from the beginning" and just as God's seed abiding in the begotten of God
produces inability to sin in him who is formed in accordance with the only
begotten Word, so the devil's seed is in everyone that does sin, to the extent
in which it is present within the soul—not suffering its possessor to have power
to prosper. But since "for this end was the Son of God manifested that He might
undo the actions of the devil," it is possible, through the undoing of the
actions of the devil by the sojourn of the Word of God within our Soul, for the
evil seed implanted in us to be utterly removed and for us to become children of
God.

Let us, therefore, not think that it is words we are taught to say in any
appointed season of prayer. On the contrary, if we understand our former
consideration of prayer without ceasing, let our whole life of prayer without
ceasing speak the words "Our Father in the Heavens," having its commonwealth in
no wise on earth but in every way in heaven, which is God's throne because of
the foundation of the kingdom of God in all who wear the image of the Heavenly
One and therefore become heavenly. When the Father of saints is said to be in
the heavens, we are not to suppose that He is circumscribed by material form and
dwells in heaven.

Since, in that case, as contained God will be formed to be less than the heavens
because they contain Him, whereas the ineffable might of His godhead demands our
belief that all things are contained and held together by Him. And, in general,
passages which taken literally are thought by the simpler order of minds to
assert that God is in space are to be otherwise taken in a sense more becoming
to great spiritual concepts of God.

Such are those passages in the Gospel according to John: Before the feast of the
Passover, Jesus, knowing that His hour had come that He should pass from this
world to the Father, as He had loved His own who were in the world, loved them
to the end; and shortly after: knowing that the Father had given all into His
hands, and that He had come forth from God and was returning to God; and later:
you heard that I said to you: I return and come unto you. If you loved me you
would have rejoiced that I go to the Father; and again later; Now I return to
Him that sent me and none of you asks me: Where do you return?

If these things are to be taken spacially, so also plainly is: Jesus answered
and said to them, "If any one love me he will keep my word and my Father will
love him and we shall come unto him and make abode with him." But surely the
words do not imply a spacial transition of the Father and the Son to the lover
of the word of Jesus and are therefore not to be taken spacially. On the
contrary, the Word of God, in condescension for us and, in regard to His proper
desert, in humiliation while among men, is said to pass from this world unto the
Father so that we also may behold Him perfectly there in reversion to His proper
fullness from the emptiness among us whereby He emptied himself—where we also,
enjoying His guidance, shall be filled and freed from all emptiness. To such an
end the Word of God well may leave the world and depart to Him that sent Him,
and go to the Father! And as for that passage near the end of the Gospel
according to John, "Cling not to me, for I am not yet gone up unto my Father,"
let us seek to conceive it in the more mystical sense:

Let ours be the more reverent conception of the ascension of the Son to the
Father with sanctified insight, an ascension rather of soul than of body. I
think it right to have linked these considerations to the clause Our Father in
the Heavens for the sake of doing away with a low conception of God held by
those who think that He is in heaven spacially, and of preventing anyone from
saying God is in material space since it follows that He also is physical, which
leads to opinions most impious\—to belief that He is divisible and material and
corruptible. For every material thing is divisible and corruptible. Or else let
them tell us, not on the strength of vague sensation but with a claim to clear
understanding, how it can be of any other than a material nature. Since, then,
in writings before Christ's bodily sojourn there are also many statements which
seem to say that God is in physical space, it appears to me to be not out of
place to cite a few of them also for the sake of doing away with any doubt in
those who, because they know no better, confine God, who is over all, within
small and scanty space on their own scale. First, in Genesis it says Adam and
Eve heard the sound of the lord God walking at evening in the garden, and both
Adam and his wife hid themselves from the Lord God amid the wood of the Garden.

I shall put the question to those who not only refuse to enter into the
treasures of the passage but do not so much as knock at all at its door, whether
they are able to imagine the Lord God, who fills the heaven and the earth, who
as they themselves suppose in the more physical sense uses heaven as throne and
the earth as a footstool for His feet, as contained by so scanty a space in
comparison with the whole heaven and the earth that a garden which they suppose
to be material is not filled by God but so far exceeds Him in greatness as to
hold Him even when walking while a sound from the tread of His feet is heard?
Absurder still on their interpretation is the hiding of Adam and Eve, in fear of
God by reason of their transgression, from before God amid the wood of the
Garden. For it is not even said that they merely desired to hide but that they
actually hid themselves. And how is it in their view that God inquires of Adam
saying: Where are you? I have discussed these matters at greater length in my
examination of the contents of Genesis, yet here, too—in order not to pass by so
grave a subject in complete silence—it will suffice if I recall what is said by
God in Deuteronomy: I will dwell in them and walk in them. For as is His walk in
saints such is His walk in the Garden also, since everyone that sins hides from
God and shuns His oversight and renounces his confidence with Him. So it was
that Cain also went out from before God and dwelt in the land of Nod over
against Eden. In the same way, therefore, as He dwells in saints. So also does
He dwell in heaven (that is, in every saint who wears the image of the Heavenly
One, or Christ, in whom all who are being saved are luminaries and stars of
heaven, or else because saints are in heaven) according to the saying: Unto you
who dwells in heaven have I lifted up my eyes. And yet the passage in
Ecclesiastes: Be not in haste to utter speech before God, because God is in
heaven above, and you on Earth below, means to show the interval which separates
those who are in the body of humiliation from Him who is with the angels and
holy powers who are being exalted by the help of the Word also and with Christ
himself. For it is not unreasonable that He should be strictly at the Father's
throne, allegorically called heaven, while His church, termed Earth, is a
footstool at His feet.

I have cited a few Old Testament utterances, thought to represent God in space,
for the sake of urging the reader by every means within the power given me to
accept the divine scripture in the higher and more spiritual sense whenever it
seems to teach that God is in space. And it was fitting that these
considerations should be linked to the clause Our Father in the Heavens inasmuch
as it distinguishes the essence of God from all created beings. For it is upon
such as do not share in that essence that a certain glory of God and a power
from Him, an outflow of the deity, comes.

XIV. HALLOWED BE THY NAME

Hallowed be Thy name. Although this may represent either that the object of
prayer has not yet come to pass, or after its attainment, that it is not
permanent in which case the request is for its retention; the language in this
instance makes it plain that it is with the implication that the name of the
Father has not yet been hallowed, that we are bidden—according to Matthew and
Luke, that is—to say "Hallowed be Thy Name." Then how, one might say, should a
man request the hallowing of God's name as though not hallowed? Let us
understand what the Father's name, and what the hallowing of it, means. A name
is a summary designation descriptive of the peculiar character of the thing
named.

Thus the Apostle Paul has a certain peculiar character, partly of soul which is
accordingly of a certain kind, partly of intellect which is accordingly
contemplative of certain things, and partly of body which is accordingly of a
certain kind. It is the peculiar in these characteristics, the unique
combination—for there is not another being identical with Paul—that is indicated
by means of the appellation Paul. In the case of men, however, whose peculiar
characteristics are changed, their names also by a sound usage are changed
according to scripture. When the character of Abram was transformed, he was
called Abraham; when that of Simon he was named Peter, and when that of Saul the
persecutor of Jesus, he was designated Paul. But in the case of God, inasmuch as
He is himself ever unchangeable and unalterable, the proper name which even He
may be said to bear is ever one, that mentioned in Exodus, "He that is," or the
like. Since therefore, though we all have some notion of God, conceiving of Him
in various ways, but not all of what He is, for few and, be it said, fewer than
few are they who comprehend His compete holiness—we are with good reason taught
to attain to a holy conception of Him in order that we may see His holiness as
creator, provider, judge, elector, abandoner, acceptor, rejector, rewarder and
punisher of each according to his desert. For it is in such and similar terms
that God's peculiar character may be said to be sketched which I take to be the
meaning of the expression, God's name according to the scriptures in Exodus:
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; in Deuteronomy: Be my
utterance awaited as rain: as dew let my words descend, as showers upon herbage
and as moisture upon grass: for I have called on the Lord's name; and in Psalms:
They shall remember your name in every generation.

It is he who associates the thought of God with wrong things that takes the name
of the Lord God in vain, and he who is able to utter rain that cooperates with
his hearers in the fruit bearing of their souls, and who addresses words of
exhortation that are like dew, and who in the edifying torrent of his words
turns upon his listeners showers most helpful or moisture most efficacious is
able to do so because he has perceived his need of God as the accomplisher and
calls in the real supplier of those things; and everyone who penetrates the very
things of God recalls to mind rather than learns the mysteries of piety even
when he seems to be told them by another or thinks that he discovers them. And
as the suppliant ought at this point to reflect that his asking is for the
hallowing of God's name, so in Psalms it is said Let us Exalt His name together,
the patriarch enjoining attainment to the true and exalted knowledge of God's
peculiar nature with all harmony, in the same mind, and in the same will.

It is exalting the name of God together when, after one has participated in an
outflow of deity in having been sustained by God and having overcome his enemies
so that they are unable to rejoice over his fall, he exalts the power of God in
which he has participated, as is shown in the twenty-ninth psalm by the words: I
will exalt you, O Lord, for you have sustained me and not made my enemies to
rejoice over me. A man exalts God when he has consecrated to Him a house within
himself, since the superscription of the Psalm also runs thus: A Psalm of
singing for the consecration of the House of David.

It is further to be observed regarding the clause Hallowed be your Name and its
successors in imperative form, that the translators also continually made use of
imperatives instead of ablatives, as in the Psalms: Speechless let the guileful
lips be, that speak lawlessness against the righteous instead of 'may they be'
and Let the creditor search out all his possessions: Let him possess no helper,
concerning Judas in the one hundred and eighth; for the whole Psalm is a
petition concerning Judas that certain things may befall him. But Tatian,
failing to perceive that let there be does not always signify the ablative but
is occasionally also imperative, has most impiously supposed that God said Let
there be light in prayer rather than in command that the light should be; since,
as he puts it in his godless thought, God was in darkness. In reply to him it
may be asked, how is he going to take the other sayings? Let the Earth grow
grass, and Let the water below heaven be gathered together, and Let the waters
bring forth creeping things with living souls, and Let the earth bring forth a
living soul. Is it for the sake of standing upon firm ground that He prays that
the water below heaven be gathered together into one meeting place, or for the
sake of partaking of the things that grow from the earth that He prays Let the
Earth grow . . . ?

What manner of need, to match His need of light; has He of creatures of water,
air, and land that He should pray for them also? If even on Tatian's view it is
absurd to think of Him as praying for these things which occur in imperative
expressions, may the same not be said of Let be there light—that it is an
imperative and not an ablative expression? I thought that, in view of the fact
that prayer is expressed in imperative forms, some reference was necessary to
his perversion for the sake of those—I myself have met with cases who have been
misled into accepting his impious teaching.

XV. THY KINGDOM COME

Thy Kingdom Come. According to the word of our Lord and Savior, the Kingdom of
God does not come observably, nor shall men say 'Lo it is here', or 'Lo is it
there', but the Kingdom of God is within us; for the utterance is exceedingly
near in our mouth and in our heart. It is therefore plain that he who prays for
the coming of the kingdom of God prays with good reason for rising and fruit
bearing and perfecting of God's kingdom within him. For every saint is ruled
over by God and obeys the Spiritual laws of God, and conducts himself like a
well-ordered city; and the Father is present with him, and Christ rules together
with the Father in the perfected Soul, according to the saying that I mentioned
shortly before: We will come unto him and make abode with him. By God's kingdom
I understand the blessed condition of the mind and the settled order of wise
reflection; by Christ's kingdom the issue of words of salvation to their hearers
and the practice of acts of righteousness and the other excellences; for the son
of God is word and righteousness. But every sinner is tyrannized by the ruler of
this world, since every sinner is in conformity with the present evil world, and
does not yield himself to Him who gave Himself for us sinners that He might
release us from the present evil world and release us according to the will of
God our Father, as it is expressed in the Epistle to Galatians. And he who, by
reason of deliberate sin is tyrannized by the ruler of this world, is also ruled
over by sin: wherefore we are bidden by Paul to be no longer subject to sin that
would rule over us, and we are enjoined in these words, Let sin therefore not
rule in our mortal body that we should obey its lusts. But in reference to both
clauses Hallowed Be Thy Name and Thy Kingdom Come, it may be urged that, if the
suppliant prays them with a view to being heard and ever is heard, plainly his
will be an instance, answering to what has just been said, of the name of God
being hallowed and of the rise of the Kingdom of God, in which event how shall
he any longer with propriety pray for things already present as though they not
present, saying Hallowed be Thy Name: Thy Kingdom Come:?—And in that case it
will sometimes be proper not to say Hallowed Be Thy Name: Thy Kingdom Come. To
this it may be replied that just as he who prays to obtain a word of knowledge
and a word of wisdom will with propriety pray for them continually with the
prospect of continually receiving fuller contemplations of wisdom and knowledge
through being heard, although his knowledge of such things as he may be able in
the present to receive is partial, whereas the perfect that annuls the partial
shall then be manifested when the mind confronts its objects face to face
without sensation—so perfection in our individual hallowing of the name of God
and in the rise of His kingdom within us is not possible unless there also come
perfection of knowledge and wisdom and it may be the other excellences.

We are wayfaring toward perfection if we forget the things behind, pressing on
toward those before us. The kingdom of God within us will therefore be
consummated in us as we advance without ceasing, when, the saying in the Apostle
is fulfilled, that Christ, His enemies all made subject to Him, shall deliver
the kingdom to God the Father that God may be All in All. For this reason let us
pray without ceasing with a disposition made divine by the Word, and say to our
Father in heaven: Hallowed Be Thy Name: Thy Kingdom Come. Of the kingdom of God
it is further to be said by way of distinction that as righteousness has no
partnership with lawlessness and light no community with darkness and Christ no
argument with Belial, so a kingdom of sin is incompatible with the Kingdom of
God.

If, accordingly we would be ruled over by God, by no means let sin rule in our
mortal body nor let us obey its commands when it calls our soul forth to the
works of the flesh that are alien to God, but let us mortify our members that
are on earth and bear the fruits of the Spirit that the Lord may walk in us as
in a spiritual garden, ruling alone over us with His Christ seated within us on
the right of the Spiritual power that we pray to receive, sitting until all His
enemies within us become a footstool for His feet and every rule and authority
and power be undone from us.

These things may come to pass in the case of each of us, and death the last
energy be undone, so that Christ may say within us also O death, where is your
sting? O grave! Where is your victory? Even now, therefore, let our corruptible
put on the holiness and incorruptibleness that consists in chastity and purity,
and our mortal, death undone, wrap itself in the paternal immortality, so that,
being ruled over by God, we may even now live amid the blessings of regeneration
and resurrection.

XVI. THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH ALSO AS IN HEAVEN

Thy Will be done on Earth also as in Heaven. After the clause Thy Kingdom come
Luke has passed over these words in silence and placed the clause Give us daily
our Needful Bread. Let us therefore examine next in succession the words I have
placed first as set down in Matthew alone. As suppliants who are still on earth,
believing that the will of God is done in heaven among all the household of the
heavens, let us pray that the will of God may be done by us also who are on
earth in like manner with them, as will come to pass when we do nothing contrary
to His will. And when the will of God as it is in heaven has been accomplished
by us also who are on earth, we shall inherit a kingdom of heaven as having,
alike with them, worn the image of the Heavenly One, while those who come after
us on earth are praying to become in turn like us who have come to be in heaven.
So far as Matthew alone is concerned the words on Earth also as in Heaven can be
taken in common, so that what we are enjoined to say in prayer would run thus:
Hallowed be Thy Name on Earth also as in Heaven: Thy Kingdom come on Earth also
as in Heaven: Thy Will be done on Earth also as in Heaven. For alike the name of
God has been hallowed among those who are in heaven, and the kingdom of God is
risen in them, and the will of God has been done in their midst—things indeed
which are all unrealized by us but which can be acquired by us through rendering
ourselves worthy to obtain God's hearing in reference to them all. The words Thy
Will be done on Earth also as in Heaven may raise the question how has the will
of God been done in Heaven where the spiritual forces of evil are, by reason of
which the sword of God shall drink deep even in heaven? If we pray thus that the
will of God be done on Earth just as it is being done in heaven may we not
thoughtlessly be praying that the very opposite may abide on earth where such
things already come from heaven since much that is bad on earth is due to the
overcoming spiritual forces of evil which are in the heavenly places?

Anyone who allegorizes heaven and asserts that it is Christ, and Earth the
church—what throne so worthy of the Father as Christ? What footstool of the feet
of God as the Church?—will easily solve the question by replying that everyone
in the church ought to pray to receive the paternal will in such wise as Christ
has done, who came to do the will of His Father and accomplished if completely.
For it is possible by being joined to Him to become one spirit with Him and
therefore receptive of the will to the end that, as it has been accomplished in
heaven, so it may be accomplished on earth also; for he that is joined to the
Lord, according to Paul, is one spirit. And I believe that one who carefully
considers it will find this an interpretation not to be despised. But someone
may dispute it by citing what is said to the eleven disciples by the Lord after
the resurrection at the close of the this gospel: There hath been given to me
all authority on earth also as in heaven. That is, having authority over the
things that are in heaven, He says that He has also received it over those on
earth:

Whereas those that are in heaven have already been illumined by the Word, it is
at the consummation of the world that those on earth are also, in imitation of
those over which the Savior received authority, brought to a successful issue by
reason of the authority given to the Son of God: accordingly His will is to
receive those who are disciples under Him as in a sense cooperants through their
prayers to the Father in order that, in like manner with the things in heaven
that are subject to Truth and Word, He may lead the things on Earth, restored by
reason of the authority which He has received on earth also as in heaven, to an
end fraught with bliss for the objects of His authority. On the other hand one
who would take heaven to be the Savior and Earth the church, asserting that it
is the firstborn of all creation, on whom the Father reposes as on a throne,
that is heaven, would find that it is the man whom He put on after having been
fitted for such power because He had humbled himself and having been obedient
till death, who says after the resurrection There hath been given to me all
authority on Earth also as in heaven—the man in the Savior having received His
authority over the things in heaven, as the proper possessions of the
Only-begotten, in order to be in communion with Him, mingling in His divinity
and becoming one with Him. But if this second thought does not yet solve the
difficulty as to how the will of God can be in heaven when the spiritual forces
of evil in the heavenly places wrestle against those who are on earth, it will
be possible to solve the question from this consideration—It is not by virtue of
place but of principle that one who is still on earth but has a commonwealth in
heaven and lays up treasure in heaven and has his heart in heaven and wears the
image of the Heavenly One, is no longer of the earth nor of the world below but
of heaven and of the heavenly world that is better than this.

So, too, the spiritual forces of evil which still dwell in the heavenly places
but have their commonwealth on earth and plot against men the means whereby they
wrestle against mankind, and lay up treasure on Earth, and wear an image of the
Earthly One who the beginning of the Lord's fashioning made to be mocked by the
angels, are not heavenly nor by reason of their vicious disposition do they
dwell in the heavens. Accordingly when it is said: Thy will be done on Earth
also as in Heaven, we are not to reckon those beings as in heaven at all,
because through pride they have fallen along with Him who fell from heaven like
a thunderbolt. And it may well be that our Savior, in saying that we ought to
pray that the Father's will may be done on Earth also as in heaven, does not by
any means order prayer for things spacially on earth that they may be made like
things spacially in heaven, but His will in enjoining prayer is that all things
on earth, that is things inferior and conformed to the earthly, be made like the
better which have their commonwealth in heaven, which have all become heaven.
For he that sins, wherever he may be, is earth, and will turn into the like
somehow, unless he repents, whereas he that does the will of God and does not
disobey the spiritual laws of salvation is heaven. Whether therefore we are
still earth because of sin, let us pray that the will of God may extend
restoringly to us also as it has already reached those who have become or are
heaven before us: or if we are already accounted not earth but heaven by God,
let our request be that, in like manner with heaven, on earth also, in inferior
things I mean, the will of God may be fulfilled unto what I may term earth's
heaven-making, so that there shall be no longer earth but all things become
heaven. For if, on this interpretation, the will of God be done on earth also as
in heaven, earth will not remain earth, just as to make my meaning clearer with
another illustration—if the will of God be done in the case of the wanton as it
has been with the temperate, the wanton will be temperate, or if it should be in
the case of the unrighteous as it has been with the righteous, the unrighteous
will be righteous. If, therefore, the will of God be done on earth also as it
has been in heaven, we shall all be heaven; for though flesh that helps not; and
blood that is akin to it, are unable to inherit God's kingdom, they may be said
to inherit it if they be changed from flesh and earth and clay and blood to the
heavenly essence.

XVII. GIVE US TODAY OUR NEEDFUL BREAD

Give us today our Needful Bread, or as Luke has it, Give us daily our Needful
Bread. Seeing that some suppose that it is meant that we should pray for
material bread, their erroneous opinion deserves to be done away with and the
truth about the needful bread set forth, in the following manner. We may put the
question to them—how can it be that He, who says that heavenly and great things
ought to be asked for as if, on their view, He has forgotten His teaching now
enjoins the offering of intercession to the Father for an earthly and little
thing, since neither is the bread which is assimilated into our flesh a heavenly
thing nor is it asking a great thing to request it? For my part I shall follow
the Teacher's own teaching as to the bread and cite the passages in detail. To
men who have come to Capernaum to seek Him He says, in the Gospel according to
John, Verily, verily, I tell you you seek me not because you saw signs but
because you ate of the loaves of bread and were filled . . . for he that has
eaten and been filled with the loaves of bread which have been blessed by Jesus
seeks the more to grasp the Son of God more closely and hastens toward Him.

Wherefore He will enjoin: Work not for the food that perishes but for the food
that abides unto life eternal which the Son of Man shall give you. And when,
upon that, they who had heard inquired and said: What are we to do that we may
work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God
that you believe on him whom He has sent. As it is written in Psalms, God sent
His Word and healed them, that is the diseased, and believers in that Word work
the works of God which are food that abides unto life eternal. And my Father, He
says, gives you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God is that which
comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. It is true bread that
nourishes the true man who is made in God's image, and he that has been
nourished by it also becomes in the Creator's likeness. What is more nourishing
to the soul than Word, or what more precious to the mind of him that is capable
of receiving it than the Wisdom of God?

What is more congenial to the rational nature than Truth? Should it be urged in
objection to this view that He would not in that case teach men to ask for
needful bread as if something other than Himself, it is to be noted that He also
discourses in the Gospel according to John sometimes as if it were other than
Himself but at other times as if He is Himself the Bread. The former in the
sense of the words: Moses hath given you the bread from heaven yet not the true
bread, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. In the latter sense,
to those who had said to Him Ever give us this bread, He says: I am the bread of
life: he that comes unto me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall
not thirst; and shortly after: I am the living bread that is come down from
heaven: if anyone eat of this bread he shall live unto eternity: yea and the
bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life
of the world.

Now since all manner of nourishment is spoken of as bread according to Scripture
as is clear from the fact that it is recorded of Moses that he ate not bread and
drank not water forty days, and since the nourishing Word is manifold and
various, not all being capable of nourishment by the solidity and strength of
the divine teachings, He is therefore pleased to offer strenuous nourishment
befitting men more perfect, where He says: The bread which I shall give is my
flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life of the world: and shortly
after: Except you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drinks His blood, you have
not life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath life
eternal, and I will raise him up in the last day. for my flesh is true food and
my blood is true drink. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me
and I in him.As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
also he that eats me—he too shall live because of me. This is the true food,
Christ's flesh, which being Word has become flesh, as it is said And the Word
became flesh. When we eat and drink the Word He tabernacles in us. When He is
assimilated the words are fulfilled: We beheld His glory. This is the bread that
is come down from heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died, he that eats this
bread shall live unto eternity. Discoursing to infant Corinthians who walk in
the way of man Paul says: I gave you milk to drink, not meat, for you were not
yet able. Nay even now you are not yet able, for you are still of the flesh; and
in the Epistle to Hebrews: And you are become in need of milk, not of solid
nourishment. For any one who partakes of milk is devoid of moral reason, for he
is infant. But solid nourishment is for mature men who by force of use have
their senses trained to discriminate good and evil. In my opinion the words: One
man hath faith to eat anything, but he that is weak eats vegetables are also in
his intention meant to refer not to material forms of nourishment but to the
words of God that nourish the soul: Of these the man most faithful and mature is
able to partake of any, he being denoted in the words One man hath faith to eat
anything, whereas the weaker and more immature is content with simpler teachings
that do not quite produce full strength in him, reference being intended to him
in the words But he that is weak eats vegetables.

There is also in Solomon a saying in the Proverbs which I think teaches that the
man who by reason of simplicity is incapable of the stronger and greater
sentiments is better, short of false thought, than the man who, though more
ready and keener and of greater insight into things, fails to penetrate the
principle of peace and harmony in all. Solomon's passage runs as follows: Better
is hospitality of vegetables served with friendship and grace than a fatted calf
with enmity.

Many a time do we accept untutored simpler entertainment, accompanied by good
conscience, as guests at the table of those who are unable to furnish us with
more, with greater satisfaction than any elevation of words upreared against the
knowledge of God and proclaiming with ample plausibility a sentiment alien to
the Father of our Lord Jesus who has given the law and the prophets. In order,
therefore, that we may neither fall sick of soul for lack of nourishment nor die
to God because of famine of the Lord's word, let us in obedience to the teaching
of our Savior, with righter faith and life, ask the Father for the living bread
which is the same as the needful bread.

Let us now consider what the word epiousion, needful, means. First of all it
should be known that the word epiousion is not found in any Greek writer whether
in philosophy or in common usage, but seems to have been formed by the
evangelists. At least Matthew and Luke, in having given it to the world, concur
in using it in identical form. The same thing has been done by translators from
Hebrew in other instances also; for what Greek ever used the expression enotizou
or akoutisthete instead of eistaota dexai or akousai poice se.

Exactly like the expression epiousion, needful, is one found in Moses' writings,
spoken by God: Ye shall be my periousios—peculiar people. Either word seems to
me to be a compund of ousia—essence—the former signifying the bread that
contributes to the essence, the latter denoting the people that has to do with
the essence and is associated with it. As for ousia, essence, in the strict
sense, by those who assert the priority of the substance of immaterial things,
it is ranked with immaterial things which are in possession of permanent being
and neither receive addition nor suffer subtraction. For addition and
subtraction are characteristic of material things in reference to which growth
and decay take place owing to their being in a state of flux, in need of
imported support and nourishment.

If the import exceeds the waste in a period growth takes place, if it is less,
diminuation; and if, as in conceivable, there are things receiving no import at
all, they are in what I may term unmitigated diminuation. Those on the other
hand who hold the substance of immaterial things to be posterior and that of
material things to be prior, define essence in these terms: It is the primary
matter of existing things out of which they are or the matter of bodily things
out of which they are; or that of terms out of which they are; or the primary
unqualified substance or presubstance of existing things; or that which admits
of all transformations and modifications though itself as such inherently
incapable of modification; or that which undergoes all modification and
transformation. On their view essence is inherently unqualified and inarticulate
as such. It is even indeterminate in magnitude, but it is involved in all
quality as a kind of ready ground for it. By qualities they mean distinctively
like the actualities and the activities in which movements and articulations of
the essence have come to be, and they say that the essence as such has no part
in these inherently though it is always incidentally inseparable from some of
them and equally receptive of all the agent's actualizations however it may act
and transform. (For it the force associated with the essence, pervading all that
would be responsible for all quality and the particular dispositions involving
it.) And they say that it is throughout transformable and throughout divisible,
and that any essence can coalesce with any other, all being a unity not
withstanding. What I have said in this discussion of essence raised by the
expressions the needful bread and the peculiar people has been to distinguish
the meanings of essence. And since we have already seen that it is spiritual
bread for which we ought to ask, we must needs understand the essence to be akin
to the bread, so that just as material bread on assimilation into the body of
the nourished passes into its essence, so the living bread which is come down
from heaven being assimilated into the mind and soul may impart its own power to
him who has lent himself to nourishment from it, and so become the needful bread
for which we ask. And again, in like manner, as the nourished attains strength
varying according to the character of the nourishment whether solid and fit for
athletes or of the nature of milk and vegetables, so it follows that when the
word of God is given either as milk as befits children, or as vegetables as
suits invalids, or as flesh as is proper for combatants, each of the nourished
acquires this or that power or nature according to the word to which he has lent
himself.

Moreover, there is a kind of reputed nourishment which is in reality harmful, a
second that is productive of disease, and another that cannot even be
assimilated, and all of these may be transferred by analogy to varieties of
reputedly nourishing teachings. Needful, therefore, is the bread which
corresponds most closely to our rational nature and is akin to our very essence,
which invests the soul at once with well being and with strength, and, since the
Word of God is immortal, imparts to its eater its own immortality.

It is just this needful bread that seems to me to be otherwise termed in
Scripture a tree of life, he who stretches forth his hand to which and takes of
it shall live unto eternity. And under a third name this tree is termed wisdom
of God in Solomon's words: She is a tree of life to all that take hold upon her
and to those that lean upon her as upon the Lord she is safe. And since the
angels also are nourished by God's wisdom receiving power for the accomplishment
of their proper works from their contemplation in truth with wisdom, it is said
in Psalms that the angels also are nourished, men of God designated Hebrews
holding communion with the angels and, as it were, even becoming messfellows
with them.

Such is the meaning of the saying:Bread of angels hath man eaten. Far from us be
such poverty of mind as to suppose that it is of some material bread, such as is
recorded to have come down from heaven upon those who had quitted Egypt, that
the angels continually partake and are nourished, as though it was actually in
this that the Hebrews had communion with the angels, God's ministering spirits.
And while we are considering the needful bread and the tree of life and the
wisdom of God and the common nourishment of saintly men and angels, it is not
untimely to refer to the three men recorded in Genesis who were entertained by
Abraham and partook of three measures of fine flour of wheat kneaded into
ember-cakes, and to observe that this may perhaps simply be told in a figurative
sense.

It would show that saints are able upon occasion to impart spiritual and
rational nourishment not only to men but also to divine powers, either for their
benefit or for the exhibition of their most nourishing acquisitions, the angels
being cheered and nourished in such display and becoming the readier to
cooperate in every way and henceforth to conspire in the apprehension of fuller
and greater things by the man who has cheered and so to say nourished them with
his store of nourishing teachings already acquired. No wonder that a man may
nourish angels when even Christ avows himself to stand before the door and knock
in order that He may enter into him that opens to Him and sup with him on his
fare, thereafter Himself in turn to impart His own to him who first according to
his individual power has entertained the Son of God. So then the partaker of the
needful bread, having his heart confirmed, becomes a son of God whereas he that
has portion in the serpent is none other than a spiritual Ethiopian and himself
in turn changes into a snake by reason of the serpent's toils so that, even
should he express a desire for baptism, he is reproached by the Word and hears
it said: Snakes, offspring of vipers, who hath prompted you to flee from the
coming wrath? And David speaks of the serpent body being fed on by Ethiopians:
Thou has shattered the heads of the serpents in the water, you hast crushed the
serpent's head, you hast given him to be food for the Ethiopian peoples. If it
is not absurd to suppose that, since the Son of God and also the Adversary are
of essential substances, either of them may become nourishment to this soul or
that, why need we hesitate in the case of all powers, better and worse,
including human beings, to believe that each one of us may derive nourishment
from any of them? As Peter was about to commune with the centurion Cornelius and
those who met together with him in Caesarea, and thereafter to impart the words
of God to the Gentiles also, he saw, the vessel let down from heaven by four
corners, in which were all manner of quadrupeds and reptiles and beasts of the
earth, whereupon he was also bidden rise up and stay and eat, and after he had
said in deprecation: Thou knowest that nothing common or unclean hath ever
entered my mouth, he was commanded to call no man common or unclean because what
God had made clean ought not to be made common by Peter; in the words of the
passage, what things God hath made clean make not you common.

Accordingly the clean and unclean food distinguished according to the law of
Moses in terms of various animals bear an analogy to the differing characters of
rational beings and teaches that some are nourishing for us but others the
reverse until God has cleansed and made all, or those from every race,
nourishing. But while that is indeed so and while there is such diversity among
foods, the needful bread, for which we ought to pray in order to be counted
worthy of it, and, being nourished by the Word that was God with God in the
beginning to be made divine God, is one and transcends all the foods mentioned.
But it will be said that the word epiousion, needful, is formed from epienai, to
go on, so that we are bidden to ask for the bread proper to the coming age, in
order that God may take it in advance and bestow it on us now. Thus what was to
be given as it were tomorrow would be given us today, today being taken to mean
the present age, tomorrow the coming. Since, however, as far as I can judge, the
preceding interpretation is better, let us go on to consider the added reference
to today in Matthew or the expression daily written in Luke. To call the whole
present age today is a usage frequent in the Scriptures, as in the passages: He
is father of the Moabites until today, and He is father of the Ammonites until
today, and this account has been reported among Jews until today, and in the
Psalms, Today if you hear His voice harden not your hearts. In Joshua, this is
expressed very clearly: Turn not away from the Lord in the days of today. And if
today means the whole present age, yesterday is probably the bygone age. That I
have understood to be its meaning in Psalms and in Paul in the Epistle to
Hebrews. In Psalms it is thus: A thousand years are in thine eyes as a yesterday
that had passed—whatever the much talked of millennium means, it is likened to
yesterday as opposed to today; and in the apostle it is written, Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday and today and unto the ages. No wonder that the whole of an
age counts with God as the space of a single day with us, aye and less as I
think. We may also consider whether the accounts of feasts or assemblies
recorded in terms of days or months or seasons or years have symbolical
references to ages. For if the law contains a shadow of coming things, its many
Sabbaths must be a shadow of many days and its moons come round in the course of
intervals of time, completed by some manner of a moon's conjunction with some
sun. And if a first month and tenth till fourteenth day and a feast of
unleavened bread from fourteenth till twenty-first contain a shadow of coming
things, who is wise and to such a degree God's friend as to have vision of the
first among many months and its tenth day and so on? What need I say of that
feast of seven weeks of days, and of that seventh month whose new moon is a day
of trumpets and on whose tenth day falls a day of atonement, which are known to
God alone who has enacted them? Who has to such a degree received the mind of
Christ as to interpret those seventh years of freedom for Hebrew domestic slaves
and of remission of debts and of cessation from tillage of the holy land? And
over and above the feast of every seven years there is yet another year, the
so-called Jubilee, clearly to imagine whose nature even partially, or the true
laws to be fulfilled in it, is for no one save Him who has contemplated the
Father's counsel in reference to the order in all the ages according to His
unsearchable judgments and His univestigable ways. In trying to reconcile two
apostolic passages it has often occurred to me to raise the question how there
can be consummation of ages at which Jesus has been manifested once for all unto
abolition of sins if there are going to be ages following after this. The
Apostles' passages are as follows: In the Epistle to Hebrews, but now at a
consummation of the ages He hath been manifested once for all unto abolition of
sins through His sacrifice; but in the Epistle to Ephesians, in order that He
may show forth, in the years following, the exceeding riches of His Grace in
kindness toward us.

Well, in conjecture as to matters so great, I believe that, just as the year's
consummation is it's last month after which arises another month's beginning, so
probably the present age is a consummation of numerous ages completing as it
were a year of ages, and after it certain coming ages will arise whose beginning
is the coming age, and in those coming ages God shall show forth the riches of
His Grace in kindness, when the greatest sinner, who for having spoken ill
against the Holy Spirit is held fast by his sin throughout the present age and
the coming one from beginning to end, shall after that, I know not how, receive
a dispensation. When a man has had vision of these things and has given thought
to a week of ages with intent to contemplate a kind of holy sabbath—keeping and
a month of ages to see God's holy new moon, and a year of ages to survey the
feasts of the year when every male must appear before the Lord God, and the
corresponding years of so many ages to discern the seventh holy year, and seven
weekly years of ages to sing a hymn to the Enactor of Laws so great, how can he
after such consideration cavil over what is the merest fraction of an hour in
the day of such an age, instead of doing everything to become, through his
preparation here, worthy of obtaining the needful bread and to receive it while
it is today and daily, what daily means being already clear from the foregoing
explanations. For he who prays today to God, who is from infiniti to infiniti,
not only for today but also in a sense for that which is daily shall be enabled
to receive from Him who hath power to bestow exceedingly above what we ask or
think even things—to use extreme language—which transcend those that eye hath
not seen and ear hath not heard and that have not gone up into the heart of man.
These considerations seem to me to have been very necessary for the
understanding of both the expressions today and daily when we are praying that
the needful bread be given us from His Father.

XVIII. AND FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS AS WE ALSO HAVE FORGIVEN OUR DEBTORS And forgive
us our Debts as we also have forgiven our Debtors, or as Luke has it, And
forgive us our Sins, for we also ourselves forgive everyone in Debt to us.
Concerning debts the Apostle also says: Pay your debts to all—to whom you owe
tribute, tribute, to whom fear, fear, to whom taxes, taxes, to whom honor,
honor: owe no man anything save mutual love.

We owe therefore in having certain duties not only in giving but also in kind
speech and corresponding actions, and indeed we owe a certain disposition
towards one another. Owing these things, we either pay them through discharging
the commands of the divine law, or failing to pay them, in contempt of the
salutary word, we remain in debt. The like reflection applies to debts toward
brothers, to those who in the religious sense have been born again with us in
Christ, as well as to those who have a common mother or father with us.

We also have a certain debt toward fellow citizens, and another toward all men
in common, in particular toward guests and toward men at the age of fatherhood,
and another toward such as it is right that we should honor as sons or as
brothers. He, therefore, who does not do what is a debt to be discharged to
brothers remains a debtor for what he has not done. So, too, should we fail in
what falls, at the prompting of the charitable spirit of wisdom, to human beings
also at our hands, our indebtedness becomes the greater. Indeed, we also have
debt in personal concerns—to use the body in a certain way, so as not to wear
out the flesh of the body through love of pleasure, and on the other hand to
treat the soul with a certain care, and to take forethought for the keenness of
the mind, and for our speech that it be without sting and helpful and not
trifling. Whenever we fail to perform what we owe, even to ourselves, the
heavier does our debt become.

Besides all these, being above all a creation and formation of God, we owe it to
preserve a certain disposition towards Him with love that is from a whole heart
and from a whole strength and from a whole mind, and if we fail to achieve this
we remain God's debtors, sinning against the Lord. And who in that case shall
pray for us? For if a man sinning sin against a man, then shall they pray for
him: but if he sin against the Lord, who shall pray for him? as Eli says in the
first book of Kings.

Moreover, we are debtors to Christ who bought us with His own blood, just as
every house slave is also debtor to his purchaser for the sum of money given for
him. We have also a certain indebtedness to the Holy Spirit: we are paying it
when we do not grieve Him in whom we were sealed unto a day of redemption, and
when, without grieving Him, we bear the fruits demanded of us, He being present
with us and quickening our soul. And even though we do not know precisely which
is our individual angel that looks upon the face of the Father in heaven, it is
at least manifest to each of us upon reflection that we are debtors to him also
for certain things. And inasmuch as we are in a world theater both of angels and
of men, one must know that as the performer in a theater owes it to say or do
certain things in sight of the spectators, and if he fails to perform this is
punished as having insulted the whole theater, so we, too, owe to the whole
world, to all the angels and the race of men alike, those things which, if we
have the will, we shall learn of wisdom.

Apart from those more general debts, there is a certain indebtedness to a widow
who is being provided for by the church, a second to a deacon, another to an
elder, while that to a bishop is heaviest of all—being demanded by the Savior of
the whole church and avenged if not paid. As already said, the Apostle mentions
a certain common debt between husband and wife, when he says: Let the husband
pay his indebtedness to the wife and wife likewise to the husband, and continues
Deprive not one another. But what need is there, when readers of this writing
select their own examples from the record, for me to speak of all the things we
owe which we either fail to pay and so come to be restrained or else pay and
come to be free? Suffice it to say that it is impossible while in this life to
be without debt at any hour of night or day. In owing, a man either pays or else
withholds the indebtedness. He may either pay or withhold in this life. Some
indeed owe no man anything; others pay off most and owe little; others pay
little and owe more; and a man may conceivably pay nothing and owe everything.
And besides, he who pays all so as to owe nothing may at sometimes effect his
object if he prays for forgiveness for previous indebtedness, inasmuch as such
forgiveness may reasonably be thought obtainable by one who has for sometime
made it his ambition to reach the position of having no obligation unpaid and
thus owing nothing. Our very activities in transgression leave their impression
within our mind and become the indictment against us on which we shall be
brought to trial when, as it were, the books that have been indicted by us all
shall be brought forth, in the time when we shall all stand before the judgment
seat of Christ that each may receive what he has earned through the body
according to his conduct whether good or bad.

It is also in reference to such indebtedness that it is said in the Proverbs:
Give not yourself in certainty to your shame, for if the man shall not have
ability to pay, they shall take your bed that is under you. But if we owe to so
many, it is certain that men owe to us also. Some owe to us as to human beings,
others as to fellow citizens, others as to fathers, some as to sons, yet others
as wives to husbands or as friends to friends. Whenever, accordingly, any of our
very numerous debtors have behaved too remiss in the matter of payment of there
dues to us, our more charitable course will be to bear them no grudge and to
remember our own indebtedness and how often we have failed to discharge them not
only towards men but also towards God himself.

Remembering what as debtors we have not paid but withheld during the time which
it was our duty to have done this or that for our neighbor had run by, we shall
be gentler toward those who have fallen in debt to us in turn and have not paid
their indebtedness, especially if we do not forget our transgressions against
the Divine and the unrighteousness we have spoken against the Height either in
ignorance of the truth or else in displeasure at the misfortunes that have
befallen us. But if we refuse to become gentler towards those who have fallen in
debt to us, our experience will be that of him who did not remit the hundred
shillings to his fellow servant and of whom, according to the parable set down
in the gospel, though already pardoned, the master exacts in severity what had
already been remitted, saying to him: Wicked servant and slothful, was it not
right for you to pity your fellow servant as I also pitied you? Cast him into
prison until he pay all that is owed. And the Lord continues: So shall the
heavenly Father do to you also if you forgive not each his brother from your
hearts.

It is however on profession of penitence that we are to forgive those who have
sinned against us, even though our debtor often does so; for He says: If your
brother sin against you seven times a day and seven times turn and say, "I
repent," you shall forgive him. It is not we who are harsh towards the
impenitent, but they who are wicked to themselves, for he that spurns
instruction hates himself. Yet even in such cases we should seek in every way
that healing arise within him who is so completely perverted as not even to be
conscious of his own ills but to be drunken with a drunkenness more fatal than
from wine, from the darkening of evil. When Luke says Forgive us our Sins he
means the same as Matthew, since sins are constituted when we owe and do not
pay, though he does not appear to lend support to him who would forgive only
penitent debtors when he says that it is enacted by the Savior that we ought in
prayer to add: for we ourselves also forgive everyone in debt to us. And it
would seem that we have all authority to forgive the sins that have been
committed against us as is clear from both clauses: as we also have forgiven our
debtors; and for we ourselves also forgive everyone in debt to us. But it is
when a man is inspired by Jesus as were the apostles, when he can be known from
his fruits to have received the Spirit that is Holy and to have become spiritual
through being led by the Spirit after the manner of a Son of God unto every
reasonable duty, that he forgives whatsoever God has forgiven and holds those
sins that are irremediable, and as the prophets served God in speaking not their
own message but that of the divine Will, so he too serves the God who alone has
authority to forgive. In the Gospel according to John the language referring to
the forgiveness exercised by the apostles runs thus: Receive the Holy Spirit:
whosoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them: whosoever's you hold,
they are held. Anyone taking these words without discrimination might blame the
apostles for not forgiving all men in order that all might be forgiven but
holding the sins of some so that they are held with God also on their account.

It is helpful to take an example from the Law with a view to understand God's
forgiveness of sins through men. Legal priests are prohibited from offering
sacrifice for certain sins in order that the persons for whom the sacrifices are
made may have their misdeeds forgiven; and though the priest has authority to
make offerings for certain involuntary or willful misdeeds, he of course does
not presume to offer a sacrifice for sin in cases of adultery or willful murder
or any other more serious offence.

So, too, the apostles, and those who have become like apostles, being priests
according to the Great High Priest and having received knowledge of the service
of God, know under the Spirit's teaching for which sins, and when, and how they
ought to offer sacrifices, and recognize for which they ought not to do so. Thus
Eli the priest, knowing that his sons Hophni and Phineahas are sinners, with a
sense of his inability to cooperate with them for forgiveness of sins, confesses
his despair of such a result in his words:

If a man sins against a man, then shall they pray for him, but if he sin against
the Lord, who shall pray for him? I know not how it is, but there are some who
have taken upon themselves what is beyond priestly dignity, perhaps through
utter lack of accurate priestly knowledge, and are proud of their ability to
pardon even acts of idolatry and to forgive acts of adultery and fornication,
claiming that even sin unto death is absolved through their prayer for those who
have dared to commit such.

They do not read the words: There is sin unto death; not for it do I say that a
man should ask. Nor should we omit to mention the resolute Job's offering of
sacrifice for his sons, with the words: Perhaps my sons have had evil thoughts
in their minds toward God. Though the sinful thoughts are doubtful and at worst
have not reached the lips, he offers his sacrifice for them.

XIX. AND BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL And bring us not
into Temptation but deliver us from Evil. In Luke the words but deliver us from
Evil are omitted. Assuming that the Savior does not command us to pray for the
impossible, it appears to me to deserve consideration in what sense we are
bidden to pray not to enter into temptation when all human life on earth is a
test. In that on earth we are beset by the flesh which wars against the spirit
and whose intent is emnity to God as it is by no means capable of being subject
to the law of God, we are in temptation. That all human life on earth is a trial
we have learned from Job in the words: Is not the life of men on earth a trial,
and the same thing is made plain from the seventeenth psalm in the words: In you
will I be delivered from trial. Paul, too, writing to the Corinthians says that
God bestows not freedom from temptation but freedom from temptation beyond one's
power.

More than human temptation has not possessed you, and God is to be trusted not
to let you be tempted beyond your power but to make the temptation be
accompanied by the outlet of power to endure it. Whether our wrestling is with
the flesh that lusts or wars against the spirit, or with the soul of all
flesh—in other words the ruling faculty, called the heart, of the body in which
it resides—as is the wrestling of those who are tempted with human temptations,
or, as advanced and maturer athletes, who no longer wrestle with blood and flesh
nor are reviewed in the human temptations which they have already trampled down,
our struggles are with the principalities and authorities and world-rulers of
His darkness and the Spiritual forces of evil, we have no release from
temptation. In what sense then does the Savior bid us pray not to enter into
temptation, when God in some sense tempts all men? Think you, says Judith, not
only to the elders of that day but also to all readers of her writing, of all
that He did with Abraham and all His temptations of Isaac and all that befell
Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria while he shepherded the flocks of Laban, his
mother's brother. For it is not that whereas He tested them by fire for the
proving of their hearts, the Lord who, for their admonishment, scourges those
who approach Him, now wreaks vengeance upon us. And David declares as a general
truth concerning all righteous men that Many are the afflictions of the
righteous, while in the acts the Apostle says: because it is through many
afflictions that we must enter into the kingdom of God. And if we failed to
understand what escapes most men in reference to prayer that we enter not into
temptation, we would at this point say that the apostles were not heard in their
prayers since throughout their whole time they endured countless sufferings: in
toils more abundantly, in blows more abundantly, in prisons above measure, in
deaths often, while Paul in particular: five times received forty stripes save
one at the hands of Jews, thrice was beaten with rods, once was stoned, thrice
was shipwrecked, passed a night and a day in the deep, a man in every way
afflicted, in straits, persecuted, cast down, confessing: Until the present hour
we have hungered, thirsted, gone naked, been buffeted, lacked rest, toiled at
work with our own hands. Reviled, we have blessed; persecuted, we have borne up;
slandered, we have exhorted. When the apostles have failed in prayer, we might
ask what hope there is for any of their inferiors to obtain God's hearing when
one prays? One ignorant of the true meaning of the Savior's command will have
reason to suppose that the words in the twenty-fifth psalm, Test me, O Lord, and
try me; assay my reins and my heart with fire, are in opposition to our Lord's
teaching about prayer. And when has anyone ever believed that those of whom he
had complete knowledge were free of temptations? And what time can be conceived
during which a man could be lighthearted as though he did not struggle to avoid
sinning? Is a man poor? Let him beware lest one day he steal and forswear by the
name of God. Again, is he rich? Let him not be lighthearted, for he may become
completely false and say in exaltation, "Who sees me?" Even Paul, for all his
riches, in all manner of discourse and in all manner of knowledge, is not
released from the danger of sinning on their account through excessive
exaltation, but needs a stake of Satan to buffet him in order that he may not be
excessively exalted. Even though a man may have a comparatively good conscience
and fly up in alarm from things evil, let him read what is said in the second
book of the Chronicles of Hezekiah, who is said to have fallen from the
elevation of his heart. And if, because I have not dwelt on the case of the
poor, someone is lighthearted—as though poverty involved no temptation—he must
know that the Plotter plots to cast down the needy and the poor, especially
since according to Solomon, the needy endure no threats. And what need is there
to tell how many, because of their material riches which they had failed to
manage rightly, have found a place in punishment along with the rich man in the
Gospel? And how many, because they bore poverty ignobly, with behavior more
servile and base than was seemly in Saints, have fallen away from their heavenly
hope? Even they who are midway between these extremes of riches and poverty are
not by any means released from sinning according to their possession, moderate
though it be.

Again, one who is in bodily health and well being imagines that by virtue of his
mere health and well being he is outside of all temptation. And yet, whose sin
it is, apart from those in well being and in health, to corrupt the temple of
God, no one will venture to say because the meaning of the passage is clear to
everyone. And who in sickness has escaped the incitements to corrupt the temple
of God, having leisure at such time and readily admitting thoughts of unclean
things, not to speak of all the others things beside these which trouble him
unless he guards his heart with all vigilance?

Many a man, overcome by troubles and incapable of bearing sickness manfully, has
been shown to be suffering at the time from sickness rather of the soul than of
the body, and many another, ashamed to bear the name of Christ nobly, has,
through shunning disrepute, fallen into eternal shame. Again, a man may think
that he has respite from temptation when he is in honor among men. Yet is not
the Lord's saying, They have their reward from men, proclaimed to those who are
elated over their popularity? Do not the words strike dismay: How can you have
come to believe, when you have received glory from one another, and seek not the
glory which is from God alone? And what need is there for me to recount the
crimes done in pride by the reputed noble, and the fawning submission of the
so-called low born towards the reputed noble by reason of their ignorance, a
submission which separates from God men who are devoid of genuine friendliness
but feign that fairest of human possessions—love. The whole life of man on earth
is therefore a trial, as has already been said. Let us for that reason pray for
deliverance from trial not through being exempt from it—that is an utter
impossibility for beings on earth—but through not succumbing under it.

It is when a man succumbs in the moment of tempting, I take it, that he enters
into temptation, being held in its nets. Into those nets the Savior entered for
the sake of those who had already been caught in them, and in the words of the
Song of Songs, looking out through the meshwork makes answer to those who have
been already caught by them and have entered into temptation, and says to those
who form His bride: Arise, my dear one, my fair one, my dove. To bring home the
fact that every time is one of temptation on earth, I will add that even he who
meditates upon the law of God day and night and makes a practice of carrying out
the saying, A righteous man's mouth shall meditate on wisdom, has no release
from being tempted. How many in their devotion to the examination of the divine
Scriptures have, through misunderstanding the messages contained in Law and
Prophets, devoted themselves to godless and impious or to foolish and ridiculous
opinions?

What need is there for me to answer, when there are countless examples of such
mistakes among those who do not seem to be open to the charge of righteousness
in their reading? The same fate has also overtaken many in their reading of the
Apostles and Gospels inasmuch as, through their own lack of discernment, they
fashion in imagination a Son or a Father other than the One divinely conceived
and truly recognized by Holy Writ. For one who fails to have true thoughts of
God or His Christ has fallen away from the true God and from His Only Begotten,
and his worship of the imaginary Father and Son, fashioned by his lack of
discernment, is no real worship. Such is his fate through having failed to
recognize the temptation present in the reading of Holy Writ to arm himself and
take a stand as for a struggle already upon him.

We ought therefore to pray, not that we be not tempted—that is impossible—but
that we be not encompassed by temptation, the fate of those who are open to it
and are overcome. Now since, outside of the Lord's Prayer, it is written Pray
that you enter not into temptation, the force of which may perhaps be clear from
what has already been said, whereas in the Lord's prayer we ought to say to God
our Father, Bring us not into Temptation, it is worth seeing in what sense we
ought to think of God as leading one who does not pray or is not heard into
temptation. If entering into temptation means being overcome, it is manifestly
out of the question to think that God leads anyone into temptation as though He
delivered him to be overcome. The same difficulty awaits one no matter in what
sense one may interpret the words Pray that you enter not into temptation, for
if it is an evil to fall into temptation, which we pray may not be our fate,
must it not be out of place to think of the Good God, who is incapable of
bearing evil fruits, as encompassing anyone with evils? It is of service to cite
in this connection what Paul has said in the Epistle to Romans—thus: Claiming to
be wise they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into
the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of winged and four footed and
creeping things. Wherefore God delivered them in the lusts of their hearts unto
uncleanness to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves; and shortly
after:

Therefore God delivered them unto passions of dishonor: for both their females
changed the natural use into the unnatural, and the males likewise setting aside
the natural use of the female, were consumed . . . and so on. And again shortly
after: And as they proved not to have God in full knowledge, God delivered them
unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly.

We may simply confront dividers of the Godhead with all these passages and put
these questions to them since they hold that the good Father of Our Lord is
distinct from the God of the law. Is it the good God who leads into temptation
one who fails in prayer? Is it the Father of the Lord who delivers in the lusts
of their hearts those who have already done some sin unto uncleanness to the
dishonoring of their bodies among themselves? Is it He who, as they themselves
say, is free from judging and punishing, who delivers unto passions of dishonor
and unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly men who would not have fallen into
the lusts of their hearts had they not been delivered to them by God, who would
not have succumbed to passions of dishonor had they not been delivered to them
by God, and who would not have lapsed into a reprobate mind but for the fact
that the so condemned had been delivered to it by God.

I am well aware that these passages will trouble such thinkers exceedingly.
Indeed they have fashioned in imagination a God other than the Maker of heaven
and earth, because they find many such passages in the Law and the Prophets and
have been offended by the author of such utterances as not good. But I on my
part, for the sake of that question, raised in connection with the words Bring
us not into Temptation, which led to my citation of the apostle's words also,
must now consider whether I in turn find a solution of apparent contradictions
worth considering. Well, it is my belief that God rules over each rational soul,
having regard to its everlasting life, in such a way that it is always in
possession of free will and is itself responsible alike for being, in the better
way, in progress towards the perfection of goodness, or otherwise for descending
as the result of heedlessness to this or that degree of aggravation of vice.

Accordingly, since a swift and somewhat short cure gives rise in some men to a
contempt for the disease into which they have fallen, with the possible result
of their incurring it a second time, He will in such other cases with good
reason allow the vice to increase to a certain extent, suffering it even to be
aggravated in them to the verge of incurableness, in order that they may be
sated through long continuance in the evil and through surfeit of the sin for
which they lust, and may be brought to a sense of their injury, and, having
learned to hate what formerly they welcomed, may be enabled when cured to enjoy
more steadfastly the health which their cure has brought to their souls. So it
was that the mixed throng among the Children of Israel, once fell into lust.

Sitting down they and the Children of Israel cried out saying, "Who will give us
flesh to eat? We remember the fish we used to eat freely in Egypt, and the
cucumbers and melons and leeks and onions and garlic, but now is our soul
parched; our eyes are on nothing save the manna." Then, shortly after, it is
said: And Moses heard them crying in their tribes; each was at his door. And
again shortly after the Lord says to Moses: And you shall say to the people,
"Sanctify yourselves for the morrow, and eat flesh, because you have cried
before the Lord saying, 'Who will give us flesh to eat, because it was well with
us in Egypt,' and the Lord shall give you flesh to eat. So eat flesh! Eat it not
one nor two nor five days, not ten nor twenty days; for a month of days eat till
it issue from your nostrils, and it shall make you ill, because you have
disobeyed the Lord who is among you, and have cried before Him, 'Wherefore have
we left Egypt?'" Let us therefore see whether the narrative I have laid before
you as a parallel is of help towards a solution of the apparent contradiction in
the clause Bring us not into temptation and in the words of the apostle. Having
fallen into lust, the mixed throng among the Children of Israel cried and the
Children of Israel with them.

Plainly so long as they were without the objects of their lust, they were not
able to be sated with them or cease their passion. In fact, it was the will of
the benevolent and good God, in giving them the object of their lust, not to
give it in such a way that any lust should be left in them. For that reason He
tells them to eat the flesh not one day—for had they partaken of the flesh a
short time their passion would have remained in their soul which would have been
kindled and set ablaze by it—nor does He give them the object of their lust for
two days.

It being His will to make it excessive for them, He utters what is, to one who
can understand, a threat rather than a promise of their apparent gratification,
saying, "Neither shall you pass five days eating the flesh nor twofold those,
nor yet twofold those again, but eat flesh for a whole mouth, until such time as
your imagined good shall issue from your nostrils with choleric affection, and
with it your culpable and base lust for it. So shall I set you free from all
further lust of living, that when you have come out in such condition you may be
pure from lust and may remember all the troubles through which you were set free
from it.

Thus you shall be enabled either not to fall into it again, or, should that ever
happen through forgetfulness during the long lapse of time of your sufferings on
account of lust, if you take no heed to yourselves and not appropriate the Word
that completely frees you from every passion, if you fall into evil and at a
later time, through having come to lust again for creation, require a second
time to obtain the objects of your lust—in hatred of that object revert again to
the good and heavenly nourishment through despising that which you longed for
the most." The like fate, accordingly, will overtake those who have changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man
and of winged and four-footed and creeping things, and who are forsaken of God
and thereby delivered in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness to the
dishonoring of their bodies as men who have brought down to soulless insensible
matter the name of Him who has bestowed upon all sentient rational beings not
only sense but even rational sense, and to some indeed a complete and excellent
sense and intelligence. Such men are reasonably delivered to passion of dishonor
by the God whom they have forsaken, being forsaken by Him in return, receiving
the requital of error through which they came to love the itch for pleasure. For
it is more of a requital of their error for them to be delivered to passions of
dishonor than to be cleansed by the fire of Wisdom and to have each of their
debts exacted from them in prison to the last farthing. For in being delivered
to passions of dishonor which are not only natural but many of the unnatural,
they are debased and hardened by the flesh and become as though they had no soul
or intelligence any longer but were flesh entirely, whereas in fire and prison
they receive not requital of their error but benefaction for the cleansing of
the evil contracted in their error, along with salutary sufferings attendant in
the pleasure-loving and are thereby set free from all stain and blood in whose
defilement and pollution they had to their own undoing been unable even to think
of being saved. So their God shall wash away the stain of the sons and daughters
of Zion and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst with a spirit of
judgment and a spirit of burning: for He comes in as the fire of a furnace and
as soap, washing and cleansing those who are in need of such remedies because it
has not been their clear desire to have knowledge of God. After being delivered
to these remedies they will of their own accord hate the reprobate mind, for it
is God's will that a man acquire goodness not as under necessity but of his own
accord. Some, it may well be, will have had difficulty in perceiving the
baseness of evil as the result of long familiarity with it, but then turning
away from it as falsely taken to be good.

Consider too, whether God's reason for hardening the heart of Pharaoh also is
that he may, because hardened, be unable to say, as in fact he did, "The Lord is
righteous, but I and my people are impious." Rather it is that he needs more and
more to be hardened and to undergo certain sufferings, in order that he may not,
as the result of a too speedy end to the hardening, despise hardening as an evil
and frequently again deserve to be hardened.

If their nets are not wrongfully stretched for birds, according to the statement
in the Proverbs, but God rightly leads men into the snare, as one has said, You
led us into the snare, and if not even a sparrow, cheapest of birds, falls into
the snare without the counsel of the Father, its fall into the snare being due
to the failure to use aright its control of its wings given to it to soar, let
us pray to do nothing to deserve being brought into temptation by the righteous
judgment of God, as in the case with everyone who is delivered by God in the
lusts of his own heart unto uncleanness, or delivered unto passions of dishonor,
or as not having proved to have God in full knowledge, is delivered unto a
reprobate mind to do the unseemly. The use of temptation is somewhat as follows.
Through temptations the content of our soul, which is a secret to all except
God, ourselves included, becomes manifest, in order that it may no longer be a
secret to us what manner of men we are but that we may have fuller knowledge of
ourselves and realize, if we choose, our own evils and be thankful for the
blessings manifested to us through temptations. That the temptations which
befall us take place for the revealing of our true nature or the discerning of
what is hidden in our heart, is set forth by the Lord's saying in Job and by the
scripture in Deuteronomy, which runs thus: Think you that I have uttered speech
to you for any reason other than that you may be revealed as righteous? And in
Deuteronomy: He afflicted you and starved you and gave you manna to eat, and He
led you about in the wilderness where biting serpents and scorpions and thirst
are, that the things in your heart might be discerned. And if we desire
references to plain history, it is matter of knowledge that Eve's readiness to
be deceived and unsoundness of thought did not originate when in disobedience to
God she hearkened to the serpent, but had already been betrayed, the reason for
the serpent's having engaged her being that with its peculiar wisdom it had
perceived her weakness. Nor was it the beginning of evil in Cain where he slew
his brother, for already the heart-knowing God had little regard for Cain and
his sacrifices. It was simply that his wickedness became manifest when he took
Abel's life. Had Noah not drunk of the wine that he cultivated and become
intoxicated and uncovered himself, neither Ham's indiscretion and irreverence
towards his father nor his brother's reverence and modesty towards their parent
would have been revealed.

Though Esau's plot against Jacob seemed to have provided an excuse for his being
deprived of the blessing, his soul even before that had roots of fornication and
profanity. And we should never have known of the splendor of Joseph's
self-control, prepared as he was against falling a victim to any lust, had his
master's wife not fallen in love with him. Let us therefore, in the intervals
between the succession of temptations, make a stand against the impending trial,
and prepare ourselves for all possible contingencies—in order that, come what
may, we may not be convicted of unreadiness but may be shown to have braced
ourselves with the utmost care. For when we have carried out all our part, the
deficiency caused by human weakness will be filled up by God who cooperates for
good in all things with those who love Him, and whose future growth has been
foreseen according to His unerring knowledge. In the words Bring us not into
Temptation Luke seems to me to have virtually taught Deliver us from Evil also.
In any case it is natural that the Lord should have addressed the briefer form
to the disciple as he had already been helped, but the more explicit to the many
who were in need of clearer teaching. God delivers us from Evil, not when the
enemy does not engage us at all in conflict through any of his own wiles or
those of the ministers of his will, but when we make a manful stand against
contingencies and are victorious. In that sense I have also taken the words:
Many are the afflictions of the righteous: and He delivers them from them all.
For God delivers us from afflictions not when afflictions are no more—and surely
Paul's expression in everything afflicted implies that affliction had never yet
ceased—but when, by God's help, under affliction we are not straitened.

According to a usage native to Hebrews, 'affliction' denotes misfortune that
happens without reference to a human will, whereas 'straitening' refers to the
will overcome by affliction and surrendered to it: hence Paul well says: in
everything afflicted but not impoverished. And I consider the words in Psalms In
affliction you set me at large to be similar, for by 'setting at large' is meant
the joyousness and cheerfulness of temper which comes to us from God in the
season of misfortune through the cooperation and presence of God's encouraging
and saving Word. We are accordingly to understand deliverance from evil in the
same way. God delivered Job, not through the Devil's failure to receive
authority to beset him with certain temptations—for he did receive it—but
through his own avoidance of sin in the sight of God amidst all that befell him
and through the exhibition of his righteousness.

Thus he who had said: Does Job revere God for nothing? Have you not fenced about
with a circle his goods without and his goods within the house and the goods of
all who are his, and blessed his work and made his flocks and herds to abound on
the earth? But send forth your hand, and touch all that he has, and surely he
will curse you to your face, was put to shame as having thereby spoken falsely
against Job, for he, after all his suffering, did not, as the Adversary said,
curse God to His face, but even when delivered to the tempter he continued
steadfastly blessing God, reproving his wife for saying Speak you some word
against God and die, and rebuking her in the words: As one of the senseless
women have you spoken.

If we have accepted the good from the Lord's hand, shall we not endure the evil?
And a second time concerning Job the Devil said to the Lord: Skin for skin; all
that the man has he will pay for his soul. Nay but send forth your hand and
touch his bones and his flesh, and surely he will curse you to your face. But he
is overcome by the champion of virtue and shown to be a liar, for Job inspite of
the severest sufferings stood firm committing no sin with his lips in the sight
of God. Two falls did Job wrestle and conquer, but no third such struggle did he
undergo, for the threefold wrestling had to be reserved for the Savior, as it is
recorded in the three Gospels, when the Savior known in human form thrice
conquered the Enemy. In order therefore to ask of God intelligently that we
enter not into temptation and that we be delivered from Evil, let us consider
these things and investigate them in our own minds more carefully. Through
hearkening unto God let us become worthy to be heard by Him, and let our
entreaty be that when tempted we may not be brought to death, and that when
assailed by flaming darts of evil, we may not be set on fire by them.

All whose hearts are (as one of the Twelve Prophets says, as an ember-pan) are
set on fire by them, but not so they who with the shield of faith quench all the
flaming darts aimed at them by the Evil One, since they have within themselves
rivers of water springing up into life eternal which do not let the fire of the
Evil One prevail but readily undo it with the flood of their inspired and saving
thought that is impressed by contemplation of the truth upon the soul of him
whose study is to be spiritual.

XX. FORMALITIES OF PRAYER: CONCLUSION

I think it not out of place to add, by way of completing my task in reference to
prayer, a somewhat elementary discussion of such matters as the disposition and
the posture that is right for one who prays, the place where one ought to pray,
the direction towards which one ought except in any special circumstances to
look, and the time suitable and marked out for prayer. The seat of disposition
is to be found in the soul, that of the posture in the body. Thus Paul, as we
observed above, suggests the disposition in speaking of the duty of praying
without anger and disputation and the posture in the words lifting up holy
hands, which he seems to me to have taken from the Psalms where it stands
thus—the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice; as to the place I desire
therefore that men pray in every place, and as to the direction in the Wisdom of
Solomon: that it might be known that it is right to go before the sun to give
thanks to you and to intercede with you towards the dawn of light.

Accordingly it seems to me that one who is about to enter upon prayer ought
first to have paused awhile and prepared himself to engage in prayer throughout
more earnestly and intently, to have cast aside every distraction and confusion
of thought, to have bethought him to the best of his ability of the greatness of
Him whom he is approaching and of the impiety of approaching Him frivolously and
carelessly and, as it were, in contempt, and to have put away everything alien.

He ought thus to enter upon prayer with his soul, as it were, extended before
his hands, and his mind intent on God before his eyes, and his intellect raised
from earth and set toward the Lord of All before his body stands. Let him put
away all resentment against any real or imagined injurer in proportion to his
desire for God not to bear resentment against himself in turn for his injuries
and sins against many of his neighbors or any wrong deeds whatsoever upon his
conscience. Of all the innumerable dispositions of the body that, accompanied by
outstretching of the hands and upraising of the eyes, standing is
preferred—inasmuch as one thereby wears in the body also the image of the
devotional characteristics that become the soul. I say that these things ought
to be observed by preference except in any special circumstances, for in special
circumstances, by reason of some serious foot disease one may upon occasion
quite properly pray sitting, or by reason of fevers or similar illnesses, lying,
and indeed owing to circumstances, if, let us say, we are on a voyage or if our
business does not permit us to retire to pay our debt of prayer, we may pray
without any outward sign of doing so.

Moreover, one must know that kneeling is necessary when he is about to arraign
his personal sins against God with supplication for their healing and
forgiveness, because it is a symbol of submission and subjection. For Paul says;
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father from whom is all fatherhood named
in heaven and on earth. It may be termed spiritual kneeling, because of the
submission and self-humiliation of every being to God in the name of Jesus, that
the apostle appears to indicate in the words: that in the name of Jesus every
knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

It should not be supposed that beings in heaven have bodies so fashioned as
actually to possess knees, since their bodies have been described possibly as
spherical in form by those who have discussed these matters more minutely. He
who refuses to admit this will also, unless he outrages reason, admit the uses
of each of the members in order that nothing fashioned for them by God may be in
vain. One falls into error on either hand, whether he shall assert that bodily
members have been brought into being by God for them in vain and not for their
proper work, or shall say that the internal organs, the intestine included,
perform their proper uses even in heavenly beings. Exceedingly foolish will it
be to think that it is only their surface, as with statues, that is human in
form and nothing further underneath. This much discussion will suffice, then, of
kneeling and of seeing that: in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow in heaven
and on earth and under the earth. To the same effect, it is written by the
prophet: To me every knee shall bow. In regard to place, it should be known that
every place is rendered fit for prayer by one who prays rightly, for in every
place sacrifice is offered to me . . . says the Lord, and I desire therefore
that men pray in every place. But to secure the performance of one's prayers in
peace without distraction, the rule is for every man to make choice, if
possible, of what I may term the most solemn spot in his house before he prays,
considering in addition to his general examination of it, whether any violation
of law or right has not been done in the place in which he is praying, so as to
have made not only himself but also the place of his personal prayer of such a
nature that the regard of God has fled from it. And in reference to this matter
of place, lengthy consideration leads me to say what may seem to be harsh, but
what, if one inquires into it carefully, may possibly not invite contempt,
namely that it is a question whether it is reverent and pure to intercede with
God in the place of that union which is not unlawful but is conceded by the
Apostle's word by way of indulgence not injunction. For if it is not possible to
give oneself to prayer as one ought without devoting oneself to it by agreement
for a season, the matter of the place also may possibly deserve to be considered
if possible.

Yet there is a certain helpful charm in a place of prayer being the spot in
which believers meet together. Also it may well be that the assemblies of
believers also are attended by angelic powers, by the powers of our Lord and
Savior himself, and indeed by the spirits of saints, including those already
fallen asleep, certainly of those still in life, though just how is not easy to
say. In reference to angels we may reason thus: If an angel of the Lord shall
encamp round about those that fear Him and shall deliver them, and if Jacob's
words are true, not only of himself but to all who have devoted themselves to
God, when we understand him to say the angel who delivers me from all evil . . .
it is natural to infer that, when a number of men are genuinely met for Christ's
glory, that angel of each man—who is round about each of those that fear—will
encamp with the man with whose guardianship and stewardship he has been
entrusted, so that when saints assemble together there is a twofold church, the
one of men the other of angels. And although it is only the prayer of Tobit, and
after him of Sarah who later became his daughter-in-law owing to her marriage to
Tobias, that Raphael says he has offered up as a memorial, what happens when
several are linked in one mind and conviction and are formed into one body in
Christ? In reference to the presence of the power of the Lord with the church
Paul says: you being gathered together with my spirit and with the power of the
Lord Jesus, implying that the Lord Jesus' power is not only with the Ephesians
but also with the Corinthians. And if Paul, while still wearing the body,
believed that he assisted in Corinth with his spirit, we need not abandon the
belief that the blessed departed in spirit also, perhaps more than one who is in
the body, make their way likewise into the churches. For that reason we ought
not to despise prayer in churches, recognizing that it possesses a special
virtue for him who genuinely joins in. And just as Jesus' power and the spirit
of Paul and similar men, and the angels of the Lord who encamp round about each
of the saints, are associated and join with those who genuinely assemble
themselves together, so we may conjecture that if any man be unworthy of a holy
angel and give himself up through sin and transgressions in contempt of God to a
devil's angel, he will perhaps, in the event of those like him being few, not
long escape that providence of those angels which oversee the church by the
authority of the divine will and will bring the misdeeds of such persons to
general knowledge; whereas if such persons become numerous and meet as mere
human societies with business of the more material sort, they will not be
overseen. That is shown in Isaiah when the Lord says: neither if you shall come
to appear before me; for I will turn away my eyes from you, and even if you
multiply your supplication I will not pay attention. For in place of the already
mentioned twofold company of saintly men and blessed angels there may, on the
other hand, be a twofold association of impious men and evil angels. Of such a
congregation it might be said alike by holy angels and by pious men: I sat not
down with the council of vanity, and with transgressors I will not enter in; I
hated the church of evildoers and with the impious I will not sit down. I think
that it was also for such a reason that the people in Jerusalem and the whole of
Judea, having come to be in a state of great sinfulness, became subject to their
enemies through the abandonment by God and the overshielding angels and the
saving work of saintly men—having become people who have abandoned the Law. For
whole gatherings are at times thus abandoned to fall into temptation in order
that even that which they seem to have may be taken away from them. Like the fig
tree that was cursed and taken away from the roots because it had not given
fruit to the hungering Jesus, they wither and lose any little amount they once
had of lively power according to faith. So much for what seem to me to have been
necessary observations in considering the place of prayer and in setting forth
its special virtue in respect to place in the case of the meetings of saintly
men who come together reverently in churches. A few words may now be added in
reference to the direction in which one ought to look in prayer. Of the four
directions, the North, South, East, and West, who would not at once admit that
the East clearly indicates the duty of praying with the face turned towards it
with the symbolic suggestion that the soul is looking upon the dawn of the true
light? Should anyone, however, prefer to direct his intercessions according to
the aperture of the house, whichever way the doors of the house may face, saying
that the sight of heaven appeals to one with a certain attraction greater than
the view of the wall, and the eastward part of the house having no opening, we
may say to him that since it is by human arrangement that houses are open in
this or that direction but by nature that the East is preferred to all the other
directions, the natural is to be set before the artificial. Besides, on that
view why should one who wished to pray when in the open country pray to the East
in preference to the West? If, in the one case it is reasonable to prefer the
East, why should the same not be done in every case? Enough on that subject.

I have still to treat the topics of prayer, and therewith I purpose to bring
this treatise to an end. Four topics which I have found scattered throughout the
Scriptures appear to me to deserve mention, and according to these everyone
should organize their prayer. The topics are as follows: In the beginning and
opening of prayer, glory is to be ascribed according to one's ability to God,
through Christ who is to be glorified with Him, and in the Holy Spirit who is to
be proclaimed with Him.

Thereafter, one should put thanksgivings: common thanksgivings—into which he
introduces benefits conferred upon men in general—and thanksgivings for things
which he has personally received from God. After thanksgiving it appears to me
that one ought to become a powerful accuser of one's own sins before God and ask
first for healing with a view to being released from the habit which brings on
sin, and secondly for forgiveness for past actions. After confession it appears
to me that one ought to append as a fourth element the asking for the great and
heavenly things, both personal and general, on behalf of one's nearest and
dearest. And last of all, one should bring prayer to an end ascribing glory to
God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. As I already said, I have found
these points scattered throughout the scriptures. The element of glorious
ascription occurs in these words in the one hundred and third psalm:—O Lord, my
God, how exceedingly you are magnified. You have put on praise and majesty, who
are He that wraps himself in light as in a mantel, who stretches out the heaven
like a curtain, who roofs His upper chambers with waters, who makes clouds His
chariot, who walks on wings of winds, who makes winds His angels and flaming
fire His ministers, who lays the foundations of the earth for its safety—it
shall not swerve for ever and ever; the deep is a mantle of His vestment; on the
mountains shall waters stand; from your rebuke shall they flee; from the sound
of your thunder shall they shrink in fear.

Indeed most of the psalm contains ascription of glory to the Father. But anyone
may select numerous passages for himself and see how broadly the element of
glorious ascription is scattered. Of thanksgiving, this may be set forth as an
example. It is found in the second book of Kings, and is uttered by David, after
promises made through Nathan to David, in astonishment at the bounties of God
and in thanksgiving for them. It runs: Who am I, O Lord my Lord, and what is my
house, that you have loved me to this extent? I am exceeding small in your
sight, my Lord, and yet you have spoken on behalf of the house of your servant
for a long time to come. Such is the way of man, O Lord my Lord, and what shall
David go on to say more to you? Even now you know your servant, O Lord. For your
servant have you wrought and according to your heart have you wrought all this
greatness to make it known to your servant that he should magnify you, O Lord my
Lord. Of confessions we have an example in: From all my transgressions deliver
me. And elsewhere: My wounds have stunk and been corrupt because of my folly. I
have been wretched and bowed down utterly; all the day have I gone with sullen
face. Of petitions we have an example in the twenty-seventh psalm: Draw me not
away with sinners, and destroy me not with workers of unrighteousness, and the
like. And it is right as one began with ascription of glory, to bring one's
prayers to an end in ascription of glory, singing and glorifying the Father of
all through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit—to whom be glory unto eternity.

Thus, Ambrosius and Tatiana, studious and genuine brethren in piety, according
to my ability I have struggled through my treatment of the subject of prayer and
of the prayer in the Gospels together with its preface in Matthew. But if you
press on to the things in front and forget those behind and pray for me in my
undertaking, I do not despair of being enabled to receive from God the Giver a
fuller and more divine capacity for all these matters, and with it to discuss
the same subject again in a nobler, loftier, and clearer way. Meanwhile,
however, you will peruse this with indulgence. This text was reformatted by
Roger Pearse, 2008. This file and all material on this page is in the public
domain - copy freely. Originally uploaded to the web by
("http://tedn.hypermart.net/index.htm") Nottingham Publishing.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 38: ON PRAYER - PREFACE
========================================================================

Origen, On Prayer (Unknown date). Preface This is a mysterious item which I
found on the internet. The translator is given as William A. Curtis, who appears
to have been a Scottish divine in Glasgow in the early 20th century. But the
originator seems to be a Theodore J. Nottingham, who says that he obtained it
from a certain Dr Charles Ashanin, who in turn obtained it from Curtis' papers.
Nottingham wrote to Harry Plantinga at CCEL, offering the item thus in January
2001:

I would like to ask that you add a link to a very rare translation that has come
into my possession and which is posted free on the Internet. Translated from the
original Greek by a reknown (sic) Scottish scholar at the turn of the century,
the manuscript of "Origen on Prayer" was passed on to my spiritual mentor, a
Church Historian from the former Yugoslavia, who recently passed on. On behalf
of his fifty year effort to publish this material, I have placed it, newly
edited and updated, at this site: "http://tedn.hypermart.net/origen.htm". Please
share it with persons interested in the great master. The item is widely
available now online. In case it vanishes, I have placed it here. This text was
written by Roger Pearse, 2017. This file and all material on this page is in the
public domain - copy freely.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 39: PHILOCALIA - FOOTNOTES
========================================================================

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) Footnotes to the English translation 1. 1 As
"oracles."

2. 2 Matt. x. 18; cf. Mark xiii. 9.

3. 3 Matt. vii. 22 f.; cf. Luke xiii. 26.

4. 4 Cf. Gen. xlix. 10.

5. 5 Hos. iii. 4.

6. 6 For the Heb. teraphim the Sept. has delon. Schleusner shows that this word
was used for the clear or shining stones, the Urim and Thummim. The teraphim
were idolatrous means of divination (Pusey). The Seventy appear to have had in
view the use of the Urim and Thummim by the high priest.

7. 1 Gen. xlix. 10.

8. 2 Deut. xxxii. 21.

9. 1 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.

10. 2 Ps. xlv. (xliv.) 1 f.

11. 3 Ps. lxxii. (lxxi.) 7 f.

12. 4 Cf. Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 215.

13. 5 Isa. viii. 11 f.

14. 6 Matt. ii. 6; cf. Mic. v. 2.

15. 1 Dan. ix. 24.

16. 2 Job iii. 8.

17. 3 Luke x. 19.

18. 4 Cf. Heb. ii. 4.

19. 1 Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 16; Heb. x. 1.

20. 2 2 Cor. iv. 7, 21. 3 Or, "being stored up in the books (of the Bible),"
etc.

22. 1 1 Cor. ii. 4 f.

23. 2 Heb. vi. 1.

24. 3 1 Cor. ii. 6 f.

25. 4 Rom. xvi. 25 ff.

26. 5 2 Tim. i. 10.

27. 6 Isa. lxi. i.

28. 7 Isa. xlv. 13.

29. 8 Zech. ix. 10.

30. 9 Isa. vii. 15.

31. 1 Isa. xi. 6 f.

32. 2 Jer. xv. 14.

33. 3 Ex. xx. 5.

34. 4 Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 11, 17, 35.

35. 5 Isa. xlv. 7.

36. 6 Amos iii. 6.

37. 7 Mic. i. 12.

38. 8 1 Sam. xvi. 14.

39. 9 World-builder----Creator.

40. 1 Cf. Gen. xix. 30 ff.

41. 2 Cf. Gen. xvi.

42. 3 Cf Gen. xxix. 21 ff.

43. 4 Cf. Ex. xxv. ff.

44. 1 1 Cor. ii. 16, 12 f.

45. 2 The Greek word is used in the Sept. for the Heb. for network, laced work,
and so a lattice. In Eccles. xii. 3, a window, as closed by a lattice, and not
with glass. In Hos. xiii. 3, a chimney, or hole for the smoke, covered with
lattice-work. See Gesenius and Schleusner.

46. 1 Luke xi. 52.

47. 2 Prov. xxii. 20 f.

48. 3 1 Cor. ii. 6 f.

49. 4 Heb. x. 1.

50. 5 Herm. Vis. ii. 4.

51. 1 Widows and orphans----" Those who are not yet united with the Spouse of the Church, though divorced from their old connection, nor yet adopted children of the Father."----Westcott.

52. 2 "By this he evidently means that certain passages taken literally do not instruct us, for no one can deny that they have a meaning."----Westcott.

53. 3 John ii. 6.

54. 4 Rom. ii. 29.

55. 5 That is, a number equal to the sum of its factors or divisors. Thus 6 = 3
+ 2 + 1.

56. 1 1 Cor. ix. 9 f.; cf. Deut. xxv. 4.

57. 2 Heb. viii. 5; x. 1.

58. 3 1 Cor. ii. 7 f.

59. 4 1 Cor. x. 11.

60. 5 1 Cor. x. 4.

61. 6 Heb. viii. 5; cf, Ex. xxv. 40.

62. 7 Gal. iv. 21 ff 63. 1 Col. ii. 16 f.

64. 2 Heb. viii. 5.

65. 3 That is, "inspired."

66. 4 Rom. xi. 4 ; cf. 1 Kings xix. 18, 67. 5 Rom. xi. 5.

68. 6 "Divine."

69. 1 See sec. 14, beginning.

70. 1 Gen. i. 5.

71. 2 Gen. ii. 8 f.

72. 3 Gen. iii. 8.

73. 4 Gen. iv. 16.

74. 1 Matt. iv. 8.

75. 2 Cf. Lev. xi. 14.

76. 3 Gen. xvii. 14.

77. 4 Cf. Deut. xiv. 5, 12.

78. 5 Ex. xvi. 29.

79. 1 Jer. xvii. 21.

80. 2 Luke x. 4.

81. 3 Matt. v. 39.

82. 4 Matt. v. 28 f.

83. 5 1 Cor. vii. 18.

84. 1 See above. The Spirit is supposed to invent some of the history for the
sake of the spiritual meaning conveyed.

85. 2 Gen. xxv. 9 f.

86. 3 Gen. xlviii. 22; Josh. xxiv. 32.

87. 4 Ex. xx. 12; cf. Eph. vi. 2 f.

88. 5 "The spiritual world in which the interpretation of Scripture is realised, may be regarded as heavenly, or as Christian and earthly; when we contemplate the former, we explain anagogically, and allegories properly are applied only to the latter. Thus the prophecies which
describe the character and fate of various nations under the Jewish dispensation may be referred, according to the one system (anagoge), to the inhabitants of the celestial regions correlative to the kingdoms on earth, or by the other (allegoria), to spiritual characters unfolded by Christianity."----Westcott.

89. 1 Ex. xx. 13 ff.

90. 2 Matt. v. 22.

91. 3 Matt. v. 34.

92. 4 1 Thess. v. 14.

93. 5 John v. 39.

94. 1 1 Cor. x. 18.

95. 2 Rom. ix. 8, 6.

96. 3 Rom. ii. 28 f.

97. 1 Matt. xv. 24.

98. 1 Rom. ix. 8.

99. 2 Gal. iv. 26 f.

100. 3 Heb. xii. 22 f.

101. 4 Rufinus, "If we listen to the words of Paul as the words of Christ
speaking in him."

102. 5 Or, "refers us."

103. 6 That is, "Egyptians," etc., literally.

104. 1 Isa. xiv. 12.

105. 2 Ezek. xxix. 11 f.

106. 3 Matt. xv. 24 ; cf. John xi. 52.

107. 4 Matt. xiii. 44.

108. 1 Col. ii. 3 ; Isa. xlv. 2f.

109. 2 Heb. xi. 12 ; cf. Gen. xxii. 17.

110. 3 Matt. v. 14.

111. 4 Rom. ix. 6.

112. 1 Eccles. v. 1.

113. 2 Ex. xxxiv. 20.

114. 3 Cf. Isa. i. 16.

115. 4 Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 7; cf. Isa. viii. 14.

116. 5 Rom. ix. 33; cf. Isa. xxviii. 16.

117. 6 Or, "reconciling the nmrder of the man with his evident kindliness."

118. 1 Wisd. xvii. 1.

119. 2 1 Cor. ii. 7 f.

120. 3 Rom. xvi. 25 f.

121. 4 2 Tim. i. 10; John i. 1 f.

122. 5 Rom. ii. 28 f.

123. 1 Rom. i. 20.

124. 2 That is, which come within the province of the reason, as opposed to
things simply visible.

125. 3 Heb. viii. 5.

126. 4 Ex. xxviii. 32.

127. 5 Rev. iii. 7 f.

128. 1 Rev. v. 1 ff.

129. 2 Isa. xxix. 11 f.

130. 3 Luke xi. 51; cf. Matt. xxiii. 14.

131. 1 1 Cor. ii. 13.

132. 2 See Chap. viii.

133. 3 Ps. xii. (xi.) 7.

134. 4 Cf. Luke i. 2.

135. 5 Matt. v. 18.

136. 1 Or, "providence."

137. 1 This total was made by taking Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 56 ff., 111 ff., on "the Symbolism of. Numbers." "Origen was the first who pointed out this number was also that of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet (Euseb. H.E. vi. 25, and the coincidence is emphatically repeated by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, and Epiphanius, as well as by Jerome. The coincidence, it was thought, could hardly be accidental. The 'twenty-two' books of the Greek Bible must, it was supposed, represent 'twenty-two' books of the Hebrew Bible; hence, it was concluded, the number of the books in the Hebrew Canon was providentially ordained to agree with the number of the Hebrew letters."----Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, p. 221.

138. 2 "It is noteworthy that the supposed agreement in the number of the Hebrew letters with the number of the Hebrew sacred books seems to be of Greek origin, and does not appear in Hebrew tradition,"----Ryle, p. 222.

139. 1 Or, "inaccurate."

140. 2 I Cor. ii. 4.

141. 3 2 Cor. xi. 6.

142. 4 2 Cor. iv. 7.

143. 5 Col. ii. 3.

144. 6 1 Cor. i. 26 f.

145. 1 Rom. i. 14.

146. 2 2 Cor. iii. 6.

147. 3 1 Cor. ii. 4 f.

148. 4 "Not content with the labour of lecturing and collating MSS., Origen composed numerous books. These were all written to the order of his patron Ambrose, who had at one time been attracted by Gnosticism, but was won over to orthodoxy by Origen. Ambrose made use of his wealth to give the poor but independent scholar the only aid he was likely to accept. He supplied him with quarters and a staff of shorthand writers and copyists. Ambrose not only provided the means, he also prescribed the subjects." ----Origen the Teacher, S.P.C.K., p. 9.

149. 5 Eccles. xii. 12.

150. 1 "Nisi primum, plane secundum; si vero secundum, non primum omnino."

151. 1 Eccles. xii. 12.

152. 2 Prov. x. 19.

153. 3 1 Kings iv. 32 f.

154. 4 Prov. i. 24.

155. 5 Acts xx. 7 f.

156. 6 John i. 1.

157. 7 Lit., "consisting of many theorems."

158. 1 John v. 39.

159. 2 Ps. xl. (xxxix.) 7.

160. 1 Rev. v. 1 ff.

161. 2 Rev. iii. 7.

162. 3 Ps. lxix. (lxviii.) 29.

163. 4 Dan. vii. 10.

164. 5 Ex. xxxii. 32.

165. 6 Isa. xxii. 22; cf. Rev. iii. 7.

166. 1 Ezek. ii. 10.

167. 2 Cf. Rev. x. 10.

168. 3 Rom. ii. 16.

169. 1 2 Cor. iii. 6.

170. 2 Lit., "dictation." According to others, "too boldly give advice."

171. 3 Matt. v. 9.

172. 4 Prov. viii. 8.

173. 5 Ps. lxxii. (lxxi.) 7.

174. 1 R.V., "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are
the words of the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd." The
margin has for "masters of assemblies " the alternative "collectors of
sentences."

175. 2 Eccles. xii. 11.

176. 3 Cf. Luke viii. 8.

177. 1 1 Sam. xvi. 14.

178. 2 That is, "treatment."

179. 3 "Inconsequence in the connections, abruptness in the transitions."

180. 4 A Homily was a popular exposition. Origen's writings were of three kinds----tomes, properly sections (volumina, Jerome), commentaries, homilies.

181. 1 Ps. cix. (cviii.) 1, 8.

182. 2 Acts i. 16.

183. 3 Ex persona Dei. On the prosopopoeia of Scripture, see Schleusner. The
verb signifies personas fictos induco, personas fingo, or confingo. Cf. "The
heavens declare the glory of God"; "The sea saw that and fled," etc.

184. 4 That is, "inaccurate expressions."

185. 5 Hos. xii. 4.

186. 1 Gen. ii. 16 f.

187. 2 One "thing." Cf. S. John x. 30, and see below.

188. 1 1 Cor. x. 17.

189. 2 Cf. Eph. iv. 5 f.

190. 3 Cf. Rom. xii. 5 ; Gal. iii. 28.

191. 4 2 Cor. xi. 2.

192. 5 The neuter.

193. 6 Cf. John xvii. 11, 21.

194. 7 Rom. xii. 5. ; Eph. iv. 25.

195. 8 Herm. Vis. xi.

196. 9 Rom, vii. 7.

197. 1 Gal. iii. 10; cf. Deut. xxvii. 26.

198. 2 Gal. iii. 19.

199. 3 Gal. iii. 24 ff.

200. 4 Gal. iv. 21 ff.

201. 5 John xv. 25; cf. Ps. xxxv. (xxxiv.) 19.

202. 1 1 Cor. xiv. 21; cf. Isa. xxxviii. 11 f.

203. 2 Rom. vii. 14.

204. 3 Rom. ii. 14f.

205. 4 The governing part, or reason. The Stoics taught that the soul had eight
parts, the hegemonicon or governing part, the five senses, the faculty of
speech, and the generative force. The word occurs also in xx. 12 (rational and
irrational), xx. 22, xxi. 3, xxvii. 2, xxvii. 13.

206. 5 Rom. v. 13.

207. 6 Rom. vii. 7.

208. 1 Jolm iv. 35.

209. 2 That is, "literal." See above.

210. 3 John ix. 39.

211. 4 Cf. Rom. iii. 21.

212. 5 John i. 18.

213. 1 Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 7; cf. Isa. viii. 14.

214. 2 Rom. ix. 33; cf. Isa. xxviii. 16.

215. 3 Matt. xii. 36.

216. 1 Cf. Matt. v. 18.

217. 1 Ezek. xxxiv. 17 ff.

218. 1 Ezek. xxxiv. 19.

219. 1 Ps. ciii. (cii.) 1.

220. 2 1 Cor. xiv. 14.

221. 1 Cf. Matt. ix. 29.

222. 2 Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 16.

223. 1 Gregory Thaumaturgus, so called from his miracles, converted by Origen
about 234 A.D., afterwards Bishop of his native place, Neocaesarea in
Cappadocia.

224. 2 Ex. xi. 2; xii. 35 f.

225. 3 Lit., "things received," viz. "in the Mount," Ex. xxv. 40, etc.

226. 1 Ex. xxvii. 16.

227. 2 1 Kings xi. 14 ff. In the text, Ader (accurately, Eder, 1 Chron. viii.
15).

228. 1 1 Kings xii. 28 f., Jeroboam.

229. 2 John x. 3.

230. 3 Matt. vii. 7; Luke xi. 9.

231. 1 Heb. iii. 14.

232. 2 Gen. i. 16 ff.

233. 3 "In principatum."

234. 4 "Ut proeessent." In Greek the Infinitive.

235. 5 "In potestatem."

236. 6 "Ut potestatem habeant."

237. 1 John v. 19.

238. 2 John i. 29.

239. 1 2 Cor. v. 19.

240. 2 Lit., "distinction of points, or stops."

241. 1 I take this to be Origen's meaning. Cf. Westcott, Introduction to the
Gospel of St. John, p. 50.

242. 1 1 Cor. ii. 4 f.

243. 2 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4.

244. 3 "Sermonis gratia allicere ad obsequium: sicut veteres in ore Herculis aureas catenas finxerunt, quae vulgus hominum auribus traherent."----Calvin on Ps. xlv. 3.

245. 4 Ps. lxviii. (lxvii.) 12.

246. 1 Plat. Ep. vii. 341 C, D.

247. 2 Rom. i. 19.

248. 3 Cf. Rom. i. .18 ff.

249. 4 Plat. Ep., ibid.

250. 1 Cf. Plat. Rep. i. 327, A.

251. 2 Cf. Plat. Phaedo, 118, A.

252. 3 "Noumena" as opposed to "phoenomena."

253. 4 Rom. i. 25.

254. 5 1 Cor. i. 27 ff.

255. 1 Or, "Word = Scripture."

256. 2 Cf. Plat. Ep. vii. 341 C, D.

257. 3 Hos. x. 12.

258. 4 John i. 4, 9.

259. 5 Cf. Matt. v. 14.

260. 6 2 Cor. iv. 6.

261. 7 Ps. xxvii. (xxvi.) 1.

262. 8 Ps. cxix. (cxviii.) 105.

263. 9 Ps. iv. 7.

264. 10 Ps. xxxvi. (xxxv.) 10.

265. 11 Isa. lx. 1, 266. 12 Matt. iv. 16, 267. 1 Cf. Isa. ix. 2.

268. 2 Cf. Matt, xxv. 4.

269. 3 Plato, Crito, 49 B.

270. 1 1 Cor. ii. 5; cf. i. 26; 2 Cor. i. 12.

271. 1 Luke vi. 29.

272. 2 Matt. v. 40.

273. 3 Isa. liii. 1 ff.

274. 1 Sept. paidi/on. Heb. Sugens = tenera planta.----Schleusner.

275. 2 Ps. xlv. (xliv.) 4 f.

276. 3 Cf. Matt. xvii. 1 f.

277. 4 Luke ix. 30 f.

278. 5 Isa. liii. 2.

279. 1 Or, "the prophecy," viz. in Ps. xlv. above referred to.

280. 2 "Demiurge."

281. 3 Cf. Matt. xvii. 6.

282. 1 Or, forms."

283. 2 "The Divine Word," introducing a quotation from St. Paul, is found in Theophilus of Antioch as a name for Holy Scripture. ---- Sanday, Inspiration, p. 28.

284. 3 Cf. Matt. xvii. 1.

285. 4 See Cont. Cels. vi. 68, "Caused us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His
Word," etc.

286. 5 Isa. liii. 2 f.

287. 6 1 Cor. i. 21.

288. 7 Matt, xvi. 18.

289. 8 Ps. ix. (viii.), 14.

290. 9 Cf. Mark iii. 1.

291. 1 Matt. i. 1.

292. 2 John xxi. 25.

293. 3 Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff.

294. 4 John i. 1.

295. 5 Phil. ii. 7.

296. 6 In the Apocalypse (xix. 13) the "Word of God" is a title of the Son of
God.

297. 7 John i. 14.

298. 1 Cf. John xiii. 25; Matt. xvii. 1.

299. 2 Cf. John i. 14.

300. 3 1 Cor. ii. 7.

301. 1 The Dogmatici, Empirici, Methodici, Pneumatici, Eclectici, etc.

302. 1 1 Cor. xi. 19.

303. 2 Cf. Rom. iii. 29.

304. 3 2 Tim. i. 3.

305. 1 Tertullian called those who rejected the Montanist view Psychici, that
is, animal or carnal: while the followers of Montanus were called Spiritales,
spiritual. See Snicer. The Gnostics also reproached Catholic Christians as being
ignorant, animal, and worldly, but called themselves spiritual, perfect.

306. 2 Cor. iv. 12f.

307. 3 Tit. iii. 10 f.

308. 4 Matt. v. 9.

309. 5 Matt. v. 5.

310. 1 De Interp. Bk. i. part 1, chap. 2. See also Plato, Cratylus. Hermogenes, one of the speakers, maintained that all the words of a language were formed by an agreement of men among themselves, or were conventional. "Do you prefer the notion of Hermogenes and of many others who say that names are conventional, and have a meaning to those who have agreed about them, and who have previous knowledge of the things intended by them, and that convention is the only principle?"----(Jowett's translation.)

311. 2 According to Epicurus words, were formed originally, not by an arbitrary, but by a natural process, in correspondence with our sensations and ideas. ----Ueberweg. Hist. Phil. I. p. 206. "Democritus, and after him, Epicurus, say that speech consists of elementary parts (in Physics, atoms), and, to use their own expression, call it a stream of words."----A. Gellius, Bk. v. c. 15, quoted by Selwyn.

312. 1 The Brahmans were the hereditary priests of the Indian Theosophists. The
Samaneans were picked men, recruited from those who wished to be Theosophists.
They were also found among the Bactrians of Persia.

313. 2 "Demiurge."

314. 3 Lit., "after ": the names being given after the demons. See L. and Sc.

315. 1 "Demiurge."

316. 2 Plat. Phileb. 12 B, C.

317. 3 That is, "Zeus."

318. 1 Lit., "If we translate into Greek him that was originally called (or
invoked)," etc.

319. 2 The point of the passage appears to be the difference between translation
and transliteration. These translations correspond to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

320. 1 Cf. Plat. Phileb. 12 B, C.

321. 1 See Clem. Aleu., Exhortation to the Heathen, chap. 2. "The token of the
Sabazian mysteries to the initiated is the deity gliding over the breast, the
deity being this serpent crawling over the breast of the initiated." Zeus was
said to have intercourse with his daughter Core (Persephone) in the shape of a
dragon or serpent (see p. 83).

322. 2 "From her being an infernal divinity, she came to be regarded as a
spectral being, who sent at night all kinds of demons and terrible phantoms from
the lower world."

323. 1 Or, "since probability is the guide of human life."

324. 1 1 Cor. iii. 18 f.

325. 2 Others translate, "and that it was only in certain circumstances that the
latter course was desired by Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether
without help." The meaning perhaps is that bare faith is better than leaving men
altogether unprofitable, or hurtful.

326. 1 1 Cor. i. 21.

327. 2 Lit., "Arrangement of the offer (of the Gospel"), as opposed to the
matter."

328. 3 1 Cor. ii. 4 f.

329. 1 Matt. iv. 19.

330. 2 1 Cor. ii. 4.

331. 3 Ps. lxviii. (lxvii.) 12 f.

332. 4 Jerome----"Dominus dabit verbum Evangelizantibus virtute multa, Rex virtutum Dilecti."

333. 5 Ps. cxlvii. 15.

334. 6 Cf. Ps. xix. (xviii.) 5.

335. 1 Matt. ix. 37 f.

336. 2 Ep. Barn. v. 9.

337. 3 Luke v. 8.

338. 4 1 Tim. i. 15.

339. 1 Tit. iii. 3 ff.

340. 2 Ps. cvii. (cvi.) 20.

341. 1 Matt. x. 23.

342. 2 John xiv. 6.

343. 3 John viii. 40.

344. 4 Others, "Be led by human guidance to keep out of the way of dangers."

345. 1 Cf. Gen. xix. 11.

346. 2 "Proprie."----Bp. Bull.

347. 3 1 Cor. i. 24.

348. 1 Matt. v. 28.

349. 2 Or, "the 'word' of Christians." See below.

350. 3 PS. li. (l.)8.

351. 4 Cf. 2 Chron. i. 10.

352. 5 1 Kings x. 1 ff.

353. 1 1 Kings iv. 29 ff.

354. 2 "Problems."

355. 3 Hos. xiv. 9.

356. 4 Dan. i. 20.

357. 5 Ezek. xxviii. 3.

358. 6 Mark iv. 11, 34.

359. 7 Matt. xxiii. 34.

360. 1 1 Cor. xii. 8 ff.

361. 2 Acts vii. 11.

362. 3 Ex. vii. 22.

363. 4 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.

364. 1 Rom. i. 21.

365. 2 Rom. i. 19 ff.

366. 3 Or, "spiritual."

367. 4 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.

368. 5 Cf. Tit. i. 9.

369. 1 Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 2.

370. 2 1 Tim. iv. 10.

371. 3 1 John ii. 2.

372. 1 Others see an allusion to the jugglers in the market-places, and render,
"performing their disgraceful tricks," etc.

373. 1 For the Catechumens (instructed privately without the Church), the
Hearers (so called from their being admitted to hear sermons and the Scriptures
read in the Church), the Kneelers, the Competentes (petitioners for baptism),
and Electi (candidates approved), the Registers, etc., see Bingham, Book x.
chap. II.

374. 1 The Catechumens were treated with more moderation than others, because "their sins were committed whilst they were unregenerate in the old man, and therefore were more easily pardoned than crimes committed by believers after baptism."----See Bingham, Book x. chap. II. sec. xvii.

375. 2 1 Cor. iii. 2 f.

376. 3 Heb. v. 12ff.

377. 1 Cf. Rom. i. 14.

378. 2 Prov. viii. 5.

379. 3 Prov. ix. 4ff., 16.

380. 1 Or, "Ye Greeks, it seems, may invite, etc. . . . and yet, if we do so,
there is no motive of humanity in what we do, though we wish," etc.

381. 2 The Athenian legislator, born about 638 B.C.

382. 3 The Spartan legislator, probably about 800 B.C.

383. 4 The Locrian legislator, the date of his legislation is assigned to 660
B.C. His code is said to have been the first collection of written laws that the
Greeks possessed.

384. 5 1 Cor. i. 27.

385. 6 Rom. i. 22 f.

386. 1 Antinous was the favourite of the Emperor Hadrian. He was drowned in the
Nile, 122 A.D. Hadrian enrolled him among the gods, etc. See Cont. Cels. iii.
36, 37.

387. 2 This is explained below, "Men are more or less fortunate in their
beliefs."

388. 1 Lit., "Faith having first taken possession of us produces such an assent,
or submission, to Jesus."

389. 2 Or, "piety."

390. 1 Waterland says, "It is difficult to express the full force of this
passage in English."

391. 1 Lat., secundae.

392. 2 Grasses, or any plants that bear leaves and seeds from the root.

393. 1 Or, "roots."

394. 2 Ps. civ. (ciii.) 14 f.

395. 3 Ecclus. xxxix. 21 17.

396. 4 Cf. Hom. Od. ix. 109.

397. 1 Others, "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."

398. 2 See Plato, Legg. 677 B.

399. 3 Hesiod.

400. 4 Or, "assemblies."

401. 1 Or, "destroy their useful doctrines, and at the same time the agreement
of Christianity and philosophy in these respects."

402. 1 Admit them among rational creatures?

403. 1 Ecclus. xvi. 27, "He garnished his works for ever." Wisd. xi. 20, "Thou
hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight." Origen's word is the
same as that in the former, but equivalent to the word used in the latter.

404. 1 Cf. Gen. i. 26.

405. 1 "Logos, or Word."

406. 2 Prov. xxx. 24 ff. (xxiv. 59 ff.).

407. 3 John xvi. 25.

408. 1 Or, "have certain sacred modes of converse with one another."

409. 2 Circ. 544 B.C. Generally regarded as the teacher of Pythagoras.

410. 1 Ps. xlix. (xlviii.) 12, 20.

411. 1 The conjectural reading.

412. 2 Iliad, ii. 308 ff. (Lord Derby's translation).

413. 1 Hom. Il. xii. 200 ff.

414. 2 Hom. Il. ii. 309.

415. 3 Cf. Hom. Od. xv. 526.

416. 1 Cf. Lev. xi.

417. 2 John xii. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 4.

418. 1 Cf. Hom. Od. iv. 685, xx. 116, 119.

419. 2 Hom. Od. xx. 120.

420. 3 Cf. Hom. Od. xvii. 541 ff.

421. 4 Lev. xix. 26.

422. 1 Deut, xviii. 14; cf. 12.

423. 2 Deut, xviii. 15.

424. 3 Num. xxiii. 23.

425. 4 Prov. iv. 23.

426. 5 Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 6.

427. 6 Cf. Rom. viii. 14.

428. 1 Ex. xxiv. 2.

429. 1 Or, "complete and perfect in all respects."

430. 1 See Chap. xxi. 2, "promptings to the contemplation of virtue and vice."

431. 1 Or, "is included in."

432. 2 Inanimate nature.

433. 3 Animate nature. Lit., "by nature and a soul." Cf. Arist. Nic. Eth. Bk.
III. c. 1, "The man acts voluntarily, because the originating of the motion of
his limbs in such actions rests with himself; and where the origination rests in
himself, it rests with himself to do or not to do" (Chase's translation).

434. 1 Lit., "out of."

435. 2 So Rufinus explains "phantasy," voluntas vel sensus.

436. 3 Or, "speaking generally." Others translate, "the greater part of the
nature assigned to all things is a varying quantity among animals."

437. 1 Rufinus----"naturalem corporis intemperiem."

438. 1 See Ellicott on 1 Tim. ii. 2, "Decency and propriety of deportment."

439. 2 Mic. vi. 8.

440. 3 Deut. xxx. 19.

441. 4 Isa. i. 19.

442. 5 Ps. lxxxi. (lxxx.) 13 f.

443. 6 Matt. v. 39.

444. 1 Matt. v. 22.

445. 2 Matt. v. 28.

446. 3 Matt. vii. 24, 26.

447. 4 Matt. xxv. 34 f.

448. 5 Matt. xxv. 41. .

449. 6 Rom. ii. 4 ff.

450. 1 Ex. iv. 21, vii. 3.

451. 2 Ex. xi. 19 f.

452. 3 Mark iv. 20 ; cf. Luke viii. 10.

453. 4 Rom. ix. 16.

454. 5 Cf. Phil. ii. 13.

455. 1 Rom. ix. 18 f.

456. 2 R.V. "This persuasion came not of him that calleth you."

457. 3 Cf. Gal. v. 8.

458. 4 Rom. ix. 20 f.

459. 5 Rom. ix. 18.

460. 1 Cf. Ex. iv. 23, ix. 17.

461. 2 Cf. Ex. xii. 12.

462. 1 According to others, "If any one should stand, declaring with uncovered
head that the Creator of the world was inclined to wickedness," etc.

463. 2 Heb. vi. 7 f.

464. 1 The word denotes the deliberate selection of a course of conduct.

465. 2 Others, "as regards the point in question."

466. 3 Cf. Ex. viii. 28.

467. 4 Rom. ii. 4 f.

468. 1 Isa. lxiii. 17 f.

469. 2 Jer. xx. 7.

470. 3 Isa. lxiii. 17.

471. 4 Sus. 42.

472. 1 Cf. Luke xiv. 11.

473. 2 Cf. Matt. xi. 25; 1 Cor. i. 29.

474. 3 Others, "he that is abandoned is abandoned to the Divine judgment."

475. 1 Matt. xiii. 5 f.

476. 2 Or, "applied"; lit. "cast upon."

477. 3 That is, "check the growth."

478. 1 Or, "to us," that is, "in our opinion."

479. 2 Wisd. vii. 16.

480. 3 Cf. Ex. vii. 14 ; Rom. ix. 18.

481. 4 Ezek. xi. 19, 20.

482. 1 Mark iv. 11 f.

483. 1 "Demiurge."

484. 1 Sus. 42.

485. 2 Lit., "helping them does not help."

486. 3 Cf. Mark iv. 11.

487. 1 Cf. Matt. xi. 21.

488. 2 Lit., "the things of those without."

489. 3 Or, "in addition to our inquiring."

490. 1 Rom. ix. 16.

491. 2 Or, "the 'furniture' which God gave them for life." Cf. Eur. Supp. 214.

492. 3 Or, "deliberate purpose."

493. 4 The same phrase as in Chap. xviii. 26.

494. 1 Rom. ix. 15.

495. 2 Or, "Degrees."

496. 3 Ps. cxxvii. (cxxvi.) 1 f.

497. 4 Cf. Phil. iii. 14.

498. 5 Rom. ix. 16.

499. 6 1 Cor. iii. 6f.

500. 1 Or, "our own free will."

501. 2 Cf. Phil. ii. 13.

502. 1 Rom. ix. 18 ff.

503. 1 2 Cor. xii. 21.

504. 2 2 Tim. i. 16 ff.

505. 3 2 Cor. v. 10.

506. 4 2 Tim. ii. 20 f.

507. 1 Either (a) God's foreknowledge of man's efforts, or (b) the soul's
conduct in a prior state of existence, or (c) both.

508. 2 Rom. ix. 20.

509. 3 Ex. xix. 19.

510. 1 Rom. ix. 19.

511. 2 Rom. ix. 20.

512. 3 That is, "soul natures, perishing or being saved." Rufinus---- "Diversas animarum naturas."

513. 4 2 Tim. ii. 21.

514. 1 Rom. ix. 21.

515. 1 The Greek word occurs in 2 Macc. iii. 39, vii. 35, 3 Macc. ii. 21.
Schleusner gives inspector as the equivalent. L. and Sc. "overseer, watcher,
esp. of a god." "Intendant," an officer who superintends, is perhaps the least
cumbrous and the least ambiguous for our purpose. For the different Greek word
in Dan. iv. 13, translated watcher (not a guardian, but a wakeful one), see
Driver's Daniel, page 49.

516. 2 The ruling spirits.

517. 1 The same word as above. See Huetii Origeniana, lib. ii. c. ii. quaest. v. 26, "De angelis tutelaribus. Assignatos esse angelos ut curam earum pastorum instar gererent, et primitias ex iis Deo offerrent, homines nimirum qui meritis praecellerent et virtute, eorumque pias cogitationes." Origen thought that both bad and good angels might have "provinces." "Neque enim, inquit, fas est credere malos angelos suis proeesse provinciis et bonos non easdem provincias habere permissas."----Cont. Cels. lib. viii. 34, Hom. 12 in Luc.

518. 1 Explained above.

519. 1 Sophrosune, "Perfected self-mastery."

520. 1 Deut. xxxii. 8 f.

521. 2 Gen. xi. 1 ff.

522. 3 Wisd. x. 5.

523. 4 Tob. xii. 7.

524. 1 Cf. Matt. vii. 6.

525. 2 Wisd. i. 4.

526. 3 See Chap. i. (heading) for "invented history."

527. 4 Gen. xi. 3.

528. 5 Cf. Gen. xi. 4.

529. 1 Cf. Deut. xxxii. 9.

530. 1 Cf. Rom. i. 28, 26, 24.

531. 2 Cf. Gal. i. 4.

532. 3 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.

533. 1 Ps. ii. 8.

534. 2 Gen. xlix. 10.

535. 3 See the De Princip. Bk. i. c. 7, s. 3. It was Origen's belief that the
stars were living beings, capable of receiving commandments from God.

536. 1 Eumque rerum istarum fontem esse ac principium esse negabunt.----Viger.

537. 2 "Demiurge." But Waterland (i. p. 383, Ox. 1843) says "the three words
texni/thj, dhmiourgo_j, and poihth&j, especially the two last, seem to have been
used by the ancients promiscuously; and to have been applied indifferently to
Father or Son, as they had occasion to mention either." See also, note 71.

538. 1 Gen. i. 14.

539. 1 Sus. 42 f.

540. 2 1 Kings xii. 32.

541. 3 1 Kings xiii. 1 ff.

542. 4 1 Kings xiii. 5.

543. 5 Reading u(pakou~sai. See Schleusner.

544. 6 Lit. "strength."

545. 1 Isa. xlv. ff.

546. 2 Cf. Dan. ii. 37 ff.

547. 3 R.V. "the river." "The Eulaeus was a large artificial canal some 900 feet broad, of which traces remain, though it is now dry."----Prof. Driver.

548. 1 Dan. viii. 5 ff.

549. 2 Luke xxi. 20.

550. 1 Ps. cix. (cviii.) 12, 16 f.

551. 1 Or, "giving an oracular response."

552. 2 Or, "common moral notions."

553. 3 Jer. xxvi. (xxxiii.) 3.

554. 1 Ex. iv. 11. R.V. "Dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind."

555. 1 Ps. cix. (cviii.) ff.

556. 2 Ps. cix. (cviii.) 16.

557. 3 Eur. Phoen. 18 ff.

558. 1 Cf. John ii. 25.

559. 1 Matt. xxvi. 23.

560. 2 Viger----singularem horam. Of birth?

561. 1 Or, "productive." How we are to tell when the stars are causative, and
when they are merely indicative.

562. 2 Cf. Test. Aser, 7.

563. 3 Isa. xxxiv. 4.

564. 1 Gen. i. 14.

565. 2 Jer. x. 2.

566. 1 Following ABC; Viger, "vel leviter haerere."

567. 2 Eusebius, "shooting stars."

568. 1 "Twelfth part."

569. 2 "Thinkable, intelligible." Viger----"quod mente percipitur."

570. 3 "Contemperatio."

571. 1 "A mathematician (i.e. astrologer) can indeed indicate the desire which a malignant power produces; but whether the acting or the issue of this desire shall be fulfilled or not, no one can know before the accomplishment of the thing, because it depends upon freedom of will."----Recognitions of Clement, Bk. x. c. xii.

572. 2 Isa. xlvii. 13.

573. 3 Cf. Test. Aser., 7.

574. 4 2 Cor. xii. 4.

575. 1 Wisd. viii. 18.

576. 2 "The fire of God." See 2 Esd. iv. 1, 36, v. 20, x. 28 In the second of
these passages he is called "the Archangel."

577. 1 Rom. ix. 17.

578. 2 Cf. Ex. ix. 16.

579. 3 Cf. Heb. i. 14.

580. 4 Lit., "take."

581. 1 For the story of Clement being appointed S. Peter's attendant, for the
doings at Laodicea, and how Clement discovered his father in the poor old
workman, and the discussions between father and son, see the Clementine
Recognitions, vii. 25, viii. 1, etc.

582. 2 That is, the travels of S. Peter.

583. 3 In popular language mathematici was the exclusive name for astrologers,
who were so called from employing diagrams used by geometricians.

584. 4 Had returned at the end of its cycle.

585. 1 From the point of opposition.

586. 2 From the centre (mid-heaven).

587. 3 Through the kindness of the Rev. P. H. Kempthorne I am favoured by E.
Walter Maunder, Esq., F.E.A.S., with some notes on this difficult passage. As
regards the phrase rendered "retrograding," Mr. Maunders writes: "In a modern
horoscope no planet could be left outside it. I think it just possible that it
(the phrase) may mean 'contrary to its proper course,' that is to say, '
retrograding,' but I am not sure of this. If it does not mean this, I think it
must mean 'not operative,' 'negligible.' "

588. 4 Lit., "unconnected with."

589. 5 In an (ill-omened) "house."

590. 6 Lit. "not conjoined."

591. 7 Perhaps, the Zodiac. Others translate, "the circle is equally complete in
every part." Possibly, "co-extensive with," wide as, the heavens.

592. 1 See Plat. Gorg. 506 E. Another rendering is "in things unordered."

593. 1 Viger----"Si ex rerum genitarum ortu atque natura in eam te mentem adductum esse diceres, id ortu carere materiam putares."

594. 1 "Are spontaneous" does not quite convey the meaning, because the
architect is supposed to create the skill.

595. 1 "Demiurge."

596. 1 The word denotes the mixing of two things, so that they are blended and
form a compound, as in wine and water.

597. 2 The word denotes mixing, as of two sorts of grain----mechanical mixture.

598. 1 See Robinson, p. xli. et seq 599. 2 Rom. i. 1.

600. 3 Gal. i. 15 f.

601. 1 Ps. Iviii. (Ivii.) 3.

602. 2 Rom. viii. 28 ff.

603. 3 Or, predestination, and so throughout.

604. 4 For salvation or perdition.

605. 1 Rom. viii. 29.

606. 2 Cf. Col. i. 15.

607. 3 According to Origen, God created a finite number of souls to begin with; they were all equal, not in fixed classes; gifted with free will, and capable of growing better or worse. The soul of Christ, like all souls, pre-existed from the beginning of the world. By its decision for the good, and by its virtue, it was fitted for unflinchingly carrying out all the will and all the saving revelations of the Word and Wisdom. The Logos dwelt in an unique manner in this soul. At the commencement of creation, it is true, He was united with all souls; but this one alone clung to Him so closely, faithfully, and unchangeably, that it became one spirit with Him.----See Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. I. vol. ii., p. 138.

608. 4 Cf. Sus. 42.

609. 1 Rom. viii. 28 f.

610. 1 Matt. xxv. 21, 23.

611. 2 Matt. xxv. 26 f.

612. 3 Matt. xxv. 34 f.

613. 4 Matt. xxv. 41 f.

614. 5 Rom. i. 1.

615. 6 Gal. i. 15.

616. 1 1 Cor. ix. 27.

617. 2 1 Cor. ix. 16.

618. 3 2 Cor. xi. 2:3 ff.

619. 4 Cf. Rom. v. 3 f.

620. 1 Or, on "purpose," "choice," or "deliberate preference," which is a part
of the voluntary, but not co-extensive with it. For Aristotle's description of
the Chief Good as "that which all things aim at," and for the discussion of
various theories concerning the Chief Good and Happiness, see Arist. Eth. Nic.
bk. 1 (Chase's translation).

621. 2 Ps. iv. 6.

622. 3 "Does happiness come from self? Is it a thing that can be learned, or acquired by habituation or discipline of some other kind? Does it come in the way of Divine dispensation, or even in the way of chance?"----Arist. Eth. Nic. bk. i. 7.

623. 4 Making happiness a mere external thing.

624. 5 Making happiness = internal good, "living well and doing well."

625. 1 Matt. xxv. 21, 23.

626. 2 Luke vi. 45.

627. 1 Ex. xv. 20.

628. 2 Deut. xxviii. 58 ff.

629. 3 Lev. xxvi. 16.

630. 4 Cf. Deut. xxxii. 24.

631. 5 "Opisthonia, tetanic recurvation; Pliny's dolor (cervicum) inflexibilis."

632. 1 Lev. xxvi. 3 ff.

633. 2 Deut. xxviii. 1 ff.

634. 3 Sept., "remainders," from misunderstanding the Heb. root.

635. 4 Deut. xxviii. 16 ff.

636. 5 Cf. Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35.

637. 1 Cf. Matt. iv. 24.

638. 2 "Demiurge."

639. 3 Cf. 1 Kings xvii. 8 f.

640. 4 Cf. 2 Kings iv. 8 ff., xiii. 14.

641. 5 Cf. Isa. xx. 3.

642. 6 Cf. Jer. xxxviii. (xlv.) 6, ix. 2.

643. 7 Cf. Matt. iii. 4.

644. 1 Cf. Rom. v. 3.

645. 2 Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 8 f., iv. 9 f.

646. 3 Ps. xxxiv. (lxxxiii.) 19.

647. 4 Job xl. 3.

648. 1 Cf. Rom. viii. 28.

649. 2 Cf. Deut. xv. 6.

650. 3 Some MSS. omit "the righteous man."

651. 4 Ps. xv. (xiv.) 5.

652. 5 Cf. Exek. xviii. 8.

653. 6 Prov. xiii. 8.

654. 7 Isa. i. 6.

655. 1 "Happiness," according to Aristotle, "combines the good, the noble, the pleasurable; and though external prosperity is not of its essence, yet it is necessary to its full development" (Chase----Analysis of Arist. Eth. Nic. c. 6).

656. 2 Ps. cxxvii. (cxxvi.) 1.

657. 1 Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 15.

658. 2 Cf. Isa. xiv. 12.

659. 3 Cf. Rom. ix. 16.

660. 4 Ps. iv. 6.

661. 5 Job ii. 10.

662. 1 Mic. i. 12 ; cf. Jer. xvii. 27.

663. 2 Ex. x. 27.

664. 3 Ex. vii. 3.

665. 1 "Demiurge."

666. 2 Rom. ix. 18.

667. 3 Sound.

668. 1 Ex. x. 27.

669. 2 Cf. Ex. iv. 23.

670. 1 Rom. ix. 18.

671. 1 Ex. x. 27.

672. 2 Hos. iv. 14.

673. 1 Ex. vii. 3.

674. 2 Cf. Matt. vii. 8.

675. 3 Ex. xii. 38.

676. 1 Ps. xxxii. (xxxi.) 10.

677. 2 Prov. iii. 12.

678. 3 Ps. lxxxix. (lxxxviii.) 30 ff.

679. 4 Cf. Hos. iv. 14.

680. 5 Cf. Ezek. xxiv. 13.

681. 6 Ezek. vii. 27, et passim.

682. 1 Ex. vii. 5.

683. 2 2 Macc. vi. 12 ff.

684. 3 3 Kings ii. 6.

685. 4 The Jew----probably a Rabbi, whom Origen employed to teach him Hebrew. Cf. De Princip. i. 3, 4 (Hebraeus magister), iv. 26 (Hebraeus doctor). I am indebted to Dr. Sanday for the references. See also Chap, ii. 3 of this book.

686. 1 Ps. vi. 1, xxxviii. (xxxvii.) 1.

687. 2 Luke xii. 40.

688. 3 Cf. Acts v. 4.

689. 4 Acts xiii. 10 f.

690. 1 Cf. 1 Tim. i. 20.

691. 2 1 Cor. v. 5.

692. 3 Ex. x. 27.

693. 4 Deut. viii. 2 f.

694. 1 Job xl. 8.

695. 2 Rom. ii. 4 ff.

696. 3 Rom. ix. 22.

697. 1 John ix. 39.

698. 2 Luke ii. 34.

699. 3 Luke x. 13 ff.

700. 1 Ex. iv. 22 f.

701. 2 "Demiurge."

702. 3 Ex. x. 27.

703. 4 Ex. iv. 23.

704. 5 Ex. x. 3.

705. 1 Ex. ix. 29 f.

706. 2 Cant. i. 5, 6.

707. 3 Ex. i. 14.

708. 4 Lit., "make muddy."

709. 5 Cf. Ex. ii. 23 f. This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All
material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 40: PHILOCALIA - INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
========================================================================

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp.i-xv. Introductory material THE PHILOCALIA OF
ORIGEN

Printed by MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.

NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN A COMPILATION OF
SELECTED PASSAGES FROM ORIGEN'S WORKS MADE BY ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS AND ST.
BASIL OF CAESAREA TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY THE REV. GEORGE LEWIS M.A., OF
BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD M.A., UNIVERSITY OF LONDON RECTOR OF ICOMB,
GLOUCESTERSHIRE LATE. VICAR OF DODDERHILL, DROITWICH Author of "A Life of Joseph
Hall, Bishop of Exeter and Norwich,"

"An Oxford Parish Priest" : Translator of S. Basil's "De Spiritu Sancto,"

S. Jerome's "Dogmatic Treatises," etc.

EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET

1911 TO MY CHEERY COMPANIONS

C. M. L. AND

A. V. T.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE THE translation here undertaken is, by kind permission,
from the Revised Text (Cambridge, University Press, 1893) of Dr. Armitage
Robinson, then Norrisian Professor of Divinity, subsequently Dean of
Westminster, now Dean of Wells, who thus describes the original: "The Philocalia
of Origen is a compilation of selected passages from Origen's works made by SS.
Gregory and Basil. The wholesale destruction of his writings which followed upon
the warfare waged against his opinions shortly after his death, has caused a
special value to attach to the Philocalia as preserving to us in the original
much of Origen's work which would otherwise have been entirely lost, or would
have survived only in the translations of Rufinus. Moreover, even his great and
comparatively popular work against Celsus depends for its text solely on a
manuscript of the thirteen century, so that we have a cause for gratitude in the
preservation of a large part of it in the Philocalia. But apart from its textual
importance, this collection deserves attention as forming an excellent
introduction to the study of Origen. Much of his best thought is here presented
to us, arranged under various important heads; and we are guided to the
appreciation of his theological standpoint by two of the strongest intellects of
the century after his own."

Bishop Westcott's account of "the great teacher of Alexandria----of him whose proper name is said to mean the Son of light, and whose labours earned for him the title of Adamantine" may perhaps be of service to the reader. "The fortunes of Origen during his lifetime aptly prefigured the fate of his writings. His zeal was accounted |vi infatuation, and his learning turned to a reproach. Though he was known to have reclaimed the wandering, and to have refuted the malicious, yet he was driven from the service of the Church in the very city where he had preached Christ on the steps of the temple of Serapis, and strengthened his father to endure the terrors of martyrdom. Though countless doctors, priests, and confessors proceeded from his school, he was himself arraigned as a heretic and convicted; though he was the friend and teacher of Saints, his salvation was questioned and denied. For many centuries he was condemned almost universally by the Western Church, in consequence of the adverse judgment of Jerome. In later times Picus of Mirandola ventured to maintain the cause of the great Father: the thesis was suppressed, but the author remained uncensured: indeed, a pious lady was said to have received a revelation not long before, which seemed to assure her of the forgiveness of Samson, Solomon, and Origen. This hope, however, in the case of the last was admitted apparently by few; and Baronius expresses his surprise that any doubt of his condemnation could be raised after the sentence of Anastasius. If we find in Origen's own words about Holy Scripture a deep and solid foundation of truth constructed with earnestness and wisdom,----unaptly crowned, it may be, with the fantastic structures of a warm and hasty imagination,----it is possible that we may be led to regard his other labours with charity, if not with gratitude, and to remember that his errors refer to questions which had not in his time been decided by the authority of the Church." For the suggestion that a translation of the Philocalia might be found useful I am indebted to the present Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Gibson), who in making the suggestion did not, of course, in the least guarantee the fitness of the translator for the work. While I have availed myself of any printed matter I could find, and most gratefully acknowledge my obligations, I have refrained almost entirely from consulting my friends, not from any |vii feeling of sufficiency, but from a dread that I might make them partakers in my literary sins. The one or two instances in which I have begged assistance are mentioned in the notes. In translating an author so difficult as Origen, I can hardly hope to escape criticism at many points. The translator will most cordially welcome anything that may tend to improve his work.

GEORGE LEWIS.

ICOMB RECTORY,

21st June 1911. THE PHILOCALIA 1 OF ORIGEN (Explanatory Note in the Greek) THE volume which we now offer to our readers contains a selection of scriptural problems and their solutions compiled by the divines Basil and Gregory 2 from the learned labours of Origen. It is said to have been sent by the latter, Gregory the theologian, to Theodorus, who was then Bishop of Tyana, as is shown by the letter 3 addressed to him, which runs thus:----

The festival, and your letter, and what is better, your anticipation of the
season, and readiness to allow us to keep the festival beforehand. These are the
gifts of your piety. In return we give the best we have, our prayers. But that
you may have some memorial from us, and at the same time from Basil, we have
sent you a small volume of the choice thoughts of Origen, containing extracts of
passages which may be of service to scholars. Pray accept it, and let us see
that with the aid of industry and the Spirit you have found it useful.

PREFACE TO THE GREEK EDITION THE present volume contains a selection of
scriptural problems and their solutions from various laborious treatises of
Origen. Some say that the book, and also the division of it into chapters as
they are arranged, and the titles were the work of the learned divines, Basil
and Gregory, and that it was sent by Gregory the theologian, in a folding tablet
to Theodore of holy memory, who was then Bishop of Tyana. And this is what was
intended to be shown in the preface of the very ancient codex from which we have
made the transcript. But how do they establish the fact? By the letter, so they
say, which was written to the aforesaid Theodore, and sent with the tablet. Now
we acknowledge the letter to have been written by him who was called the
theologian, and on the other hand, we find many things in the collected passages
which are inconsistent with sound doctrine; we had therefore good reason,
inasmuch as we followed the word of truth, for our resolve to prefix this
preface, and thus enable readers to easily detect the secret villainy of
Origen's champions.

We have not the least doubt that the letter was written by the theologian, particularly as it is found, precisely as we have it, in all copies of his letters, and nobody disputes it. And if we frankly admit this, we consequently accept the second statement, viz. that the compilation was made by the learned editors from the works of Origen----a compilation, of course, of useful and profitable passages, as it is concisely expressed in the theologian's letter of which we have just spoken. For it was what we should expect, that those spiritual bees would
|xii
gather the choicest honey from various flowers to make up one pure honey-comb, whereof, as Solomon, the wise collector of Proverbs says, kings and private persons taste and are sweetened, and are helped in gaining perfect health. We believe, accordingly, that those famous Fathers did compile such portions as have no taint of heretical bitterness, but certainly not all, without distinction, that we find in the following chapters; much of it we reject as conflicting with the inspired teaching of the Fathers.

For, we would ask, was there ever a time when Basil and Gregory, those invincible champions of our religion, were content to hold their peace if any one profanely maintained the Son of God or the Holy Spirit to be a created being? We need not say how they treasured such doctrines, or how profitable they deemed them to scholars. Were they not in the thick of every fight against the blasphemy of
Arius 4 and Eunomius and their associates? Did they not give such an account of pre-existence, and final restoration, and similar doctrines, as suited ancient legend and was adapted to the Grecian mind? What need to mention the details? The time would fail to tell what laborious service they rendered in the interests of orthodoxy. Nearly the whole of their life was spent in showing the All-holy and Self-existent Trinity to be equal in honour and glory, and in the same true sense Co-eternal and Co-essential. They fed Christ's sheep in the green pasture of the holy doctrines, speaking to them in the familiar voice and pure tones of the truth. But in
|xiii
the work under consideration you may find everything just the reverse. For all the absurdities we have enumerated, and others besides, are sown broadcast, and of the chapters, the twenty-second is by the bare title, we maintain, proved to be spurious and illegitimate. It follows that if we were to make the Holy Fathers responsible for the selection of all these absurdities, we should of necessity be giving to error that assent which is due to truth. And consider how absurd this would be; for we shall be charging the guardians of righteousness with our own perversity. But God forbid! Would any man of ordinary critical judgment allow that those famous champions of our religion in their selections were accustomed to mingle the chaff with the wheat? At the same time we may very well allow that some heretical tenets may be called "wheat"; for, as Cyril with his ripe wisdom tells us, "We ought not to cleprecatingly shun all that the heretics say, inasmuch as they confess many things which we also confess."
5 Basil and Gregory, then, surely were not the persons who mixed the wheat and the chaff for us. Impossible! But certain of those who pervert the ways of the Lord, in their eagerness for the impious subtleties which Origen borrowed from the Greeks, imitated the devil who outwitted their teacher, and, in the case before us, mixed the chaff with our wheat, just as the devil in days of old scattered the tares in the Master's field. For the wheat is ours; ours, too, wherever they may be found, are the orthodox doctrines. And the inspired preachers of those doctrines, with their superlatively wise teaching, using the fan of their critical ability given them from above, and thereby sifting the wheat from the chaff, brought the wheat into the fair garner of the Church, but have delivered the chaff to unquenchable fire----and that in spite of Origen.

So, then, taking all this into account, although we admit the letter to be
genuine, and have no doubt that the compilation was made by the two saints, and
give good heed to their orthodox teaching, which shines more brightly |xiv than
the sun, we shall maintain that we were justified in the further inference we
drew on our own responsibility. What we mean is this. Certain persons, as has
been said, mad upon the heterodox views of Origen, taking advantage of the holy
Gregory's letter, have undoubtedly had the audacity to pollute the whole of the
compilation with profane insertions, apparently supposing that the more
simple-minded readers might be found, as holy Basil somewhere says, mixing the
poison with the honey. To prevent this we have done our best to show readers
clearly where the poison is. Accordingly, after giving the most careful
attention to the thorough exposition of all the chapters in the following list,
and after applying the best tests we could, we have marked the spurious and
illegitimate passages in the margin as "heretical," "faulty"; and have thus
branded them in their several places. The letter of holy Gregory the Divine to
Theodore, Bishop of Tyana. [See above.] The contents of the book: a selection of
passages from the words of the impious Origen. [Here follow the titles of the
chapters.]

CONTENTS TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE v EXPLANATORY NOTE IN THE GREEK ix PREFACE TO THE
GREEK EDITION xi

TEXT I. Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture 1 II. That the Divine
Scripture is closed up and sealed 30 III. Why the Inspired Books are Twenty-two
in Number 34 IV. Of the Solecisms and Poor Style of Scripture 35 V. What is
"much speaking," and what are the "many books"? The whole Inspired Scripture is
One Book 36 VI. The whole Divine Scripture is One Instrument of God, perfect and
fitted for its Work 42 VII. Of the special "character" of the Persons of Divine
Scripture 44 VIII That we need not attempt to correct the Solecisms of
Scripture, etc 45 IX. Scripture uses the same Terms in different Significations.
47 X. Stumbling-blocks in Holy Scripture 51 XI. On Heretical Interpretation of
Holy Scripture 53 XII. We ought not to despair in reading the Scriptures if we
find Difficulties in them 54 XIII. Philosophy in relation to Holy Scripture 57
XIV. The Use of Logic in the Study of Scripture 60 |xv

XV. A Reply to the Objection that the Truths of Christianity have been better
expressed by the Greeks. Our Lord's Body, etc. 62 XVI. On the Divisions among
Christians 77 XVII. May we give Heathen Titles to the Supreme God? 81 XVIII. The
"simplicity"of Christian Faith, etc. 86

XIX. Faith in Christ commendable and accordant with the original Moral Notions
of Mankind. How Jesus being God could have a Mortal Body 109 XX. Man and the
Irrational Creatures 113 XXI. Free Will 137 XXII. The Dispersion of Mankind, and
the Confusion of Tongues .163 XXIII. Fate, Astrology, etc 173 XXIV. Matter is
not Uncreated, or the Cause of Evil 197 XXV. God's Foreknowledge,
Predestination, etc. 208 XXVI. Scripture Blessings. What things are really
"Good" and "Evil" 214 XXVII. The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart 224 [Footnotes
have been renumbered and moved to the end]

1. 1 Philocalia = love of the beautiful. The word may be contrasted with Apeirocalia ----ignorance of the beautiful, want of taste, in pl. vulgarities.

2. 2 Basil of Caesarea (329-379 A.D.); Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389 or 390
A.D.).

3. 3 S. Greg. Ep. cxv.

4. 1 Presbyter of Alexandria, A.D. 319. "Arianism was largely the result of a mental and moral temper fostered by the Greek schools of disputation, and began, as we learn from Socrates (i. 5), with this line of argument----What is true of human fatherhood is true of the relation between the Father and the Son: Hut the father's priority of existence is true of human fatherhood: Therefore it is true in regard to the Father and the Son: Therefore, once there was no Son: Therefore He was, at some very remote period, created by the Father. The petitio principii in the major premiss is a key to the whole heresy."----Bright's S. Leo, p. 139. The Eunomians were a sect of Arians, so named from Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus in A.D. 360. They taught that the Son was "Only Begotten" in the sense "Begotten by God alone."

5. 1 S. Cyr., Alex. Ep. xliv. This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003.
All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 41: PHILOCALIA - THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN
========================================================================

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp. 1-237. English translation

I. Of the Inspiration of the Divine Scripture II. That the Divine Scripture is
closed up and sealed III. Why the Inspired Books are Twenty-two in Number IV. Of
the Solecisms and Poor Style of Scripture V. What is "much speaking," and what
are the "many books"? The whole Inspired Scripture is One Book VI. The whole
Divine Scripture is One Instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its Work VII.
Of the special "character" of the Persons of Divine Scripture VIII That we need
not attempt to correct the Solecisms of Scripture, etc IX. Scripture uses the
same Terms in different Significations.

X. Stumbling-blocks in Holy Scripture XI. On Heretical Interpretation of Holy
Scripture XII. We ought not to despair in reading the Scriptures if we find
Difficulties in them XIII. Philosophy in relation to Holy Scripture XIV. The Use
of Logic in the Study of Scripture

XV. A Reply to the Objection that the Truths of Christianity have been better
expressed by the Greeks. Our Lord's Body, etc.

XVI. On the Divisions among Christians XVII. May we give Heathen Titles to the
Supreme God?

XVIII. The "simplicity"of Christian Faith, etc.

XIX. Faith in Christ commendable and accordant with the original Moral Notions
of Mankind. How Jesus being God could have a Mortal Body XX. Man and the
Irrational Creatures

XXI. Free Will XXII. The Dispersion of Mankind, and the Confusion of Tongues
XXIII. Fate, Astrology, etc XXIV. Matter is not Uncreated, or the Cause of Evil
XXV. God's Foreknowledge, Predestination, etc XXVI. Scripture Blessings. What
things are really "Good" and "Evil"

XXVII. The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart

THE PHILOCALIA OF ORIGEN

CHAP. I. ----Of the inspiration of the Divine Scripture; how it is to be read and understood; why it is obscure; and what is the reason of the obscurity in it, and of what is impossible in some cases, or unreasonable, when it is taken literally. From the work on "Principles" and various other works of Origen.

The following analysis of Origen's scheme of interpretation may be useful to the reader:----

Interpretation
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
Literal (Body) Moral (Soul) Mystical (Spirit)
| |
------------------------- -------------------------
| | | |
Actual Fictitious Allegory. Anagoge.
History. History. Prefiguring the Typifying the
Invented by the Holy Spirit history of Christ things of a higher
to convey moral and mystical and His Church. world in which
truths which earthly things everything of this
could not sufficiently typify. earth has its antitype.
In the law some things
were literally to be observed;
others were in the letter impossible
or absurd, but were intended
to convey moral and mystical teaching.

1. Inasmuch as when we investigate matters of such importance we are not content with common notions and such light as is given by the things that are seen, we strengthen our position by the additional evidence of the Scriptures, which we believe to be Divine, viz. both that which is called the Old Testament and that which is called the New, and endeavour with the help of reason
|2
to confirm our faith. But as we have never yet discussed the Scriptures on the side of their Divine inspiration, let us bring together a few brief remarks concerning them, by way of showing upon what grounds we regard them as Divine. And before we proceed to make use of the text of the Scriptures and of what is revealed in them, a few particulars must be given concerning Moses and Jesus Christ----the lawgiver of the Hebrews, and the Author of the saving doctrines of Christianity. For of all the numerous lawgivers that have arisen among Greeks and Barbarians, we recall no one who could induce other nations to eagerly accept his tenets; and although the professors of philosophic truth made elaborate efforts to establish their doctrine on a seeming basis of reason, not one of them succeeded in introducing into different nations the truth which he supported, or in influencing considerable numbers of one nation. And yet the lawgivers would have liked, if it had been possible, to bind the good laws, as they appeared to be, on the whole human race, and the teachers would desire that what they imagined to be truth should be spread throughout the world. Conscious, however, that they would not succeed if they invited men of different languages and of many nationalities to observe the law they promulgated, and accept the instruction they gave, they did not even attempt this at first, for they shrewdly suspected that the attempt would end in failure. But in every land, Greek and Barbarian, throughout the world, countless adherents of our faith may be found who have abandoned their ancestral customs and familiar gods, to become zealous observers of the law of Moses and eager disciples of Jesus Christ; and this in spite of the fact that they who submit to the law of Moses are hated by the worshippers of images, and they who accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not only hated but are in peril of death.

2. And if we realise in how very short a time, notwithstanding the plots laid
against the professors of Christianity, whereby some perished and others lost
their |3 possessions, the Word, though the number of the preachers was not
great, has been everywhere preached throughout the world, so that Greeks and
Barbarians, wise and foolish, submit themselves to the fear of God through
Jesus, if, I say, we realise this, we shall not hesitate to say that there is
something superhuman in the result. For Jesus taught with all authority and
persuasiveness that the Word would prevail, so that one may reasonably regard
His utterances as prophetic.1 For instance, "Before governors and kings shall ye
be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles."2 And,
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not eat in thy name, and
drink in thy name? And I will say to them, depart from me, ye that work
iniquity. I never knew you."3 It was perhaps reasonable to think that He spoke
these things at random, and that they were not true; but when the things spoken
with such authority came to pass, it is manifest that God really took our nature
upon Him and delivered doctrines of salvation to men.

3. Need I add how it was foretold that the promised princes should depart from
Judah,4 and rulers from between his thighs, at the coming of Messiah for whom it
is reserved, viz. the kingdom, and at the advent of the Expectation of the
Gentiles? For it is surely clear from history and from what we see to-day, that
from the times of Jesus there have been none who called themselves kings of the
Jews; for everything whereon the Jews prided themselves, I mean the arrangements
of the temple and the altar, the performance of the service, and the vestments
of the high priest, has been abolished. For the prophecy was fulfilled which
says, "The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and without
prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without priesthood,5 and
without Urim and Thummim." 6 And |4 we turn the foregoing passage against our
opponents, who, perplexed by what Jacob in Genesis says to Judah, allege that
the Ethnarch sprung from the family of Judah, is the "governor of the people,"
and that his seed shall not fail until the coming of Messiah of which they
dream. For if "the children of Israel shall abide many days without king, and
without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without
priesthood, and without Urim and Thummin"; and from the time when the temple was
destroyed there has been no sacrifice, nor altar, nor priesthood, it is clear
that a prince has failed from Judah, and a ruler from between his thighs. And
since the prophecy says, "A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from
between his thighs, until the things reserved for him shall come,"7 it is clear
that He has come to whom the things reserved belong, viz. the Expectation of the
Gentiles. And this is proved by the multitude of the Gentiles who have believed
on God through Christ.

4. The Song in Deuteronomy also contains a prophecy of the future election of
the foolish Gentiles on account of the sins of God's former people, and this has
come to pass through Jesus only. "For they," so the words stand, "have moved me
to jealousy with that which is not God: they have provoked me to anger with
their idols. And I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people:
I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." 8 We can very clearly
understand how they who bore the name of Hebrews and provoked God to jealousy
with that which is not God, and provoked Him to anger with their idols, were
themselves provoked to jealousy and moved to anger with those which were not a
people, the foolish people, whom God chose through the coming of Christ and
through His disciples. "We see, then, our calling, that not many wise men after
the flesh, not many |5 mighty, not many noble are called: but God chose the
foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and
God chose the base things and things that are despised, and the things that are
not, that he might bring to nought the things that were before: and that Israel
after the flesh may not boast before God."9 For when the Apostle uses the word
"flesh" he means "Israel."

5. But what are we to say about the prophecies in the Psalms concerning Christ?
Is there not a "song" entitled "For the Beloved"? 10 The Beloved's tongue is
called "the pen of a ready writer"; He is fairer than the children of men, for
grace is poured into His lips. A proof of the grace poured into His lips is the
fact that though the whole period of His teaching was so short (He taught for
something like a year and a few months), the world has been filled with His
doctrine and with the religion which He brought. For "in his days righteousness
hath sprung up, and abundance of peace to last to the end," 11 for this lasting
to the end is the meaning of the phrase "the moon shall be no more"; and "He
shall have perpetual dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers unto the ends
of the earth." And a sign is given to the house of David; for the Virgin did
bear; she both conceived and bore a son, and His name is Immanuel, which being
interpreted is God with us.12 The prophecy is fulfilled, as the same prophet
says: "God is with us; be wise ye nations, and submit; ye that are mighty
submit."13 We of the Gentiles who have been led captive by the grace of His Word
have been conquered and have submitted. But even the place of His birth was
foretold: "For thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the
princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a governor, which shall be
shepherd of my people Israel."14 And the seventy weeks wore fulfilled, as Daniel
|6 shows,15 when Christ the "governor" came. And, according to Job,16 He came
who subdued the great sea-monster, and has given authority to His true disciples
to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being
in no wise hurt by them.17 Let a man observe how the Apostles who were sent by
Jesus to proclaim the Gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their
superhuman daring in obedience to the Divine command. And if we inquire how it
was that men when they heard new doctrines and strange words welcomed the
Apostles, and in spite of their desire to plot against them were overcome by a
certain Divine power guarding the speakers, we shall not disbelieve even if we
are told that the Apostles did work miracles, God bearing witness to their words
both by signs and wonders and by manifold powers.18

6. But in thus briefly summarising the proofs for the Godhead of Jesus, and
making use of the words of the prophets concerning Him, we are at the same time
proving the inspiration of the Scriptures which prophesy of Him, and are showing
that those writings which proclaim His coming and teaching were delivered with
all power and authority; and we say that if they have prevailed over the
election from the Gentiles, it is because they were inspired. But we must say
that the divinity of the prophetic utterances, and the spiritual meaning of the
law of Moses, shone forth by the dwelling of Jesus on earth. For there could be
no clear proofs of the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures before the coming
of Christ. But the coming of Jesus brought men who might suspect that the law
and the prophets were not Divine to the plain avowal that they were written with
help from heaven. And the careful and attentive reader of the words of the
prophets, if his zeal be kindled ever so little by reading them, will through
his own experience be persuaded that what we believe to be the words of God |7
are not human compositions. And the light also of the law of Moses, though it
had been hidden by a veil, shone forth when Jesus came;19 for the veil was taken
away and the good things foreshadowed in the Scriptures were gradually revealed.

7. It would be a big undertaking to now recount the most ancient prophecies, so
that in amazement at their Divine character, the doubter may with full
conviction and concentrated purpose submit himself with all his soul to the
words of God. If, however, the superhuman element in the Scriptures does not
everywhere appear to strike the uninstructed, no wonder; for in the working of
the Divine Providence throughout the whole World some things are very clearly
seen to be providential, while others are so hidden as to seem to leave room for
doubt as to whether God with His ineffable skill and power does order the
universe. For the evidence of design in Providence is not so clear in things of
earth as it is in the sun and moon and stars; and it is not so clear in the
changes and chances of human affairs as it is in the souls and bodies of
animals, certainly when the why and wherefore of their instincts, impressions,
natures, and bodily structure have been ascertained by experts in these branches
of knowledge. But as the doctrine of Providence is not destroyed by our
ignorance in some particulars, when we have once for all admitted it, so neither
is the Divine character of Scripture upon the whole impaired, because our
weakness cannot in each phrase approach the hidden glory of the truths concealed
in poor and contemptible language. For we have a treasure in earthly vessels,20
that the exceeding greatness of the power of God may shine forth, and may not be
thought to come from us men. For if the hackneyed methods of demonstration
common among men, which we find on our library shelves,21 had prevailed over
men, our faith would with good reason have been supposed to stand |8 in the
wisdom of men, and not in the power of God;22 but as things are, if a man will
lift up his eyes, it will be evident that the Word and the preaching have
influenced the multitude not by persuasive words of wisdom, but by demonstration
of the Spirit and of power. Wherefore, seeing that a heavenly power, or a power
even from, above the heavens, urges us to worship the Creator only, let us,
leaving the word of the beginning of Christ,23 that is, leaving elementary
instruction, endeavour to press on unto perfection, that the wisdom spoken to
the perfect may be spoken also to us.24 For He Who has this wisdom promises to
speak it among the perfect, a wisdom other than the wisdom of this world and the
wisdom of the ruler of this world, which is brought to nought. And this wisdom
shall be plainly stamped on us, according to the revelation of the mystery which
hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, by the
Scriptures of the prophets 25 and the appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ,26 to Whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

8. Now that we have, as it were, just glanced at the inspiration of the Divine
Scriptures, we must pass on to the way to read and understand them; for very
many mistakes have been made, because the right method of examining the holy
texts has not been discovered by the greater number of readers. Hardhearted and
unlearned readers belonging to the Circumcision have not believed on our
Saviour, because it is their habit to follow the bare letter of the prophecies
concerning Him, and they do not see Him with their bodily eyes proclaiming
liberty to the captives,27 nor building what they think the true city of God,28
nor cutting off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem,29 nor
eating butter and honey, and before He knoweth or preferreth evil choosing the
good.30 They still suppose that prophecy declares that the |9 four-footed
animal, the wolf, shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard lie down with the
kid; and the calf, and the bull, and the lion feed together, and that a little
child shall lead them; and that the cow and the bear shall be pastured together,
their young ones being reared together, and that the lion shall eat straw like
the ox.31 Because they saw nothing like this when He Whom we believe to be
Christ dwelt on the earth, they did not receive Jesus, but crucified Him,
maintaining that He had no right to call Himself Christ. And heretics when they
read the words, "A fire is kindled in mine anger";32 and, "I am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and
fourth generation";33 and, "It repenteth me that I have anointed Saul to be
king";34 and, "I am God that maketh peace and create evil";35 and in another
place, "Shall evil befall a city, and the Lord hath not done it";36 or again,
"Evil is come down from the Lord unto the gates of Jerusalem";37 and, "An evil
spirit from the Lord plagued Saul";38 and countless similar passages: when they
read these, I say, they will not venture to deny the Divine origin of the
Scriptures, but believing them to have come from the Demiurge,39 Whom the Jews
worship, and holding that the Demiurge is imperfect and lacking in goodness,
they suppose our Saviour while He dwelt on earth to have proclaimed a more
perfect God, Whom, from different motives, they affirm not to be the Demiurge.
And having thus once for all revolted from the Demiurge, Who is the only God
uncreate, they have given themselves up to vain imaginations, inventing for
themselves various theories, so as to account for the origin of things that are
seen, and for the origin of others not seen, and all this is the offspring of
their own fancy. And yet, as a matter of fact, the less sophisticated of those
who in their self-confidence have left the Church |10 allow no God greater than
the Demiurge, and so far they are right; but their conception of Him is such as
would discredit an extremely cruel and unjust man.

9. Now the only reason why all these of whom I have spoken entertain false and
impious opinions, or ignorant views respecting God, appears to be that the
Scripture on the spiritual side is not understood, but is taken in the bare
literal sense. For the sake, therefore, of those readers who are persuaded that
the sacred books are not human compositions, but that they were written and have
come to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, according to the will of the
Father of All through Jesus Christ, we must point out what appear to be the
right methods, while we keep to the rule of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ
in succession to the Apostles. And that there are certain mystic dispensations
revealed through the Divine Scriptures has been believed by all who have studied
the Word, even the simplest readers; but what these dispensations are,
fair-minded and modest men confess they do not know. Anyway, supposing a man to
be perplexed about the intercourse of Lot with his daughters,40 or the two wives
of Abraham,41 or Jacob's marrying two sisters, and the handmaidens who had
children by him,42 these readers will say that here we have mysteries which we
do not understand. But suppose the passage to be about the building of the
tabernacle,43 feeling sure that the narrative is typical, they will endeavour to
give each detail, as best they can, a spiritual meaning. So far as their
conviction goes that the tabernacle is a type of something, they are not far
wrong; but when on the strength of this they attempt in a way worthy of
Scripture to define the particular thing of which the tabernacle is a type, they
sometimes fail. And every ordinary story of marriage, or childbearing, or war,
or any historical occurrences which would generally be |11 regarded as such,
they pronounce to be typical. But when they come to particulars, it sometimes
happens, partly because they are not thoroughly familiar with the subject,
partly because they are too precipitate, partly because, even if a man is well
trained and deliberate, the things are extremely difficult to investigate, that
certain points are not quite cleared up.

10. And why speak of the prophecies, which we ail know to be full of enigmas and
dark sayings? And, coming to the Gospels, if we are to find their exact sense,
inasmuch as that sense is the mind of Christ, there is need of the grace given
to him who said, "We have the mind of Christ, that we may know the things freely
given to us by God; which things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom
teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth." 44 And who, again, can read the things
revealed to John without astonishment at the ineffable mysteries therein
concealed, mysteries, plainly enough, though a man does not understand what is
written? As for the letters of the Apostles, could any critic find them clear
and easily intelligible, seeing they contain countless things of the greatest
importance and thronging thoughts, seen as through a lattice,45 and by no means
easy of access? Wherefore, seeing that this is the case, and that vast numbers
go wrong, it is somewhat dangerous when we read to lightly declare that one
understands what requires that key of knowledge which was with the lawyers. And
I wish they who will not allow that men had the truth before Christ came would
tell us what our Lord Jesus Christ means by saying that the key of knowledge was
in the keeping of the lawyers, for, according to our opponents, the lawyers had
no books containing the secrets of knowledge, and complete mysteries. The
precise words are these: "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away |12 the key of
knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye
hindered." 46

11. The right way, then, to read the Scriptures and extract their meaning, so far as we have been able to discover from examining the oracles themselves, appears to be as follows:----Solomon in the Proverbs gives a rule respecting the Divine doctrines of Scripture to this effect: "Do thou thrice record them with counsel and knowledge that thou mayest answer with words of truth to those who try thee with hard questions."
47 A man ought then in three ways to record in his own soul the purposes of the Holy Scriptures; that the simple may be edified by, as it were, the flesh of Scripture (for thus we designate the primary sense), the more advanced by its soul, and the perfect by the spiritual law, which has a shadow of the good things to come. For the perfect man resembles those of whom the Apostle speaks: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect; yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which are coming to nought: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory,48 from the spiritual law which hath a shadow of the good things to come.49 As man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so too does Scripture which has been granted by God for the salvation of men. And thus we explain that passage in The Shepherd,----a book which some treat with contempt, ----in which Hermas is commanded to write two books, and then read to the elders of the Church what he has learned from the Spirit.50 "Thou shalt write two books, and give one to Clement and one to Grapte. And Grapte shall admonish the widows and orphans, Clement shall send to the cities abroad, and thou shalt read to the elders of the Church." Grapte, who admonishes the widows and orphans, is the bare letter of Scripture; it admonishes those readers whose souls are in the stage of childhood, and who cannot
|13
yet call God their Father, and are therefore styled "orphans"; it moreover admonishes souls,51 no longer consorting with the unlawful bridegroom, but remaining in a widowed state because not yet worthy of the true Bridegroom. Clement, the reader who has got beyond the letter, is said to send what is said to the cities abroad, that is to say, the souls which have escaped from the bodily desires and lower aims. And next the writing is forsaken, and the disciple himself of the Spirit is bidden "read" to the wise and hoary-headed elders of the whole Church of God with the living voice.

12. But inasmuch as some Scriptures have not the "corporeal," 52
as we shall presently show, in such cases we must seek only the "soul" and the "spirit." For instance, this may explain why the six waterpots of stone said to be set after the Jews' manner of purifying, as we read in the Gospel according to John,53 contain two or three firkins apiece: the Word darkly hinting at those who were inwardly Jews, of whom the Apostle speaks
54----that these, forsooth, are cleansed through the word of Scripture, that Word sometimes containing two firkins, that is, if we may so say, the "soul" and "spirit" of the Word: sometimes three; for some Scriptures have besides these two also the "corporeal" part with its power of edification. As for the number, the six waterpots may reasonably refer to those who are being purified in the world, which was made in six days, six being a perfect number.55

13. That we may profit by the primary sense of Scripture, even if we go no
further, is evident from the multitudes of true and simple-minded believers. Let
us, however, take what Paul says in the first Epistle to the |14 Corinthians as
an example of the higher "soul" interpretation. "It is written," he says, "Thou
shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." 56 Then, going on to
explain this law, he adds, "Is it for the oxen that God careth, or saith he it
altogether for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that
ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of
partaking." And, indeed, very many passages so interpreted as to suit the great
body of believers, and edifying for those who have no ear for better things,
have more or less the same stamp. But spiritual interpretation is for one who is
able to show the nature of the heavenly things,57 of which the Jews after the
flesh served the copy and shadow, and what the good things to come are of which
the law is a shadow. And in general, according to the apostolic command, we must
everywhere seek wisdom in a mystery, "even the wisdom which hath been hidden,
which God foreordained before the world unto the glory of the righteous; which
none of the rulers of this world knoweth." 58 The same Apostle, referring to
certain incidents in Exodus and Numbers, somewhere says, "These things happened
unto them by way of figure: and they were written for our admonition upon whom
the ends of the ages are come";59 and he hints at the things of which they were
figures, saying, "For they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the
Rock was Christ." 60 And in the sketch of the tabernacle which he gives in
another epistle he quotes the words, "Thou shalt make all things according to
the pattern which was shewed thee in the Mount." 61 Again, in the Epistle to the
Galatians, as it were reproaching those who think they read the law though they
do not understand it, and giving his judgment that as many as think there are no
allegories in what is written, do not understand, he goes on to say, "Tell me ye
that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 62 |15 For it is
written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the
freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh, but the son
by the freewoman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for
these women are two covenants," and so on. We must carefully note exactly what
he says: "Ye that desire to be under the law": not "Ye that are under the law";
and, "Do you not hear the law?": the hearing in his judgment being the
understanding and knowing. And also in the Epistle to the Colossians, where he
epitomises the meaning of the whole giving of the law, he says, "Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new
moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come." 63 Further, in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, arguing concerning those of the Circumcision, he
writes thus: "Who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things."
64 This will probably suffice to remove all doubts respecting the five books,
called the Books of Moses, from the minds of those who really believe the
Apostle to be a Divine 65 man; but they may wish to learn whether the rest of
the history is also figurative. Now we must carefully note that the passage in
Romans from the third Book of Kings, "I have left for myself seven thousand men
who have not bowed the knee to Baal," 66 was taken by Paul as applying to the
Israelites according to the election,67 for that not only have the Gentiles
benefited by the coming of Christ, but also some of the holy 68 race.

14. This being so, we must outline what seems to us the peculiarities involved in understanding the Scriptures. And what we have to show first is that the aim of the Spirit, Who, by the providence of God through the Word, Who in the beginning was with God, enlightens the ministers of the truth, the Prophets and Apostles, was chiefly directed to the unspeakable mysteries connected
|16
with men,----and by men I mean embodied souls, so that any one who is capable of instruction, if he will search the Scriptures, and will earnestly endeavour to fathom their depths, may be a partaker in all the decrees of His counsel. And as regards souls, inasmuch as without the rich and wise truth concerning God they cannot possibly reach perfection, things relating to God and to His only-begotten Son must be placed in the front rank, viz. His nature, in what sense He is Son of God, and for what reasons He humbled Himself and took upon Him our flesh and perfect manhood; further, how He works, for whom, and under what conditions. And, of necessity, if we want to know about kindred beings, and the other rational creatures, both those more Divine than humankind and those also who have fallen from bliss, and the causes of their fall, this should be introduced into Divine revelation; and, similarly, if we have to discuss the differences in souls, and how the differences have arisen; or inquire what we mean when we talk of the "world," and ask how it came into existence. We have to learn, moreover, the origin of the great and terrible wickedness on earth, and whether it is found only on earth, or elsewhere as well.

15. Now, while the Spirit Who illumines the souls of the holy ministers of the
truth had these and similar purposes in view, it was, secondly, His aim, for the
sake of those who cannot bear the labour of investigating such mysteries, to
conceal the foregoing doctrines in narrative form conveying an account of the
visible works of creation, and of man's creation, and of the descendants of the
first man until they become numerous; and in other histories which relate the
doings of righteous men, and the sins which they occasionally committed inasmuch
as they were men, as also the wicked, licentious, overbearing behaviour of
lawless and godless men. And, very strange though it may seem, by the history of
wars and victors and vanquished, some of the ineffable mysteries are declared to
those who have the ability to investigate these matters. And, still more
marvellous, through the written law, the |17 laws of the Truth are foretold; and
all these subjects are linked together by the Divine wisdom with a power truly
worthy of the wisdom of God. For it was the Spirit's purpose to make even the
vesture of things spiritual, I mean the "corporeal" part of the Scriptures, many
ways not unprofitable, but capable of benefiting the majority of readers
according to their capacity.

16. If the use of the Law had been everywhere made perfectly clear, and strict
historical sequence had been preserved, we should not have believed that the
Scriptures could be understood in any other than the obvious sense.69 The Word
of God therefore arranged for certain stumbling-blocks and offences and
impossibilities to be embedded in the Law and the historical portion, so that we
may not be drawn hither and thither by the mere attractiveness of the style, and
thus either forsake the doctrinal part because we receive no instruction worthy
of God, or cleave to the letter and learn nothing more Divine. And this we ought
to know, that the chief purpose being to show the spiritual connection both in
past occurrences and in things to be done, wherever the Word found historical
events capable of adaptation to these mystic truths, He made use of them, but
concealed the deeper sense from the many; but where in setting forth the
sequence of things spiritual there was no actual event related for the sake of
the more mystic meaning, Scripture interweaves the imaginative with the
historical, sometimes introducing what is utterly impossible, sometimes what is
possible but never occurred. Sometimes it is only a few words, not literally
true, which have been inserted; sometimes the insertions are of greater length.
And we must this way understand even the giving of the Law, for therein we may
frequently discover the immediate use, adapted to the times when the Law was
given; sometimes, however, no good reason appears. And elsewhere we have even
impossible commands, for readers of greater ability and those who have more of
the spirit of inquiry; so that, applying themselves |18 to the labour of
investigating the things written, they may have a fitting conviction of the
necessity of looking therein for a meaning worthy of God. And not only did the
Spirit thus deal with the Scriptures before the coming of Christ, but, inasmuch
as He is the same Spirit, and proceedeth from the One God, He has done the same
with the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles; for not even they are purely
historical, incidents which never occurred being interwoven in the "corporeal"
sense; nor in the Law and the Commandments does the Spirit make the
reasonableness altogether clear.

17. Anyway, will any man of sense suppose that there was a first day, and a
second, and a third, evening and morning, without sun and moon and stars? 70 and
the first, as it were, even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to imagine
that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a
tree of life,71 which could be seen and felt, so that whoever tasted of the
fruit with his bodily teeth received the gift of life, and further that any one
as he masticated the fruit of this tree partook of good and evil? And if God is
also said to walk in the garden in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under
the tree,72 I do not suppose that any one will doubt that these passages by
means of seeming history, though the incidents never occurred, figuratively
reveal certain mysteries. Moreover, Cain's comning out from the presence of
God,73 if we give heed, is a distinct inducement to inquire what is meant by
"the presence of God," and by a man's "coming out from" it. Why say more? They
who are not quite blind can collect countless similar instances of things
recorded as actual occurrences, though not literally true. Why, even the Gospels
abound in incidents of the same kind. We read of the Devil taking Jesus into a
lofty mountain, that from thence he might shew Him the kingdoms of the whole
world and their |19 glory.74 Who but a careless reader of these things would not
condemn the supposition that with the bodily eye, which required a lofty height
if the parts down below at the foot were to be seen, Jesus beheld the kingdoms
of Persia, Scythia, India, and Parthia, and the glory of their rulers among men?
And, similarly, the careful student may observe countless other instances in the
Gospels, and may thus be convinced that with the historical events, literally
true, different ones are interwoven which never occurred.

18. And if we come also to the Mosaic code, many of the laws, so far as regards
their bare observance, seem unreasonable, and others impossible. The prohibition
of kites,75 for instance, as food is unreasonable, for no one in the direst
famines would be driven to this creature. Children eight days old if not
circumcised are ordered to be cut off from their people. If an express enactment
respecting those children was indispensable, it is their fathers who should be
ordered to be put to death; whereas the Scripture says, "Every uncircumcised
male, who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall be cut off from his
people." 76 If you wish to see some impossible enactments, let us consider that
the goat-stag is a fabulous creature. And yet Moses commands us to offer it as a
clean animal;77 on the other hand, there is no instance of the griffin having
been tamed by man, but the lawgiver, nevertheless, forbids it to be eaten. If we
closely examine the famous ordinance of the Sabbath, "Ye shall sit every man in
his house: let no man go out of his place on the seventh day,"78 we shall see
that it cannot be literally kept; for no living creature can sit the whole day
without stirring from his seat. And therefore in some cases they of the
Circumcision, and as many as desire no more light than that of the mere letter,
do not go to the root of things, and, for example, search for the meaning of
what is said about the goat-stag, the griffin, and the kite; while |20 in other
cases they sophistically trifle with the words, and confront you with frigid
traditions; as regards the Sabbath, for instance, they maintain that every man's
"place" is 2000 cubits. Others, among them Dositheus the Samaritan, condemning
such an interpretation, think the person is to remain until the evening in the
posture in which he was found on the Sabbath day. Nor can the command to carry
no burden on the Sabbath be observed; 79 and the Jewish teachers have
accordingly gone very great lengths, pretending that a sandal of one kind is a
"burden," but not a sandal of another kind, the one being nailed, the other
without nails; and, the same way, what is carried upon one shoulder is a
"burden," but by no means what is carried upon both.

19. If we similarly investigate the Gospels, what could be more unreasonable
than the command which simple readers think the Saviour gave to His Apostles,
"Salute no man by the way." 80 Again, what is said about the smiting on the
right cheek is incredible;81 for when a man strikes, if he acts naturally, he
strikes the left cheek with his right hand. And we cannot take literally the
passage in the Gospel in which the right eye is said to cause one to stumble.82
For even granting the possibility of sight making any one to stumble, why, when
the two eyes see, should we put the blame on the right eye. Would any man when
he condemns himself for looking on a woman to lust after her, put the blame on
the right eye only, and cast it from him? Again, the Apostle lays down the law
thus: "Was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised?"
83 Any one may see that the Apostle has something in view other than the literal
context; for, in the first place, such an insertion when he is giving precepts
concerning marriage and purity must appear unmeaning. And, in the second place,
who will say that, in order to escape from the disgrace mostly connected with
circumcision, a man |21 does wrong in endeavouring, if he can, to become
un-circumcised.

20. We have said all this for the sake of showing that the aim of the Divine
power which gives us the sacred Scriptures, is not to select such things only as
are presented in a literal sense, for sometimes the things selected taken
literally are not true, but are even unreasonable and impossible; and further,
that certain things are woven into the web of actual history and of the Law,
which in its literal sense has its uses. But that no one may suppose us to make
a sweeping statement and maintain that no history is real,84 because some is
unreal; and that no part of the Law is to be literally observed, because a
particular enactment in its wording happens to be unreasonable or impossible; or
that what is recorded of the Saviour is true only in a spiritual sense; or that
we are not to keep any law or commandments of His: that we may not incur such an
imputation, we must add that we are quite convinced of the historical truth of
certain passages; for instance, that Abraham was buried in the double cave in
Hebron,85 as also Isaac and Jacob, and one wife of each of these; and that
Sichem was given to Joseph for his portion,86 and that Jerusalem is the capital
of Judea, wherein God's temple was built by Solomon, and countless other
statements. For those things which are true historically are many more than
those connected with them which contain merely a spiritual sense. Again, take
the commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother that it may be well with
thee." 87 Would not any one allow its usefulness apart from any anagogical 88
interpretation, and support |22 its observance, seeing that even the Apostle
Paul uses the express words? And what are we to say about the commands, "Thou
shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou
shalt not bear false witness?" 89 Further, there are commands in the Gospel
about which there is no doubt as to whether they are to be literally observed or
not; for instance, that which says, "But I say to you, whosoever shall be angry
with his brother," 90 and so on; and, "But I say to you, Swear not at all." 91
And we must keep to the letter of the Apostle's words, "Admonish the disorderly,
encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be long-suffering towards all";92
though among more eager students it is possible to treasure every detail as the
deep wisdom of God, without rejecting the literal meaning of the command.

21. Still, there are places where the careful reader will be distracted because
he cannot without much labour decide whether he is dealing with history in the
ordinary sense, or not, and whether a given commandment is to be literally
observed, or not. The reader must therefore, following the Saviour's injunction
to search the Scriptures,93 carefully examine where the literal meaning is true,
and where it cannot possibly be so; and he must, to the best of his ability, by
comparing parallel passages scattered up and down Scripture, trace out the
prevalent sense of what is literally impossible. Since, then, as will be clear
to readers, the literal connection is impossible, while the main connection is
not impossible but even true, we must strive to grasp the general sense which
intelligibly connects things literally impossible with such things as are not
only not impossible, but are historically true, and capable of allegorical |23
interpretation, no less than those which never literally occurred. For,
regarding the whole of Divine Scripture, we hold that every portion has the
spiritual meaning, but not every portion the "corporeal"; for the "corporeal"
meaning is often proved to be impossible. The cautious reader must therefore
very carefully bear in mind that the Divine books are Divine writings, and that
there appears to be a peculiar way of understanding them, which I will now
describe.

22. The inspired words relate that God chose out a certain nation upon earth,
which they call by several names. The whole nation is called Israel, and also
Jacob. But after the division in the time of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the ten
tribes under him were called Israel, and the other two with the tribe of Levi,
governed by kings of the seed of David, were known as Judah. And the whole
country inhabited by the nation, and given to them by God, is called Judea; and
of this Jerusalem was the metropolis, or mother city, that is to say, of
numerous cities, the names of which dispersed in many parts of Scripture are
included in one list in the Book of Joshua the son of Nun. This being so, the
Apostle, raising our thoughts higher, somewhere says, "Behold Israel after the
flesh,"94 implying that there is an Israel after the Spirit. And elsewhere he
says, "It is not the children of the flesh that are children of God: nor are
they all Israel which are of Israel.95 Nor is he a Jew which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew
which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not
in the letter." 96 For if the judgment of the Jew depends on the inward state,
we must understand that as there is a bodily race of Jews, so there is a race of
those who are Jews inwardly, and that there are secret reasons for souls having
this noble lineage. There are, moreover, many prophecies concerning Israel and
Judah which relate the things that should befall them. Now, let me ask, |24 do
not such great prophecies written on their behalf, inasmuch as in the literal
sense they are trivial and exhibit none of the lofty dignity of a promise made
by God, require a mystical interpretation? And if the promises are spiritual,
though expressed by means of things sensible, they also to whom the promises are
given are not "corporeal."

23. And, not to spend more time over the argument concerning the Jew that is one
inwardly and the Israelite in the inner man, enough having been said for any but
unintelligent readers, we return to our subject, and say. that Jacob was the
father of the twelve patriarchs, they the progenitors of the rulers of the
people, and these again the ancestors of the rest of Israel. So, then, the
"corporeal" Israelites are traced up to the rulers of the people, and the rulers
to the patriarchs, and the patriarchs to Jacob and those still farther back; but
as for the spiritual Israelites, of whom the "corporeal" were the type, do they
not spring from the "hundreds," the "hundreds" from the tribes, and the tribes
from one man who had no such "corporeal" descent, but the better, he too being
born of Isaac, and he of Abraham, all going back to Adam, who, as the Apostle
says, is Christ? For all families in their relation to the God of All had their
beginning lower down in Christ, Who being next to the God and Father of All, is
thus the Father of every soul as Adam is the father of all men. And if Eve has
been made by Paul to represent the Church, it is no wonder that Cain, who was
born of Eve, and all after him who trace their descent from Eve, should be types
of the Church, inasmuch as in a special sense they sprang from the Church.

24. If we are impressed by what has been said about Israel and the tribes and
the hundreds, when the Saviour tells us that He was not sent save unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel,97 we do not take the words in the same sense as
the Ebionites with their poverty of |25 understanding (their poverty of
intellect gives them their name, for "Ebion" is the Hebrew for "poor "), and
suppose that Christ came chiefly to Israel after the flesh; for "it is not the
children of the flesh that are children of God." 98 Again, the Apostle gives
similar teaching concerning Jerusalem when he tells us that "the Jerusalem which
is above is free, which is our mother." 99 And in another epistle he says, "But
ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and
church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven." 100 If, then, Israel is a
race of souls, and there is a city, Jerusalem in heaven, it follows that the
cities of Israel, and, consequently, all Judea, have for their metropolis the
heavenly Jerusalem. Accordingly, whatever is foretold or said respecting
Jerusalem, if we listen to God as God, and hear Him speaking from the depths of
His wisdom,101 we must understand that the Scriptures refer to the heavenly
city, and the whole country containing the cities of the holy land. It may be
that these are the cities to which the Saviour leads us 102 up when He gives the
command of ten or five cities to those who satisfactorily dealt with the pounds.

25. If, then, the prophecies respecting Judea and Jerusalem, and Israel and
Judah and Jacob, inasmuch as we do not take them in the fleshly sense, suggest
some such mysteries as the foregoing, it should follow that the prophecies
concerning Egypt and the Egyptians, Babylon and the Babylonians, Tyre and the
Tyriaus, Sidon and the Sidonians, or any other nations, are not prophecies
merely of the corporeal Egyptians,103 Babylonians, Tyrians, and Sidonians. For
if there are "spiritual" Israelites, it follows that there are "spiritual"
Egyptians and Babylonians. What the Prophet Ezekiel says cannot at all be made
to |26 suit Pharaoh, King of Egypt, a past or future human ruler of the country,
as will be evident to close observers. Similarly, what is said about the ruler
of Tyre cannot be understood of some future human ruler of Tyre. And the many
passages relating to Nabuchadnosor, particularly in Isaiah, how can we possibly
take them to refer to the man of that name? For the man Nabuchadnosor did not
fall from heaven,104 nor was he Lucifer, nor did he rise early on the earth. And
the sayings in Ezekiel concerning Egypt, to the effect that it would be desolate
for forty years,105 so that the foot of man should not be found there, and that
war should be so fiercely waged at some time or other that throughout the whole
land blood should reach to the knees, what sensible person will understand them
of Egypt that borders on the Ethiopians with their sunburnt bodies?

26. Perhaps, as they who leave the earth when they die the death of all men are
dealt with in such a way that according to the deeds done in the body, if judged
worthy of the place called Hades, they are assigned to different places in
proportion to their sins: so they, if I may so speak, who die there, descend to
this earthly Hades, being judged worthy of the different habitations, better or
worse, throughout the world, and to have parents of different nationalities; so
that an Israelite may perhaps fall among Scythians, and an Egyptian descend into
Judea. But the Saviour came to gather together the lost sheep of the house of
Israel;106 and as many of Israel did not submit to His teaching, the Gentiles
also are being called.

27. These mysteries are, as we think, concealed in the histories. For "the
kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man
found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth
that field."107 Let us consider then whether the obvious in Scripture, its
superficial and easy meaning, is |27 not like a field covered with all sorts of
growths; while the secret things, not seen by all, but as it were buried beneath
the things that are seen, are the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge:108
which the Spirit by the mouth of Esaias calls "dark," "invisible," "concealed."
They must be found out, though God alone can break in pieces the gates of brass
which hide them, and shatter the iron bars upon the doors; so that all the
statements in Genesis concerning different real varieties of souls, and as it
were seeds of souls, more or less remote from Israel, may be discovered; as also
what is meant by the seventy souls going down into Egypt,109 that there they may
become as the stars of heaven for multitude. But since not all their descendants
are the light of the world,110 for "they are not all Israel that are of Israel,"
111 the seventy become even as it were sand by the sea shore that cannot be
numbered.

From the 39th Homily on Jeremiah.

28. And as all the gifts of God are vastly greater than the mortal substance, so
also the true word of wisdom concerning all these, being with God Who caused all
these things to be written, for the Father of the Word so willed, would be found
in the soul which with all earnestness and with full consent has been thoroughly
purified from human weakness in the apprehension of that wisdom. But if a man
rashly enters on the subject, and is not aware of the mystery of the wisdom of
God and of the Word Who was in the beginning with God and was Himself God, and
that if we are to seek and find these things we must follow the instructions of
the Word Who was also God, and conform to His wisdom, he must of necessity fall
into fables and frivolous conceits and inventions of his own, for he exposes
himself to danger for his impiety. We must therefore remember the admonition in
Ecclesiastes to such readers: "Let not thine heart |28 be hasty to utter
anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let
thy words be few." 112 And it is fitting to believe that not a single tittle of
the sacred Scriptures is without something of the wisdom of God; for He Who gave
me a mere man the command, "Thou shalt not appear before me empty," 113 how much
more will He not speak anything "empty." When the Prophets speak, it is after
receiving of His fulness; 114 and so everything breathes what comes of His
fulness; and there is nothing in Prophecy, or Law, or Gospel, or Apostle, which
is not of His fulness. And just because it is of His fulness, it breathes His
fulness to those who have eyes to see the things of that fulness, and ears to
hear the things of that fulness, and a faculty to perceive the sweet odour of
the things of that fulness. But if in reading the Scripture thou shouldest
sometime stumble at a meaning which is a fair stone of stumbling and rock of
offence,115 blame thyself. Do not despair of finding meanings in the stone of
stumbling and rock of offence, so that the saying may be fulfilled, "He that
believeth shall not be ashamed." 116 First believe, and thou shalt find beneath
what is counted a stumbling-block much gain in godliness.

From the Commentary on the 50th Psalm, in the allegorical treatment of the early
portion of the history of Uriah.

29. If the partly allegorical treatment of the history appears to any one
forced, and therefore not to relieve the difficulties, we have obviously been
speaking to no purpose, and we must look for some other suitable interpretation;
unless, perchance, some reader by further labour may discover a way of putting
everything right, explaining 117 both the murder of the man and his evident
kindliness, inasmuch as he was unwilling to go to his house and rest, when the
people were in camp and |29 struggling against the enemy. But I do not know how
they who shun the allegorical interpretation, and think the narrative was
written for its own sake, will reconcile themselves to the will of the Holy
Spirit, Who thought such things deserving of record as justify the charge not
only of licentiousness, but also of savagery and inhumanity being brought
against David; for he dared to commit a crime against Uriah which would be
extraordinary even in the case of a man of average morality. I should, however,
say that as the judgments of God are great and cannot be expressed,118 and seem
to be causes of the erring of unnurtured souls, so also His Scriptures are great
and full of meanings, secret, spiritual, and hard to understand. They, too,
cannot be expressed, and appear to cause the unnurtured souls of heretics to err
by inconsiderately and rashly accusing God on account of the Scriptures which
they do not understand, and by therefore falling into the error of inventing
another God. The safe course is to wait for the interpretation of an explainer
of the Word, and of the wisdom hidden in a mystery,119 which none of the rulers
of this world knoweth, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath
been kept in silence through times eternal,120 but now is manifested to the
Apostles and those like them, both through the writings of the Prophets, and by
the appearing to them of our Saviour the Word Who in the beginning was with
God.121

From the 5th Homily on Leviticus, near the beginning.

30. Not perceiving the difference between visible and spiritual Judaism, that
is, between the Judaism which is outward and the Judaism which is inward,122
godless and impious heresies forsook Judaism and the God Who gave our Scriptures
and the whole Law, and invented a different God besides Him Who gave the Law and
the Prophets, besides the Maker of heaven and earth. The fact is not so,
however; but He Who gave the Law also gave the |30 Gospel, He Who made things
visible also made things invisible. And things visible are akin to things
invisible; in such wise akin that the invisible things of God since the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are
made.123 The things of the Law and the Prophets which are seen are akin to the
things of the Law and the Prophets which are not seen but are intelligible.124
Seeing, then, that the Scripture itself consists as it were of a body which is
seen, and a soul therein apprehended by the reason, and a spirit, that which
corresponds to the copies and shadow of heavenly things,125 let us call upon Him
Who created Scripture with a body, soul, and spirit, the body for those who were
before us, the soul for us, and the spirit for those who in the coming age shall
inherit eternal life, and are destined to reach the heavenly, archetypal things
contained in the Law; and then let us search, not for the letter, but for the
soul of what we are considering. Then, if we are able, we will ascend also to
the spirit, corresponding to the principles involved in the sacrifices of which
we read.

CHAP. II. ----That the Divine Scripture is closed up and sealed. From the Commentary on the 1st Psalm.

1. The Divine words say that the Divine Scriptures have been closed up and sealed with the key of David, and perhaps with the seal which is described as "the stamp of a seal, a hallowed offering to the Lord"
126----that is, with the power of God, Who gave the Scriptures, the seal being the emblem of power. Now John interprets the closing up and sealing in the Apocalypse, when he says:127 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and none shall shut, and that shutteth, and none openeth: I know thy
|31
works: behold I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut." And a little farther on:128 "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and without, close sealed with seven seals. And I saw another, a strong angel, proclaiming with a great voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no one in the heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look thereon. And I wept because no one was found worthy to open the book, or to look thereon: and one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and the seven seals thereof."

2. As regards the sealing up only, Esaias thus speaks:129 "And all these sayings shall be to you as the words of this book which is sealed, which men deliver to One that is learned, saying, Read this: and he saith, I cannot read it, for it is sealed: and the book shall be delivered into the hands of a man that is not learned, saying, Read this: and he saith, I am not learned." For we must consider these things to be spoken not only of the Apocalypse of John and Esaias, but also of all Divine Scripture, which is beyond question full of riddles, and parables, and dark sayings, and various other obscurities, hard to be understood by men, whose ears can catch no more than the faint echoes of the Divine words. This was what the Saviour wished to teach us when He said, inasmuch as the key was with the Scribes and Pharisees who did not strive to find the way to open the Scriptures, "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." 130 Then, after topics of a different kind, Origen proceeds:----

3. Now that we are going to begin our interpretation |32 of the Psalms, let us
preface our remarks with a very pleasing tradition respecting all Divine
Scripture in general, which has been handed down to us by the Jew. That great
scholar used to say that inspired Scripture taken as a whole was on account of
its obscurity like many locked-up rooms in one house. Before each room he
supposed a key to be placed, but not the one belonging to it; and that the keys
were so dispersed all round the rooms, not fitting the locks of the several
rooms before which they were placed. It would be a troublesome piece of work to
discover the keys to suit the rooms they were meant for. It was, he said, just
so with the understanding of the Scriptures, because they are so obscure; the
only way to begin to understand them was, he said, by means of other passages
containing the explanation dispersed throughout them. The Apostle, I think,
suggested such a way of coming to a knowlege of the Divine words when He said,
"Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which
the Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 131

Much farther on, comparing the blessings addressed to individuals with those addressed to more than one,132 he says:----

4. If the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace,
approved of the whole earth, purified seven times; 133 it is just as true that
the Holy Spirit has dictated them, through the ministers of the Word,134 with
the most scrupulous accuracy, lest the parallel meaning which the wisdom of God
had constantly in view over the whole range of inspired Scripture, even to the
mere letter, should escape us. And perhaps this is why the Saviour says, "One
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be
accomplished." 135 For if we study Creation we see that the Divine skill is
shown not only in heaven, in the sun, moon, and stars, being everywhere
evidenced in those bodies, but also upon earth no less |33 in commoner matter:
so that the bodies of the smallest living creatures are not scornfully treated
by the Creator, much less the souls existing in them, each having some peculiar
gift, something to ensure the safety of the irrational creature. And as for
plants, neither are they overlooked, for the Creator is immanent in every one,
as regards roots, and leaves, appropriate fruits, and varying qualities. So,
too, we conceive of all that has been recorded by the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, believing that the sacred foreknowledge 136 has through the Scriptures
supplied superhuman wisdom to the race of man, having, so to speak, sown the
seeds of saving truths, traces of the wisdom of God, in every letter as far as
possible.

5. In truth, any one who has once accepted these Scriptures as coming from the
Creator of the world, must be convinced that whatever difficulties confront
those who investigate the story of creation, similar difficulties will also be
found in the study of the Scriptures. There are, I say, in creation as well as
in Scripture, certain problems which we men solve with difficulty, or even not
at all; and we must not therefore blame the Maker of the universe because, say,
we cannot discover why basilisks and other venomous creatures were created. In
the contemplation of Nature it is an act of piety if a man who is conscious of
human weakness, and recognises the impossibility of understanding the principles
of the Divine skill, though pondered with all diligence, will ascribe to God the
knowledge of these things. He will hereafter, should we be deemed worthy, reveal
to us all the mysteries which now engage our reverent attention. Similarly, we
should see that the Divine Scriptures also contain many mysteries of which it is
hard for us to give an account. Anyway, let those who, after forsaking the
Creator of the world and betaking themselves to a god of their own invention,
make these professions, solve the difficulties we put before them; or, at least,
after such strange impiety, let them see how they can with a good |34 conscience
uphold their speculations on the matters under investigation and the problems
presented to them. For if the problems no less remain, though our opponents have
forsaken the Godhead, would it not be far greater piety to be content with our
conception of God, the Creator being contemplated through the works of creation,
and to refrain from uttering godless and unholy opinions respecting so great a
God?

CHAP. III. ---- Why the inspired books are twenty-two
137 in number. From the same volume on the 1st Psalm.

As we are dealing with numbers, and every number has among real existences a
certain significance, of which the Creator of the universe made full use as well
in the general scheme as in the arrangement of the details, we must give good
heed, and with the help of the Scriptures trace their meaning, and the meaning
of each of them. Nor must we fail to observe that not without reason the
canonical books are twenty-two,138 according to the Hebrew tradition, the same
in number as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. For as the twenty-two letters
may be regarded as an introduction to the wisdom and the Divine doctrines given
to men in those Characters, so the twenty-two inspired books are an alphabet of
the wisdom of God and an introduction to the knowledge of realities. |35

CHAP. IV. ----Of the solecisms and poor style of Scripture. From Volume IV. of the Commentaries on the Gospel according to John, three or four pages from the beginning.

1. A reader who carefully distinguishes language, meaning, and things, on which the meaning is based, will not stumble at solecistic 139 expressions, if, on examination, he finds that the things are none the worse for the language in which they are clothed, particularly as the holy writers confess that their speech was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.140 Then, after speaking of the solecisms of the Gospel, he goes on to say:----

2. Inasmuch as the Apostles were not unconscious of their errors, nor unaware
what the things were which concerned them, they say they are rude in speech, but
not in knowledge:141 for we must believe that the other Apostles, as well as
Paul, would have said so. Then there is the passage, "But we have this treasure
in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and
not from ourselves";142 which we interpret of the treasure elsewhere described
as the treasure of knowledge and hidden wisdom,143 and we take the "earthen
vessels" in the sense of the ordinary, and, in Greek estimation, contemptible
diction of the Scriptures, wherein the exceeding greatness of the power of God
is really seen. For the mysteries of the truth and the force of what was said,
in spite of the ordinary language, were strong enough to reach the ends of the
earth, and bring into subjection to the word of Christ, not only the foolish
things of the world, but sometimes also its wise ones.144 For we see what our
calling is: not that it has no one wise after the flesh, but not many wise |36
after the flesh. Nay more, Paul says that in proclaiming the Gospel 145 he owes
the delivery of the Word not only to Barbarians but also to the Greeks, and not
only to the foolish, who more easily give their assent, but also to the wise;
for he was by God made sufficient to be a minister of the new covenant,146 and
to use the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,147 so that the assent of
believers may not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. For had
the Scripture been embellished with elegance of style and diction, like the
masterpieces of Greek literature, one might perhaps have supposed that it was
not the truth which got hold of men, but that the clear sequence of thought and
the beauty of the language won the souls of the hearers, and caught them with
guile.

CHAP. V. ---- What is "much speaking," and what are the "many books"? The whole inspired Scripture is one book. From the Introduction to Volume V. of the Commentaries on John.

I. Since you are not content to have taken up your present work as God's
task-master over me,148 and expect me even when away to devote myself mainly to
you and to my duty towards you, I in turn, if I decline the labour, and shun the
danger to which they are exposed at God's hands who give themselves up to
writing on Divine subjects, might find support in Scripture for refusing to
"make many books." For Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, "My son, beware of making
many books: there is no end: and much study is a weariness of the flesh." 149 If
the words |37 before us had not a hidden meaning which we do not even yet
clearly understand, we should have expressly broken the commandment through not
being on our guard against "making many books."

Then, after saying that he had written four full volumes on a few passages of the Gospel, he proceeds thus:----

2. As far as the words go there are two possible meanings of the precept, "My
son, beware of making many books"; firstly, that one ought not to have many
books: secondly, that one ought not to compose many books; and if the first is
not permissible, the second is certainly not; though if the second is
permissible, the first is not certainly so; 150 either way the lesson appears to
be that we ought not to make too many books. And, keeping to what has now
occurred to me, I might send you the passage which I have quoted, as my apology:
I might make the most of the fact that the saints have never had leisure for
composing many books, and, accordingly, cease to compose any more to be sent to
you, as we agreed. You would perhaps be so struck by what I said that you would
let me have my way. But since a man should investigate Scripture with a good
conscience, and not hastily claim to understand the meaning because he grasps
the literal sense, I cannot bear to offer an unreal apology, which you might
turn against me if I were to break our agreement. First, then, seeing that
history seems to support what Solomon says, inasmuch as no saint has published
numerous volumes and expressed his thoughts in many books, something must be
said about this. And he who chides me for going on composing more books will
tell me that the famous Moses left only five.

Then, after enumerating Prophets and Apostles, and showing how each of them wrote but a little, or not even that, he continues:----

3. Again, though I have said all this, my head swims, and I turn dizzy at the
thought that in obeying you I may have disobeyed God and not imitated the
saints. I trust |38 I shall not do wrong, if in my heartfelt affection for you,
and earnest desire in nothing to give you pain, I plead my own cause and base my
defence on these grounds. First of all, we adduced the words of Ecclesiastes,
"My son, beware of making many books." 151 Side by side with this I place the
saying of the same Solomon in the Proverbs, "In the multitude of words thou
shalt not escape sin, but if thou refrain thy lips thou wilt be discreet," 152
and I ask if the mere speaking many words is much speaking, even if a man speak
many holy and saving words. If this be so, and he who discusses many profitable
things indulges in a "multitude of words," Solomon himself did not escape the
sin, for "he spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and
five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon, even unto the
hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and
of creeping things, and of fishes." 153 How can teaching be effective without
many words of the simpler kind? Wisdom herself tells the perishing, "I prolonged
my words unto you, and ye did not regard." 154 And Paul appears to have
continued preaching from morn until midnight, until Eutychus borne down with
deep sleep fell down and alarmed the audience, who thought he was dead.155

4. Well, then, if it be true that "in a multitude of words thou wilt not escape sin"; and if it be also true that neither Solomon sinned though he spake many words about the above-mentioned subjects, nor Paul, though he continued teaching until midnight, we must inquire what "a multitude of words" is, and then pass on to consider the meaning of "the many books." The whole Word of God, I say, the Word which was in the beginning with God,156 is not "a multitude of words," for it is not "words "; there is one Word
157 which may be regarded from many points of view, and each of these meanings is a part of the whole Word. But as for words other than this Word, which
|39
profess to describe or relate anything whatsoever, though we may believe them to be words respecting truth,----what I am going to say will sound still more paradoxical, ----not one of them is a word, but each of them words. For the unit can nowhere be found, nor can harmony and unity, but because they are torn with mutual conflict their unity has perished; and they are split into many parts, perhaps infinitely numerous; so that, according to this, we may say that he who utters anything whatsoever contrary to godliness speaks much, while he who speaks the things of the truth, even though he speak so exhaustively as to omit nothing, even speaks one word, and the saints, making the one Word their constant aim, do not fall into the vice of much speaking. If, then, whether there be or be not "much speaking" depends on the doctrines and not on the number of the words, see whether we cannot say the whole range of sacred teaching is one book, and all other teaching many books?

5. But since I must have proof from the Divine Scripture, consider whether my
most striking way of presenting it is not to show that the account of Christ in
relation to us is not contained in one book, if we take the "books" in the
ordinary sense. It is described even in the Pentateuch; but also in each of the
Prophets, and in the Psalms, and, generally, as the Saviour Himself says, in all
the Scriptures, to which He refers us, bidding us "Search the Scriptures, for ye
think that in them ye have eternal life: and these are they which bear witness
of me." 158 If, then, He refers us to the Scriptures as bearing witness of Him,
He does not send us to this or that particular portion, but to all the
Scriptures that tell of Him, such as those which in the Psalms He called "the
roll of the book," saying, "In the roll of the book it is written of me." 159 If
any one takes the phrase "in the roll of the book" to mean some one of the books
containing the things concerning Him, I should like him to tell me why he
prefers that book to any other. To justify |40 any one in supposing that the
word refers to the Book of the Psalms itself, he must point out that the words
should have been "In this book it is written concerning me." But the fact is
that He says that everything is one roll, because the account of Himself which
has reached us is summed up in one (statement, "I came to do Thy will"). And
what, again, is the meaning of the book being seen by John written in front and
on the back, close sealed:160 which no one could read or loose the seals
thereof, except the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, He
that hath the key of David,161 He that openeth and no man shall shut, and no man
shall open? It surely is the whole of Scripture which is indicated by the
"book"; written "in front" by reason of the easy, obvious interpretation: "on
the back " because of the more remote and spiritual sense.

6. Besides this, we must closely observe whether it is any proof of holy truths
being one book, and the opposite of these many, that for the living there is one
book from which they who have become unworthy of it are blotted out, as it is
written, "Let them be blotted out of the book of the living," 162 while for
those subject to judgment looks are brought; for Daniel says, "The judgment was
set and the books were opened." 163 To the unity of the Divine book even Moses
testifies when he says, "If thou wilt forgive this people their sin, forgive
them; and if not, blot me out of thy book which thou hast written."164 I take
the passage in Isaiah the same way; for it is not a peculiarity of his prophecy
that the words of the book were sealed, and were not read by him that was not
learned because he was not learned, nor by him that was learned because the book
was sealed; but even this is true of all Scripture, which needs the Word that
shut and will open; for "He shall shut and none shall open," 165 and once He
opens no one can any longer associate darkness with His clear light; and this is
why it is said that He shall |41 open and none shut. And the very similar
passage in Ezekiel about the book there spoken of, wherein was written
"lamentations and music and woe." For every book contains the "woe" of the
perishing,166 and "music" for those who are being saved, and lamentations for
those between these extremes. John, too, when he says that he ate one roll of
the book,167 wherein were written things past and things to come, must have
regarded the whole of Scripture as one book, very sweet as a man understands it
at first and feeds upon it, but bitter when it is revealed to the
self-consciousness of every one who has come to know it. To demonstrate this I
will add an apostolic saying not understood by the followers of Marcion, who
therefore reject the Gospels; for whereas the Apostle says, "According to my
gospel in Christ Jesus," 168 and does not speak of gospels, they oppose us, and
maintain that if there were several gospels the Apostle would not have used the
word in the singular. They do not understand that as He is one, so the Gospel
written by its many authors is one in effect, and the Gospel truly delivered by
four evangelists is one Gospel.

7. Wherefore, if this has brought us conviction as to what the one book means,
and what the many, I am now not so much concerned for the quantity of the copy
as for the quality of the same, lest I fall into the transgression of the
commandment, if I put forth anything as truth which is contrary to the truth
even in a single detail of what is written; for I shall then prove myself to be
a writer of many books. And just now, when, with a show of knowledge, men who
hold false opinions are rising up against the holy Church of Christ, and
publishing book after book which professes to expound the Gospels and apostolic
writings, if we hold our peace, and do not meet them with the true and sound
doctrines, they will prevail over gluttonous souls which, for want of wholesome
food, rush to things forbidden, to utterly unclean and abominable meats. It
therefore seems to me to be necessary, that he |42 who can genuinely plead for
the doctrine of the Church and refute the handlers of knowledge falsely
so-called, should withstand the inventions of the heretics, opposing to them the
elevation of the preaching of the Gospel, inasmuch as he is satisfied with the
harmony of doctrines common to the Old Testament and to the New, as they are
respectively called. At all events, you yourself, when advocates of the good
cause were scarce, because you could not endure an irrational and commonplace
faith, in your love for Jesus embraced opinions which you afterwards, when you
had fully exercised the understanding given to you, condemned and forsook. This
I say, according to my light, by way of excuse for men who can speak and write,
and also by way of apology for myself, lest, perhaps, not being equipped as a
man should be who is enabled by God to be a minister of the New Testament,169
not of the letter, but of the spirit, I too boldly apply myself to
composition.170

CHAP. VI. ----The whole Divine Scripture is one instrument of God, perfect and fitted for its work. From Volume II. of the Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers" 171

1. To the man who is both ways a peacemaker, there is no longer anything in the
Divine oracles crooked or perverse,172 for all things are plain to those who
understand; and since to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he
sees abundance of peace173 everywhere in Scripture, even in those parts which
appear not to agree and to be contradictory to one another. But there is also a
third peacemaker, he, viz. who shows that what to the eyes of others seems like
disagreement in the Scriptures is not really so, and who proves that harmony and
concord exist, whether between the Old and the New, or the Law and the Prophets,
or Gospel and Gospel, or Evangelists and |43 Apostles, or Apostles and other
Apostles. For,174 according to the Preacher,175 all the Scriptures, words of the
wise, are as goads, and as nails well fastened, words which were given from
collections from one shepherd, and there is nothing superfluous in them. And the
Word is "one shepherd" of things relating to the Word, which do indeed sound
discordant to those who have not ears to hear,176 but are in truth most
harmonious.

2. For as the different strings of the psaltery or the lyre, each of which gives
forth a note of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by an
unmusical man who does not understand the theory of harmony to be discordant,
because of the difference in the notes: so they who have not ears to detect the
harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures suppose that the Old Testament is not in
harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one
another, or an Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other
Apostles. But if a reader comes who has been instructed in God's music, a man
who happens to be wise in word and deed, and on that account, it may be, called
David, which being interpreted is "a cunning player," he will produce a note of
God's music, for he will have learned from God's music to keep good time,
playing now upon the strings of the Law, now upon those of the Gospel in harmony
with them, now upon those of the Prophets; and when the harmony of good sense is
required he strikes the apostolic strings tuned to suit the foregoing, and,
similarly, apostolic strings in harmony with those of Evangelists. For he knows
that the whole Scripture is the one, perfect, harmonious instrument of God,
blending the different notes, for those who wish to learn, into one song of
salvation, which stops and hinders all the working of an evil spirit, as the
music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul which was |44 vexing him.177
You observe, then, that there is a third kind of peacemaker, he who keeping
close to the Scripture both sees the peace which pervades it everywhere, and
bestows it on those who rightly seek the truth and are really eager to learn.

CHAP. VII. ----Of the special character of the persons of Divine Scripture. From the small volume on the Song of Songs, which Origen wrote in his youth.

1. Any one who does not understand the peculiar character 178 of the persons in
Scripture, both as regards the speakers and the persons addressed, must be much
perplexed by what he reads; he will ask who is speaking, who is spoken to, and
when does the speaker cease to speak. For it often happens that the same person
is addressed, though a third person speaks to him; or the person addressed is no
longer the same, and a different person takes up what is said, while the same
person speaks. And sometimes both the speaker and the person addressed are
changed; or, further, though both are unchanged, it is not clear that they are.
Need I seek an illustration of each of these statements, seeing that the
prophetical writings abound in such changes? In fact we have here a special,
though it may be unrecognised, cause of the obscurity of Scripture. It is also
the way of Scripture to jump suddenly from one discourse to another.179 The
prophets, above all, do this, obscuring their sense and more or less confusing
the reader.

Again, from the 4th Homily 180 on the Acts, "It was needful that the Scripture
should be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David
concerning Judas."

2. In the Psalm wherein the things concerning Judas are written, one might say
that it is not the Holy Spirit Who speaks, for the words are clearly the
Saviour's, |45 "Hold not thy peace, O God, at my praise: for the mouth of the
wicked and the mouth of the deceitful man is opened upon me," 181 and so on,
until we come to "And his office let another take." Now if it is the Saviour Who
says this, what does Peter mean by telling us that "It was needful that the
Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spake before by the mouth of
David?" 182 Perhaps the lesson is something like this. The Holy Ghost employs
personification in the prophets, and if He introduces the person of God, it is
not God Who speaks, but the Holy Ghost speaks as God.183 And if He introduces
Christ, it is not Christ Who speaks, but the Holy Ghost speaks as Christ. So,
then, if He brings in the person of a prophet, or personifies this or that
people, or anything whatsoever, it is the Holy Ghost Who devises all these
personifications.

CHAP. VIII. ----That we need not attempt to correct the solecistic phrases of Scripture, and those which are unintelligible according to the letter, seeing that they contain great propriety of thought for those who can understand. From the Commentary on Hosea.

1. Inasmuch as the solecisms 184 in Scripture, if literally taken, often confuse
the reader, so that he suspects the text to be neither correct, nor in accord
with propriety of reason; and this to such an extent, that some persons by way
of correction, even venture to make alterations and substitute another meaning
for that of the seemingly inconsistent passages, I fear something similar may
befall the language of the passages before us; we are therefore bound to see
what their hidden meaning is. The Prophet after using the plural, "They wept and
made supplication unto me," 185 and again the plural, showing the sequel, "In
|46 the house of On they found me," proceeds in the singular, "And there he
spoke with him." A reader glancing at the words as they stand might suppose
there was an error in the copy, and therefore write the plural in the last
clause, or change the previous plurals into the singular. For when he reads,
"They wept and made supplication unto me," and "In the house of On they found
me," he would say that the next clause should be, "There he spake with them,"
that is, with those who wept and made supplication and found God in the house of
On. But if we consider other passages we shall see that even here we have no
inconsistency.

2. In Genesis God gives a command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it: for in the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die."
186 There, also, God begins by speaking in the singular, "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat," but goes on in the plural, "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it: for in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die." The explanation is that when God speaks of the commandment which He wished Adam to keep and live, He commands in the singular, "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat"; for they who walk in God's ways and hold fast His commandments, though they be many, yet by reason of their being of one mind the many are essentially one.187 And, therefore, when a commandment respecting goodness is given, the singular is used----"Thou mayest freely eat"; but in laying down the law respecting transgression, God no longer uses the singular, but the plural----"Ye shall not eat: for in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die."

3. And so it is with the present passage. When they still weep and make supplication to God, the plural is used----"They wept and made supplication to me "; but when they find God, He no longer uses the plural----"There
|47
He spake, not with them," but with him. For by finding God and by hearing His Word, they have already become one. For the individual when he sins is one of many, severed from God and divided, his unity gone; but the many who follow the commandments of God are one man; as also the Apostle testifies, saying, "For we who are many are one bread, one body";188 and again, "There is one God, and One Christ, and one faith, and one baptism";189 and elsewhere, "For all we are one body in Christ Jesus";190 and again, "I espoused you all to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to the Lord."191 And that they are well pleasing to the Lord and one,192
is shown in the Lord's prayer to His Father for His disciples. "Holy Father," He says, "grant that as I and Thou are one, so also they may be one in us."193 And also, whenever the saints are said to be members of one another,194 the only conclusion is that they are one body. In The
Shepherd,195 again, where we read of the building of the tower, a building composed of many stones, but seeming to be one solid block, what can the meaning of the Scripture be except the harmony and unity of the many?

CHAP. IX. ---- Why it is that the Divine Scripture often uses the same term in different significations, even in the same place. From the Epistle to the Romans, Volume
IX. on the words, "What then? Is the law sin?" 196

1. One term, law, may be used, but the scriptural account of "law" is not everywhere one and the same. A reader must therefore in every place consider with the utmost care first the literal meaning of the word "law," then the special significance of it. This is only what we do with most other words; for there are other instances of equivocal scriptural terms, such as confuse readers who suppose that because the word is the same the meaning
|48
must be the same wherever it is found. Now the word "law" is intended to serve not everywhere the same purpose, but many purposes; we will, therefore, passing by the numerous passages requiring careful reasoning because they suggest an objection which calls for an answer, set forth all such as may effectually convince anybody that the word "law" has many meanings. As an illustration let us take what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians. "As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one which continueth riot in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them."
197 It is clear that we have here the literal law of Moses, enjoining on those under it what they are to do, and forbidding what they must not do. And we have no less clearly the meaning of the passage in the same Epistle, "The law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator";198 and of another, "So that the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus."
199 And that "law" also denotes the historical writings of Moses we may gather from the passage in the same epistle ----"Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through the promise."
200

2. I know that even the Psalms are called "law," as is plain from the passage,
"That the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me
without a cause." 201 Nay more, the prophecy of Isaiah is called "law" by the
Apostle, who tells us, "In the law it is |49 written, By men of strange tongues,
and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even then
will they hear me, saith the Lord";202 and this is in effect what I found in
Aquila's interpretation. The term is also applied to the more mystic and Divine
sense of the law; as, for instance, "We know that the law is spiritual."203 And
besides all this, the Word sown in the soul, evidenced by the moral notions
common to mankind, and in Scripture language "written in the heart," enjoining
what we have to do, forbidding what we must not do, is called "law." This is
proved by the following words of the Apostle: "For when the Gentiles which have
no law do by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto
themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their
consciences bearing witness therewith." 204 For the law written in men's hearts
and in Gentiles who by nature do the things of the law, is no other than the law
of common morality by nature written in our governing part,205 and day by day
becoming clearer with the perfecting of reason. This is the meaning of law in
the words,"Sin is not imputed where there is no law," 206 and in these, "I had
not known sin except through the law." 207 For before the Mosaic law was given
sin is found to have been imputed both to Cain and to the sufferers in the
Deluge, and to the people of Sodom as well, and to countless others; and many
came to know sin before the law of Moses was given. And do not be surprised if
two meanings of the one word "law" are discovered in the same place; for we
shall find this usage in other parts of Scripture; for example, "Say not ye,
There are yet four months and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say unto you,
Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they |50 are white already into
harvest."208 The word "harvest" is used twice, the first time of the "corporeal"
209 harvest, the second time of the spiritual. And you will find a parallel also
in the account of the healing of the man born blind. The man was literally
blind, but the Saviour adds, "For judgment came I into this world, that they
which see not may see; and that they which see may become blind." 210

3. So, then, it is as true as ever that; "apart from the law, the law of nature,
a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets." 211 And we would tell those readers who shrink from admitting the
double meaning of "the law," that if we are to understand the same law to be
referred to in both clauses, "But now apart from the law a righteousness of God
hath been manifested," and "Being witnessed by the law and the prophets," we
must conclude that if the righteousness hath been manifested apart from the Law,
it is not witnessed by the Law; and if it is witnessed by the Law, it hath not
been manifested apart from the Law. The truth is that the law of nature by no
means witnesses to the righteousness of God manifested by Jesus Christ, for it
is inferior to that righteousness; but the Law of Moses, not the letter, but the
spirit, does witness, as also the Prophets in accordance with the spirit of the
law, and as does the spiritual word in them. The reader of the Divine Scripture
must therefore carefully observe that the Scriptures do not invariably use the
same words to denote the same things; and they make the change sometimes on
account of the equivocal sense of a word, sometimes for the sake of the
figurative meaning, and sometimes because the context requires a different
nuance in some places from that which the word has in others. If we are well on
our guard in all this we escape many blunders and false interpretations. We
ought, then, to know that the word "see" 212 does not always denote the same
thing, sometimes being applied to bodily sight, sometimes to our understanding.
|51 Speaking generally, we ought to be aware that inasmuch as the purpose of the
Spirit in the Prophets, and the Word in the Apostles of Christ, is to conceal
and not plainly disclose the thoughts of the Truth, confusion arises again and
again through the mere wording, and no close sequence of thought is preserved;
the object being that even the unworthy may not to the judgment of their own
soul discover the things which are thus for their good concealed from them. And
this is often the reason why Scripture, as a whole, appears to lack orderly
arrangement and consecutiveness, particularly, as we said before, the prophetic
and apostolic writings; and in the apostolic writings, the Epistle to the
Romans, wherein the functions of the Law are set forth in different terms, and
applied to different circumstances. The result is that Paul in the composition
of the epistle does not seem to be true to his aim.

CHAP. X. ----Of things in the Divine Scripture which seem to come near to being a stumbling-block and rock of offence. From the 39th Homily on Jeremiah: "The Lord could not bear because of the evil of your doings"

1. If at anytime in reading the Scripture you stumble at something which is a
fair stone of stumbling, and rock of offence,213 blame yourself; for you must
not despair of finding in this stone of stumbling and rock of offence thoughts
to justify the saying, "He that believeth shall not be ashamed." 214 First
believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is deemed a stumbling-stone much gain
in godliness. For if we really received a commandment to speak no idle word,
because we shall give account of it in the day of judgment;215 and if we must
with all our might endeavour to make every word proceeding out of our mouths a
working word both in ourselves who speak and in those who hear, must we not
conclude that every word spoken |52 through the Prophets was fit for work? and
it is no wonder if every word spoken by the Prophets had a work adapted to it.
Nay, I suppose that every letter, no matter how strange, which is written in the
oracles of God, does its work. And there is not one jot or tittle 216 written in
the Scripture, which, when men know how to extract the virtue does not work its
own work.

2. As every herb has its own virtue whether for the healing of the body, or some
other purpose, and it is not given to everybody to know the use of every herb,
but certain persons have acquired the knowledge by the systematic study of
botany, so that they may understand when a particular herb is to be used, and to
what part it is to be applied, and how it is to be prepared, if it is to do the
patient good; just so it is in things spiritual; the saint is a sort of
spiritual herbalist, who culls from the sacred Scriptures every jot and every
common letter, discovers the value of what is written and its use, and finds
that there is nothing in the Scriptures superfluous. If you would like another
illustration, every member of our body has been designed by God to do some work.
But it is not for everybody to know the power and use of all the members, even
the meanest, but those physicians who are expert anatomists can tell for what
use every part, even the least, was intended by Providence. Just so, you may
regard the Scriptures as a collection of herbs, or as one perfect body of
reason; but if you are neither a scriptural botanist, nor can dissect the words
of the Prophets, you must not suppose that anything written is superfluous, but
blame yourself and not the sacred Scriptures when you fail to find the point of
what is written. All this by way of general preface, though it may be applied to
the whole of Scripture; so that they who will give heed to their reading may
beware of passing over a single letter without examination and inquiry. |53

CHAP. XI. ----That we must seek the nourishment supplied by all inspired Scripture, and not turn from the passages troubled by heretics with ill-advised difficulties, nor slight them; we ought rather to have our share in them without the confusion which attaches to unbelief. From Volume XX. on Ezekiel. "Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I judge between sheep and sheep, as well the rams
as the he-goats. Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have fed upon the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pasture? and to have drunk of the clear waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet? And as for my sheep they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet, and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet? "
217

After giving his views respecting sheep that are rams, and sheep that are goats, and showing that it is the practice of Scripture sometimes to class sheep and goats together, he thus proceeds:----

1. Now let us do our best to discover what truths are shadowed out in these
words. Every good pasture, and the pool of clear water, represent, I suppose,
the oracles of the sacred Scriptures as a whole. The next thought is that
inasmuch as certain persons approve of some portions as profitable, and reject
others as having no saving power, they may be said to feed upon the good pasture
of the passages they choose, drink the clear water of what they judge to be the
best, and then tread down the residue of the pasture, and foul the residue of
the water with their feet. These, I say, are they who approve the New Testament,
but reject the Old; these are they who maintain that certain parts of the
ancient writings exhibit more of the Divine power and are highly spiritual, and
make others to be deficient in these respects. But the Shepherd calls them His
own sheep who do not disdain what has been trodden by the feet, and who do not
despise the water fouled by the feet, of the |54 blame-worthy sheep, perhaps
more correctly named goats and kids; for they would not be sheep worthy of the
rams upon the right hand.

2. For ourselves, then, who profess to be sheep of the Shepherd, let us never be
shy at feeding on those passages which, taken literally, do not look like
Scripture, and on account of their verbal incongruity are trodden down by men
who are neither able nor willing to use the whole pasture. Even supposing that
some water has been fouled by their feet, suppose, I mean, they have mingled
with the pure word of the Scripture shameful unheard-of objections, let us not,
because of the confusion they have introduced into the Word, be deterred from
drinking that which has been fouled by their feet. And carefully observe that
they who foul the water and tread down the pasture, are reminded of better sheep
in the words, "And as for my sheep, they eat that which ye have trodden with
your feet, and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet." 218
Furthermore, let us never tread down the pasture of the Prophets, nor foul the
water of the Law; and while there are some who err in respect of the Gospel
pasture and the apostolic water, so that they tread down certain portions of the
Gospel field and feed on others as on good pasture, either rejecting the whole
apostolic pasture, or approving some parts and rejecting others, let us feed on
the whole of the Gospels and not tread down any part of them, and while we drink
of all the apostolic waters, clear water as far as we can make it such, let us
guard the fountains, and in no wise foul them through unbelief, which is wont to
confuse the minds of men who cannot understand what is said.

CHAP. XII. ----That a man ought not to faint in reading the Divine Scripture if he cannot comprehend the dark riddles and parables therein. From the 20th Homily on Joshua, the son of Nun.

1. A hearer greatly profits by such readings as these |55 if he can understand
the true inheritance which Joshua divided by lot to the children of Israel, and
if he can both ascend to the holy land, the true, really good land, and,
following the list of names, can adapt the local descriptions to the varying
circumstances of those who receive the inheritance. But it is difficult to find
a man who thus profits, and we therefore wish to encourage our hearers not to
faint as they read. "What the encouragement is which I offer to him who hears
such passages, I must now tell. Charms have a certain natural force; and any one
who comes under the influence of the charm, even if he does not understand it,
gets something from it, according to the nature of the sounds thereof, either to
the injury or to the healing of his body, or his soul. Just so, pray observe, it
is with the giving of names in the Divine Scriptures, only they are stronger
than any charm. For there are certain faculties in us, the best of which are
nourished by these "charms," as I may call them, being akin to them, though we
may not perceive that those faculties by understanding what we are told become
more effective in the development of our lives. For that there are certain
invisible departments of our being, and those many in number, the words of the
Psalm will prove, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me bless
his holy name." 219 There is, then, within us a multitude of faculties amongst
which we have been, as it were, souls and bodies, divided by lot; and these are
such that if holy they profit and gather strength at the reading of the
Scripture, even though the understanding be unfruitful; as it is written
concerning him who speaketh "in a tongue," "My spirit prayeth, but my
understanding is unfruitful." 220 Please note, then, that though at times our
understanding is unfruitful, the faculties which assist the soul, and the
understanding, and help us all, are nourished with rational nourishment drawn
from the Holy Scriptures, and from these names, and that being nourished they
are better able to assist us. And just as our better faculties, as |56 it were,
use the charm and are profited, and gain strength through Scriptures and names
like these, so the opposing faculties of our inner nature, we may say, are
weakened and overcome by God's enchantments, and being overcome are put to
sleep.

2. If any of you have ever seen an asp or some other venomous creature under the
spell of the charmer, I would have you take that as an illustration of the
Scripture. If it be read and not understood, the hearer sometimes grows listless
and weary; yet let him believe that the asps and vipers within him are weakened
through the charms of the charmers, that is to say, by wise Moses, wise Joshua,
the wise and holy Prophets. Let us not then weary when we hear Scriptures which
we do not understand; but let it be unto us according to our faith,221 by which
we believe that all Scripture being inspired by God is profitable.222 For as
regards these Scriptures, you must admit one of two things: either that they are
not inspired because they are not profitable, as an unbeliever might suppose;
or, as a believer, you must allow that because they are inspired they are
profitable. We must, however, know that we often profit without perceiving it,
just as frequently happens when we diet ourselves to improve our eyesight; we do
not, I suppose, while we are eating perceive that our eyesight is better, but
after two or three days, when the food is assimilated which benefits the eye, we
are convinced of the fact by experience; and the same remark applies to other
foods which benefit other parts of the body. Well, then, have the like faith
with regard to Divine Scripture; believe that thy soul is profited by the mere
reading, even though thy understanding does not receive the fruit of profiting
by these passages. Our inner nature is charmed; its better elements are
nourished, the worse weakened and brought to nought. |57

CHAP. XIII. ---- When and to whom the lessons of philosophy may be profitable, in the explanation of the sacred Scriptures, with Scripture proof. The letter to Gregory.

1. Greeting in God, from Origen to my good lord and most reverend son,223
Gregory. Natural ability, as you know, if properly trained, may be of the utmost
possible service in promoting what I may call the "object" of a man's training.
You, for instance, have ability enough to make you an expert in Roman law, or a
philosopher in. one of the Greek schools held in high esteem. I should like you,
however, to make Christianity your "object," and to bring the whole force of
your ability to bear upon it, with good effect. I am therefore very desirous
that you should accept such parts even of Greek philosophy as may serve for the
ordinary elementary instruction of our schools, and be a kind of preparation for
Christianity: also those portions of geometry and astronomy likely to be of use
in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, so that, what the pupils of the
philosophers say about geometry and music, grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy,
viz. that they are the handmaidens of philosophy, we may say of philosophy
itself in relation to Christianity.

2. Perhaps something of the kind is hinted at in the command from the mouth of
God Himself that the children of Israel be told to ask their neighbours and
companions for vessels of silver and gold,224 and for clothing, so that by
spoiling the Egyptians they might find materials to make the things of which
they were told 225 for the Divine service. For out of the spoils which the
children of Israel took from the Egyptians came the contents of the Holy of
Holies, the ark with its cover, and the Cherubim, and the mercy-seat, and the
golden pot wherein was treasured up the manna, the Angels' bread. These things,
|58 we may suppose, were made of the best of the Egyptian gold. From the second
best came the candlestick throughout of solid gold, standing near the inner
curtain, and the lamps upon it, and the golden table upon which was placed the
shew-bread, and, between the two, the golden censer. If there was any third- or
fourth-rate gold, the holy vessels were made of it. And from the Egyptian
silver, also, came other things; for it was through sojourning in Egypt that the
children of Israel had abundance of precious material to make things for the
service of God. And out of the clothing of the Egyptians probably came whatever
was required, as the Scripture says,226 in the way of things embroidered or sewn
together, the work of embroiderers with the wisdom of God, different garments
being sewed together to make the veils and the curtains, both the outer and the
inner.

3. Why need I digress further to show how useful the things brought from Egypt were to the children of Israel, things which the Egyptians did not use properly, but the Hebrews through the wisdom of God turned to godly purposes? The Divine Scripture knows, however, that some were the worse for the going down of the children of Israel from their own land into Egypt, and darkly hints that some do lose by sojourning with the Egyptians, that is to say, by lingering in the learning of the world after being nourished in the law of God and the Divine worship of Israel. At all events, Hadad the Edomite,227 so long as he was in the land of Israel, and did not taste the Egyptian bread, made no idols; but when he ran away from wise Solomon and went down into Egypt, running away one might say from the wisdom of God, he became Pharaoh's kinsman by marrying Pharaoh's wife's sister, and begetting a son brought up with Pharaoh's sons. And so it happened that although he returned into the land of Israel, he returned to divide God's people into two parts, and make them say over the golden calf, "These be thy
|59
Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." 228
And, taught by his experience, I beg leave to tell you that a man is seldom found who takes the useful things of Egypt, leaves that land, and provides for the service of God; but Hadad the Edomite has many a brother. These are they who with a certain Greek smartness propagate heretical opinions, and, as it were, make golden calves in Bethel: which being interpreted is "the house of God." The word therefore seems to shadow forth the truth, viz. that these men set up their own inventions in the Scriptures----figuratively called "Bethel"----wherein dwelleth the Word of God. But the Word says that the other invention was set up in Dan. Now the boundaries of Dan are farthest off, and near those of the Gentiles, as is clear from the account given in the Book of Joshua, the son of Nun. So, then, some of these inventions are near the confines of the Gentiles----inventions, as we have interpreted, of Hadad's brethren.

4. Do you, then, my lord and my son, chiefly give heed to the reading of the
Divine Scriptures; do give heed. For we need great attention when we read the
Divine writings, that we may not speak or form notions about them rashly. And as
you give heed to reading the Divine volume with a faithful anticipation well
pleasing to God, knock at its closed doors and it shall be opened unto you by
the porter, of whom Jesus said, "To him the porter openeth." 229 And as you give
heed to the Divine reading, seek, in the right way and with an unfaltering faith
in God, the meaning of the Divine writings, which is hidden from the many. Be
not content, however, with knocking and seeking; for prayer is the most
necessary qualification for the understanding of Divine things, and the Saviour
urged us to this when He said, not only, Knock and it shall be opened, Seek and
ye shall find,230 but also, Ask and it shall be given unto you. I have ventured
thus far in my fatherly love for you; if I have done well or not in venturing,
God and His Christ, and he that partaketh of the |60 Spirit of God and of the
Spirit of Christ, alone can know. Mayest thou be a partaker, and ever increase
the participation, that thou mayest say not only, "We are become partakers of
Christ," 231 but also, "We are become partakers of God."

CHAP. XIV. ----They who wish to rightly understand the Divine Scriptures must of necessity be acquainted with the logical principles adapted to their use; without these they cannot conceive the exact meaning of the thoughts expressed, as they should do. From Volume III. of the Commentaries on Genesis.

1. "God made the two great lights,232 the greater light for rule 233 of the day,
and the lesser light for rule of the night; he made the stars also. And God set
them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth and to rule
234 the day and the night." We must, then, inquire whether for rule of the day
means the same as to rule the day, and for rule of the night the same as to rule
the night, in the ordinary acceptation of the words; for Aquila preserved the
parallel, making for authority 235 the equivalent of for rule, and to have
authority 236 the equivalent of to rule. And we are told by those who carefully
investigate the meaning of words, where they deal with the relation of names and
predicates, that the things bearing the names previously exist, and that
predicates follow the names. Prudence, for example, they say is a name with a
predicate, and the predicate is to be prudent. Similarly, moderation is a name,
and to be moderate is a predicate; and they say that prudence pre-exists, and
that from prudence is derived the predicate to be prudent. We have made these
observations, though some may think we are going beyond the intention of
Scripture, because God Who made the lights makes the greater for rule of the day
and the lesser for rule of the night; but when He places them in the firmament
of |61 the heaven it is no longer for rule of the day and of the night, but to
rule the day and the night. The orderly and systematic arrangement of the
passage, the names coming first and then the predicates, roused our suspicions
that the matter was so understood by the servants of God, and all the more
because Aquila, who strove to interpret most literally, has only distinguished
the name from the predicate.

2. If any one doubts the soundness of this reasoning, let him consider whether a
problem in ethics, or physics, or theology, can be properly conceived without
accurately finding the meaning, and without close regard to the clear rules of
logic. What absurdity is there in listening to those who determine the exact
meaning of words in different languages, and in carefully attending to things
signified? And we sometimes through ignorance of logic fall into great errors,
because we do not clear up the equivocal senses, ambiguities, misapplications,
literal meanings, and distinctions. Take, for example, the word world. Through
not knowing that it was an equivocal term, men have fallen into the most impious
opinions concerning the Demiurge: men, I mean, who have not cleared up the
question in what sense "the world lieth in the evil one," 237 and have not
realised that the "world" there denotes earthly and human affairs. Supposing the
"world" to be literally the complex whole of heaven and earth and things
therein, they exhibit the utmost audacity and impiety in their conceptions of
God; for with all their efforts they cannot show how the sun and moon and stars,
with their wonderful orderly movements, "lie in the evil one." If, again, we
study the passage, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world," 238 and attempt to show that "world" is here the scene of sin abounding,
that is, the different localities of the earth, they will candidly admit what is
said, but from a spirit of foolish contention they will cling to their
detestable errors, which they have once embraced, simply because they do not
understand the equivocal meaning of |62 the word. If, again, we read that "God
was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," 239 they will no longer,
certainly not consistently with their own principles, succeed in showing that
the word denotes the whole world, that is, the contents of the whole world; on
their own showing the word must be examined as being equivocal. And as for
detestable interpretations caused by ambiguity, punctuation,240 and countless
other things, a keen student may find abundant illustrations. But we have
digressed thus far in order to show that even we ourselves, who wish not to err
concerning the truth in our understanding, of the Scriptures, are bound to be
familiar with the logical principles involved in the use of them. Such
principles we just now required to discover the difference between the two
expressions with which we began, the lights being said to have been created for
rule of the night, and to rule the day and the night.

CHAP. XV. ----A reply to the Greek philosophers who disparage the poverty of style of the Divine Scriptures, and allege that the noble truths of Christianity have been better expressed among the Greeks. They further assert that the body of the Lord was ill-favoured; with the reason of the different forms of the Word. From the treatise against Celsus, who wrote against Christians, Volumes VI. and VII.

1. In beginning this sixth book, we desire, holy Ambrose, to meet the charges brought by Celsus against Christians, not, as might be supposed, what he has borrowed from philosophy. For he quoted numerous passages, mainly from Plato, making common property of such portions of the sacred Scriptures as might mislead even an intelligent reader, alleging that they have been "better expressed by Greeks, and without the violent expedient of a message supposed to come from God or from the Son of God." Now we maintain that if the aim of those who represent the truth is to do as much good as possible to
|63
as many as possible, and out of love for men to win over to the truth, as far as may be, every single man, not only the quick and ready, but also him that is void of understanding: or, to put it another way, not Greeks only, nor Barbarians only,----and it is a mark of great humanity if a man is capable of converting rustics and ignorant folk,----it is obvious that a speaker must cultivate a style both popular and profitable, and such as will win everybody's ear. And men who tell us that they say farewell to the ignorant as being no better than slaves, and to such as have no ear for the close connection of the words and the order of the incidents, and who therefore pay attention only to hearers who have had a literary and scientific bringing up, these men reduce the fellowship of the Gospel to very narrow limits.

2. I have said this in reply to the charge brought against the Scriptures by
Celsus and others on account of their poverty of style, though that seems to
vanish in the grandeur of the composition.241 For our Prophets, and Jesus and
His Apostles had the insight to adopt a mode of delivery which not only conveys
the truth, but can win the many, until they are drawn to be Catechumens and
then, every one so far as he can, rise to the ineffable mysteries contained in
the seemingly poor language. And if I may dare say so, the ornate and polished
style of Plato and his imitators benefits only a few, if indeed it does benefit
them; while the style of those who have taught and written less elegantly, but.
nevertheless with a direct and practical aim, keeping in view the wants of the
greater number, has benefited many. At all events, you may see Plato in the
hands of those who are regarded as literary men, but Epictetus is the admiration
of the man in the street and of all who are inclined to improve themselves, for
they are conscious of the benefits to be derived from his writings. We do not
say this to disparage Plato, for the great world of |64 men has found even him
useful, but in order to show the meaning of those who said, "And my speech and
my preaching was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but
in the power of God." 242

3. For there is a demonstration of the Word, all its own, more Divine than the
dialectic of the Greeks, which the Apostle calls "a demonstration of the Spirit
and of power ";243 "of the Spirit," because of the prophecies which are enough
to convince the reader, particularly in things relating to Christ: and "of
power," because of the marvellous powers which one must be prepared to admit, as
on many other grounds, so also, inasmuch as the traces of them are still
preserved among those who live according to the intent of the Word.

4. Further, the Divine Word also asserts that what is said, although it be in
itself true and most persuasive, is not of itself sufficient to reach man's
soul, unless a certain power from God be given to the speaker and grace be shed
over his words,244 and effective speakers cannot have this grace without God's
help. At all events, the Prophet says in the 67th Psalm that "the Lord shall
give a word to them that publish the tidings with great power." 245 Granting,
then, that in some cases the Greeks have the same doctrines as ours, it by no
means follows that even the same doctrines avail for winning souls and disposing
them accordingly. Hence it is that the disciples of Jesus, unlearned and
ignorant men as regards Greek philosophy, compassed many nations of the world,
impressing each individual hearer as the Word desired, according to his deserts;
for the hearers profited in proportion as their will inclined to receive the
blessing.

5. Well, then, let the wise men of old be explained to |65 those who can
understand them. Let Plato, the son of Aristo, in one of his epistles express
his views on the Chief Good, and let him maintain that the Chief Good is by no
means communicable in words, but is acquired through much intercourse with it,
and, kindled as it were from flaming fire,246 suddenly illuminates the soul.
When we hear these things (for we are careful not to incur odium for anything
that is well said, and if the enunciators of the truth are outside the Faith, we
are studious not to vie with them, nor seek to upset sound sense) we admit that
they are well spoken, "for God manifested it unto them," 247 and whatsoever else
is good in their utterances. And this is why we say that they who have true
conceptions of God, and do not lead a godly life worthy of the truth concerning
Him, are liable to the chastisements of sinners. For this is precisely what Paul
asserts concerning such men, viz, that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in
unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made,
even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse;
because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks;
but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of
birds, and of four-footed beasts, and creeping things." 248 They certainly do
"hold down the truth," as our Word also testifies, who think that "the Chief
Good is not communicable in words," 249 and who say that "from much intercourse
with the thing itself and from living with it, it suddenly, lighted as from
flaming fire, illuminates the soul, and straightway nourishes itself." |66

6. They who wrote such things concerning the Chief Good nevertheless go down to
the Piraeus that they may offer up a prayer to the goddess Artemis, and because
they want to see how the national festival is kept by the common folk;250 and
after so finely discussing the soul and surveying the conduct of a soul that has
lived a good life, they forsake the greatness of the things which God manifested
to them for mean and paltry conceptions, and pay a cock they owe to
Asclepios.251 And although they could imagine the invisible things of God and
the eternal forms of Being from the creation of the world and things that are
seen, from which they rise to intelligible 252 things, and although they have no
ignoble vision of His everlasting power and Godhead, they none the less become
vain in their reasonings, and their heart, inasmuch as it is foolish, is
overwhelmed with darkness and ignorance, so far I mean as concerns the service
of God. And we may see men who pride themselves on wisdom and their knowledge of
theology worshipping the likeness of the image of a corruptible man to show how
they honour him; and we sometimes see them descending, like the Egyptians, to
birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things. And even if "some do seem to
have risen above this, they will nevertheless "exchange the truth of God for a
lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator." 253 Wherefore,
because the wise and learned Greeks err in their religious observances, "God
chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame them that are
wise; and the base things of the world, and the weak things, and the things that
are despised, and the things that are not, that he may bring to nought the
things that are; and that truly no one may glory before God." 254 But our wise
men, Moses the most ancient of them all, and the Prophets who came after him,
knowing that the Chief Good is not at all communicable in words, and believing
that God manifests |67 Himself to fit and suitable persons, were the first to
write that God appeared to Abraham, for instance, or to Isaac, pr to Jacob. But
Who He was that appeared, whence He came, and how, and for what object connected
with mankind, they have left for those to investigate who can put themselves
into God's hands as did the saints to whom God appeared, for He was seen, not
with their bodily eyes, but with the pure heart. As our Jesus says, "Blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see their God."

7. As for the sudden kindling in the soul of a burning light as it were from flaming fire, the Word
255 knew this before Plato,256 for, speaking by the prophet, He said, "Light up for yourselves the light of knowledge."
257 And John, who came long after, tells us that "What was in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men";258 the true light which lighteneth every man as he cometh into the real "intelligible" world, and maketh him a light of the world.259 For this light shone in our hearts to give the illumination of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.260 Wherefore a very ancient Prophet, who prophesied generations before the rise of the kingdom of Cyrus, for he was earlier than that monarch by more than fourteen generations, says, "The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?"
261 and, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and light unto my paths";262 and, "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, was lifted up as a banner over us";263 and,"In thy light shall we see light."
264 And, urging us to come to this light, the Word in Isaiah says, "Shine, shine, Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord hath risen upon thee."
265 And this same Isaiah, prophesying of the coming of Jesus, Who turns men from the worship of idols and images and demons, says, "To them which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did the light spring up."
266 And again, "The people |68
which sat in darkness saw a great light." 267 Observe, then, the difference between Plato's fine saying respecting the Chief Good, and what is said in the Prophets concerning the light of the blessed; and observe further that the truth in Plato concerning the Chief Good did not at all help his readers to attain to pure and undefiled religion; and. what is more, it did not benefit the philosopher him-self who thus expounded the Chief Good. But the diction of the Divine Scriptures, poor as it is, has given inspiration to true readers----those who nourish this light with the oil spoken of in the parable,268 the oil which keeps alight the torches of the five virgins.

8. Now let us see what he has to say next. "They have," he says, "a precept to
the effect that we are not to avenge ourselves on any one who treats us with
insolence and violence. Even if a man strikes you on the one cheek, you are,
according to it, to offer him the other also. This is an old saw; it was well
enough expressed before; the Christians have revived it in a rougher form. Plato
makes Socrates say in his argument with Crito,269 'Then we must do no wrong.
Certainly not. Nor when injured injure in return, as the many imagine; for we
must injure no one at all. Clearly not,'" and so on. Our reply to this and to
all those passages which Celsus has made out to be common property, alleging,
because he could not face the truth of them, that the same things have been said
by Greek authors, is something like this. If the doctrine is serviceable and its
purpose sound and wise, and it has been taught the Greeks by Plato or some other
philosopher, and the Jews by Moses or some other Prophet, and Christians in the
recorded sayings of Jesus or of one of the Apostles, we must not suppose that
what is held by Jews or Christians is prejudiced by the fact that the same
things have been said by Greeks, particularly if Jewish teaching can be shown to
be older than Grecian. Nor, again, must we suppose that a given statement is by
reason of the beauty of Greek phraseology of necessity better than what |69 is
expressed with less elegance and in simpler terms by Jewish or Christian
authors, though we must bear in mind that the primitive language of the Jews,
which the Prophets employed in the books which they have left us, is perpetuated
in the Hebrew, and with a wise regard to the possibilities of composition in
that tongue.

9. If we must, however, show that when the doctrines are the same they are
better expressed by Jewish Prophets or Christian oracles, let us, though the
argument may seem strange, take an illustration in proof of our position from
different kinds of food and their preparation. Suppose some wholesome and
nutritious food to be cooked and seasoned a certain way, and let the partakers
of it not be rustics, and the inmates of hovels, and poor folk who know nothing
of such dainties, but only rich people accustomed to live delicately. And
suppose myriads of persons to eat the same food not cooked that way, to suit the
palates of acknowledged epicures, but to suit the tastes of the poor, of
rustics, and the majority of men. Now, if we grant that the epicures alone gain
health and strength from the food prepared one way, and that no ordinary person
cares for such food, while whole multitudes of men thrive on the food cooked the
other way, which set of cooks are we to regard as the greatest public
benefactors on account of the wholesome food they provide? Shall we give the
credit to those who cook to suit the learned few, or to those who cater for the
masses? We may concede that whichever way the cooking is done, the food is
equally wholesome and nourishing; humanity itself, however, and the public
welfare teach us that a physician who takes thought for the health of the many,
renders a greater service to the public than he who cares only for the health of
the few.

10. If the illustration is understood, let us apply it to the quality of the
rational food of rational creatures. And consider whether Plato and the wise men
of the Greeks do not in their choice dicta resemble physicians who attend only
better-class patients, while they despise the bulk of men. But the Jewish
Prophets and the disciples |70 of Jesus, bidding a long farewell to the
embroidery of diction, and, as Scripture terms it, "the wisdom of men" and
"wisdom after the flesh " 270 (hinting at the tongue), would be like the cooks
who take care, the quality of the food remaining the same, to prepare it the
most wholesome way; they have at their command a style which reaches the masses
of mankind, adapts itself to their speech, and does not by its strangeness close
men's ears to such discourses because they are unfamiliar. For if the real
object of eating the rational food, if I may so speak, is to make the eater
submissive and meek, must we not think that the Word which produces multitudes
of forbearing and meek hearers, or sets them on the way to becoming so, is
better prepared than that which makes a mere handful, to concede so much,
forbearing and meek? And if Plato, a Greek, intended to benefit Greek or Syrian
adherents by sound doctrine, he would take care to learn the languages of his
future hearers, and, as the Greeks phrase it, would rather be a "barbarian" to
do the Egyptians and Syrians good, than remain a Greek and be incapable of
speaking anything of use to the Egyptians and Syrians. Just so, the Divine
Nature taking thought not only for those who are reputed learned among the
Greeks, but also for the rest of the Greeks, condescended to the ignorance of
the majority of hearers, so that, employing words familiar to them, it might
encourage the unlearned multitude to hearken; for after the first introduction
they can easily endeavour to get a hold on the deeper truths hidden in the
Scriptures. For even an ordinary reader soon discovers that many passages have a
deeper signification than appears on the surface, a signification revealed to
devoted students of the Word, and revealed in proportion to the time they spend
upon the Word and to their zeal in putting into practice what they read.

11. So, then, it has been proved that if Jesus did, as Celsus alleges, speak
somewhat roughly when He said, "To |71 him that striketh thee on the one cheek,
turn the other also": 271 and, "If any man would go to law with thee, and take
away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also":272 He has by thus speaking
expressed and applied the precept to better purpose than Plato did in the Crito.
The unlearned cannot in the least understand it there, and even they who have
received a good school education before attempting the grave philosophy of
Greece, can understand it only with difficulty. And we must further observe that
the true teaching respecting forbearance is not "corrupted" by the poor diction
in which it is conveyed; but even here Celsus slanders the Word when he says,
"But as for those and all other corrupting precepts let the foregoing suffice."

Again in Book VI., in reply to the statement of Celsus that our Lord's body was unsightly, Origen writes thus:----

12. After this Celsus says, "Since there was a Divine Spirit in the body of
Jesus, that body would of necessity vary at all events in some respects from
other bodies, in size, or beauty, or strength, or voice; it would have some
astonishing or attractive characteristics. Tor it is impossible that a body
having more of the Divine Nature than other bodies should no way differ from any
other; but the body of Jesus was not at all different; indeed, so they say, it
was small, ill-favoured, and ignoble." Now here again, it is clear that if
Celsus wishes to disparage Jesus, he quotes the Scriptures as if he believed
such of them as seem to him to justify the charge; but wherever, in the same
Scriptures, any one might suppose the opposite of what constitutes the charge to
be asserted, Celsus professes not to know it. We admit, then, that there are
passages which speak of the body of Jesus as ill-favoured, but not ignoble, as
our opponents maintain; nor is there clear evidence that it was small. The exact
description given by Isaiah in the prophecy that He would not visit the many in
a graceful form, or with surpassing beauty, runs thus: "Lord who hath believed
our report? 273 and |72 to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? for he
grew up before him as a tender 274 plant, as a root in a dry ground: he hath no
form (nor glory: and we saw him and he had no form) nor comeliness; but his form
was unhonoured,. marred more than the sons of men": Celsus noted all this, for
he thought it would serve him in disparaging Jesus; but he paid no attention to
the words of the 45th Psalm, the Psalm "for the Beloved," how it is said, "Gird
thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy grace and beauty, and in thy
majesty ride on prosperously."275

13. But maybe Celsus had not read the prophecy, or perhaps he had read it but
was misled by interpreters who erroneously hold that it does not refer to Jesus
Christ. Well, what will he make of the Gospel narrative in which we are told
that He went up to a high mountain,276 and was transfigured before His disciples
and appeared in glory; when both Moses and Elias also appeared in glory,277 and
spake of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem? Or again, if
the Prophet says, "We beheld him, and he had no form, nor beauty," 278 and so
on, Celsus admits that the prophecy may be referred to Jesus, but it is a blind
admission, for he does not see that the, fact of a prophecy giving particulars
of the form of Jesus, many years before His birth, is a strong confirmation of
the truth that Jesus Who seemed to have no "form" was the Son of God. But if
another Prophet says that Jesus had grace and beauty, why will not Celsus allow
that this prophecy refers to Jesus Christ? Further, if it were possible to
clearly gather from the Gospels that our Lord had no form nor beauty, but that
His form was without honour, marred more than the sons of men, one might say
that Celsus in his argument followed not the Prophets but the Evangelists. The
fact, however, is that neither the Gospels, nor even the Apostles, |73 give any
intimation that He had no form or beauty; and it is obvious that Celsus is bound
to admit the declaration of prophecy 279 to be a true description of Christ; and
this being so, there is an end to the disparaging statements concerning Jesus.

14. Again, we have the statement that "inasmuch as the body was tenanted by a
Divine Spirit it must have varied at all events in some respects from other
bodies, either in size, or voice, or strength, in astonishing or attractive
characteristics." How came Celsus to overlook the fact that our Lord's body
varied according to the capacity of the observers, and that a useful purpose was
served when its appearance was such as was necessary for each individual? And it
is nothing wonderful that matter; by nature mutable and variable and convertible
to every-thing the Creator 280 chooses, and receptive of every quality the
Artificer desires, should sometimes have a quality corresponding to the
description, "He hath neither form nor beauty," and sometimes should be so
glorious, astonishing, and marvellous, that the three Apostles who ascended the
Mount with Jesus at the sight of such wondrous beauty fell upon their faces.281
But we shall be told that these are fictions, no better than fables, like the
rest of the strange stories about Jesus.

15. Our answer is that to reconstruct almost any historical scene, even if true,
so as to give a vivid impression of what actually occurred, is exceedingly
difficult, and sometimes impossible. Suppose some one to assert that there never
was a Trojan war, mainly on the ground that the impossible story of a certain
Achilles being the son of a sea goddess Thetis and a man Peleus is mixed up with
it; or that Sarpedon was the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus sons of
Ares; or that Aeneas was Aphrodite's son: how could we dispose of such an
objection? Should we not be very hard pressed to explain the strange blending of
a fiction with the universal |74 belief that there was war between Greeks and
Trojans at Troy? Or let us suppose some one to doubt the story of Oedipus and
Jocaste, and of their sons Eteocles and Polynices, because that a sort of
half-woman, the Sphinx, is mixed up with the story; how should we clear up the
difficulty? Well, the prudent reader of the narratives, who wishes to guard
against deception, will use his own judgment as to what he will allow to be
historical, and what he will regard as figurative; he will try to discover what
the writers meant by inventing such stories; and to some things he will refuse
his assent on the ground that they were recorded to gratify certain persons. And
this we have premised, having in view the history of Jesus as a whole contained
in the Gospels; for we do not invite intelligent readers to a bare unreasoning
faith, but we wish to show that future readers will have to exercise prudence,
and make careful inquiry, and, so to speak, penetrate the very heart of the
writers, if the exact purport of every passage is to be discovered.

16. Celsus, in fact, so that he may impeach the Word, appears to believe just as
much as he pleases of what our Scriptures contain; but to avoid acknowledging
the manifest Divinity proclaimed in the same books, he will not believe the
Gospels: for any one who sees what lovers of truth the writers were, must,
judging by the way they treat less important matters, believe them in things
more Divine.

17. Now, if they had not been lovers of the truth, but, as Celsus supposes, had
recorded fictions, they would never have told us of Peter's denial or informed
us that the disciples of Jesus were offended. For though such things did happen,
who was there to prove the fact? And, really, these incidents would probably
have been passed over in silence by men who wished to teach readers of the
Gospels to despise death for the sake of confessing Christianity. But, as the
case stands, seeing that the Word will mightily prevail over men, they gave
these particulars, which, strangely enough, were destined not to injure the
readers or afford a pretext for denial. |75

18. And the Word has a more mystic meaning also, for it shows that the different
appearances 282 of Jesus are related to the nature of the Divine Word,283 which
does not appear the same to the many,284 and to those who can follow Him to the
lofty mountain 285 of which we have given an account. For in the eyes of those
who are below and are not yet ready for the ascent, the Word hath neither form
nor beauty;286 to such as these its form is without honour, and marred more than
the words "born of men," in the passage before us figuratively called "sons of
men." For we might say that the words of the philosophers, being "sons of men,"
look far more beautiful than the Word of God preached to the many, which even
draws attention to the foolishness of the preaching,287 and it is because of the
foolishness of the preaching that men who regard the preaching only, say, "We
beheld it, and it hath neither form nor beauty." But for those who through
obeying Him have received strength to follow Him even when He ascends the lofty
mountain, He hath a Diviner appearance. And a man sees Him thus, if he is a
Peter making room for the building of the Church within him through the Word,
gaining such strength of character that no gate of hell shall prevail against
him,288 inasmuch as he has been lifted up through the Word from the gates of
death that he may declare all the praises of God in the gates of the daughter of
Zion;289 and others see it thus also, men who have been born of words with a
great voice, such as have the full tones of spiritual thunder.290

19. And down below the Word has other garments; they are not white, they are not
like the light; if thou |76 shalt ascend to the lofty mountain, thou shalt see
His light and His garments. The garments of the Word are the phrases of the
Scripture; the Divine thoughts are clothed in these expressions. As then down
below He looks different, but having ascended is transfigured, His face beaming
like the sun, so it is with His clothing, so it is with His garments. When thou
art below, they do not shine, they are not white; but if thou ascend, thou shalt
see the beauty and the light of the garments, and shalt marvel at the
transfigured face of Jesus. And consider whether the Gospels do not also give us
the same teaching respecting Jesus. The particulars of His generation, His
descent from Abraham and birth of the seed of David according to the flesh, is
the Book of the generation of Jesus Christ; 291 but as for the more Divine and
more important things to be said concerning Him, and proclaimed by Him, John
says, "I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that
should be written." 292 For we must not, like some, admit that if the world
cannot contain the books that should be written, it is because of the multitude
of the writings, but rather that it is on account of the greatness of the
incidents; their greatness is not only indescribable, but they cannot be
proclaimed by fleshly tongue, nor be made known in the language and speech of
men. This is why Paul, when he is about to learn things more Divine, leaves our
world of earth and is rapt into the third heaven,293 that he may be able to hear
the unutterable words thence proceeding. For we are told of what was said there
and considered to be the Word of God, the Word made flesh,294 and who, as
regards being God with God,295 emptied Himself. Wherefore we see the Word of God
296 on earth, for that He became man, in human guise; for even in the Scriptures
the Word became flesh that He might tabernacle among us.297 But if we incline on
the |77 bosom of the Word made flesh 298 and are able to follow Him when He
ascends the lofty mountain, we shall say, "We saw his glory." 299 Some perhaps
who are not like those who lie upon His bosom and follow Him to the lofty
mountain may say, "We saw his glory," but they will not add "Glory as of an
only-begotten from a Father, full of grace and truth": for this language becomes
John and such as are like him. And, according to a loftier interpretation, they
who are able to walk in the footsteps of Jesus as He ascends, and is
transfigured out of sight of earth, shall behold His transfiguration in every
scripture; for instance, when Jesus shows Himself to the many, this is the
function of the simpler diction; but when He ascends a lofty mountain and is
transfigured, showing Himself to very few of the disciples, and to those who
have become able to follow Him to the heights above, this is the work of the
highest, sublimest sense, containing oracles of the wisdom hidden in a mystery,
which wisdom "God foreordained before the worlds unto the glory of his righteous
ones." 300

20. But how can Celsus, and the enemies of the Divine Word, and such as do not
investigate Christianity with a love of truth, know the meaning of the different
appearances of Jesus? I refer to the different periods of His life, to anything
He did before the Passion, and whatever happened after His Resurrection from the
dead.

CHAP. XVI. ----Concerning those who slander Christianity on account of the heresies in the Church. Book III. against Celsus.

1. Then, as if he would like to blame the Word for the evils of heresy
associated with Christianity, he reproaches us, saying, "Having grown in numbers
and being widely dispersed, they are further split and divided; every body wants
to have his own party." And again he says, "Being too numerous to keep together,
they refute one another; they share, so to speak, if they do share it, the |78
one name, the only thing that in spite of their divisions they are ashamed to
give up; as for the rest they are all one here, one there." In reply, we will
say that you never find different sects in any department of thought unless the
principle involved is one of grave importance and practical use. Take the
science of Medicine. It is useful and necessary to the human race, and the
questions which arise as to the healing of the body are many. This is why, as is
admitted, there are several sects 301 among the Greeks, and I suppose among
Barbarians also, as many as profess to practise the healing art. Let us take
another illustration, Philosophy, inasmuch as it professes the pursuit of truth
and the knowledge of realities, suggests the proper mode of life, and endeavours
to teach things profitable to our race. But the points in question involve much
diversity of opinion, and this is why there arose such an incredible number of
philosophic sects of more or less distinction. Nay, even Judaism had a pretext
for the rise of sects, through the varied interpretation of the writings of
Moses and the words of the Prophets. Similarly, because Christianity appeared,
not only to the low-minded, as Celsus says, but also to many learned Greeks, to
be a matter of grave importance, sects of necessity arose, and not altogether
through factiousness or contentiousness, but because so many even of the
literary class were anxious to understand the meaning of Christianity. In
consequence of this, because scholars differently interpreted what were believed
on all sides to be Divine utterances, sects sprang up bearing the names of
thinkers who had a reverent regard for the origin of the Word, but somehow or
other through specious and plausible reasoning were brought into conflict with
one another. But no man of sense would shun the science of Medicine because of
its different sects; nor would a man of proper aims make the many sects of
philosophy a pretext for hating it; and, similarly, we must not condemn the
sacred books of Moses and the Prophets on account of the Jewish sects. |79

2. If all this hangs together, may we not offer a similar apology for the sects
of Christianity? What Paul says concerning them seems to me truly marvellous:
"There must be also sects among you, that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you." 302 For as a man "approved" in the science of Medicine is
he who is familiar with the practice of many different sects, and having fairly
considered their claims, has chosen the best; and as the advanced student of
Philosophy who, having an extensive knowledge of his subject, is familiar with
its details, and therefore gives his adhesion to the stronger reasoning, may be
called "approved"; so, I would say, he who carefully examines the sects of
Judaism and Christianity becomes the wisest Christian. But any one who blames
the Word on account of our sects would also blame the teaching of Socrates,
because from the study of that Philosopher many different schools of thought
have arisen. Nay, a man might blame even the doctrines of Plato because
Aristotle gave up the study of him and took a line of his own, a point to which
we have already referred. But Celsus seems to me to have become acquainted with
certain sects which do not even share the name of Jesus with us. Rumours may
have reached him of the Ophites and Cainites, or the holders of some other
opinion altogether alien to the teaching of Jesus. But Christian doctrine is not
in the least to be blamed for this.

3. Granting that there are some amongst us Christians who do not allow that our
God is the same as the God of the Jews, it by no means follows that they are to
be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the same God is God of
the Jews and of the Gentiles;303 Paul plainly shows this, when, after leaving
the Jewish religion and embracing Christianity, he says, "I thank God, whom I
serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience." 304 Let us grant, too, that
there is a third class composed of those who call some persons |80 psychical 305
and others spiritual (I suppose Celsus means the Valentinians); but what have we
who belong to the Church to do with that? We are the accusers of those who
introduce the doctrine of natures so constituted that they must be saved, or
must perish. Let it further be granted that there are certain persons who also
profess to be Gnostics, like the Epicureans who call themselves Philosophers;
our answer is that men who destroy a belief in Providence could not really be
Philosophers, nor can they be Christians who foist upon us these monstrous
fictions so distasteful to the followers of Jesus.

4. Celsus goes on to say, "And they even say the most shameful things of one
another; they would not make the least concession in the interests of harmony;
for they utterly detest one another." In reply, even in Philosophy, as we have
already said, rival sects may be found, and so it is in Medicine. We, however,
following the Word of Jesus, and having made it our study to think and speak and
do whatever He has said, being reviled, bless: being persecuted, we endure:
being defamed, we entreat;306 and we would not say shameful things of those
whose views differ from our own; but we would do all in our power to raise them
to a higher level through persevering loyalty to the Creator alone, and by
acting as men who will one day be judged. But if the heterodox will not be
persuaded, we have our rule for dealing with them. "A man that is heretical
after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted
and sinneth, being self-condemned." 307 And again, men who understand the words,
"Blessed are the peacemakers," 308 and "Blessed are the meek," 309 would not
utterly detest opponents who debase Christianity. |81

CHAP. XVII. ----A reply to certain philosophers who say that it makes no difference whether we call Him Who is God over All by the name Zeus, current among the Greeks, or by that which is used by Indians, for instance, or. Egyptians. Books I. and V. against Celsus.

1. Celsus then says, "The goatherds and shepherds acknowledged one god, whether they call him the Most High, or Adonai, or the God of Heaven, or Sabaoth, or gave him some local designation to suit their fancy; beyond this they know nothing." And he afterwards says, "It makes no difference whether we call the Supreme God by the name Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by some Indian name, for instance, or Egyptian name." Now in answer to this we must remark that here we come upon a deep and mysterious subject, the nature of names. Shall we say, as Aristotle
310 thinks, that names are arbitrarily given? or, with the Stoics, that they are natural, the first articulate sounds being imitative of what the names denote, so that they also acquaint us with certain principles of etymology? or, as Epicurus
311 teaches, differing herein from the Stoics, are they "natural," in the sense that primitive men broke into speech which varied according to their circumstances? If, then, in our leading argument, we are able to show the nature of powerful names, some of which arc used by the wise men of Egypt, or by the learned Magi of Persia, or by the philosophic Brahmans
|82
of India, or by the Samaneans,312 and so in every nation; and if we succeed in making out that what is called Magic is not, as the Epicureans and Aristotelians suppose, incoherent from beginning to end, but, as the experts prove, is a well-compacted system, with words known to extremely few,----if, I say, we get as far as this, we shall maintain that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and whatever others are by Hebrew tradition regarded with great reverence, are not applicable to ordinary created things, but to a mysterious science of things Divine, related to the Creator
313 of the universe. It follows that these names when uttered in their proper connection, and other names current in Egyptian of
314 certain demons with particular powers only, and others in the Persian language of other spiritual beings, and so in every nation, can be applied to certain purposes. And thus it will be found that the demons to whom have been assigned different parts of the earth bear names according to the dialect of the place and nation. Any one, therefore, who has a nobler, even though it be but a slender, conception of these things, will take care to apply different names to different things, lest he fare no better than they who erroneously give the name of God to lifeless matter, or degrade the title "the good" by severing it from the First Cause, or from virtue and honour, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to the proportions of flesh and blood and bones required for health and strength, or to what is counted noble birth.

2. And perhaps it is no less dangerous to degrade the name of God, or the title "good," to improper objects, than it is to change the names of God to suit some secret doctrine, and apply the names of the better to the worse, and of the worse to the better. I do not dwell on the fact that when we hear of Zeus it is implied that he was |83 the son of Cronos and Rhea, and the husband of Rhea, and the brother of Poseidon, and the father of Athene and Artemis, and that he had intercourse with his daughter Persephone; or that when we hear Apollo's name, we remember that he was the son of Leto and Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and the half-brother of Hermes; not to mention all the other wonderful stories told us by the wise men whom Celsus approves, who are the authors of these opinions, and by the ancient theologians of Greece. Is it not unreasonable that Zeus should be his proper name, and yet that he should not have Cronos for his father and Rhea for his mother? And we must treat all the other so-called gods the same way. But the charge by no means attaches to those who, in accordance with some mysterious doctrine, apply the name Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any of the other names, to the (true) God. As soon as a man can philosophically explain the mysteries of names, he will make many discoveries respecting those given to the Angels of God, one of whom is called Michael, another Gabriel, another Raphael, the names being suitable to the service they render according to the will of the God of the whole universe. Our Jesus, too, keeps to the same philosophy of names; for His name has already been clearly proved to drive out countless demons from souls and bodies, powerfully working in the sufferers from whom the demons were expelled. And, treating of names, we must further observe that they who are familiar with the use of charms tell us that if we pronounce the same charm in its own language, it is possible to effect what the charm professes to do; but that if we change it into another tongue, no matter what, it may be found feeble and quite ineffective. The power of producing a certain effect is not therefore to be attributed to the actual meaning of the charm, but to the qualities and peculiarities of the sounds. We shall therefore on such lines as these defend the Christians for striving even unto death that they may not call God by the name Zeus, nor give Him a name in another tongue. For |84 Christians in their confessions either employ the usual name God, without further definition, or they add, "The Maker 315 of all things," "The Creator of heaven and earth "----He Who to benefit mankind sent down such and such wise men, with whose names the name of God conjoined bestows a certain wonder-working power among men. Much more might be said on the subject of names as against those who think that the use of them is a matter of indifference, And if Plato is much admired for saying in Philebus, "My awe, Protarchus, in naming the gods is considerable," 316 for Philebus, who was arguing with Socrates, said that the true name of Aphrodite was Pleasure, ought we not much rather to approve the piety of Christians, inasmuch as there is not one of the names handed down in mythology which they apply to the Maker of the world? And in Book V., treating of the same subject, he says:

3. But since Celsus thinks it makes no difference whether we call the Most High
Jupiter, or Zen,317 or Adonoeus, or Sabaoth, or Amon, as the Egyptians do, or
Pappaeus like the Scythians, let us briefly discuss these points, and remind the
reader of what was said above on this great question, when the language of
Celsus invited us to the argument. We repeat, then, that the nature of names
does not, as Aristotle thinks, depend on the arbitrary rules of those who give
them. For the languages of men do not even originate with men, as is clear to
those who can give attention to the nature of charms variously appropriated by
the authors of the languages, according as the languages differ and the names
are differently pronounced. We have already briefly discussed this, and have
maintained that though they have a natural power in a given language, if they
are translated into another language they lose the effect which they had in
their own proper expression. And we find that the same peculiarity applies to
man. Suppose some one to be called from birth by a Greek name; if we change the
name into Egyptian, or Roman, or some other language, we could not make him do
or suffer what he would if he were called |85 by his original name. Nor even if
we were to translate 318 into Greek a name which was Roman to begin with, could
we do what the charm professes to do if it keeps to the man's first name! Now,
if what we have said respecting human names is true, what ought we to think of
names which are some way or other traced up to the Divine nature? For instance,
some new power is transferred to the Greek from the name Abraham, something is
signified by the name Isaac, and something shown by the title Jacob; and if a
man were to call upon or swear by the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob, he would produce some effect, either through the nature of the
names or their power, for even demons are vanquished and become subject to a man
who uses this language. But if one were to say,319 "The God of the elect father
of the sound," and "the God of laughter," and "the God of the tripper up," the
name thus used is as ineffective as any other ordinary name. Similarly, if we
change the name Israel into Greek or some other language, we shall effect
nothing; but if we keep it as it is, and use it in conjunction with such
expressions as the learned think should be associated with it, there will be
some result from the use of such language according with the professions of
those who employ such invocations. And we shall say the same respecting the name
Sabaoth, which is often found in charms, viz. that if we change the name into
"The Lord of Hosts," or "Lord of Armies," or "Almighty" (for the interpreters
take it differently), we shall effect nothing; but if we keep to its proper
pronunciation, we shall, so the learned say, produce some effect, and the same
holds good of Adonai. Now, if neither "Sabaoth" nor "Adonai," when changed into
what they appear to signify in Greek, produces any effect, how much less could
they be efficacious among men who think it makes no difference whether we |86
call the Supreme God Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

5. Well, then, Moses and the prophets understanding these things and the
corresponding mysteries, forbade any one who practised prayer to the Supreme God
alone to take the name of other gods upon his lips, or remember them in a heart
taught to be pure from all foolishness in thought or speech. And this is why we
would rather endure every outrage than confess that Jupiter is God. For we do
not suppose Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor do we regard Jupiter as at
all Divine, but we think that some demon, friendly neither to man nor to the
true God, rejoices in the name. And even if the Egyptians should offer Amon to
us with threats of death, we will die rather than call Amon God, for the name is
probably used in some Egyptian charms which invoke the demon. The Scythians may
say that Pappaeus is "the Supreme God," but we shall not be persuaded; for
though they employ the solemn title of "Supreme God," it is only in a sense
which pleases the demon to whom was allotted the Scythian desert with the
Scythian race and language, not because Pappaeus is a proper name for God. Any
one, however, who gives God His name in the Scythian language, or the Egyptian,
or the language in which he has been brought up, will not commit sin.

6. We do not even like to call the sun Apollo, or the moon Diana; but
worshipping the Creator with a pure worship, and praising His beauteous works,
we do not pollute Divine things even so far as a name goes. We agree with what
Plato says in the Philebus; he would not have Pleasure called a goddess: "So
great is my awe, Protarchus, in naming the gods." 320 We, too, really have such
awe in naming God and His beauteous works, that we will not accept any fable
even as allegory, which might injure the young.

CHAP. XVIII. ----A reply to those Greek philosophers who profess
to know everything, and blame the simple faith of the man of Christians; and complain that they prefer folly
to wisdom in life; moreover, that no wise or educated |87
man has become a disciple of Jesus; but boatmen and tax-gatherers of the lowest class, they say, get fools and blockheads, slaves, weak women and children, to submit themselves to the Gospel. Books I. and III. against Celsus.

1. He next urges us in forming our opinions to make reason our guide and follow it, because whoever gives his assent in other terms is sure to be misled; and he likens men who have an unreasoning faith to begging priests of Cybele and to soothsayers, Mithrae and Sabadians,321 or any other sort one comes upon, phantom
322 envoys of Hecate or some other demon, or demons. For as among them detestable men are frequently found trading upon the ignorance of the simple, and leading them any way they choose, so, Celsus says, it is with Christians. He tells us that certain teachers who will neither give nor receive an account of what they believe employ the formula, "Don't ask why, but believe," and another, "Thy faith shall save thee"; and these teachers, he adds, maintain that "worldly wisdom is a bad thing, and foolishness a good thing." This is our answer. If all men could give up the active pursuits of life and apply themselves to philosophy, that would be the only course for any man to take; for in Christianity, not to speak offensively, there will be found no less inquiry than elsewhere; we have our careful investigation of the articles of the Faith, and our explanation of the dark sayings of the Prophets, the parables in the Gospels, and countless other figurative events or enactments. But if this course is impracticable, whether on account of the stress of life, or because of human infirmity, for very few are eager to reason, what better plan for benefiting the many could be devised than that which was delivered by Jesus to the Gentiles? And as regards the greater
|88 number of believers, who have escaped from the deep mire of
wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, which, we ask, is really best----that with unreasoning faith they should
be reformed characters, because they believe that men are
punished for sin and rewarded for good works, or that we
should not allow their conversion on the strength of mere
faith, but wait for their deliberate investigation of the
reasons for belief? It is clear that nearly all will be
excluded from the benefits which the others have received
through simply believing; the many will continue to lead
abandoned lives. Whatever else then goes to prove that
the love towards man which marked the entry of the
Word into human affairs was not undesigned by God,
this must be included. A religious man will not suppose
that even a physician of the body, who restores many sick
to health, comes into cities or nations independently of
God;. for without God's help nothing comes to men. But
if the physician who cures the bodies of many sufferers, or
partially benefits them, does not cure without God's help,
how much rather is this true of Him who heals the souls of
many, converts them, does them good, attaches them to the
Supreme God, and teaches them in all their doings to make
His good pleasure their aim, and to shun whatever is in the
least displeasing to Him in word, or deed, or thought?

2. So then, since our opponents are for ever talking about our faith, we have to
tell them that we allow it on the ground that it is a good thing for the many,
and we confess that we teach those who cannot forsake everything else and
investigate the evidence, to believe even without reasoning; and our opponents,
though they would not confess so much, do the same. Could any man who has been
drawn to Philosophy and has dashed into some philosophic sect, either at random,
or because he has had access to some particular teacher, get thus far any other
way than by believing that sect to be the best? For it is not by waiting to hear
the arguments of all the philosophers and of the different sects, and by
learning how some may be upset and others established, that a man chooses to be
a Stoic, or a follower of Plato, or a |89 Peripatetic, or an Epicurean, or to
belong to any other philosophic school; but it is by an unreasoning impulse,
though they will not admit the fact, that they come, for instance, to forsake
the others and adopt Stoicism: rejecting Plato's doctrine as less dignified than
that of the others, or the Peripatetic system because it is more human, and more
readily than others admits the blessings of mankind. And there are some who in
their alarm at the faintest approach to the doctrine of Providence, arguing from
what on earth befalls both bad and good, rashly conclude that there is no
Providence, and take the view of Epicurus and Celsus.

3. Since, then, as reason teaches, we must believe some one who has founded a
sect, Greek or Barbarian, should we not much rather believe the Supreme God, and
Him who teaches that we ought to worship God only, and overlook all else, as
either non-existent, or as existing and worthy of honour, but not of reverence
and adoration? As regards these points, if a man not only believes, but also
views them in the light of reason, he will let it be known what proofs he comes
upon, and discovers through thorough inquiry. It is surely more reasonable,
since all things human depend on faith,323 to believe God rather than them. Does
any man go on a voyage, or marry, or beget children, or sow the land, unless he
believes that all will turn out for the best, though the opposite is possible,
and sometimes does happen? In spite of possible disappointment, the belief in a
prosperous issue and that they will realise their wishes, makes all men venture
even where there is uncertainty, and the result may be other than they hope.
Now, if in every undertaking where the result is uncertain the hope and belief
in a successful result is the stay of life, shall not a man with much better
reason than if he sailed the sea, or sowed the land, or married a wife, or
engaged in any other human affairs, have this faith, and believe in the God Who
made all these things, and in Him Who, with surpassing wisdom and Divine
magnanimity, ventured to present this doctrine to all mankind, in the face of
great dangers and of what was considered a |90 shameful death, which sufferings
He endured for man, teaching His earliest adherents to boldly traverse the whole
world in peril at every step and with the constant expectation of death, in
order to promote the salvation of men?

4. Let the impugner of the faith of Christians tell us by what demonstrative
proofs he was driven to admit the occurrence of numerous conflagrations and
deluges, and upon what grounds he maintains that the last deluge was in the time
of Deucalion, and the last conflagration in the time of Phaethon. If he adduces
the dialogues of Plato on these subjects, we will tell him that we, too, are at
liberty to believe that a Divine Spirit abode in the pure and pious soul of
Moses, who soared above all things created and clung to the Maker of the
universe, and gave clearer views of the things of God than Plato or the Greek
and Barbarian philosophers. And if Celsus demands our reasons for such a faith,
let him first give us the grounds of his unproved opinions, and we will at once
make good our position.

5. Celsus is welcome to the teachers of fabulous conflagrations and deluges.
According to him they were the wisest of the Egyptians, and traces of their
wisdom may be seen in the worship of irrational creatures, and in the arguments
to show that such a worship of God, though partly lost and mysterious, is quite
reasonable. If the Egyptians boast of their animal worship and explain the
principles of their religion, they are wise; but if a man, assenting to the
Judaic law and acknowledging the lawgiver, refers everything to the only God,
the Maker of the universe, he is accounted by Celsus and his followers inferior
to him who degrades the Godhead to the level not only of rational and mortal
creatures, but of irrational creatures, thus going beyond the fabulous
transmigration of souls, according to which a soul falls from the vaults of
heaven and descends to irrational creatures, not only such as are tamed, but
even the most savage. And if Egyptians tell these mythic tales, they are
believed to have been philosophers with their riddles and mysteries; but if
Moses writes histories for a whole nation, and |91 bequeaths laws to the people,
his words are regarded as empty fables, incapable of even an allegorical
interpretation. For this is the opinion of Celsus and the Epicureans.

6. Then, in express terms, Celsus says, "If they will be good enough to answer
me, not as if I were a novice, for I know all about it," and so on. In reply to
this claim to know "all about it," which is an astounding piece of swagger, we
must observe that if he had read the Scriptures, above all, the prophetical
writings, which we admit are full of dark sayings and things obscure to the
many, and if he had studied the parables in the Gospels, and the texts of
Scripture containing the Law and the history of the Jewish people, and the
utterances of the Apostles, and, reading with a fair and open mind, had wished
to get at the meaning, he would not have been so bold as to say, "I know all
about it." Not even we who spend ourselves upon these studies would claim to
know "all about it," for truth is dear to us. Not one of us will say "I know all
that Epicurus taught," nor will boast that he knows the whole of Plato; the
truth being that there are numerous points as to which even the expounders of
the doctrines are not agreed. Who would be so bold as to say, "I know all about
the Stoic or Peripatetic philosophy "? though it might happen that hearing some
illiterate blockheads, unconscious of their own ignorance, boasting of their
universal knowledge, a man might on the authority of such teachers suppose that
he himself knew everything. Celsus seems to me to have acted much the same as if
a traveller in Egypt (where those who are familiar with the national literature
indulge in many speculations on what are regarded as Divine institutions, but
the unlearned are greatly elated when they hear certain myths without
understanding the principles involved) were to think he was acquainted with all
the wisdom of the Egyptians, though, in fact, he was a disciple of the ignorant,
and never came into touch with any of the priests, nor was taught the mysterious
doctrines of the Egyptians by one of them. And what I have said about the
Egyptians, wise and ignorant, holds good, as we may |92 see, of the Persians.
They have their mysteries, celebrated by the learned on principles of reason,
but taken symbolically by the masses and ordinary people. And the same applies
to the Syrians and Indians, and all who have myths and literature.

7. Celsus, moreover, makes many Christians say, "Wordly wisdom is a bad thing, and foolishness a good thing." We must therefore observe that he slanders the Word, for he does not give Paul's exact words, which run thus: "If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 324 The Apostle does not say without qualification, "Wisdom is foolishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world" Again, he does not say, "If any man among you thinketh that he is wise, let him become a fool absolutely," but "let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." Well, then, by "the wisdom of the world" we mean all false philosophy, which, according to the Scripture, is being brought to nought; and we call foolishness a good thing, not absolutely, but when a man becomes a fool to this world. It is the same as if we were to say that a Platonist who believes in the immortality of the soul and what is said about its transmigration, is foolish in the eyes of the Stoics who give no quarter to these opinions; or in the eyes of the Peripatetics who are always talking about the inanities of Plato; or in the eyes of the Epicureans who charge with superstition those who introduce a Providence and set God over all things. And, further, that even, according to the Word itself, it is much better to assent to our doctrines on grounds of reason and wisdom, than on the strength of the bare faith of which we have spoken; and that, under certain circumstances the Word even intended this, so as not to leave men altogether unprofitable,325 is shown by Paul, the true disciple of |93 Jesus, when he says, "For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe." 326 This clearly shows that God should have been known in the wisdom of God. And since this did not come to pass, God, as by a second expedient, was pleased to save believers, not by foolishness absolutely, but by foolishness so far as related to preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is "foolishness of preaching." Paul is conscious of this when he says, "But we preach Jesus Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." And towards the end of the same book, Book I., respecting the statement that no wise or educated man has been a disciple of Jesus, there is the following:----

8. It is clear to those who are capable of investigating the history of the
Apostles with intelligence and candour that it was by Divine power they taught
Christianity, and succeeded in bringing men into subjection to the Word of God.
For it was not their powerful speaking, or that they offered the Gospel,327 in
accordance with the rules of Greek dialectics or rhetoric, which won over their
hearers. But it seems to me that if Jesus had chosen certain men in general
esteem for their wisdom, who could think and speak so as to please the many, and
had employed them as ministers of the doctrine, He might reasonably have been
suspected of having been preached by a school like the leaders of some
philosophical sect; and in that case the promise that the Word should be Divine
would not have been clear, inasmuch as the Word and the preaching was in
persuasive words of that wisdom which is shown in style and composition;328 and
Christian faith, like the faith of the Philosophers of the world in their
doctrines, would |94 have been in the wisdom of men and not in the power of God.
But who, when he sees fishermen and tax-gatherers, men without even the
rudiments of learning (the Gospel so describes them, and Celsus credits them
with speaking the truth about their own ignorance), not only dealing boldly with
the Jews as regards the Faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him in other nations,
and with success, would not ask how they came to have this convincing power? for
it is no ordinary power. And who would not say that by a certain Divine power in
His Apostles Jesus fulfilled the promise, "Come ye after me, and I will make you
fishers of men "? 329 It is such a power as this which Paul, as we have said
before, describes when he says, "And my speech and my preaching were not in
persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
330 For as we read in the Prophets who foretell the preaching of the Gospel,
"The Lord gave a word to those who bring good tidings with great power,331 the
King of the powers of the Beloved," 332 in order that the prophecy may be
fulfilled which says, "His word shall run very swiftly." 333 And in fact we see
that "The sound of the apostles of Jesus Christ went out into every land, and
their words unto the end of the world." 334 Thus it is that when men hear the
Word proclaimed with power they are filled with power, and they manifest it both
by their dispositions and their lives, and by contending earnestly for the truth
even unto death; but some speakers are mere windbags even though they profess to
believe in God through Jesus, for not being Divinely enabled they only seem to
be subject to the Word of God. I have already mentioned a saying of our Saviour
in the Gospels, but I will none the less make use of it now, for it is
appropriate, by way of showing how our Saviour's foreknowledge of the preaching
of the Gospel is |95 most Divinely manifested, and also how the Word without
teachers prevails over those who yield to the persuasiveness of Divine power:
"The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye, therefore, the
Lord of the harvest, that he send forth labourers into the harvest." 335

9. And whereas Celsus speaks of infamous men, and calls the Apostles of Jesus
villainous tax-gatherers and sailors, we will say respecting this, that in order
to find fault with the Word he appears to believe the Scriptures wherever he
chooses; but to disbelieve the Gospels so that he may not have to accept the
manifestations of Deity proclaimed in those same books; for any one who sees how
the writers cling to truth in describing minor matters cannot help believing
them when they treat of things more Divine. It is indeed written in the Catholic
Epistle of Barnabas, from which Celsus probably took his description of the
Apostles as "infamous" and "villainous," that "Jesus Christ chose for His own
apostles those who were notoriously lawless men." 336 And in the Gospel
according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,
O Lord." 337 Nay more, Paul (though he afterwards became an Apostle of Jesus)
says in his Epistle to Timothy, "Faithful is the saying and worthy of all
acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am
chief." 338 Is there, then, any absurdity in believing that Jesus, because He
wished to show mankind His wondrous skill in healing souls, chose "infamous" and
"villainous" men, and brought them to such a pitch of excellence, that they were
a pattern of the purest life to those who through them were led to submit to the
Gospel of Christ?

10. If we are going to make their past a reproach to men who have changed their
lives, it is time for us to attack Phaedo even though he is now the Philosopher:
for, as history relates, Socrates took him out of a house of ill-fame and
interested him in philosophy. We shall also make the profligacy of Polemon, the
successor of Xenocrates, a reproach to philosophy; whereas we ought to give |96
philosophy credit thus far, that reason when used by those gifted with
persuasive power can rescue from such vices those who had been overcome by them.
The Greeks have one Phaedo, I do not know of another, and one Polemon, who after
a dissolute and utter detestable life changed and became philosophers; while
with Jesus there were not only the Twelve at the time we speak of, but always
many more, such as having become a joyous band of temperate livers, say
concerning their former lives: "For we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient,
deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy,
hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his
love toward men, appeared through the washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Ghost which he poured out upon us," 339 we became what we are. For "God
sent forth his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their
destructions," 340 as the prophet taught in the Psalms. And I would further
remark, that Chrysippus in his treatise on the Healing of the Passions, his
object being to check the passions of men's souls, though he does not pledge
himself to the truth of any particular doctrine, endeavours to apply his remedy
according to the principles of the sect to which they belong who have been
mastered by their passions; and he says that if pleasure be the (philosophic)
end, we must through pleasure cure the passions; and even if, according to some,
there are three kinds of blessings, we must none the less, according to this
doctrine, similarly rid men from the tyranny of the passions. But the accusers
of Christianity do not see how the passions of multitudes are calmed, and the
surging waves of wickedness laid to rest, nor do they regard the numbers of
those whose savage characters are tamed by means of the Word. And if they find
this public benefit to be a fact, they ought to confess their gratitude to the
Word for having by a new method delivered men from many vices; and they ought to
bear witness to it, that whether it be the truth or not, it has at all events
profited mankind. |97

11. Jesus, teaching His disciples not to be rash, said to them, "When they
persecute you in this city, flee into the next; and if they persecute you in the
next, flee again into another";341 and He not only taught, but was an example of
a well-regulated life, in which dangers are never encountered without an object,
unseasonably, or unreasonably. This, again, Celsus mischievously perverts, and
makes his Jew say to Jesus, "You run away to all sorts of places with your
disciples."

12. "What need was there for you while still an infant to be carried off into
Egypt, so that you might not have your throat cut? For it was not likely that a
god should be afraid of death?" and so on. But inasmuch as we believe Jesus,
when He Himself says concerning His Divinity, "I am the way, the truth, and the
life," 342 or anything similar; and as we also believe Him when, referring to
His having a human body, He says,"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath
told you the truth," 343 we maintain that He was something compound. And
inasmuch as it was His purpose during His sojourn on earth to live the life of a
man, it was right that He should not unseasonably expose Himself to death. So,
too, it was necessary that He should be taken away by His parents who were
guided by one of God's angels.

13. Is there any absurdity in supposing that, having once become Man, His human
life was so ordered that He shunned dangers? 344 not that it was otherwise
impossible to attain His object, but because it was fitting to leave room for
ways and means in securing His safety. And it was surely better for the child
Jesus to escape from Herod's plot and sojourn with His parents in Egypt until
the death of the conspirator, than for Providence watching over Jesus to hinder
the will of Herod when he purposed to kill the child, or to associate with Jesus
dark Pluto's helm, of which the poets speak, or anything of the kind, or to
smite those who came to destroy Him, as the men of Sodom were |98 smitten.345 If
it had been perfectly clear that some very extraordinary help was given to Him,
this would not have furthered His desire to teach, as a man approved by God,
that He had something more Divine within the visible man, which "something" was
properly 346 the Son of God, God the Word, the power of God and the wisdom of
God,347 He that is called Christ. But this is not the time to discuss the
compound nature, and the parts of which Jesus, who became a man, was composed;
that is a separate topic, and, if I may so speak, one suitable for investigation
by believers.

14. And the story of Aristotle has points of resemblance to the slanderous
charge against Jesus and His disciples. When Aristotle saw that a court was
going to be got together to try him for impiety, on account of certain of his
philosophical opinions which the Athenians considered impious, he left Athens
and stayed in Chalcis, defending himself to his friends by saying, "Let us leave
Athens, so that we may not give the Athenians any occasion for incurring the
guilt they did over Socrates, and that they may not a second time sin against
Philosophy."

15. And in Book III. of the same treatise against Celsus he says this:----

Then Celsus goes on to quote what is said against the teaching of Jesus by a
very small number of persons who are considered Christians, not the most
intelligent, as he supposes, but the most ignorant, and tells us "that such
rules as these are laid down by them: Let no educated person come, no one wise,
no one prudent; for education, wisdom, and prudence are with us regarded as bad
things. But if any one is unlearned, if any one is without understanding, or
uneducated, or a mere child, let him come boldly. Now the fact that they confess
these persons to be worthy of their God, shows that they wish and are able to
convince none but fools, low-born people, blockheads, slaves, weak women, and
children." This is our reply. When Jesus was teaching self-control He said,
"Every |99 one that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart." 348 Now, suppose a man saw some few
persons, out of so many, who are considered to be Christians, living
undisciplined lives, he would with very good reason accuse them of living
contrary to the teaching of Jesus; but he would be most unreasonable if he were
to charge the Gospel with their offence. Just so, if Christian doctrine 349 as
much as any other is found to invite men to wisdom, they must be blamed who rest
satisfied with their own ignorance, and who say, not what Celsus relates (for
though some are ignorant and unlearned, they do not use such shameless
language), but other things which, though far less important, are nevertheless
calculated to turn believers from the practice of wisdom.

16. That the Word means us to be wise, we may prove even from the old Jewish
Scriptures, which we use as well as the Jews, and no less also from those which
were written after Jesus came, and are believed in the churches to be Divine. In
the 50th Psalm David in his prayer to God is reported to have said, "Thou hast
showed me the secret and hidden things of thy wisdom." 350 And any reader of the
Psalms may find the book full of many wise doctrines. And Solomon, because he
asked for wisdom, received it;351 and the proofs of his wisdom may be seen in
his works, which contain much thought in few words, and in which you may
discover many praises of wisdom and many admonitions as to the necessity of
embracing it. Solomon was in fact so wise that "the Queen of Sheba having heard
of his name and the name of the Lord came to prove him with hard questions,352
and she communed with him of all that was in her heart. And Solomon told her all
her questions: there was not anything overlooked by the king, which he told her
not. And the Queen of Sheba saw all the understanding of Solomon, and all that
belonged to him; and there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king,
It was a true report that I |100 heard in mine own land of thee and of thy
understanding. Howbeit I believed not the words, until I came, and mine eyes had
seen it: and, behold, the half was not told me: thy wisdom and riches exceed all
the report which I heard." Again, it is written concerning the same Solomon,
"And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of
heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled
the understanding of all the ancients and all the understanding of Egypt; and he
was wiser than all men," 353 and so on. And so desirous is the Word that there
should be wise men among believers, that to exercise the intelligence of the
hearers it has expressed some things .in enigmas, some in what are called dark
sayings, others through parables, and others through difficult questions.354 And
one of the prophets, Hosea, in his concluding words, exclaims, "Who is wise, and
he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them?" 355 Daniel,
too, and his companions in captivity made such progress in all the learning
cultivated by the wise men about the King of Babylon, that they were proved to
be ten times better than them all. 356 And in Ezekiel it is said to the Prince
of Tyre, who prided himself upon his wisdom, "Surely thou art not wiser than
Daniel? Every secret was not shown thee." 357

17. And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will find
the crowds of believers who heard the parables regarded as "without," 358 and
worthy only of the popular arguments, but the disciples learning in private the
interpretation of the parables; for Jesus privately expounded everything to His
own disciples, thus honouring those who claimed His wisdom more than He did the
crowds. And He promises those who believe on Him that He will send wise men and
scribes, saying, "Behold, I send unto you wise men and scribes: and some of them
shall they kill and crucify." 359 And Paul |101 in his list of the gifts of
God's grace, placed first the word of wisdom, and second, as inferior to it, the
word of knowledge, and third, still lower I suppose, he placed faith.360 And
inasmuch as he honoured the Word above marvellous acts, for this reason he
places workings of miracles and gifts of healing below the gifts of the Word.
And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen testifies to the great learning of
Moses, taking his proofs altogether from such ancient writings as were not
generally known. For he says, "And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians." 361 And this is why Moses was suspected in his miracles; they
thought he might work them not because, as he professed, he came from God, but
because of the learning of the Egyptians in which he was skilled, The king,
because he thus suspected him, summoned the enchanters of the Egyptians, and the
wise men, and the sorcerers;362 and they were proved to be as nothing in
comparison with the wisdom in Moses, which surpassed all the wisdom of the
Egyptians.

18. But what Paul writes in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he addresses them as Greeks priding themselves on their Grecian wisdom, has probably moved some to think that the Word does not want the wise. If any one so thinks, let me tell him that as the Word reflects on bad men, and says that they are not wise in things spiritual, invisible, and eternal, but because they concern themselves with things of sense only, and make them all in all, they are wise men of the world: so also, inasmuch as there are many doctrines, some of which give support to theories of matter and corporeal substances, and allege that all subsistences to begin with were corporeal, and that there is nothing else beside them, whether it be called "invisible" or "incorporeal," the Word says that this is wisdom of the world which is being brought to nought and stultified, and that it is wisdom of this present life.363 On the other hand, there are doctrines which translate the soul from earthly affairs to the blessedness
|102
of communion with God and to the kingdom which bears His name, and teaches the soul to despise all things sensible and visible as being temporal, but to press on to the things invisible and to keep in view the things that are not seen----and these doctrines the Word says are the wisdom of God. Paul, with his love of truth, speaking of certain wise men of the Greeks and the truth they hold, says that, "Knowing God, they glorified him, not as God, neither gave thanks";364 and he tells us that they had not this knowledge without God's help. "For," he says, "God manifested it unto them."
365 I suppose he is darkly hinting at those who rise from things visible to the things intelligible,
366 when he writes that "The invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; so that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks."

19. Then there is the passage, "For behold your calling, brethren, how that not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but
God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that
are wise; and God chose the base things of the world, and the things that are
despised, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things
that are: that no flesh should glory before him." 367 Some have perhaps been
moved through this to suppose that no one educated, or wise, or prudent embraces
the Word. We would point out to such an one that the words are not, "No wise man
after the flesh," but "Not many wise men after the flesh." And it is plain that
in the character sketch of those who are called Bishops, when Paul described
what manner of man the bishop ought to be, he gave the teacher his proper place:
for he says the bishop "must be able also to convict the gainsayers, so that he
may stop the mouth of vain talkers and deceivers." 368 And as the Apostle in
choosing a man |103 for the office of a bishop prefers one who is the husband of
one wife rather than him who has been twice married,369 and the blameless man
rather than him who has been overtaken in a fault, and the temperate man rather
than the opposite, and the soberminded man rather than him who is not
soberminded, and the orderly man rather than him who is ever so little
disorderly: so he wishes the man specially qualified for the office of a bishop
to be apt to teach, and able to stop the mouths of the gainsayers. How, then,
can Celsus with any show of reason accuse us of saying, "Let no one educated
come, no one wise, no one prudent." By all means let any educated, wise, or
prudent man come if he wishes to: but if a man be ignorant, and unintelligent,
and uneducated, and childish, he will be no less welcome. For the Word promises
to heal such if they come, making them all worthy of God.

20. And it is another falsehood that "the teachers of the Divine Word wish to
persuade only silly, ill-bred people, blockheads, and slaves, and weak women,
and children," though the Word calls even those that it may do them good. But it
also calls such as are very different from them, for Christ is the Saviour of
all men, specially of them that believe,370 whether they be men of
understanding, or more simple folk, and "He is the propitiation with the Father
for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." 371 After
what we have said it is too much to expect us to reply to such questions as
these, which Celsus puts: "Why is it a very bad thing for a man to have been
educated, and to have studied the best arguments, and both to be and seem wise?
How does this hinder a man from knowing God? Can it possibly be anything but a
help and a means whereby a man may more readily reach the truth?" A real
education is not a bad thing, for education is a path to virtue; but not even
the wise men of Greece will tell us that the holders of erroneous opinions are
to be reckoned among the "educated." According to our Word, a knowledge of
wickedness is not wisdom; and, if I may use the term, |104 there is a knowledge
of wickedness in the holders of false opinions, and in those who have been
deceived by fallacious arguments. I should therefore say that they are more
ignorant than wise. Further, who would not confess that it is a good thing to
have studied the best arguments? Shall we, however, call any arguments the
"best," except those which are true and which urge men to the pursuit of virtue?
Again, it is a good thing to be wise, though not, as Celsus says, to seem so;
and to have been educated, and to have studied the best arguments, and to be a
man of understanding is certainly no hindrance but a help in knowing God. And it
is more fitting for us than for Celsus to say this, particularly if he is proved
to be an Epicurean.

21. Let us see what he says next. "Why, we surely see even the men in the
market-places parading their infamous opinions 372 and collecting a crowd,
though they would never come near a gathering of sensible people, and would
never dare to show their real sentiments among them; but wherever they catch
sight of striplings, or a herd of slaves, or a set of fools, away they go and
show off." Now observe, I pray you, how herein he slanders us by comparing us to
the men in the market-places who parade their infamous opinions and collect a
crowd. What infamous opinions, then, do we parade? or how are we like them, when
by readings and explanations of what we read we invite men to the worship of the
God of the universe, and to the cultivation of the virtues connected with that
worship, but dissuade them from the contempt of the Divine Being, and from the
practice of all that is contrary to sound doctrine? The Philosophers, I take it,
would gladly get together so many hearers of their discourses which invite men
to a virtuous life, as has been notably the case with certain of the Cynics, who
publicly converse with such hearers as happen to be by. Will it then be said
that these Philosophers, because they do not gather an audience of what are
considered educated people, |105 but invite the common people to assemble, are
like the men in the market-places who parade their infamous opinions and collect
a crowd? The truth is that neither Celsus, nor any one who agrees with him,
finds fault with teachers who follow the course which humanity dictates, and
address their arguments to the ignorant masses as well as to other people.

22. If the Philosophers are not to be blamed for doing this, let us see whether
Christians do not more than they, and to better purpose, endeavour to win
multitudes to the love of the beautiful and good. The Philosophers who discourse
in public make no distinctions in their choice of hearers; any one who likes
stands and listens. But Christian teachers, so far as they can, first make trial
of the souls of those who wish to hear them, and rejoice over them in private;
then, when the hearers appear sufficiently earnest in their desire to lead a
good life, they introduce them to the public assembly, having made a private
list of those who are novices and catechumens, and have not as yet received the
Sacrament of their cleansing, and another list of those who, as far as possible,
show their determination to adopt Christianity to the exclusion of all else; and
with these are associated certain officers appointed to inquire carefully into
the lives and conduct of the candidates, so that they may prevent such as are
guilty of infamous practices from coming to the public assembly, but may
heartily welcome such as are different from these, and may day by day do them
good.373 And they have a similar method in dealing with those who fall into sin,
particularly such as are licentious, whom they, who, according to Celsus,
resemble the market-place orators parading their infamous opinions, expel from
the public assembly. The venerable school of the Pythagoreans used to set up
kenotaphs to those who abandoned that philosophy, reckoning them as dead. But
our Christian teachers |106 lament as dead, inasmuch as they are lost and dead
to God, those who have been overcome by lasciviousness, or some other disgusting
wickedness; and regarding them as risen from the dead if they manifest a
considerable change, they afterwards receive them, though a longer interval is
required than in the case of catechumens;374 they choose, however, to no office
and administration in the Church of God those who soon lapsed after submitting
to the Gospel.

23. Now Celsus says that these men to whom he compares us, the men in the
market-places parading their infamous opinions and collecting a crowd, would
never think of coming near a company of sensible people, nor venture to show
their real sentiments among them: "but wherever they see striplings, or a herd
of slaves, and a set of fools, away they go and show off." When he thus abuses
us he is exactly like the low women who delight in slandering one another. For
we do all we can to get an audience of sensible men, and we then venture in our
public discourses to bring forth what is best and most Divine, when we have a
number of intelligent hearers, but we conceal and pass over in silence the
deeper truths, when we see that those who assemble are the simpler sort of
people, and require such teaching as is metaphorically called "milk." For Paul,
writing to the Corinthians, Greeks whose morals were not yet cleansed, says, "I
fed you with milk, not with meat: for ye were not able to bear it: nay, not even
now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you jealousy
and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men?" 375 And the
same Paul, knowing that some things are food for the more mature soul, and that
others being suitable for beginners are like "milk," says, "Ye have become such
as have need of milk, not of solid food.376 For every one that partaketh of milk
is without experience of the word of righteousness; For he is a babe. |107 But
solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their
senses exercised to discern good and evil." Now, let me ask, could men who
believe this to be well spoken suppose that the beauties of the Word should
never be declared to an assembly of sensible men, but that "wherever they see
striplings, and a herd of slaves, and a set of fools," there "they should
produce the Divine and hallowed truths, and before such an audience show off in
handling them?" On the contrary, it is clear to any one who examines the whole
drift of our Scriptures, that Celsus, like the ignorant masses, is moved by
hatred against the family of Christ when he makes such false and unwarranted
statements.

24. We own to a desire to instruct all with the Word of God, whatever Celsus may
wish, so as to give the striplings such exhortation as is suitable for them, and
show slaves how they may be ennobled by the Word if they recover a free mind.
And our advocates of Christianity emphatically declare that they are debtors to
Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish; 377 for they do not deny
that they are bound to cure the souls even of the foolish, so that, as far as
they can, laying aside their ignorance they may earnestly seek wisdom, and may
give heed to Solomon's words, "Ye fools, be of an understanding heart";378 and,
"Let him who is most foolish among you turn aside unto me";379 and those who are
without understanding Wisdom exhorts thus, "Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink
of the wine which I have mingled. Forsake folly that ye may live, and correct
understanding in knowledge." I should also like to ask in reply to what Celsus
states, for the point is important, whether the teachers of philosophy do not
invite striplings to come and hear them? And do they not urge young men to give
up a low life and turn to something better? How does Celsus make out that they
do not wish slaves to take up Philosophy? Are we going to blame Philosophers for
encouraging slaves to turn and lead a virtuous life, as Pythagoras did Zamolxis,
and Zeno did Persaeus, or as they did who very recently won |108 Epictetus to
the side of Philosophy? May you, ye Greeks,380 invite striplings, and slaves,
and fools, to embrace Philosophy? and if we do so, will ye not allow our motive
to be love for man, seeing that we wish with the healing virtue of the Word to
cure every rational nature and make it fit for God, the Creator of all things?

25. When Celsus, distracted at the numbers of those who flock to hear the Word,
alleges that no sensible person obeys the Word, he acts like a man who alleges
that because so many ignorant persons submit to the laws, no sensible person
obeys Solon,381 for instance, or Lycurgus,382 or Zaleucus,383 or any other
lawgiver, particularly if by "sensible" he means in respect of virtue. For as
the law-givers, providing for the masses according to their views of what was
best, have given them proper guidance and laws on all sides: so God when He
gives the law in Jesus Christ to all men every where, leads those who are not
"sensible" as well as others, so far as such men can be led, on to the better
life. Paul knew this when he said, "God chose the foolish things of the world,
that he might put to shame them that are wise; 384 and, speaking generally, he
calls all those "wise" who seem to be proficient in learning but have fallen
into godless polytheism; for "Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an
image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping
things." 385

26. Celsus blames the Christian teacher as if he specially looked for
ignoramuses. In reply we would ask, What ignoramuses do you mean? For, strictly
speaking, any inferior man is an ignoramus. Well, then, if by ignoramuses you
mean inferior people, do you when you |109 try to attract men to Philosophy seek
to attract inferior people or the cultured? Certainly not the cultured, for they
are already acquainted with Philosophy. Inferior people, then. But inferior
people, as we have seen, are ignoramuses; and your aim is to win many such
inferior people to Philosophy; it follows that you, too, look for ignoramuses.
But I, even if I do seek those who are thus called "ignoramuses," am like a
humane physician who looks for the sick that he may bring them the help they
need, and may restore them to health and strength. If, however, by "ignoramuses"
you mean those who are not only not clever, but are portentously stupid people,
my answer is that I do my best to benefit these also, though I should not like
the great body of Christians to consist of them. By way of preference I look for
men of some cleverness and acuteness, inasmuch as they are able to trace out the
clear interpretation of the hard sayings and obscure passages in the Law and the
Prophets, and the Gospels, which you have despised as containing nothing of any
account, because you have not closely examined their sense, nor tried to enter
into the meaning of the writers.

CHAP. XIX. ----And again, earlier in the same book, Origen says, That our faith in our Lord has nothing in common with the irrational superstitious faith of the Gentiles, and that it is both commendable, and accords with the original moral notions of mankind. In answer also to those who say, How do we think that Jesus is God seeing that He had a mortal body?

1. Faith in Antinous 386 or some other Egyptian or Greek hero, is, if I may use
the expression, unfortunate;387 but faith in Jesus would appear to be either
fortunate, or to have its claims severely tested; for it seems to be fortunate
with the many, and severely tested by very few. And if I say that a certain
faith is fortunate, as the many |110 would call it, I refer the explanation of
this good fortune to God, Who knows the causes of every human being's lot in
life. And the Greeks will also admit that even in the case of those who are
regarded as their wisest men, good fortune accounts for much, as for example the
sort of teachers they have, and whether they meet with better ones (for other
men teach opposite doctrines), and whether they have a better bringing up. For
it is the lot of many to be so brought up that they cannot get even a faint
perception of the higher life, but from their very earliest years are destined
to be among the favourites of licentious men, or of tyrants, or to be in some
other sad condition which prevents the opening of the eyes of the soul. I quite
suppose that the causes of this are to be found in the rulings of Providence;
but how the causes affect mankind is not easy to explain. I thought I would make
this digression in passing, for we remember the old saying, "What wonders faith
performs when it once takes hold of anything!" It was necessary to speak of
different forms of faith on account of the different ways men are brought up;
and from this to go on to show that what is called good or bad fortune would
appear to assist even clever men in this very respect, that they appear more
reasonable than other men, and with better reason for the most part to adopt
their opinions. But enough of this.

2. But we must consider what Celsus says next. Amongst other things he tells us
that "we are already under the influence of faith when we thus submit to Jesus."
388 And in truth faith does effect this submission. Observe, however, whether
the very act of faith does not exhibit something praiseworthy when we submit
ourselves to God Who is over all, confessing our gratitude to Him Who has guided
us to such a faith, and saying that He did not without God's help undertake and
accomplish such a difficult task. And we believe also in the intentions of those
who wrote the Gospels, as we mark the caution 389 and |111 conscientiousness
shown in their writings, and how they admit nothing spurious, hazardous,
invented, or unscrupulous. For it strikes us that souls which knew nothing of
the strange devices taught by the unscrupulous sophistry of the Greeks, and by
the rhetoric bandied in the law-courts, could not thus invent incidents able of
themselves to lead men to faith and to a life in keeping with their faith. And I
suppose this was why Jesus wished to employ such teachers of His doctrines, that
there might be no room to suspect them of plausible sophisms, but that they who
are capable of understanding may see clearly that the writers' purity of
intention with its, if I may so speak, great simplicity, was deemed worthy of
Divine help, which accomplishes far more than diction, and composition, and
right construction with its refinements and rules of Grecian art seems able to
accomplish.

3. Now see whether the principles of our faith, being accordant with man's
original conceptions, do not work a change in fair-minded hearers of the Word.
For though the perverted doctrine, backed up with much instruction, has been
able to implant in the minds of the many the belief that images are gods, and
that things made of gold, and silver, and ivory, and stone, are worthy of
worship; common sense, nevertheless, forbids us to think that God is by any
means corruptible matter, or that He is honoured when He is fashioned by men in
forms of dead matter, supposed to pictorially or symbolically represent Him. And
we accordingly at once decide respecting images that they are not gods; and
respecting such works of art that they are not to be compared to the Creator;
and that they are insignificant when we think of God, Who is over all, the
Maker, Preserver, and Governor of the universe. And the rational soul, as if it
recognised its affinity, at once rejects what it hitherto imagined to be gods,
and resumes its natural affection for the Creator; and because of that natural
affection for Him, it eagerly accepts Him, Who first showed these truths to the
Gentile world by means of the disciples whom He prepared, and whom He sent forth
with |112 Divine power and authority to preach the Word concerning God and His
kingdom.

4. And whereas Celsus, I know not how many times already, taunts us with holding
that Jesus, though He had a mortal body, is a god, and with supposing that
herein we show our piety, it is superfluous to say more, for more than enough
has already been said. Still, I would have our accusers know that He Who we
think and are persuaded was from the beginning God and Son of God, is the very
Word, and very Wisdom, and very Truth; and we affirm that the mortal body and
the human soul therein, not only by communication with Him, but by an union and
intimate mixture, gained the highest honours, and having participated in the
Divine Nature, were taken into God.390 And if, any one stumbles at our saying
this concerning His body, let him attend to what is said by the Greeks about
matter, in itself unqualified, acquiring whatever qualities the Creator wishes
to invest it with; and how it frequently divests itself of its former qualities
and assumes better ones of a different kind. For if this is sound doctrine, is
it any wonder that the quality of mortality attaching to the body of Jesus
should by the providence of God, Who so willed, change into one that was
heavenly and Divine?

5. Celsus, then, did not show his dialectical skill when, comparing the human flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, he saw it was more corruptible than they. For, to speak correctly, what is incorruptible cannot be more incorruptible than something else which is incorruptible, nor can what is corruptible be more corruptible than some other corruptible thing. But allowing that there are degrees of corruptibility, we shall still reply, that if it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to change its qualities, why should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus to change its qualities, and become such as it ought to be if it is to live in the sky, and the upper realms, no longer having the qualities of fleshly
|113 weakness, and whatever other qualities Celsus called "pollutions"? ----and in doing so did not speak like a philosopher. For in the proper sense pollution is the result of vice; but the nature of the body is not polluted; for as bodily nature it has no vice, which generates the pollution.

CHAP. XX. ----A reply to those who say that the whole world, including man, was made not for man, but for the irrational creatures; for the irrational creatures live with less toil than men; further, that they are wiser than we are, and are both dear to God, and have a conception of God, and foreknow the future; wherein we shall also oppose transmigration of souls, and have something to say concerning augury and the trickery connected with it. From Book IV. against Celsus.

1. He, Celsus I mean, then says, "But, not to confine my remarks to the Jews,
for that is not my aim, but that I may deal with the whole of nature, as I
promised, I will explain more clearly what I have said." What modest man who
reads this and is conscious of human weakness, would not shrink from the
offensiveness of a man who promises to give an account of the whole of nature,
and so pretentious as Celsus in daring to give such a title to his book? Let us
see, then, what it is he promises to tell us about the whole of nature, and what
light he throws upon the subject.

2. Well, he proceeds to blame us at great length for alleging that God has made
all things for man. And, drawing on the stories of animals and the sagacity they
show, he wishes to prove that everything exists no more for the sake of men than
for the sake of the irrational creatures. Here he seems to me to talk like those
men who from hatred of the people they dislike, blame them for the very
qualities for which their own friends are praised. For as enmity so blinds these
men that they are not aware of accusing their friends when they think they are
abusing their enemies: the same way, Celsus in this confusion of thought has not
seen that he is blaming the Philosophers of the Porch, inasmuch as not unwisely
they give man the first place, and in |114 general prefer rational nature to all
irrational beings, and maintain that for the sake of the rational creation
chiefly, Providence has made everything. And rational creatures, inasmuch as
they are the leading objects of Providence, are regarded as children begotten;
but irrational and lifeless creatures are like the after-birth.391 I moreover
think that as in our towns the inspectors of provisions and of the market
exercise their office only for the sake of men, but even dogs and other
irrational creatures enjoy the abundance as well: so Providence chiefly provides
for the rational creatures, but it follows also that the irrational creatures
enjoy what exists for the sake of men. And as a man is in error if he says that
the clerks of the markets provide no more for men than dogs, for that the dogs
as well as men enjoy the abundance of what is on sale: so Celsus and they who
are of his mind are much more guilty of impiety towards God, "Who provides for
the rational creatures; for they pretend to ask. "What more is done for man's
support than for plants, and trees, and roots,392 and thorns?"

3. For, in the first place, now more clearly showing his Epicurean views, he
thinks that "thunder and lightning and rain are not works of God." And,
secondly, he says that "if one were to grant that these are works of God, they
exist no more for us men than they do for plants, and trees, and roots, and
thorns"; thus, like a true Epicurean, allowing that they are the result of
chance and not designed by Providence. If they are no more useful to men than
they are to plants, and trees, roots, and thorns, it is clear that they are not
the gift of Providence, or that they come from a Providence which no more
provides for us than for trees, or a root, or a thorn. But the impiety is
obvious whichever way you take it; and it is silly to oppose such views by
withstanding a man who accuses us of impiety; for any one may see, from what has
been said, who it is that is guilty of impiety. Then he adds, "Even if you say
that these (he clearly means the plants, |115 trees, roots, and thorns) grow for
men, what reason is there for saying that they grow more for the sake of men
than for the sake of the wildest irrational creatures?" I wish Celsus would tell
us plainly that the great variety in the produce of the earth is not the work of
Providence, but that a fortuitous concourse of atoms is the cause of so many
qualities, and that we are indebted to chance for so many kinds of plants, and
trees, and grass,393 resembling one another; and that no reason designed them to
begin with, and that they do not spring from an infinitely marvellous
understanding. But we Christian people, who are dedicated to the service of the
Creator of these things, the only God, even herein find motives for gratitude to
the Maker of them all, because He prepared so fair a home for us, and, for our
sakes, for the animals which serve us; "He causeth the grass to grow for the
cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the
earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to
shine, and bread that strengtheneth man's heart." 394 And if He also prepared
food for the most savage beasts, it is no wonder; for these beasts, as some
philosophers have maintained, were meant to be a training school for the
rational creature. And one of our wise men somewhere says, "Say not, what is
this? wherefore is that? for all things have been made for their uses"; and,
"Say not, what is this? wherefore is that? for at time convenient they shall be
sought out." 395

4. After this, Celsus wishing to show that Providence has not made the things
that grow upon the earth any more for us than for the most savage beasts, says,
"We wear ourselves out with unceasing toil, and yet with all our labour hardly
get a living; but everything grows for the beasts without their ploughing and
sowing." 396 He does not see that because God wished man's intelligence
everywhere to find a field for exercise, so that it might not remain idle and
without some conception of the arts, He |116 made man a creature of many wants,
intending him to be driven by his very necessities to discover various arts,
some for his sustenance, others for his protection. For it was better that men
who were not likely to search and study Divine things should be in want, so that
they should have to use their understanding in discovering these various arts,
than that they should through abundance altogether neglect their understanding.
One result of the scarcity of the necessaries of life was agriculture, another
vine-dressing, another the different styles of gardening, another the crafts of
the carpenter and the smith, which furnish tools to the arts which minister to
man's sustenance. And the want of protection brought weaving, which followed
wool-carding and spinning, and also building; and thus man's intelligence rose
even to architecture. And the lack of necessaries led also to the transport of
commodities from certain places, through seamanship and the shipmaster's skill,
to those who were without them; so that for these reasons, as well as others, a
man might marvel at Providence for having made the rational creature, to its
advantage, more necessitous than the irrational creatures. For the irrational
creatures have their food prepared for them, because they have no means of
cultivating the arts; and they have a natural protection, for they are covered
with hair, or wings, or horny scales, or shells.

5. But some advocate of the dignity of man, he tells us, may object that the
irrational creatures were created for man's sake. "If any one should call us
lords of creation because we hunt and feast on the other creatures, we will ask
in return, Is it not nearer the truth to say that we exist for their sakes,
because they hunt and devour us? The fact is we must have nets and weapons, and
a lot of men, and dogs, to assist us in our sport, while nature gave them their
own weapons as soon as they were born, thus making us an easy prey to them." Now
here, again, you see how the gift of understanding is a great help to us, and
better than any weapon which the wild beasts seem to have. We, at any rate,
though our bodily strength is far less than that of the animals, and |117 very
far less than that of some of them, gain the mastery over them through our
understanding, and hunt even such huge beasts as elephants. Some animals which
were intended by nature to be domesticated, we tame by our gentleness; but in
dealing with those which cannot be domesticated, or which it would appear
useless to domesticate, we consult our own safety, and when we like we keep them
shut up, or when we want them for food we kill them, just as we do the animals
that are not wild. So then, the Creator has made all things to serve the
rational creature, and to be in subjection to his rational intelligence. We want
dogs for such purposes as guarding the flocks, or cattle, or herds of goats, or
our houses; and cattle for tilling the land; while we use other beasts for
drawing vehicles or carrying loads. So we may say that lions and bears, pards
and boars, and all such animals, are given to us to exercise and develop our
manhood.

6. Then, in defiance of mankind, who perceive their own superiority over the irrational creatures, he says, "In reply to your contention, that God has given us the power to capture and make full use of the wild beasts, we shall take up this position. It is probable that before towns were built, or crafts invented, or such-like social arrangements were made, before weapons and nets were devised, men were carried off and devoured by the wild beasts, while the beasts were only by the rarest chance captured by men." Now, in answer to this, observe that even though men capture the beasts and the beasts carry off men, there is a wide difference between men who prevail by intelligence, and the beasts whose savage and cruel nature gives them the mastery over men, and who do not use their intelligence to secure safety from them. When Celsus makes the remark about a time when there were no towns, nor arts, nor such means of social intercourse, he must, I think, have forgotten what he said before to the effect that "the world was uncreated and incorruptible, and that only the dwellers upon earth were exposed to deluges and conflagrations, and that their
|118
misfortunes did not end there." 397 As it is not for those who suppose the world to be eternal to talk of its beginning, so neither may they speak of a time when there were no towns of any sort and arts had not been discovered. Now, for argument's sake, let us allow that he and we are herein agreed, though he is not at all consistent with himself in what he said before. But has this anything at all to do with men's being at the first captured and eaten by the wild beasts, while as yet the beasts were not captured by men? Certainly, if the world came into being through the wisdom of Providence, and God is ruler over all, the small sparks
398 of the human race must at first have been guarded by a higher power, so that at first there was intercourse between the Divine Nature and men. The poet of Ascra
399 thought so, for he said----

"Then the feasts were common, and seats 400 common, To immortal gods and mortal
men."

7. And the Divine Word according to Moses, introducing the first men, makes them
hear a more Divine voice, and oracles, and sometimes see the angels of God
coming to visit them. It is surely probable that at the beginning of the world
human nature received more assistance than afterwards; until such time as,
having advanced in understanding, and the other manly qualities, and having
discovered various arts, men were able to live independent lives, and did not
continually need guardians and governors, with miraculous manifestation of the
service rendered to the will of God. It is consequently false to say that at the
beginning "men were caught and eaten by the beasts, but the beasts were hardly
ever captured by men." And this shows the falsity also of what Celsus thus
expresses: "So that in this respect at least God subjected men to the beasts,
rather than beasts to men." For God did not subject men to the beasts, but God
gave |119 the beasts to be taken by the intelligence of men, and by the arts
which intelligence suggests for their destruction. For not without God's help
did men devise the means of saving themselves from the beasts, and of
maintaining their dominion over them.

8. The noble critic, overlooking the fact that so many philosophers bring
Providence into their arguments and affirm that it does everything for the sake
of the rational creatures, does his best to destroy 401 their doctrines, which
are of use in showing the agreement of Christian teaching and philosophy in
these respects; nor does he perceive what an injury and hindrance it is to piety
to accept the view that with God there is no difference between man and ants or
bees. Because he does not observe this, Celsus says: "If men seem to excel the
irrational creatures, inasmuch as they dwell in towns, and have some form of
government, and magistracies, and authorities, it is nothing to the purpose, for
ants and bees have all this as well. Bees, at any rate, have their queen with
her followers and attendants; they have also their wars and victories and
capture the vanquished; they have their towns and even suburbs, the division of
labour, and courts for trying the idle and bad members of the community; anyway,
they drive the drones away and punish them." Now here, again, Celsus has not
seen where the difference lies between what is accomplished by thought and
reason, and what results from an irrational nature and a creature's mere make.
No original gift of reason in the creatures accounts for these doings, for they
have not reason; but the Most Ancient One, He Who is both Son of God and King of
the subject universe, has created an irrational nature which by its very lack of
reason helps the creatures not deemed worthy of reason. Towns, then, arose among
men along with many arts and a legal system; and forms of government, and
magistracies, and human authorities, whether those which are properly so called
because they secure good habits and |120 activities, or those less properly so
named, according as the former are imitated as far as possible; for it was by
contemplating these habits and activities that legislators succeeded in
establishing the best forms of government, magistracies, and authorities. But
nothing like this can be found among the irrational creatures, though Celsus may
transfer to ants and bees the names derived from reason, and institutions based
on reason, "town," "government," "magistracies," "authorities." Even so we must
not receive 402 ants or bees, for they do not reason when they thus act; but we
must admire the Divine nature, extending as it does to irrational creatures what
I may call the imitation of the rational, perhaps to put rational creatures to
the blush; so that when they look at the ants, they may become more diligent and
may husband their own blessings better; and when they observe the bees, they may
obey their authorities, and may take their share in such duties of government as
tend to promote the welfare of the citizens.

9. Perhaps the so-called "wars" of bees are intended as a lesson in just and
regular warfare among men, if the necessity should arise. And bees have no
"towns" and "suburbs"; but their hives and hexagonal cells, their works, and
their division of labour, are for the sake of men, who require honey for many
purposes, for the healing of their bodies and for wholesome food. And we must
not compare the treatment of the drones by the bees to the courts for
prosecuting the idlers and bad characters in our towns, and to the punishments
inflicted on them. But, as I said before, while we must admire the nature of the
bees in these respects, we must allow that man is able to consider the details
of everything, and to arrange everything, for he co-operates with Providence,
and not only accomplishes the works of God's Providence, but also those of his
own foresight.

10. After speaking of bees, so that as far as possible he may disparage the towns, forms of government, magistracies, authorities, and patriotic warfare, not only of us Christians but of mankind generally, Celsus proceeds to
|121
introduce an elaborate eulogy of ants, in order that by thus eulogising the ants he may upset the superiority of man in the management of his food supplies, and show his contempt for the provision which man makes for his winter quarters, as being nothing more than the irrational foresight of the ants where Celsus thinks they show it. Would not Celsus, so far as it depends upon him, turn any one of the simpler sort, and such as are not qualified to look into things all round, from helping a heavily-laden fellow-man, and from sharing his toil, by telling us that the ants when they see a fellow-ant labouring with a load help him to carry it? He who needs the instruction of the Word, and does not by any means give ear to it, will say, "It seems we are no better than the ants even when we help those who are weary with their heavy burdens; why go on doing so to no purpose?" Ants, indeed, since they are irrational creatures, would not be puffed up with pride because their works were compared to those of men; but men being able to learn through reason how their social life is belittled, might, if it depended on Celsus and his arguments, suffer injury; for Celsus does not see that in wishing to turn his readers from Christianity, he is also diverting the sympathy of those who are not Christians from the most heavily laden of his fellow-men. If he were a public-spirited philosopher, he ought not only to refrain from destroying at the same time both Christianity and the beneficent practices of human life, but he should, if possible, support the excellence which Christianity has in common with the rest of mankind. Supposing, however, that the ants do tear off the shoots of the corn they have in store, to prevent its swelling, so that it may last through the year for food, we must not imagine that this is the result of reasoning in ants, but must rather believe that Nature, mother of all things, has so constituted even irrational creatures as not to leave even the least without some trace of Nature's reason. It cannot be that Celsus----in a moment of forgetfulness, for in many things he likes to follow Plato----wishes to indicate that all souls are of
|122
the same kind, and that the soul of man no way differs from that of ants and bees; that would be not only to bring down the soul from the vaults of heaven to the human body, but also to everything else. Christians will not assent to these views, for they have already grasped the truth that man's soul was made in the image of God; and they see that it is impossible for a nature created in the image of God to altogether obliterate its characteristics, and take others, copies of I know not what, in irrational creatures.

11. And since Celsus says also that "when ants die the survivors choose a burial
ground, and that there they have their family memorials," I must answer that the
more he praises the irrational creatures, so much the more, in spite of himself,
he exalts the work of that reason which ordered 403 all things, and shows the
cleverness of man, which is able by reason to order the natural advantages of
the irrational creatures. Why do I say "irrational," seeing that Celsus thinks
that the creatures so named by the general consent of mankind are not
irrational? Nor does he who promised to discuss the whole range of nature, and
boasted of his truthfulness in the title of his book, think that ants, at all
events, are without reason. For he speaks of ants talking to one another, and
makes the following remarks: "It really is a fact that when they meet they talk
to one another, and this is why they never miss their way; so then they have a
full measure of reason, and some general notions, and a voice, know what
accidents are, and express what they mean." It is indeed true that when two
persons talk to one another they use a voice which expresses some meaning, and
frequently describes what are called "accidents"; but would it not be very
ridiculous to say we find that sort of thing in ants?

12. And he is not ashamed to add (that he may fully show the indecency of his
opinions to those who shall come |123 after him), "Come! if one were to look
down from heaven upon the earth, what difference would there seem to be between
the doings of us men and those of ants and bees?" Now picture a spectator
looking down from heaven, as Celsus supposes, and seeing the doings of men and
ants: does he look upon the bodies of men and ants, and not perceive that in men
the ruling principle is rational and set in action by reasoning power, and that,
on the contrary, in ants the ruling principle is irrational, set in action
without the help of reason, by impulse and fancy, along with some secret
contrivance of nature? But it is absurd to suppose that any one who saw from
heaven what is done upon earth should wish to look upon the bodies of men and
ants from such a distance, and not be much more desirous to see the nature of
the ruling principles and the source of impulses, whether rational or
irrational. And if he once sees the source of all impulses, he will of course
see also the difference, and the superiority of man not only to ants but also to
elephants. For the spectator from heaven will discover in the irrational
creatures, whatever their size, no other principle than, if I may so call it,
irrationality; while in the rational creatures he will see reason, the common
property of all men, and of beings heavenly and Divine, and perhaps also of the
Supreme God Himself; and it is on account of reason that man is said to have
been made in the image of God, for reason is the image of the Supreme God
Himself. 404

13. Next, as if he were doing his utmost to degrade the human race and make it
resemble irrational natures, and as if he were reluctant to give up anything at
all related of irrational creatures which shows their dignity, he says that some
of them have magical powers as well as men; so that not even in this respect can
men claim special distinction, or dream of having superiority over the brute
creation. This is what he tells us: "If men pique themselves on magic, the fact
is that serpents and eagles are wiser than men in this respect |124 also; they,
at all events, are acquainted with many antidotes and means of averting
mischief, and specially with the virtue of certain stones in saving their
nestlings; when men come upon these stones they think they have got hold of
something wonderful." Now, in the first place, I cannot understand how he
applies the name "magic" to the, shall we say? experience, or kind of instinct
the animals have in using the antidotes which nature provides, for the name has
another familiar application; it may be that he forgets himself, and, like a
true Epicurean, wishes to disparage the use of such arts altogether because it
belongs to the profession of magic. However, let us grant that men do pride
themselves on their knowledge of these things, whether they are magicians or
not. Does it follow that serpents are wiser on this showing than men, because
they use fennel to clear their sight and quicken their movements, the truth
being that they take this natural remedy not because they calculate (the
effect), but because they are so constituted? Men do not arrive at such methods,
like serpents, through the mere promptings of nature, but partly by experiment,
partly by reason, and sometimes by calculation and by following the rules of
science. Even supposing that eagles do find and carry to the nest what is called
the "eagle stone" to keep their nestlings safe, does it follow that eagles are
wise, or wiser than men, who because they have the faculty of reason, discover
by experiment what is given to the eagles as a natural remedy, and use it
intelligently? Suppose that other antidotes come to be known by the animals, is
this any proof that in them it is not nature but reason that makes the
discovery? If reason made the discovery, there would not have been one
discovery, or two or three, confined to snakes, and something different among
eagles, and so on with the other creatures; the discoveries would have been as
numerous as they are among men. But the fact that the remedies are exclusively
adapted to the particular nature of each animal, shows that the animals have not
wisdom or |125 reason, but that for their good they are naturally disposed to
such remedies through the creative power of the Divine reason.405

14. If, indeed, I wished to join issue with Celsus on these lines, I might quote
the words of Solomon in the Proverbs: "There be four things which be little upon
the earth, but they are exceedingly wise: the ants are a people not strong, yet
they provide their meat in the summer; the conies are but a feeble folk, yet
make they their houses in the rocks; the locusts have no king, yet go they forth
all of them by bands at one word of command; the lizard taketh hold with her
hands, and though easily taken, yet is she in the strongholds of kings." 406 But
the words are not clear, and I therefore do not avail myself of them; in
accordance with the title of the book (it is called "Proverbs ") I regard them
as "dark sayings" and look for the meaning. For the inspired writers are wont to
distinguish the many ways of conveying a deeper meaning than the literal, and
one of them is the Proverb. Hence it is that even in our Gospels our Saviour is
reported to have said, "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: the
hour cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs." 407 Now it is not
the ants we see that are wiser than the wise, but the ants proverbially
indicated. And we say the same of the other animals. But Celsus thinks the books
of Jesus and Christians are very simple common-place productions, and he
supposes that they who treat them allegorically do violence to the meaning of
the writers. Let this suffice to show how futile it is for Celsus to slander us;
and let it be the reputation of his argument to prove that snakes and eagles are
wiser than men.

15. And wishing to show at still greater length that even man's conceptions of
God are no more remarkable than the mortal side of his nature, but that some of
the irrational creatures have thoughts of God, concerning Whom the acutest
thinkers everywhere, Greek and |126 Barbarian, have entertained such discordant
opinions, he says, "If man because he has got hold of some Divine thoughts is
supposed to surpass other animals, let me remind those who are of this opinion
that many other animals will put in a claim to the same thing; and with very
good reason; for what is more Divine than to foreknow and foreshow the future?
Well, men learn the art from other animals, and specially from birds; and as
many as profess to know what they point out are Soothsayers. Now, if birds, or
any other oracular creatures gifted by God with foreknowledge, teach us by
signs, it seems that they have naturally a closer intercourse with God, and are
wiser than men and dearer to God. And intelligent men tell us that the birds
have their assemblies, obviously more sacred than ours; and, further, that
somehow or other they discover what the birds say, and that they give real proof
of the discovery whenever they previously declare what the birds said, viz. that
the birds would go away to some place and do this and that, and then show that
the birds did go there and do what they foretold. And as for elephants, nothing
could surpass their fidelity to oaths or be truer to Divine things, just
because, I suppose, they have some knowledge of God." Now, here observe how
often he begs the question, and takes for granted what is still speculative
matter, the fact being that both Greeks and Barbarians have either discovered,
or learned from certain demons, the ways of birds and other creatures, from
which they are said to derive their powers of divination. In the first place, it
is open to question whether there is any such art of augury, and, in general,
any basis for divination by means of animals, or not. Secondly, among those who
admit that there is an art of divination through birds, it is not agreed as to
why the divination takes that form; for some say that it is from demons or gods
of divination that the animals receive their impulses, the birds to different
flights and cries, the other animals to such and such movements; while others
hold that the souls of these animals are more |127 divine than others, and are
adapted to the purpose; which is most improbable.

16. If Celsus wished to prove by the foregoing that the irrational creatures
have a Divine nature and are wiser than man, he ought to have fully shown that
there is such an art as divination; then, he should have more clearly shown how
it can be defended; then have given clear grounds for rejecting the arguments of
those who would do away with such arts; and, lastly, should have decisively
upset the arguments of those who say that it is from demons or gods the animals
derive their divination impulses. Then would be the time for dealing with the
question, whether the soul of irrational creatures is more Divine than that of
men. If he had thus shown a philosophic spirit in treating such important
matters, we would have withstood his plausible assertions to the best of our
power; we would have upset his statement that the irrational creatures are wiser
than men, and we would have proved how false it is that they have more sacred
conceptions of God than we have, and that they hold certain sacred
assemblies.408 But, as things are, the man who reproaches us with believing in
the Supreme God expects us to believe that the souls of birds have more divine
and clearer conceptions than men. If this be indeed true, birds have clearer
conceptions of God than Celsus has, and no wonder if they surpass Celsus who so
belittles man. Celsus certainly does his best to make it look as though the
birds have greater and diviner conceptions, I do not say than we Christians
have, or the Jews, who use the same Scriptures as ourselves, but than even the
Greeks had, who treated of God and the Divine nature, for they were men. So,
according to Celsus, the race of divining birds, forsooth, understand the nature
of God better than Pherecydes,409 and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato. And
it seems that we must go and be taught by the birds, in order that, as,
according to Celsus, they teach us by |128 means of divination what is going to
happen, so they may also rid men of their doubts respecting the Divine Being, by
passing on the clear conception of Him to which they have attained. It follows
that Celsus, holding as he does that birds are superior to men, should go to the
birds for instruction, and not to one of those distinguished Greek philosophers.

17. But we must add a few remarks, out of many, in answer to the foregoing, for
we wish to utterly refute the false opinions of Celsus and prove his ingratitude
to his Maker; for Celsus, being a man, and being in honour, understandeth
not;410 wherefore, he is not even like the birds and other irrational creatures
which he considers to have the gift of divination; but yielding them the
preeminence, he goes further than the Egyptians, who worship the irrational
creatures as gods, and places himself, and, so far as he can, the whole human
race, beneath the irrational creatures, for he believes that men have lower and
meaner conceptions of God. Let our inquiry, then, be chiefly directed to the
point whether there really is, or is not, an art of divination by birds, and the
other animals believed to be "divining," for both ways the argument is to be
treated with respect; on the one hand, it presses us not to accept any such
thing as divination, lest the rational creatures should forsake the oracles of
demons and resort to birds; on the other hand, it brings much clear evidence to
show that many people have been preserved from the greatest dangers because they
believed in divination by birds. For our present purpose let us allow that
augury is a reality: my object is to show any persons who are prepossessed in
its favour, that even if this is conceded, the superiority of man over the
irrational creatures, and over the very creatures with powers of divination, is
incomparably great. Let me then say that even though there were in them a Divine
nature capable of predicting the future, and so passing rich, that out of its
superfluity it could disclose the future to any man who |129 wished to know it,
we must suppose that these creatures would much sooner know their own affairs.
But if they knew their own affairs they would have taken care not to fly to any
place where men set snares and nets to catch them, or archers make them a target
and shoot them on the wing. And certainly, if eagles knew beforehand the designs
upon their young ones, whether of serpents climbing to them and killing them, or
of men trying to take them either for sport or to serve some other purpose, they
would not have made their nests where they were likely to be exposed to these
attacks; and, in general, not a single living creature could ever have been
captured by men, inasmuch as it was more Divine and wiser than men.

18. Moreover, if birds of omen converse with one another;411 if, as Celsus says, the divining birds and the other irrational creatures having a Divine nature and conceptions of God, and having the knowledge of the future, disclosed this knowledge to others, the sparrow in Homer would not have made her nest where the serpent would destroy her and her little ones; and the serpent would not, as the same poet relates, have failed to guard itself against being caught by the eagle. Homer, that marvellous poet, thus tells the story of the sparrow----

"Behold a wonder! by Olympian Jove Sent forth to light, a snake, with blood-red
back, Of aspect fearful, issuing from beneath The altars, glided to the
plane-tree straight.

There on the topmost bough, beneath the leaves Cowering, a sparrow's callow
nestlings lay;

Eight fledglings, and the parent bird the ninth.

All the eight nestlings, uttering piercing cries, The snake devoured; and as the
mother flew, Lamenting o'er her offspring, round and round, Uncoiling, caught
her, shrieking, by the wing!

Then, when the sparrow's nestlings and herself The snake had swallowed, by the
God, who first Sent him to light, a miracle was wrought: For Jove, the
deep-designing Saturn's son, Turned him to stone; we stood, and wondering
gazed."412 |130

Respecting the eagle he says----

"A soaring eagle in his talons bore A dragon, huge of size, of blood-red line,
Alive, and breathing still, nor yet subdued;

For, twisting backward, through the breast he pierced His bearer, near the neck;
he, stung with pain, Let fall his prey, which dropped amid the crowd;

Then screaming, on the blast was borne away. The Trojans, shuddering, in their
midst beheld The spotted serpent, dire portent of Jove." 413

Shall we say that the eagle was a divining bird, but that the serpent, though
the augurs make use of the creature, had not the gift of divination? The
arbitrary distinction is easily refuted, and is not the supposition that both
had the gift easily disproved? Would not the serpent, if he had possessed
divining power, have taken care that the eagle did not treat him so? One might
produce countless other instances to show that the animals have not in
themselves a divining soul. But, as the poet says, and most men agree, "Olympian
Jove himself sent him to the light"; 414 and if Apollo also uses a hawk as his
messenger, something symbolical is intended, for a falcon is said to be Apollo's
swift messenger.415

19. Our view is that certain worthless demons (Titans or Giants, if I may say
so), having sinned against the true God and the angels in heaven, and, having
fallen from heaven, wallow in the grosser bodily existences and the unclean
things of earth; they have some insight into the future, and inasmuch as they
are not encumbered with earthly bodies, and are set on that sort of thing (for
they desire to seduce the human race from their allegiance to the real God),
they conceal themselves in the more rapacious and savage beasts, and others of a
craftier kind, and make them at any time do what they choose; or they turn the
fancies of such creatures to such and such nights and movements; so that men,
caught in the snare of that divining power which is in the irrational creatures,
may |131 not seek Him Who embraceth all, nor try to discover the pure form of
worship, but may sink by their speculations to the level of the birds and
serpents upon earth, and still lower to foxes and wolves. For it has been
observed by the experts that the clearest indications of the future are given
through such creatures as these; it may be because the demons cannot so fully
"possess" the gentler animals as they can the wild ones, which they closely
resemble in wickedness, though the wickedness is not really wickedness in such
animals.

20. And nothing in Moses appears to me more marvellous than what I am about to
mention. Because he understands the different natures of animals, and has either
learnt from God the facts about them and the demons which have affinity with
each, or has by exercising his own wisdom made the discovery, all the animals
which he classifies as unclean are those considered by the Egyptians and the
rest of mankind to be connected with divination, while those not so connected
are, generally speaking, clean animals. Amongst the unclean Moses places the
wolf, the fox, the serpent, the eagle, the hawk, and such-like.416 And, speaking
generally, you will find, not only in the Law but in the Prophets, that these
animals are taken to represent the worst qualities, while there is no instance
of a wolf or a fox being mentioned in connection with anything good. There seems
to be, then, a fellowship between such kind of demons and each kind of animals.
And as among men some are stronger than others, and not at all on account of
their moral character: so some demons in things indifferent may be stronger than
others; and some of them may use certain animals to deceive men, according to
the pleasure of him who in the words of our Scriptures is called "the prince of
this world";417 and different ones may show the future by means of another kind
of animal. And observe that the demons are so filthy that even weasels are
seized by them for revealing the future. Now judge for yourself which |132 is
the best view to take, that God over All, and His Son, impel the birds and other
creatures for divination, or that they who give the impulse to such animals, and
not to men, though men are present, are worthless, and, as our sacred Scriptures
call them, "unclean" demons.

21. But if the soul of birds is really Divine because the future is foretold by means of them, must we not much more admit that wherever omens are received by men, the soul of the medium through which the omens are heard is Divine? According to such teachers as these, we must believe that the slave in Homer who ground the corn was "divine"; for, speaking of the suitors, she said----

"Would that they might eat their last meal here!" 418

She was "divine": the great Ulysses, the friend of Homer's Athene, was not "divine," but understanding the omens given by the "divine" slave he rejoiced; in the words of the poet, "The noble Ulysses rejoiced at the omen."
419 Again, observe that if the birds really have a Divine soul and perceptions of God, or, as Celsus says, "the gods," when we men sneeze, we sneeze, of course, because we have a certain divinity and divining faculty of soul. For many testify to this; and the poet accordingly says----

"Telemachus sneezed as the prayer was offered." 420

Wherefore, also, Penelope says----

"Do you not see that my son sneezed as you spoke?"

22. The true God, however, in imparting a knowledge of the future employs
neither irrational creatures nor ordinary men, but the holiest and purest souls
of men, such as He inspires with prophetic power. And this explains why amongst
the other wonderful precepts of the law of Moses we must place such prohibitions
as "Ye shall not practise augury, nor observe birds." 421 And in another place,
"For the nations, which the Lord thy |133 God shall destroy from before thy
face, will hearken to omens and divinations; but the Lord thy God gave not so
unto thee." 422 And elsewhere, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a
prophet from among thy brethren." 423 On one occasion God wished by means of an
augur to turn His people from the practice of augury, and therefore caused a
spirit in the augur to say, "Surely there is no augury with Jacob, nor is there
divination with Israel; at the due season shall it be told to Jacob and to
Israel, what God will perform." 424 Just because we are acquainted with these
and similar passages, we wish to observe the mystical command, "Keep thy heart
with all diligence," 425 lest some demon usurp the throne of reason, or some
hostile spirit turn our imagination to follow his desires. And we pray that "the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God" 426 may shine in our hearts, the
Spirit of God dwelling in our imagination and impressing on us the things of
God; "for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
427

23. And we ought to know that the knowledge of the future is not necessarily
Divine: for in itself it is a thing indifferent, and is found among both bad and
good men. Physicians, at all events, by their medical knowledge know certain
things beforehand, though they may be men of bad character; and so, also,
shipmasters, though they may be rascals, know the signs of the weather,
tempestuous winds, and atmospheric changes, through their peculiar experience
and observation. I suppose no one will say that because they have this knowledge
they are "divine," no matter what rascals they are. So then, when Celsus says,
"What can be pronounced more Divine than to foreknow and foreshow the future?"
he implies what is false. It is also false that "many of the animals have claims
to Divine conceptions," for no irrational creature has a conception of God. It
is also false that "the irrational creatures have |134 a closer intimacy with
God"; for the fact is that bad men, however high their attainments, are far from
intimacy with God. We maintain that only the truly wise and the sincerely godly
approach at all near to intimacy with God: such men as our Prophets and Moses,
to whom on account of the great purity of his character the Word has borne
witness, saying, "Moses alone shall draw near to God, the rest shall not draw
nigh." 428 Is it not impiety for the man who accuses us of impiety, to say that
"the irrational creatures are not only wiser than man, but are also dearer to
God?" And who would not shrink from heeding a man who says that the serpent, the
fox, the wolf, the eagle, and the hawk are dearer to God than human kind? He
will have to admit that if these creatures are dearer to God than men, these
same creatures are obviously dearer to God than Socrates, and Plato, and
Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and the other exponents of God and the Divine
nature, whose praises he sang not long before. One might really offer up a
prayer for Celsus, and say, "If these creatures are dearer to God than men, may
you be as dear to God as they are, and may you come to resemble those creatures
which, according to you, are dearer to God than men!" And let him not suppose
that such a prayer is really an imprecation; for who would not pray that he may
become altogether such as they who, he is persuaded, are dearer to God than
others, so that he, like them, may become dear to God?

24. And wishing to show that the assemblies of the irrational creatures are more
sacred than ours, Celsus ascribes what he relates, not to ordinary mortals, but
to "intelligent" men; though in truth only the good are intelligent, for no bad
man is intelligent. Well, he speaks after this fashion: "Intelligent men say
that the creatures have their assemblies, obviously more sacred than ours; and
that they somehow discover what is said and show that they actually have the
knowledge, inasmuch as they announce beforehand that the birds said they would
go |135 away and do this or that, and then show that they did go away and do
what they had already foretold." In reality, no "intelligent" person tells such
stories, and no wise man says that the assemblies of the irrational creatures
are more sacred than those of men. If, however, for the sake of testing the
statements of Celsus, we examine what they lead to, it appears, according to
him, that the assemblies of the irrational creatures are more sacred than those
of the venerable Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, and the
Philosophers in general, which, on the face of it, is not only unseemly, but
most absurd. But if we are to believe that certain men, who have derived their
information from the inarticulate cry of the birds, announce beforehand that the
birds will go to some place and do this or that, we shall maintain that the
information has been given to men by demons through certain signs, for the
purpose of men being deceived by demons, and their understanding dragged down
from heaven and from God to earth and places lower still.

25. I do not know how Celsus came to hear tell of an oath being taken by
elephants, and that they show more fidelity towards the Divine Being than we
men, and that they have a knowledge of God. I know a good many marvellous
stories about the animal and its docility, but I am not aware that any one has
spoken of an elephant's oaths, unless, perhaps, Celsus calls their docility and
the sort of covenant they make once for all with men, the keeping of an oath;
but that again is absurd. There are instances, though rare, of elephants, after
seeming to be tamed, fiercely attacking men and killing them, and of their being
therefore condemned to death as of no further use. And. to prove his point, as
he thinks, that the stork has more piety than men, our opponent adduces what is
related about its loving and cherishing its parents and bringing them food. I
must therefore add that even this conduct of the storks does not proceed from a
regard to what is right, nor from reasoning, but from nature, it |136 being
nature's aim in fashioning them, to set an example in irrational creatures
strong enough to shame men into showing gratitude to their parents. If Celsus
had known the vast difference between doing these things with the aid of reason
and doing them without the aid of reason, and by the mere impulses of nature, he
would never have said that storks have more piety than men. Further, as if
determined to uphold the piety of irrational creatures, Celsus adduces the fable
of the Arabian creature, the Phoenix, which is said to visit Egypt at long
intervals, and to bring its father, dead and buried in a globe of myrrh, and
deposit the remains at the temple of the Sun. Now, even supposing what is here
related to be true, it may be the result of natural processes; for Divine
Providence has even in the different constitutions of living creatures given
proof to man of the rich variety to be found in the ordering of the world, a
variety extending even to the birds; and it brought into being a unique
creature, not that men might marvel at the creature, but at its Creator.

26. To all this Celsus adds the following: "Just as all things have not been
made for the sake of lion, eagle, or dolphin, so neither have they for the sake
of man; but the aim was that this world, as God's work, might be a complete and
perfect unity;429 and this is why all the parts have been proportioned, not to
one another, except in a secondary sense, but to the whole, and God cares for
the whole; and Providence never forsakes it, nor does it degenerate, nor does
God in process of time turn it again to Himself, nor is He angry on account of
men any more than on account of apes or flies; nor does He threaten these
creatures, each of which has in its turn received its appointed lot." Let us, if
only briefly, meet these allegations. I suppose I have already said enough to
show how everything has been made for man, and for every rational creature; for
it is chiefly on account of the rational creature that everything has been
created. Celsus may tell us that the world exists no |137 more for man than it
does for the lion, or the other creatures which he mentions; hut we shall
maintain that the Creator has made these things not for the lion, the eagle, or
the dolphin, but all things for the sake of the rational creature; and this is
so, in the words of Celsus, "in order that this world may be, as God's work, a
complete and perfect unity"; for we must acknowledge the good sense of this. But
God's care is not merely universal, as Celsus thinks, but while He cares for the
whole, He has a special care for every rational creature. And a general
Providence will never fail; for it is His plan, even though there be a general
deterioration because of the sinning rational portion, to purify all creation,
and in process of time to turn it back to Himself. It is true that God is never
angry on account of apes and flies; but inasmuch as men have transgressed the
promptings of nature,430 He brings upon them judgment and chastisement, and
threatens them through the Prophets and the Saviour Who came to save the whole
human race; that through His threatening they who hear may be turned, and they
who neglect the words intended to turn them may fitly pay the penalty which it
is proper that God should, according to His own will, and as is expedient for
the whole, inflict on those who need such painful treatment and correction. But
our fourth book is now large enough, and we will therefore here end the
discourse. God grant through His Son, Who is God the Word, and Wisdom, and
Truth, and Righteousness, and whatsoever else the sacred Scriptures say of His
Divinity, that we may begin the fifth volume to the profit of our readers, and
finish it well, with the help of His Word abiding in our soul!

CHAP. XXI. ----Of Free Will, with an explanation and interpretation of those sayings of Scripture which seem to destroy it; such as the following:---- a. "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." b. "I will take away their stony hearts, and will give |138 them hearts of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances." c. "That seeing they may not see, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them." d. "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." e. "It is of God both to will and to do" f."So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth."

1. Since the doctrine of a righteous judgment of God forms part of 431 the
preaching of the Church, and that doctrine if believed to be true stimulates the
hearers, of course consenting that praiseworthy or blameworthy conduct is in our
own power, to live good lives and by all means to avoid sin, come let us briefly
discuss a few points connected with Free Will, for the subject is of the utmost
importance. And that we may understand what Free Will is, I must unfold the
meaning of it, so that when this is cleared up the question may be accurately
stated. Now of things that move, some have the cause of motion in themselves,
while those of a different kind are moved only from without. To this latter
class belong portable things only, for example, wood and stones, and all matter
which is held together by its constitution only.432 And on this occasion we will
not apply the term "motion" to the flux of bodies, for it is not necessary for
our purpose. But animals, plants, and generally whatever is held together by a
natural soul,433 including metals, as some say, have the cause of motion in
themselves. Besides these, fire is self-moved, and so perhaps are fountains. And
of |139 things which have the cause of motion in themselves, some are said to be
moved of 434 themselves, others by themselves; lifeless things of themselves,
living things by themselves. And the living things are moved by themselves when
there arises within them a phantasy, that is, a desire or feeling,435 which
calls forth an instinct. And, again, in certain of the living creatures the
phantastic nature not only calls forth an instinct, but does so regularly; for
instance, in the spider a "phantasy" of weaving arises and the instinct to weave
follows, its phantastic nature regularly urging it to do so, the creature having
been entrusted with nothing more than its phantastic nature; and in the bee the
instinct is to make cells of wax.

2. The rational creature, however, in addition to its phantastic nature has
reason, which distinguishes between the phantasies, rejecting some, approving
others, so that the creature may be guided accordingly. Now it is the nature of
reason to have promptings to the contemplation of virtue and vice; and if,
yielding to these promptings, we choose the former and shun the latter, we
deserve praise for devoting ourselves to the practice of virtue, or blame if we
take the opposite course. We must not, however, fail to remark that, though for
the most part 436 the nature of animals is adapted to all their needs, it is so
in varying degrees, sometimes more, sometimes less; so that hounds in hunting
and horses in war are not, if I may say so, far from the rational creature. Now,
whether something external shall chance to excite this or that phantasy in us,
confessedly does not rest with us; but it is for reason and nothing else to
decide whether we shall use what has happened in a particular way or otherwise,
reason either urging us, according to its promptings, to follow our better and
nobler instincts, or misleading us so that we do the reverse.|140

3. If any one says that the outward world is so constituted that one cannot
resist it, let him study his own feelings and movements, and see whether there
are not some plausible motives to account for his approval and assent, and the
inclination of his reason to a particular object. To take an illustration,
suppose a man to have made up his mind to exercise self-control and refrain from
sexual intercourse, and then let a woman come upon the scene and solicit him to
act contrary to his resolution; she is not cause sufficient to make him break
his resolution. It is just because he likes the luxury and softness of the
pleasure, and is unwilling to resist it, or stand firm in his determination,
that he indulges in the licentious practice. On the contrary, the same thing may
happen to a man of greater knowledge and better disciplined; he will not escape
the sensations and incitements; but his reason, inasmuch as it is strengthened
and nourished by exercise, and has firm convictions on the side of virtue, or is
near to having them, stops the excitements short and gradually weakens the lust.

4. Now, when the facts stand thus, to excuse ourselves by putting the blame on
outward things, declaring ourselves to be like wood and stone drawn hither and
thither by the outward things that move them, is neither truth nor candour, and
no one but a man who wishes to give a false conception of Free Will would make
such a statement. For if we were to ask him what Free Will is, he would say that
my will is free when I purpose to do something, and nothing from without opposes
and incites to the contrary. And again, on the other hand, to blame our mere
natural constitution 437 is absurd; for reason takes and teaches the most
licentious and savage men, if they will but follow her exhortation, and changes
them, so that the exhortation is very efficacious, and the change for the better
very great; and the most licentious men frequently surpass in goodness those who
do not at first seem likely to be licentious by nature, while the most savage
men change |141 and become so gentle, that men who were never so savage as they,
seem savage in comparison with some individual who has adopted gentler ways. On
the other hand, we see men of a different type, men of the utmost steadiness and
gravity,438 turning aside to low amusements, and thus stripped of their
steadiness and gravity; so that they change to licentiousness, oftentimes
beginning this licentiousness in middle life, and falling into disorderly ways
after that, in the natural course of things, the unsteadiness of youth has
passed away. Reason then shows that outward things are not in our own power, but
that it is our business to make reason inquire and judge how we ought to meet
any particular combination of circumstances, and turn it to account this way or
the contrary.

5. That it is our business to lead a good life, and that God asks this of us,
inasmuch as it does not depend on Him, and does not come from some different
god, or, as some suppose, from fate, but is a matter for ourselves, the prophet
Micah will testify, when he says, "Was it shewed thee, O man, what is good? What
doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, and love mercy, and to be
ready to walk with the Lord thy God?" 439 And Moses, "I have set before thee the
way of life and the way of death. Choose the good, and walk therein." 440 And
Esaias, "If ye be willing, and will hearken unto me, ye shall eat the good of
the land; but if you refuse, and will not hearken unto me, the sword shall
devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 441 And in the Psalms,
"Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! I
should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against those that
oppress them":442 which shows that it was in the power of the people to hearken
and walk in the ways of God. And the Saviour says, "But I say unto you, Resist
not him that is evil";443 and, "That every one who is angry |142 with his
brother shall be in danger of the judgment";444 and, "Whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
445 And if He gives any other commandments, He speaks on the supposition that it
is in our power to keep what is enjoined; and with good reason, if we are to be
in danger of the judgment for transgressing them. Whence also He says, "Every
one which heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a
wise man, which built his house upon the rock"; and so on. "But he that heareth
and doeth not, is likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the
sand";446 and so on. And, speaking to those on the right hand, "Come, ye blessed
of my Father," and so forth; "for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was
thirsty, and ye gave me drink";447 which shows very clearly that because they
deserve to be praised He gives them the promises. And, on the contrary, He says
to the others, because in comparison with them they deserved to be blamed,
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire." 448 And let us see how Paul
also discourses to us on the supposition that we have Free Will and are
ourselves responsible for being lost or saved. "Or despisest thou," he says,449
"the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that
the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and
impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and
revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man
according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory
and honour and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and
obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew
first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honour and peace |143 to every man
that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." There are, indeed,
countless passages in the Scriptures which very clearly support the doctrine of
Free Will.

6. But since certain passages in the Old Testament and in the New tend to the
opposite conclusion, viz. that it is not in our power to keep the commandments
and be saved, or to transgress them and perish, let us in turn take some of
these, and look at the explanations of them; so that a reader studying our
examples may similarly pick out for himself all the passages which seem to
destroy Free Will, and may consider the way to explain them. No doubt what is
related of Pharaoh, concerning whom God says repeatedly, "I will harden
Pharaoh's heart," 450 has troubled many. For if he is hardened by God, and sins
because he is hardened, he does not cause himself to sin, nor, if this is so, is
Pharaoh a free agent; and similarly, some one will say that the perishing are
not free agents, and that their perishing will not be their own doing. Again, in
Ezekiel it is said, "I will take away their stony hearts, and will give them
hearts of flesh: that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances."
451 This is disturbing, for it seems to say that God gives the power to walk in
the statutes and to keep the ordinances, inasmuch as He has taken away that
which hinders, viz. the stony heart, and has put in them something better, the
heart of flesh. Let us look, too, at the passage in the Gospel, where the
Saviour replies to those who asked why He spoke to the multitude in parables.
"That," He says, "seeing they may not perceive; and hearing they may not
understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them."
452 Further, in Paul we find, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that hath mercy." 453 And elsewhere, "It is God that worketh
in you both to will and to do." 454 And in another place, "So then |144 he hath
mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?" 455 And "This
persuasion 456 is of him that calleth and not of ourselves." 457 "Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God? " 458 And again, "Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the
potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?" This in itself is surely enough to greatly
trouble most readers, and give the impression that man is not a free agent, but
that God saves and destroys whomsoever He wishes.

7. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh's being hardened by God,
so that he might not let the people go; and with this shall also be examined the
apostolic statement, "So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he
hardeneth." 459 And since some heterodox thinkers use these passages, themselves
almost destroying Free Will, for the sake of introducing perishing natures
incapable of being saved, and different natures which are being saved, because
they cannot possibly be lost; and since they say that Pharaoh being of a
perishing nature was therefore hardened by God, Who hath mercy on the spiritual,
but hardeneth the earthy; come, let us see what it is they mean. We will ask
them if Pharaoh was of an earthy nature; and if they answer "Yes," we will tell
them that the man with an earthy nature is altogether disobedient to God; and if
he be thus disobedient, what need is there for hardening his heart, and this not
once but many times? Unless perhaps (seeing that it was possible for him to
obey, and he certainly would have obeyed, inasmuch as he was not earthy, because
he was put to shame by the signs and wonders) God wanted him still more
disobedient for the sake of showing forth mighty deeds to the saving of the |145
many, and therefore hardened his heart. This shall be our first argument against
them in order to overthrow their assumption that Pharaoh was of a perishing
nature. And we shall give the same answer respecting the Apostle's statement.
Does God really harden any? Does He harden the perishing, because He believes
that they will be partially obedient unless they are hardened? or, forsooth,
those who would be saved, because they have not a perishing nature? And on whom
hath He mercy? Is it on those who will be saved? But what need have they of a
second mercy, seeing that once for all they have been so fashioned that they
will be saved, and that they are certain to be blessed on account of their
nature? Unless, perhaps, since it is possible for them to perish if they have
not mercy shown them, they have mercy shown them, so that they may not incur
destruction to which they are liable, but may come to be numbered with those who
are being saved. This is our reply to those men.

8. But we must raise another question in reply to those who think they
understand the word "harden." What do they mean by saying that God by His
operation hardens the heart, and what is His object in so doing? Let them, at
all events, keep to a conception of God consistent with His being really just
and good. If they object to this, let us for the present waive the point, and
only say just; and I invite them to show how the good and just God, or the just
God, to say no more, manifests His justice by hardening the heart of a man who
is perishing through being hardened; and how the just God can be the cause of a
man's disobedience and destruction, seeing that men are punished by Him for
their hardness and because they do not obey Him? And why does God also blame
Pharaoh, saying, "Thou wilt not let my people go.460 Behold, I smite all the
first-born in the land of Egypt, and thy first-born";461 and whatever else is
recorded as spoken by God to Pharaoh through the mouth of Moses. Any fair-minded
man who believes that the Scriptures are |146 true, and that God is just, must
do his best to show how in using such expressions God is clearly understood to
be just; for if any one should have the effrontery to stand up and denounce the
Creator for His wickedness,462 we should want other arguments to answer him. But
since our opponents say they are disposed to regard Him as just, and we regard
Him as both just and good, let us consider how the good and just God could
harden the heart of Pharaoh.

9. Let us see, then, whether an illustration which the Apostle used in the
Epistle to the Hebrews will help us to show how by one operation God hath mercy
on whom He will, and hardens whom He will; not that God intends to harden: God's
purpose is merciful; but the hardening is a result thereof, through man's
inherent wickedness, and God is therefore said to harden him that is hardened.
"The land," he says, "which hath drunk the rain that cometh upon it, and
bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth
blessing from God: but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and
nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned." 463 So then, in respect of the
rain there is one operation; but while there is one operation in respect of the
rain, the land which is tilled bears fruit, and the land which is neglected and
barren bears thorns. It would sound harsh for the sender of the rain to say, "I
made the fruits and the thorns to grow that are in the land"; but however harsh
it might sound, it would nevertheless be true. For if there had been no rain,
there would have been neither fruits nor thorns; but because there were
seasonable and moderate rains, both fruits and thorns grew. It is the land which
hath drunk the rain that cometh frequently upon it, and beareth thorns and
thistles, that is rejected and nigh unto a curse. So then, the blessing of the
rain came also upon the inferior land; but it was the inherent badness of the
land, left uncared for and uncultivated, which caused thorns and |147 thistles
to grow. Similarly, God's marvellous doings are, as it were, the rain; but men's
different purposes 464 are, as it were, the cultivation or neglect of the land;
the nature of the land is one and the same.

10. Suppose the sun were to speak and say, "I melt and dry up." Melting and
drying up are the contraries of one another, but it would not speak falsely,
because of the subject matter:465 wax being melted, and clay dried up, by one
and the same heat. Similarly, the one operation of God by means of Moses proved
the hardening of Pharaoh on account of his evil disposition, and the obedience
of the mixed multitudes of the Egyptians who went out with the Hebrews. And the
brief statement that the heart of Pharaoh was somewhat softened, inasmuch as he
said, "Only ye shall not go very far away: ye shall go a three days' journey,
but leave your wives"; 466 and whatever else he said, slightly yielding to the
marvellous deeds of Moses, shows that the signs produced some effect upon him,
but not the full effect. Now there would not have been even this degree of
softening, if, as is thought by the many, the meaning of "I will harden
Pharaoh's heart" is that the hardening was effected by God Himself. And it is
not absurd to tone down the harshness of such expressions as we do in common
life. It often happens that kind masters say to their servants, who are being
ruined by their kindness and forbearance, "I have spoiled you"; "I am to blame
for such and such offences." We ought to attend to the nature and force of what
is said, and not quibble because we do not plainly catch the meaning of the
expression. Paul, at any rate, no doubt after careful inquiry, says to the
sinner, "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and
long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
467 But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up for thyself
wrath in the day of wrath and revelation |148 of the righteous judgment of God."
Now, let us suppose that what the Apostle says to the sinner is addressed to
Pharaoh, and we see how well the declaration would suit him; for after his
hardness and impenitent heart he was treasuring up for himself wrath; and his
hardness would not have been so clearly proved, nor have been so manifest, if
the signs had not been wrought, or, if they had been wrought, but had not been
so many and so great.

11. But since such interpretations are far from convincing and are thought to be forced, let us look at the word of Prophecy, and see what the many say who have experienced the abundant goodness of God though they may not have lived good lives, but afterwards sinned: "O Lord, why dost thou make us to err from thy way? Wherefore hardenest thou our heart that we fear not thy name? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance, that for a little while we may inherit thy holy mount."
468 And in Jeremiah, "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed."
469 For when the suppliants for mercy say, "Wherefore hardenest thou our heart that we fear not thy name?",470 the meaning is, in effect, something like this: "Wherefore didst thou spare us so long, not visiting us to take vengeance on our sins, but leaving us alone until our offences became so great?" God leaves the greater number of men without chastisement, so that the character of each one may be thoroughly tested from our voluntary conduct, and that through the trial the good may be made manifest, and the rest, not without being known,----I will not say to God, for He knows all things before they begin,471 ----but to the rational creatures and themselves, may afterwards light on a way of healing; for they would never have realised the benefit, if they had not condemned themselves; and this is expedient for every one, that he may perceive his own peculiar nature and the grace which God gives. But if a man does not perceive his own weakness and the
|149
grace of God, though he be benefited without having had experience of himself and without having condemned himself, he will imagine that the blessing bestowed upon him by the grace of heaven is his own brave and manly conduct. And this supposition, filling him with pride, will be the cause of his downfall; as we think happened to the Devil, because he gave himself credit for the privileges which he enjoyed when he was blameless. "For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled," and "Every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
472 Consider, further, that for this cause the Divine mysteries are hidden from the wise and understanding,473 viz. that, as the Apostle says, "No flesh may glory before God"; and they are revealed to babes, who, when they have passed their infancy, have come to better things, and remember that if they have reached the height of blessedness, the credit is not so much due to themselves as to the unspeakable bounty of God.

12. So then, he that 474 is left without chastisement is so left by the Divine
judgment, and God is long-suffering towards some sinners, not without reason,
but because it will be good for them, having regard to the immortality of the
soul and eternal life, that they be not too soon assisted in the attainment of
salvation, but be slowly brought thereto after they have had experience of much
evil. For as physicians, though they might quickly cure a man, will adopt the
opposite of remedial measures whenever they suspect lurking mischief, because by
so doing they mean to make the cure more permanent, and think it better to keep
the patient for a long time in feverishness and sickness, so that he may make a
sounder recovery, than that he should soon seem to pick up strength, but suffer
a relapse, and the too hasty cure prove to be only temporary: so God also,
knowing the secrets of the heart and having foreknowledge of the future, in His
long-suffering perhaps lets things take their course, and by means of outward
circumstances draws forth the secret evil, in order to |150 cleanse him, who
through neglect, has harboured the seeds of sin; so that a man having vomited
them when they have come to the surface, even if he be far gone in wickedness,
may afterwards find strength when he has been cleansed from his wickness and
been renewed. For God governs the souls of men, not, if I may so speak,
according to the scale of an earthly life of fifty years, but by the measure of
eternity; for He has made the intellectual nature incorruptible and akin to
Himself; and the rational soul is not debarred of healing, as if this present
life were all.

13. Now let us make use of the following illustration from the Gospel: There is
a rock with a scanty surface soil; if the seeds fall into that soil, they
quickly spring up, but when they have sprung up, once the sun is risen, they are
scorched and wither away because they have no root.475 Now this rock is the soul
of man, hardened through neglect, and through wickedness turned to stone; for no
man's heart is created stony by God, but it becomes such through wickedness.
Suppose one were to blame the husbandman for not sowing his seed on the rocky
ground earlier, because some other rocky ground which had received the seed was
seen to be flourishing; the husbandman might reply, "I will sow this land later
when I have dressed 476 it with what will keep back 477 what I intend to sow;
for the slower and safer method will suit this land better than it would the
land which takes the seed sooner and more superficially"; we should give the
husbandman credit for speaking reasonably and for understanding his work. So,
too, the great Husbandman of every nature puts off the well-doing, which might
too soon be reckoned such, in order that it may not be superficial. But some one
may here object, "How is it that some of the seeds fall upon the soul which is
like a rock with its thin covering of soil?" In reply, let us say that it is
better for such a soul which has too hastily resolved on the higher life, and is
not treading the path which leads to it, to get what it wishes, so |151 that,
condemning itself for its impatience, it may have long patience hereafter to
receive its natural cultivation. For our 478 souls, so to speak, are countless,
and their characters countless, and their emotions, dispositions, purposes, and
instincts innumerable; there is but One Who ordered them, and He the Best; He
understandeth the seasons, and the proper helps, and the ways of guidance, and
the paths, the God and Father of All, Who knoweth how He is guiding even Pharaoh
through many experiences and through the drowning in the sea, though His
ordering of Pharaoh's welfare does not end there. For Pharaoh was not destroyed
when he was drowned. "In the hand of God are both we and our words: All wisdom
also and knowledge of workmanship?" 479 So far, briefly, in defence of the
statement that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and in explanation of the words,
"On whom he will he hath mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." 480

14. Now, let us look at the passage from Ezekiel, "I will take away their stony hearts from them, and will give them hearts of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances."
481 If God when He wishes takes away their stony hearts and puts in them hearts of flesh, so that His ordinances are kept and His commandments observed, the putting away of wickedness does not depend upon ourselves. For the taking away of stony hearts can have but one meaning, viz., that from whom God chooses, the wickedness in which any man is hardened is put away; and as for the creating of a heart of flesh, that a man may walk in the ordinances of God and keep His commandments, what does this mean but that the man begins to yield, does not stubbornly withstand the truth, and has the power to practise virtue? And if God promises to do this, and until God takes away the stony hearts, we do not put them away, it is clear that the putting away of our wickedness does not depend upon ourselves; and if we contribute nothing towards the creation within us of the heart of flesh,
|152
but it is the work of God, it follows that a virtuous life will not be our work, but altogether [the work of] Divine grace. This is what any one will say who from the bare words seeks to destroy Free Will. In reply we shall say that we ought thus to understand these passages. Suppose some one ignorant and uneducated to become conscious of his defects, either through the admonition of his teacher, or simply of himself, and then to put himself in the hands of a man whom he thinks capable of leading him into education and virtue; when he thus surrenders himself, his instructor promises to take away the lack of education and to give him an education; not, however, as though the educating and the escape from the want of it in no way depend on the pupil having offered himself for treatment: he only promises to benefit his pupil because he desires to improve. Thus the Divine Word promises to take away the wickedness, which it calls the stony heart, of those who come to it, not if they are unwilling, but if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick; just as in the Gospels, the sick are found coming to the Saviour and begging to be healed and restored to health. We may say that if the blind received their sight, it was the doing of the sufferers, inasmuch as they believed they could be restored and begged the blessing, and that it was the Saviour's doing, inasmuch as He did restore their sight. So, also, the Word of God promises to implant knowledge in those who come to it, by taking away the stony and hard heart, that is to say, their wickedness, so that a man may walk in the Divine commandments and keep the Divine ordinances. 15. Then there was the passage from the Gospel, in which the Saviour said that His reason for speaking to those without in parables was, "That seeing they may not perceive, and hearing they may not understand, lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them."
482 Our opponents will say, "If it is certainly the case that some hearers turn because they hear clearer teaching, and so turn that they become worthy of the forgiveness of sins,
|153
and whether they hear the clearer teaching or not does not depend upon them but upon the teacher, and the reason why he does not speak to them more clearly is that they may not see and understand, their salvation does not depend upon themselves; and if this is so, we are not free agents as regards salvation and perdition." If it were not for the additional words, "Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them," it would be a convincing reply to say that the Saviour did not wish those who were unlikely to become good and upright to understand the deeper, mystical truths, and He therefore spoke to them in parables; but, as it is, when we find the words, "Lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them," our defence is more difficult. In the first place, then, we must note the passage in connection with the heterodox, who hunt up such portions of the Old Testament, because in them, as they make bold to say, the cruelty of the Creator
483 shows itself, the spirit of revenge and retaliation which bad men display, or whatever they like to call it, their only object being to prove that there is no goodness in the Creator; and in reading the New Testament they do not accord it fair and equal treatment, but dismiss such passages as resemble those they think deserving of censure in the Old Testament. For the Saviour is clearly shown in the Gospel, and they themselves so take the above words, to have had this motive in not speaking plainly, viz. "That men may not turn, and having turned become worthy of remission of sins"----a passage which in itself rivals any like it from the Old Testament which are impugned. But if they seek a defence of the Gospel, we must ask them whether their inconsistent treatment of similar questions is not culpable, inasmuch as they take no offence at the New Testament but seek to defend it, while they attack the Old Testament for such-like things, though they ought to defend them like those from the New Testament. And let us hereby teach them on account of the resemblances to consider all
|154
as the Scriptures of one God. Now let us offer the best defence we can in the matter before us.

16. When we were investigating the story of Pharaoh we said that sometimes a too
rapid cure is not for the good of the patients; for if, having got themselves
into trouble, they were to be relieved of their sufferings on easy terms, they
would think little of the evil because it was soon cured, and through not being
on their guard against falling into it would fall into it again. Wherefore, in
such cases the Eternal God, Who knoweth the secret things and knoweth all things
before they be,484 according to His goodness will not give the sufferers too
speedy assistance, and, if I may so say, helps them by not helping them,485
because that is best for them. It is probable, then, that those "without," 486
of whom we are speaking, inasmuch as the Saviour saw, as we suppose, that they
would not be steadfast in their conversion if they clearly heard what He said,
were so treated by the Lord that they should not distinctly hear the deeper
truths; lest haply, having turned too quickly, and having been healed by gaining
forgiveness, they should despise the wounds of their wickedness as .trifling and
easily cured, and again, even more quickly than before, suffer from them.
Perhaps also, while paying the penalty for their former sins, offences against
virtue which they committed through forsaking her, they had not filled the
proper time; so that, being forsaken of the Divine superintendence, and having
had enough of the evils which they themselves sowed, they are afterwards called
to a more steadfast repentance, and will not speedily fall into the sins into
which they fell before, because they mocked at the worth of goodness, and
abandoned themselves to the lower life. Those, then, who are said to be
"without," of course as compared with those "within," inasmuch as they are not
very far distant from those within, these last being the inner circle who hear
distinctly, hear indistinctly because they are addressed in parables, but they
do hear. |155 Others, again, of those "without," they who are called the people
of Tyre,487 although it was foreknown that they would long ago have repented,
sitting in sackcloth and ashes, if the Saviour came near their borders, do not
even hear what He said to those "without." 488 The reason probably is that these
Tyrians were far less deserving than those "without"; and the Saviour intended
that at another season, when it has become more tolerable for them than for
those who did not receive the Word, and who reminded him of the Tyrians, they
may hear under more favourable conditions, and may more steadfastly repent. And
observe whether, as we prosecute the inquiry,489 we do not more and more strive
to every way preserve piety towards God and His Christ, endeavouring, for we
know how marvellous these things are, to defend by all means the manifold
providence of God Who taketh thought for an immortal soul. If, indeed, any one
should ask concerning those who were reproached by the Saviour, because, though
they saw marvellous things and heard Divine words, they did not profit, while
the Tyrians would have repented if such things had been said and clone among
them: if he were to raise the question and ask, Why in the world did the Saviour
preach to such people to their hurt, so that a heavier burden of sins might be
imputed to them? we must reply that He Who understands the dispositions of those
who blame His providence, and say that it explains their unbelief, because it
has not granted them to see what it privileged others to behold, and has not
arranged for them to hear what others have heard to their profit, He, inasmuch
as He wishes to show the unreasonableness of their defence, grants those things
for which the accusers of His government ask, so that after they have received
them they may none the less be convicted of deep impiety, seeing that they do
not surrender themselves that they may be profited, and may therefore cease from
such audacity; and, being so far free, may learn that God sometimes lingers |156
and delays out of kindness to some men, not granting them to see and hear things
which, if seen and heard, would convict them of still more grievous sin,
forasmuch as after such mighty works they did not believe.

17. Now let us look at the words, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." 490 They who take hold of the
passage say, "If it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that hath mercy," salvation does not depend upon ourselves, but upon the way
491 they are constituted by Him Who makes them what they are, or on the choice
492 of Him Who hath mercy when He pleases! We must ask the objectors this
question: Is the willing that which is good a good or a bad thing? and the
running of the man who wishes to reach the goal by zealously pursuing that which
is good, is this deserving of praise or blame? If they tell us that it deserves
blame, their answer will be absurd, for the saints will and run, and, of course,
herein do nothing deserving blame. If they say that to will that which is good
is good, and to run after that which is good is good, we will ask how the
perishing nature wills the better course; for it is like a bad tree bearing good
fruit, if willing the better course is really good. And, thirdly, they will say
that to will that which is good and run after that which is good belongs to the
class of things indifferent, and is neither good nor bad.493 In reply to this it
must be said that if willing the good and running after the good is a thing
indifferent, then its opposite is also a thing indifferent, that is to say,
willing that which is evil and running after that which is evil. But, in fact,
to will that which is evil and run after that which is evil, is not a thing
indifferent. Therefore, to will that which is good and run after that which is
good, is not a thing indifferent.

18. Some such defence as this, I think, we can offer to |157 the words, "So then
it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath
mercy." 494 In the Book of Psalms Solomon says (for he is the author of the Song
of Ascents 495 which we are about to quote), "Except the Lord build the house,
they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman
waketh but in vain." 496 He does not mean to dissuade us from building, nor is
he teaching us not to watch so as to guard the city of our soul, but he is
showing that what is built apart from God, and is not blessed with His
guardianship, is built in vain and kept to no purpose, because God might
reasonably have been called the Lord of the building, and the Master of the
Universe, the Ruler of the guard of the city. Suppose, therefore, we were to say
that such a building is not the work of the builder, but God's work; and that if
the city has suffered nothing from its enemies, success is not to be attributed
to the watchman, but to God over all, we should not err: for it is understood
that man plays his part, though the manliness and virtue is thankfully ascribed
to God Who brought it to perfection. Similarly, inasmuch as human willing is not
sufficient for the attainment of the end in view, nor the running, as if we were
athletes, sufficient for grasping the prize of the high calling of God in Christ
Jesus,497 for these results are secured with God's assistance, it is well said
that "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
hath mercy." 498 The same might be said of husbandry, as it is written, "I
planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that
planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the
increase";499 and if there are abundant fruits, we could not with piety say that
this is the work of the husbandman, or the work of him that watereth, but the
work of God; so also our perfecting is not brought about if we do nothing at
all, though it is not completed by us, but God effects the greater part of it.
And that what we |158 say may carry clear conviction, we will take an
illustration from navigation. If we regard the winds that blow, the settled
state of the weather, and the brightness of the stars, all contributing to the
safety of those on board, how much could we credit seamanship with for bringing
the vessel into harbour? The shipmasters themselves from motives of piety do not
often venture to affirm that they have saved the ship, but ascribe everything to
God; not as though they had done nothing, but because Providence has contributed
to the result immensely more than their skill. And certainly in the saving of
our souls what God gives is immensely more than what comes from our own
ability;500 and this, I think, accounts for the words, "It is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." For if we must
take the words, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that hath mercy," as our opponents suppose, the commandments are
superfluous, and Paul to no purpose blames some for having fallen into sin, and
congratulates others on their uprightness, and lays down laws for the churches;
and on their showing it is useless for us to devotedly will the better life,
useless to earnestly resolve to run. But not in vain does Paul give his advice,
blaming some, congratulating others; and not in vain do we devotedly will the
better life and press on to things which excel. So, then, they have not well
understood the passage.

19. Besides these there is the passage, "It is God which worketh in you both to
will and to work." 501 Some say, "If the willing comes from God, and the working
from God, even if we will badly and work badly, God is the original source of
our so doing; and if this be so, we are not free agents. On the other hand, when
we will what is better and work the things that excel, since the willing and the
working come from God, it is not we who have done the things that excel; we,
indeed, seemed to do them, but the doing them was God's gift; so that, according
to this also, we are not free agents." In reply, we have to |159 say that the
Apostle's language does not imply that the willing of evil, or the willing of
good, is of God, and similarly, the working of what is better or worse, but
willing and running in general. For as it is from God that we are living
creatures and men, so also it is from Him that we have the power of willing in
general, as I said, and the power of motion in general. And as, although in
virtue of our being living creatures we have the power of motion and can move
the members of our bodies, our hands or feet, for instance, we could not
reasonably say that the specific movement comes from God, the movements to
strike, or kill, or take away another man's goods, but must maintain that motion
in general is indeed a gift from God, though we use it for either bad or good
purposes: so the working which stamps us as living creatures, we have received
from God, and the willing we received from the Creator; but we use that power of
willing either for the noblest purposes, or for the opposite, and so also the
power of working.

20. Still, the utterance of the Apostle will seem to force us to the conclusion
that we are not free agents. Putting an objection, he says, "Thou wilt say then
unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him
that formed it, Why hadst thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over
the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another
unto dishonour?" 502 A reader may well say, "If, as the potter from the same
lump makes some vessels unto honour and some unto dishonour, so also God makes
some unto salvation and some to perdition, it follows that we have nothing to do
with our salvation or perdition: nor are we free agents." Let me ask a reader
who makes this use of the words, if he can imagine the Apostle contradicting
himself. I do not think any one will dare say this. Well, then, if the Apostle
does not contradict himself, how does the reader who thus understands him mean
to show that |160 the Apostle reasonably finds fault when he blames the
Corinthian fornicator, or those who fell into sin and did not repent of the
lasciviousness and incontinence which they committed? 503 And how is it that he
blesses for their well-doing those whom he praises, as, for instance, the house
of Onesiphorus, saying, "The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for
he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome,
he sought me diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of
the Lord in that day." 504 Surely it is not consistent for the same Apostle to
censure the sinner because he deserves blame, and congratulate the well-doer
because he deserves praise; and, contrariwise, as if nothing depended on
ourselves, maintain that the Creator of the world is responsible for one vessel
being unto honour, and another unto dishonour. How can it be sound doctrine
that, "We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may
receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it
be good or bad," 505 if they who have done evil have so conducted themselves
because they were created vessels of dishonour, and they who have lived virtuous
lives have done that which is right, because originally they were fashioned
thereto and were vessels of honour? And again, is not what is said elsewhere
inconsistent with the view that it is the fault of the Creator if "one vessel is
in honour and another in dishonour," as the critics infer from what we have
quoted? "In a great house," we read, "there are not only vessels of gold and
silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honour and some unto
dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel
unto honour, sanctified, meet for the master's use, prepared unto every good
work." 506 For if he who purges himself becomes a vessel unto honour, while he
who carelessly leaves himself unpurged becomes a vessel unto dishonour, the
Creator cannot, so far as these words go, be held responsible. For |161 the
Creator makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not originally
according to His foreknowledge, since He does not, according to it, condemn or
justify beforehand, but He makes them vessels of honour who purge themselves,
and them vessels of dishonour who carelessly leave themselves unpurged. So that
from antecedent 507 causes for making the vessels to honour and dishonour it
arises that one man is to honour and another to dishonour.

21. But if we once admit that there are certain antecedent causes for one vessel
being a vessel of honour, and another a vessel of dishonour, what absurdity is
there in going back to the mystery of the soul, and understanding that there
were antecedent causes for Jacob's being loved and Esau's being hated; as
regards Jacob, before his assumption of a body, and as regards Esau, before he
was conceived in the womb? At the same time it clearly appears that, so far as
the subject nature is concerned, as there is one and the same lump of clay
subject to the potter, out of which vessels are made to honour and dishonour:
so, though there is one common soul nature subject to God, and, if I may so
speak, one lump of rational subsistences, certain antecedent causes have made
some men to be unto honour and others to dishonour. And if the Apostle's
question conveys a rebuke, "Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
508 it perhaps teaches that he who has confidence towards God, as a man of faith
and good life, would not have the question addressed to him, "Who art thou that
repliest against God?" Such an one was Moses; for Moses spake, and God answered
him by a Voice,509 and as God answers Moses, so also the holy man answers God.
But he who has not this confidence, manifestly, either because he has lost it,
or because he investigates these topics not from a love of learning but in a
contentious spirit, and therefore says, "Why doth he still find fault? For who
withstandeth |162 his will?" 510 this man would deserve the rebuke, "Nay, O man,
who art thou that repliest against God?" 511

22. But to those who introduce different natures,512 and use the present passage
in support, I have this to say: If they make good their contention that from one
lump are made both those who are perishing and those who are being saved, and
that the Creator of those who are being saved is the Creator also of those who
are perishing, and if He is good Who maketh not only men who are spiritual, but
also those who are earthy (for this is a consequence of their doctrine), it is
nevertheless possible that a man who in the present time has through certain
previous deeds of righteousness become a vessel of honour, may, if he do not the
like things, nor such as befits the vessel of honour, become in a different age
a vessel of dishonour; as, on the contrary, it is possible that although through
causes prior to this life a man has here become a vessel of dishonour, when his
faults have been corrected, he may become a vessel of honour in the new
creation, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good
work.513 And perhaps the Israelites of our day, if they live unworthily of their
high descent, will degenerate, and change as it were from vessels of honour to
vessels of dishonour; and many of the Egyptians and Edomites of the present
time, whenever they shall bring forth fruit abundantly, will enter the Church of
the Lord, being no longer accounted Egyptians and Edomites, but future
Israelites; so that, according to this, some through their deliberate choice
advance from bad to good, while others fall away from good to bad; and others
are kept in goodness, or rise step by step from good to better, and others,
again, abide in evil, or, because their wickedness abounds, grow worse and
worse.

23. And since the Apostle in one place does not pretend that it rests with God
whether a man becomes a |163 vessel unto honour or unto dishonour, but puts the
whole responsibility upon us, saying, "If then a man purge himself, he shall be
a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master's use, prepared unto
every good work"; and elsewhere he does not pretend that it depends upon us but
lays the whole responsibility upon God, when he asserts that "the potter hath a
right over the clay, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto
dishonour",514 and his statements are not contradictory; we must bring them both
together, and from the two draw one sound conclusion. The power we have does not
compel us to advance in goodness apart from the knowledge of God, nor does the
knowledge of God compel us to advance unless we also contribute to the good
result; for neither does our power apart from the knowledge of God, and the full
use of what is in a worthy sense our "power," make a man to be unto honour or
unto dishonour; nor does God's power alone fashion a man unto honour or
dishonour unless He have our choice, inclining to the better or the worse, as a
sort of raw material out of which to make the difference. This may suffice for
our treatment of Free Will.

CHAP. XXII. ---- What is the dispersion on earth of rational, that is, human souls, indicated under a veil in the building of the tower, and the confusion of tongues thereat? Wherein we shall also treat of many lords set over the dispersed according to their condition. From Book v. against Celsus.

1. Now let us see what Celsus says next. It runs thus: "The Jews having become a
separate nation, and having made laws to suit their country, in still
maintaining the authority of their laws, and guarding the national religion with
all its peculiarities, are only doing what other men do; for every community
cherishes its ancestral customs, once they are established, no matter what they
are. And it seems to be a good thing, not only because the different peoples
have had different ideas of laws and customs, and because of the |164 necessity
of guarding public institutions, but also because it is probable that different
parts of the earth were originally assigned to different superintending
spirits,515 and having been made into separate realms are that way administered.
And, in fact, correct practice in the several instances would depend on the
pleasure of these spirits;516 and it would be profanity to relinquish the
original local usages." What Celsus here really means to show is that the
ancient Egyptians afterwards became a separate nation, the Jews, and that having
made laws for themselves they observe them. And, not to repeat the exact words
of Celsus already quoted, he says that it is best for them to keep to their
ancestral religion, just as it is for the other nations which honour their own
forms of worship. And he adduces a deeper reason to explain why it is best for
the Jews to honour their own forms of worship, when he darkly hints that they
whose lot it was to superintend the land of those for whom the laws were made,
assisted the lawgivers in the several instances. He seems, then, to indicate
that one or more beings watch over the country of the Jews and its inhabitants,
and that the laws were made by Moses with their assistance.

2. "And they ought," he says, "to keep their laws not only because different
peoples have had different ideas of laws and customs, and because of the
necessity of guarding public institutions, but also because it is probable that
different parts of the earth were originally assigned to different
superintending spirits, and having been made into separate realms are that way
administered." So, as if he had forgotten what he said against the Jews, he now
gives them a share in the general distribution of praise to all who keep the
ancestral usages; for he says, |165 "And, in fact, in the several instances
right practice would depend on the pleasure of the ruling spirits." And observe
whether he does not distinctly mean, if he can bring it about, to make a Jew
live in the observance of Jewish laws and not forsake them, inasmuch as he would
be guilty of profanity if he did forsake them; for he says, "It is profanity to
relinquish the original local usages." In reply, I should like to ask him and
those who agree with him, who it was that originally assigned the different
parts of the earth to the different guardian angels,517 in particular, the
country of the Jews and its people, to the one or more angels whose charge they
were. Did Zeus, as Celsus would say, assign the Jewish people and their country
to one or more? And Did Zeus intend that the spirit to whom Judea was allotted
should make the existing Jewish laws, or was this done against his will? That
Celsus may answer, if he will, you see I am willing to put the whole thing in a
nutshell. But if the parts of the earth have not been assigned to their guardian
spirits by some one deity, it follows that each at random and with no one to
direct him, took his share of the earth just as it happened; but this is absurd,
and enough to overthrow belief in the providence of the Supreme God.

3. And let any one who chooses relate how the various parts of the earth, having
been divided into certain realms, are administered by the spirits which have the
oversight of them; but let him also tell us how it is that in the several
communities the correct practice would depend on the pleasure of the ruling
spirits; and whether, for instance, the laws of the Scythians, which allow the
doing away with fathers, are right; or those of the Persians, which |166 do not
forbid marriages between mothers and their own sons, nor between fathers and
their own daughters. And why need I take other instances from those who
interested themselves in the laws of different nations, and go on to ask how, in
the several communities, the laws are properly executed according to the
pleasure of the ruling spirits? We shall be glad if Celsus will tell us how it
is impiety to relinquish ancestral laws which allow the marriages 518 of mothers
and daughters, or make suicide by hanging a happy end of life, or affirm the
perfect purification of those who give their bodies to be burnt, and through
fire seek their release from life; and how it can be impiety to abolish laws,
those of the Tauri, for instance, which enjoin the offering of strangers as
sacrifices to Artemis, or those of certain Libyan tribes regarding the
sacrificing of their children to Saturn. Celsus must, moreover, accept the
consequence, that it is impiety for the Jews to break their ancestral laws which
prohibit the worship of any other God than the Creator of the universe. And
piety, according to him, will not be essentially Divine, but a matter of
arbitrary institution; for with some it is piety to worship a crocodile, and
with others to eat a portion of the objects of their adoration; others deem it
piety to worship a calf, and others to regard the goat as a god. The result will
be that the same man will be pious in regard of one set of laws, and impious
according to a different set, which is an utter absurdity.

4. But they will probably reply that the pious man is he who keeps the customs
of his own country, and that he is by no means to be taxed with impiety when he
does not observe those of other countries; and again, that a man who is deemed
impious by certain races is not impious when, according to the customs of his
own country, he worships his own gods, but fights against and feasts upon the
gods of those who have opposite laws. Now, consider whether these arguments do
not exhibit great confusion of thought in respect of righteousness, and piety,
and |167 religion; for religion has thus no organic unity, no distinctive
character of its own, no power to impress a religious stamp on those who act in
accordance with it. If, then, religion, piety, and righteousness are relative
only, so that piety and impiety are the same thing, inasmuch as they depend on
varying relations and on the established laws, consider whether it does not
follow that temperance 519 will also be in the class of things relative, and
courage, and prudence, and knowledge, and the rest of the virtues, which is the
height of absurdity.

5. Celsus seems to think that the argument leads to the conclusion that "all men
ought to live according to the customs of their country, and that they should
not be blamed for so doing; but that Christians having forsaken their ancestral
usages, and not being one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for following
the teaching of Jesus." Let him then tell us whether men of a philosophic turn
of mind, who have been taught to avoid superstition, are right in forsaking
their ancestral usages and in going so far as to eat things forbidden in their
own countries; or will they act unbecomingly in so doing? For if on account of
their philosophy, and what they have learned in opposition to superstition, they
do not keep their ancestral customs, but would eat of things traditionally
forbidden, why should not Christians also, since reason persuades them not to
concern themselves with images, and statues, or even with the works of God, but
to rise above these and bring the soul near to the Creator, why should not they
be free from blame when they are only doing what the philosophers do? If for the
sake of defending his pet theory, Celsus or his supporters should say that even
a philosopher will observe his country's customs, it is time for philosophers to
make a laughing-stock of themselves, in Egypt, for instance, by refraining from
eating onions that they may observe their country's customs, or certain parts of
a carcase, head or shoulder, for example, that they may not transgress the
traditions of their fathers. So then, also, if a man has been brought by the
Word to |168 worship the Supreme God, and out of regard for ancestral usage
lingers somewhere down among the images and statues of men, and is not willing
by deliberate choice to rise to the Creator, he would be like those who are
acquainted with philosophy, but fear where no fear is, and count it impiety to
partake of such food.

6. Enough has now been said to satisfy those who take their stand upon plain
common-sense principles against the opinions of Celsus now before us; but as we
think that some persons of a more critical temper will read what we write, let
us venture to set forth a few of the deeper arguments, involving speculation of
a mystical and esoteric nature, concerning the original distribution of various
countries of the earth to various spirits who have the oversight of them; and,
to the best of our ability, let us show that our argument is free from the
absurdities recounted. Celsus really seems to me to have misunderstood some of
the deeper reasoning concerning the distribution of the earth's inhabitants,
upon which even Grecian history touches in a way, when it represents certain of
those who are accounted gods as having contended with one another for Attica,
and in the poetical writings makes some of those who are called gods acknowledge
that certain places are in a special sense their own. The history of barbarous
nations, too, particularly that of Egypt, also indicates something similar in
treating of the division of Egypt into what are called nomes, for it says that
Athene to whose lot Sais fell is the same goddess that has Achaia. And the
learned Egyptians will tell countless similar stories; but I do not know whether
they include the Jews and their country in the distribution, and assign them to
some spirit. But enough for the present, concerning what is said on these topics
outside the Divine Word.

7. We say that Moses, who with us is regarded as a Prophet of God and His true
servant, in the song in Deuteronomy, speaks as follows concerning the division
of the earth. He tells us that "when the Most |169 High separated the nations,
when he scattered abroad the sons of Adam, be set the bounds of the peoples,
according to the number of the angels of God; and the Lord's portion became his
people Jacob; Israel the lot of his inheritance." 520 And the same Moses, in the
book called Genesis, gives an historical account of the distribution of the
nations, to this effect: "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one
speech. And it came to pass as they journeyed from the east, they found a plain
in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there." 521 And a little farther on he
says, "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of
men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all
one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be
withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Go to, let us go down, and there
confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So
the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and
they left off to build the city and the tower. Therefore was the name of it it
called Confusion, because the Lord did there confound the language of all the
earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the
earth." And also in the book entitled "The Wisdom of Solomon," where wisdom and
the confusion of languages, whereby the division of the inhabitants of the earth
has arisen, are discussed, this is what is said concerning wisdom: "Moreover the
nations in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the
righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept him strong in her
tender compassion toward his son." 522

8. Much might be said, and that of a mystical nature, about these things: with
which agrees the saying, "It is good to keep close the secret of the king";523
in order that the doctrine of the embodying of souls (not through
transmigration) may not be wasted on everybody's ears, nor holy things be given
to the dogs, nor pearls cast before |170 swine.524 For this is impious, and
involves a betrayal of the secret oracles of the wisdom of God, concerning which
it is well said, "A malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body
that is subject unto sin." 525 And it is sufficient to present as historical
narrative the secret meaning of the seeming 526 historical statement, so that
they who can; may for themselves thoroughly investigate the subject.

9. Let us then conceive of all the dwellers upon earth as using one Divine
language, and, so long as they agree with one another, as being kept in the use
of that Divine language; and let us suppose that they do not move from the east,
so long as they mind the things of the light and the brightness of the
everlasting light. And let them, whenever they move from the east, minding the
things alien to the east, find a plain in the land of Shinar: which, being
interpreted, is "the shaking of teeth," and symbolises their losing the means of
their support; and there let them dwell. Then, inasmuch as they will to collect
material things, and join to heaven things which have no such natural affinity,
so that through the material things they may conspire against the immaterial, we
will suppose them to say, "Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly."
527 When, accordingly, they harden and stiffen the clay and other materials, and
determine to make brick into stone and clay into bitumen, and therewith build a
city and a tower the top of which they expect to reach unto heaven,528 let them
severally, in proportion as they have moved a greater or less distance from the
east, and in proportion as they have made the bricks into stones, and the clay
into bitumen, and have built with them, be delivered to angels of more or less
severity, and of such and such dispositions, until they have paid the penalty
for their audacity; and we will further suppose them to be severally led by the
angels, who give them |171 their own language, to various parts of the earth
according as they deserve; some, let us say, to a scorching hot country, others
to one so bitterly cold that it punishes its inhabitants, some to a land hard to
cultivate, others to one not so hard, some to a land full of wild beasts, and
others to one with not so many.

10. Next, if any one has the ability, let him, under the garb of history, in
part literally true, in part conveying some secret meaning, see those also who
have preserved their original language because they have not moved from the
east, but have stayed in the east, and have kept to the eastern language; and
let him understand that these alone become the portion of the Lord and His
people called Jacob, and Israel the lot of His inheritance; 529 and let these
alone be governed by a ruler who has not received his command that he may punish
his subjects, like the other rulers. And let him who can, remembering that he is
dealing with men, observe the sins committed in this commonwealth of those who
constitute the special portion of the Lord, sins at first venial and such as do
not make the offenders deserve to be quite forsaken, but becoming more abundant
though still venial; and let our observer notice that this goes on for a long
time, and that remedial measures are all the while applied, and that these same
men at intervals turn again, and let him behold them, in proportion to tbeir
sins, forsaken and given up to the appointed rulers of the other countries, and
when they have been a little chastised and have suffered punishment, having
been, as it were, trained, let him behold them returning to their own home; and
afterwards, let him see them delivered to harsher rulers, to use Scripture
names, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Then, in spite of the care taken of
them, let him see them none the less multiplying their offences, and for that
reason made a spoil by the rulers of the other nations, and scattered over the
other parts of the earth. Now let us suppose that their ruler advisedly takes no
notice of them |172 when they are made a spoil by the rulers over the other
nations, so that, as it were, avenging Himself, having acquired the right to
detach from the other nations whom He can, He may reasonably do so, and may make
laws for them, and show them the sort of life they have to live, intending to
raise them to the level to which He raised those belonging to the former people
who did not sin. And let those who have eyes to see such wondrous truths, hereby
learn that He, whose lot it was to govern those who did not sin at the first, is
more powerful than the other rulers: for He has proved Himself able to choose
His men from all sides, make them revolt from their tormentors, being then under
His laws, and lead them to live such a life as helps towards their former sins
being no longer remembered. But, as we said before, we must be supposed to have
a secret meaning in saying all this, it being our purpose to show the mistakes
of those who allege that "the various parts of the earth were originally
assigned to various spirits who had the oversight of them, were divided into
realms, and are administered on that principle." It was from these men Celsus
borrowed the statements under discussion.

11. And whereas they who moved from the east were for the sins they committed
given up unto a reprobate mind, and unto vile passions, and in the lusts of
their hearts unto uncleanness,530 so that having taken their fill of sin they
might hate it, we shall not agree with the opinion of Celsus, "that right
practice in the several instances depends on the spirits who have the oversight
of the various parts of the earth"; but we even wish not to do their will and
pleasure. For we see that it is piety to abolish original local usages by laws
which are better and more Divine, which Jesus in the plenitude of His power
inspired, delivering us out of this present evil world,531 and from the rulers
of this world which are coming to nought;532 and that it is impiety not to throw
ourselves upon the mercy of Him Who is seen and proved to be more mighty |173
than all rulers, to whom God said, as the prophets foretold many generations
before, "Ask of me and I will give thee nations for thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." 533 For He has become the
"expectation" of us who from among the peoples have believed on Him and on His
Father, God over All.534

CHAP. XXIII. ----Of Fate, and how though God foreknows the conduct of every one, human responsibility remains the same. Further, how the stars 535 are not productive of human affairs, but merely indicate them; further, that men cannot attain to an accurate knowledge of these things, but that the signs are set by Divine powers; what
is the cause of the signs. Astrology seems to have some elements of truth. From Book III. of the Commentaries on Genesis,
"And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years."

1. As regards the lights of heaven having been created for signs, to speak
precisely, the sun, moon, and stars, this is a subject which we are bound to
discuss; for not only do many nations, strangers to the Faith of Christ, err in
the matter of fate, inasmuch as they think that all things happen, both earthly
events in general and the incidents of every human life, and perhaps what
befalls the irrational creatures, through the relation of the planets to the
constellations of the Zodiac; but beside this, many who are supposed to have
embraced the Faith are distracted at the thought that human affairs may be
governed by necessity, and cannot possibly be otherwise than is ruled by the
stars in their different groupings. And a consequence of this opinion is the
complete destruction of Free Will; and a further result is that praise and blame
are unmeaning, and the distinction between acceptable conduct and conduct
deserving of blame is lost. And if this be so, there is an |174 end of that
Divine judgment which we preach; an end also of God's threats of punishment
awaiting sinners; an end, too, of a blessed future for those who have devoted
themselves to the higher life: for there will no longer be any basis of reason
for them. And if any one wishes to see the other consequences of holding these
views, our faith will be vain, the advent of Christ of no avail, and the whole
dispensation of the Law and the Prophets, and the labours of Apostles to
establish the churches of God through Christ, of no avail; unless, forsooth, as
these bold thinkers would have us believe, Christ also, inasmuch as His nativity
was necessitated by the movement of the stars, did and suffered everything, not
because the God and Father of All gave Him those marvellous powers, but because
the stars bestowed them. Another result of their godless and unholy principles
is, that believers are said to believe in God because they are compelled by the
stars to believe. But we would ask our opponents to tell us what God meant by so
making the world, that some men are effeminate creatures and lead lascivious
lives through no fault of their own; while others, who are in the condition of
wild beasts through the revolution of the whole heavens, because God so ordered
the universe, abandon themselves to the most savage and inhuman practices,
murders, and piratical outrages. And why need I speak of the incidents of human
life, and the sins of men, in their countless variety? The champions of these
noble principles may free their fellow-men from all guilt, but they make God the
cause of all that is bad and blameworthy.

2. And if some of them, that they may seem to defend God's character, shall say
that there is a different God, the good God,536 Who has no control of these
things, and attribute all such evils to the Creator;537 not even so will they
|175 succeed in showing, as they desire, that the Creator is just; for how could
the Author of so many evils, as according to them He is, be reasonably thought
just? In the second place, let us inquire what they will say about themselves.
Are they subject to the revolution of the stars, or are they free men, and all
their lives no way influenced thereby? If they shall admit that they are subject
to the stars, it is clear that the stars gave them this impression, and the
Creator will have suggested through the general movement of the stars the
doctrine of the higher God they have imagined; but that they would deny. If they
reply that they are not influenced by the Creator's laws connected with the
stars, that their statements may not be more than unverified assertion, let them
endeavour to win our assent by some more forcible plea; let them show how to
distinguish between the two kinds of mind, the one controlled by nativity and
fate, the other free from their control. Any one who knows such men will be
aware that if they are asked for a reason they will be quite unable to give it.
In addition to what has been said, even the prayers we offer are superfluous;
for if certain events must happen, and the stars create the necessity, and
nothing contrary to their combination with one another can happen, it is
unreasonable to expect God to give us this or that. Why need we further pursue
the impiety involved in the doctrine of fate, a subject treated by many with too
little consideration as a commonplace? Enough has been said to give some idea of
it.

3. Here let us remind ourselves that we were examining the words, "Let the
lights be for signs" 538 when we came upon this discussion. They who learn the
truth about things, have either been eye-witnesses and therefore give a good
account of what takes place because they have beheld the suffering and the doing
of those who do or suffer, or they get to know the circumstances by hearsay from
informants not at all responsible for what has occurred. For we will agree on
the present occasion to exclude the |176 possibility that the doers or sufferers
may themselves relate what they have done and suffered, and may acquaint any one
who did not happen to be present with the facts. If, then, any one who gets the
information from a person no way responsible for the events, on hearing that
certain things have befallen or will befall certain individuals, does not bear
in mind that his informant as to the past or future is no way answerable for any
given occurrence, he will suppose that the informant has brought about or will
bring about what he relates, but he will obviously be wrong in so doing; it is
as though a man were to read a prophetic book in which the conduct of Judas the
traitor is foretold, and having learnt what was to happen, were, on seeing it
accomplished, to think that the book was the cause of what afterwards occurred,
because the book showed him the future conduct of Judas; or, again, should
imagine that not the book was the cause, but he who first wrote it, or He Who
had the book written, God Himself, if we may so speak. Just as in the case of
the prophecies concerning Judas, the passages themselves on investigation show
that God did not produce the treachery of Judas, but that, foreknowing what
would result from the wickedness of the traitor through his own fault, He only
made it known: so also, if any one would go deep into the discussion of God's
universal foreknowledge, and into those things whereon, as it were, God stamps
the proofs of His own foreknowledge, he would understand that neither is He Who
foreknows at all the cause of what is foreknown, nor are those things which were
stamped with the proofs of the foreknowledge of Him Who did foreknow.

4. That God knows long before every detail of the future, is, apart from
Scripture, from the very conception of God clear to him who understands the
power and excellence of the Divine understanding. If, however, we must prove
this from the Scriptures, the prophecies are full of suitable illustrations;
and, according to Susanna, God knows all things before they be: for she thus
speaks, "O |177 everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all
things before they be, Thou knowest that they have borne false witness against
me." 539 And in the third Book of the Kings even the name of a future king, and
his acts, were thus prophetically described many years before the events took
place. "And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day
of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the
altar which is in Bethel, which he made for the calves which he made." 540 Then,
a little farther on, "And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the
word of the Lord unto Bethel: and Jeroboam was standing by the altar to burn
incense. And he cried against the altar by the word of the Lord, and said, O
altar, altar! thus saith the Lord, Behold, a child shall be born unto the house
of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he sacrifice the priests of the
high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall they burn upon
thee. And he gave a sign the same clay, saying, This is the sign which the Lord
hath spoken: Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the fat that is upon it shall
be poured out." 541 And, a little farther on, it is shown that "the altar also
was rent, and the fat poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the
man of God had given by the Word of the Lord."542

5. And in Isaiah, who lived long before the Babylonish Captivity, there is this
prophecy concerning Cyrus by name, Cyrus king of the Persians, who lived some
time after the Captivity, and assisted in the building of the Temple in the days
of Esdras. There is this prophecy concerning Cyrus by name, "Thus saith the Lord
to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue 543 nations
before him, and I will loose the loins 544 of kings; I will open the doors
before him, and the gates of cities shall not be shut; I will go before thee,
and make mountains plain: I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in
sunder the |178 bars of iron: and I will give thee the treasures of darkness,
hidden riches of secret places will I lay bare to thee, that thou mayest know
that I am the Lord, which call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. For
Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel my chosen, I will call thee by thy name and
will receive thee." 545 This clearly shows, that for the sake of the people to
whom Cyrus was a benefactor, God gave him, though he was unacquainted with the
Hebrew religion, the rule over many nations; and we may also learn this from
Greek historians who wrote the history of Cyrus, the subject of the prophecy.
And again in Daniel also, at a time when Babylonian kings were on the throne,
the kingdoms which should be after him are shown to Nebuchadnezzar. And they are
shown by means of the image: the Babylonian kingdom being called gold, the
Persian silver, the Macedonian brass, the Roman iron.546 And again, in the same
prophet the affairs of Darius and Alexander, and the four successors of
Alexander king of Macedonia, and Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt, surnamed Lagos,
are thus foretold: "And as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the
west over the face of the whole earth; and the goat had a horn between his eyes.
And he came to the ram that had the horns, whom I saw standing before the stream
Ulai,547 and ran upon him in the face of his power. And I saw him close unto the
ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his
two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him: but he cast
him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could
deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly:
and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came
up four other horns toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came
forth a mighty horn, and |179 waxed exceedingly great towards the south and
towards the west." 548 Why need I mention the prophecies concerning Christ, as
for example that Bethlehem should be the place of His birth, and Nazareth the
place of His bringing up, and the marvellous works He did, and the manner of His
betrayal by Judas who was called to be an Apostle? For all these are signs of
the foreknowledge of God. But the Saviour Himself also says, "When ye see
Jerusalem compassed with armies, then ye shall know that her desolation is at
hand";549 for He spake beforehand what afterwards came to pass, the final
destruction of Jerusalem.

6. Well, then, now that we have, not unseasonably, demonstrated the foreknowledge of God, if we are to explain how the stars are for signs, we must understand that the stars have their movements so regulated, those we call planets revolving the contrary way to the fixed stars, that observers may take and know the signs from the grouping of all those stars which have a special or general influence. And when I say "observers," I do not mean men (for ability to really learn from the movements of the stars what will befall every individual soul with all its possibilities of doing or suffering, far transcends human capacity), but I refer to the Powers, which must for many reasons have this knowledge, as, so far as we can, we shall show in the sequel. But men being deceived by certain observations, or even by the teaching of Angels who have lost their proper rank, and, to the injury of our race, give some instruction about these things, supposed that they from whom they thought they received the signs were the original causes of the events which the Word says the signs indicate. We shall proceed at once to briefly discuss somewhat carefully as well as we can both the events and the supposed authors. These, then, are the problems which confront us----(α) How, if God knows from all eternity what we regard as done by the individual, Free Will is to be maintained; (β) in what way the stars are not productive of human affairs, but only indicate them;
|180 (γ) that men cannot have an accurate knowledge of these things, but the signs are shown to Powers superior to men; (δ) why it is that God has made the signs for the Powers to know, shall be the fourth point of investigation.

7. Well, then, let us look at the first. Many of the Greeks, handling the matter
with caution, and supposing events to be ruled by necessity, and that man's Free
Will cannot be at all maintained if God foreknows the future, ventured to hold
an impious doctrine, rather than admit, as they allow it to be, a glorious
attribute of God, but one destructive of Free Will, and which therefore does
away with the distinction between praise and blame, the acceptability of virtue
and the censure of vice. They tell us that if God from everlasting knows that a
certain person will be unjust, and will do certain unjust deeds, and if the
knowledge of God be infallible, and if he that is foreseen to have such a
character will certainly be unjust and will do these unjust deeds, his injustice
is necessitated, and it will be impossible for his conduct to be other than what
God knew it would be. But if his conduct could not be different, and no one is
to be blamed for not doing impossibilities, it is no use for us to accuse the
unjust. And from the unjust man and his unjust deeds they pass on to the other
sins a man may commit, and, on the contrary, to what is considered upright
conduct; and they say that consistently with God's foreknowledge our Free Will
cannot possibly be maintained.

8. Our reply will be as follows: When God planned the creation of the world,
inasmuch as there is nothing without a cause, His thoughts traversed the whole
course of the future, and He saw that when a certain thing takes place another
follows, and if this occurs it will have its fitting result, and this supposed,
something is its consequence; and going on thus to the end of all things He
knows what will be, but is not at all the cause of the occurrence of any
particular event. For as when we see a man reckless through ignorance, and in
his recklessness foolishly venturing on a slippery path, we are not the |181
causes of the man's finding the path slippery, because we realise that the man
will slip and fall: just so, we must understand that God having foreseen what
every one will be like, also perceives the causes of his being what he is, and
that he will commit these sins, or do these righteous deeds. And if we are bound
to admit that the foreknowledge is not the cause of the occurrences (for though
God knows before that a man will sin, He does not put a finger on him when he
does sin), we shall make a still stronger statement, nevertheless true, that the
future event is the cause of God's peculiar knowledge concerning it. For it does
not happen because it is known, but it is known because it will happen; and we
must herein carefully distinguish. For if any one interprets the words certainly
will be in the sense that what is foreknown will of necessity be, we do not
agree with him; for we shall not say that, because it was foreknown that Judas
would be a traitor, there was any necessity for Judas to be a traitor. At any
rate, in the prophecies concerning Judas reproaches and accusations of Judas are
recorded, which prove his guilt to every reader. Now no blame would have
attached to him if he had of necessity been a traitor, and if it had not been
possible for him to be like the other Apostles. And consider whether this is not
shown by the following words which we shall quote: "Neither let there be any to
have pity on his fatherless children. Because that he remembered not to show
mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart, to slay
them. Yea, he loved cursing, and it came unto him; and he delighted not in
blessing, and it was far from him." 550 If any one will explain the "certainly
will be" as only meaning that some particular events will occur, but that things
might have turned out differently, we assent to this as true; for God cannot
possibly lie; and when things may possibly happen or not happen, we may
contemplate either contingency.

9. We will put the case more clearly this way: If it |182 is possible for Judas
to be an Apostle like Peter, it is possible for God to think of Judas continuing
an Apostle as Peter did. If it is possible for Judas to be a traitor, it is
possible for God to contemplate his becoming a traitor. And if Judas proves to
be a traitor, God by His foreknowledge of the two aforesaid possibilities (one
only of Which can be realised), inasmuch as His foreknowledge is true, will know
before that Judas is going to be a traitor; but though God knows this, it might
have been otherwise; and the knowledge of God would say, "It is possible for
Judas to do this, but also possible for him to do the opposite; but of the two
things possible I know that he will do this one." If God were to say, "It is not
possible for this man to fly," and, predicting the future 551 of another man,
were to say, for instance, "It is not possible for him to be temperate," the
cases would not be parallel. For the man is not in the least qualified to fly,
but he is qualified to lead either a temperate or a licentious life. Now, though
there be this ability both ways, if a man does not give heed to admonition and
instruction, he gives himself up to the worse; but he who seeks the truth and is
resolved to live accordingly, gives himself up to the better. And one man does
not seek the truth because he inclines to pleasure, while another man
investigates it, being brought thereto, partly by common sense,552 partly by
exhortation. The former, again, chooses pleasure, not because he is unable to
resist it, but because he will not strive against it; and the latter despises
it, because he sees the disgrace which often attaches to it.

10. To prove our point, that the foreknowledge of God really does not
necessitate the things which it apprehends, we will further observe that in many
parts of Scripture God commands the Prophets to preach repentance, not
professing to know before whether the hearers will turn or abide in their sins.
Thus in Jeremiah God says, "It may be they will hearken and repent." 553 If God
|183 thus speaks, it is not because He does not know whether they will hearken
or not; but by this form of speech He shows, as it were, that they have equal
ability to do one or the other; so that He may not, by announcing beforehand
what He knows, make the hearers despond because of a seeming necessity, as if
they had no power to turn, and His foreknowledge thus become, as it were, the
cause of their sins. Or again, let us take the case of those who, because they
do not know their goodness foreknown to God, may by striving .and struggling
against wickedness succeed in living a virtuous life. God will not have His
foreknowledge become a cause of their slackness, inasmuch as, relying on the
certain accomplishment of what has been foretold, they no longer stand firm
against sin: for so the foreknowledge of their future goodness might prove a
hindrance. Thus it is that God Who ordereth all things for the best, with good
reason hides the future from our eyes. For the knowledge of the future makes us
relax in the struggle against wickedness, and the apparent certainty of
wickedness enervates us, and the result is that because we do not wrestle
against sin we soon become subject to it. And at the same time it would be an
obstacle in the way of a man's becoming good and upright, if the knowledge that
he will certainly some day be good reached him beforehand. For in addition to
what we have, there is need of great earnestness and vigorous application if a
man is to become good and upright; but the knowledge beforehand that a man will
certainly be good and upright, weakens his habits of discipline. Wherefore it is
expedient that we know not whether we shall be good, or whether we shall be bad.

11. And since we have said that God blinds our eyes with regard to the future, consider whether we can thus explain the question in Exodus, "Who maketh a man dumb and deaf, seeing and blind?" 554 If we are to understand that God has made the same man blind and seeing, the man must see things present and be blind as regards things |184 future; for we are not now concerned with the interpretation of the dumbness and deafness. That, however, many things for which we are responsible are caused by a multitude of things for which we are not responsible, even we will allow; if they had not occurred, the things I mean for which we are not responsible, certain things for which we are responsible would not have been done; but they have been done in consequence of precedent events for which we are not responsible, though it was possible for us on the basis of the past to have acted otherwise than we did. If any one would have our Free Will detached from everything else, so as to make our voluntary choice independent of the changes and chances of life, he has forgotten that he is a part of the world, and subject to limitations as a member of society and a participant in the general environment. I think it has been shown with tolerable clearness, if briefly, that the foreknowledge of God does not necessitate what is certainly foreknown. The same subject is further discussed in Book II. of the treatise against Celsus as follows:----

12. Celsus thinks that if a prediction comes to pass it is because the event was predicted. We do not grant this; we say that the Prophet is not the cause of the future event because he foretells its occurrence, but that the future event, which would happen even if it were not predicted, is the cause of his foretelling it, who has the foreknowledge. And the whole thing is in the foreknowledge of the Prophet; a given event may or may not come to pass; he knows which of the two it will be. Further, we do not say that he who foreknows destroys the possible alternative, and as it were declares, "This shall certainly be, and it is impossible that the event can be otherwise." And something like what we have urged is applicable to the whole question of the foreknowledge of what is in our power, whether we look at the Divine Scriptures or at the narratives of the Greeks. And what the dialecticians call an "idle argument," by which they mean a sophism, will be, if we are to believe Celsus, no sophism, though
|185 according to sound reason it is a sophism. That our point may be understood, I will use the prophecies of the Scriptures concerning Judas, or our Saviour's foreknowledge of his being a traitor: and from the narratives of the Greeks, I will take the oracle addressed to Laius, for the present assuming it to be true, for that does not affect the argument. Well, then, at the beginning of the 108th Psalm, speaking in the person of Christ, the Psalmist says, "Hold not thy peace, O God, at my praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the deceitful man is opened upon me."
555 And if you carefully note what is said in the psalm you will find that as Judas is foreknown to be the betrayer of the Saviour, so he is also represented as being the cause of the betrayal, and worthy of the curses pronounced against him for his wickedness----let him suffer such and such things----"Because that he remembered not to do mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man."
556 He might then have remembered to do mercy, and he might have refrained from persecuting Him whom he did persecute, but though he might he did not, but betrayed the Saviour; so that he deserves the curses in the prophecy against him. And as regards the Greeks, we will similarly make use of what was said by the oracle to Laius, either in the precise words of the tragic poet, or in equivalent terms. This is what the oracle with its knowledge of the future told him:----

"Beget not children in defiance of the gods; For if thou shalt beget a son, thy
son shall slay thee, And all thy house shall wade through blood." 557

Here it is clearly shown that it was possible for Laius not to beget children,
for the oracle would not have commanded him to do what was impossible; but the
begetting was possible, and neither alternative was compulsory. And the
consequence of his not guarding against begetting children, was that through
begetting he suffered what is related in the tragedy concerning Oedipus and
Jocasta and their sons. |186

13. By way of illustrating the "idle argument," that is to say, the sophistical form of reasoning, we may suppose the following argument to be addressed to an invalid in order to dissuade him from calling in the doctor: "If you are fated to recover from your sickness, whether you call in the doctor, or do not call him in, you "will recover; but if you are fated not to recover from your sickness, whether you call in the doctor, or do not call him in, you will not recover; now either you are fated to recover from your sickness, or you are fated not to recover; it is therefore no good for you to call in the doctor." Now a parallel to this reasoning is neatly drawn after this fashion: "If you are fated to beget children, whether you go with a woman, or whether you do not, you will beget children; but if you are fated not to beget children, whether you go with a woman, or do not go, you will not beget children: now either you are fated to beget children or not to beget them; it is useless therefore for you to go with a woman." In this case, forasmuch as it is an utter impossibility to beget children without going with a woman, to go with a woman is not a useless procedure; and similarly, if there is but one road to recovery from sickness, and that is via the doctor's skill, the doctor must be summoned; and it is false to say, "It is no good for you to call in the doctor." Now I have gone into all these details on account of what our paragon of wisdom, Celsus, said: "Being God He foretold, and what was foretold must certainly have come to pass"; for if Celsus by "certainly" means "necessarily," we shall not agree with him, for the event might not have happened. But if by "certainly" he means "will be,"----and there is nothing to prevent this being true, though the event might possibly not have happened,----my argument is as sound as ever; it does not follow that because Jesus truly foretold the traitor's treachery, or Peter's denial, He was Himself the cause of their impiety and unholy conduct. For, as we hold, He knew what was in man;558 and seeing the traitor's detestable character, and also what through |187 avarice and through want of a right and steadfast regard for the Master he would dare to do, after much besides, Jesus said,"He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me." 559 From Book III. of the Commentary on Genesis:----

14. Now let us grapple with the question whether it is a fact that the stars are not in the least productive of human affairs, but only indicate them. It is quite plain that if the stars in a given position are thought to produce certain events in a human life----let us make that the precise point of the present inquiry----their position to-day, for instance, which concerns that one man, could not be understood to have produced the past of some other person or persons; for whatever produces precedes the thing produced. But, according to the teaching of the professors of the art, things that happened before this grouping of the stars are generally thought to be declared. For they profess, once they have ascertained somehow or other the particular
560 hour of any given man, to be able to find the elevation of each planet, or in what minutest part of the sign it appeared, and what sort of a star of the Zodiac happened to be on the eastern horizon, and what on the west, and which star was on the meridian, and which on the opposite meridian. And when they have placed the stars, whose position they think they have determined for themselves, and which are thus grouped according to the season of the nativity of the person, from the time of the birth of him concerning whom they are inquiring, they investigate not only the future, but also the past, and things before the birth and begetting of the person we are speaking of; what manner of man his father was, rich or poor, sound in body or maimed, of good or bad character, with much wealth or little, of this or that condition; and, similarly, respecting the man's mother, and his elder brethren, if there happen to be any.

15. For the present let us allow, though we shall afterwards show that it is not
so, that they do ascertain the true meaning of the position and relations of the
stars; |188 nevertheless, let us ask those who suppose that human affairs are
necessitated by the stars, how such and such a position to-day can have produced
previous events. For if this is impossible, even supposing that they discover
the truth concerning those previous events, it is clear that the stars with
their present movements in the heavens have not produced things past and gone
before they took that position. And if any one, noting what is said about the
future, should allow that they are correct, he will say that they are right, not
because the stars cause the events, but only because they indicate them. And if
any one alleges that the stars do not now cause past events, but that there were
other groupings which were the causes of the nativity of the persons I have
mentioned, but that the present grouping has only indicated them, and that
future events are nevertheless shown by the present grouping at the nativity of
such an one, let him show how we are to distinguish between our ability to prove
the truth of certain things if the stars are causative,561 and of others if they
are indicative only. If they cannot explain the difference, they will frankly
concede that nothing human is caused by the stars, but, as we said before, some
way or other indicated; as if one did not receive the knowledge of the past and
future from the stars at all, but from the mind of God through some prophetic
utterance. For, as we have already shown that the fact of God's knowing the
future conduct of every person does not disturb the argument respecting our Free
Will, so neither do the signs, which God appointed to be indicative, interfere
with our Free Will; but, like a volume of prophecy, the heavens as a whole,
being as it were one of God's books, may contain the future. And thus what is
said by Jacob in the prayer for Joseph may be understood: "For I read in the
pages of the sky what shall befall thee and thy sons." 562 Perhaps also the
passage, "The heavens shall be rolled together as a book," 563 shows |189 that
the declarations therein indicative of the future shall be brought to
completion, and, so to speak, fulfilled, as the prophecies are said to be
fulfilled by the event. And thus the existing stars will be for signs, according
as it is said, "Let them be for signs." 564 And Jeremiah, in order that he may
bring us back to ourselves, and remove our dread of what is thought to be
indicated by the stars, and perhaps supposed to come from them, says, "Be not
dismayed at the signs of heaven." 565

16. Now let us look at our second undertaking, and try to show how it is that the stars cannot be causative, though they may possibly be indicative. In the vast multitude of nativities we may possibly get at the incidents of one man's life; but this is only an assumption; we concede the point that it is possible for men to gain a knowledge of them. For instance, our opponents say we may learn both from a man's own nativity, and from the nativity of each of his brothers, if he has more than one, that he will suffer in a certain way, and will die a violent death through meeting with robbers. For they suppose that the nativity of each one includes the death of a brother at the hand of robbers, and likewise the nativity of the father and mother and wife and sons and domestics and dearest friends, and perhaps the nativity of the murderers themselves. How can a man then, whose future is involved in so many nativities, to make them this concession, be influenced by the position and relation of the stars at one nativity more than by those at the others? The statement that the position of the stars at a man's own nativity has caused certain events, while their position at the nativities of the rest has not caused but only indicated them, is incredible; and it is as silly to say that the nativity of each one of them, severally, included a cause of the violent death of this one in particular, so that in fifty nativities, suppose, is included the death of this one person. I do not know how they will maintain that the position of the stars at the nativity of nearly everybody in Judea
|190
was such that they received circumcision on the eighth day, being mutilated in their parts, and ulcerated, and subject to inflammation and sores, and no sooner born than needing a doctor; while the position at the nativity of certain Israelites down in Arabia was such that they were all circumcised at the age of thirteen years, for this is what we are told about them; and again the position at the nativity of certain people in Etheopia such that they had their knee-pans taken away, while the Amazons had one of their breasts removed. How do the stars cause these effects in various nations? I suppose that if we give close attention to the subject, we shall not be able to state a single true and reliable fact
566 about these things. And when we hear of so many ways of knowing the future, I am at a loss to understand how men can be so inconsistent as to deny the existence of an active cause in augury, and in sacrificial inspection, maintaining that they are only indicative, but will not allow that astrology also, and nativity casting, are only indicative. For if because a future event is known,----granting that it is known,----the source of the event is the same as the source of the knowledge, why shall events any more be caused by stars than by birds, and by birds, or by entrails of victims, more than by ruling stars?
567 This will suffice for the present to upset the notion that the stars are causes of human affairs.

17. We conceded the point, for it does not interfere with the reasoning, that
men can understand the positions of the stars in the heavens, the signs, and the
things of which they are signs; now let us see if it is true. Well, then, the
masters of this art say that any one who is going to accurately cast a nativity
must know not only in which twelfth part of the Zodiac the star in question is,
but also in what part of the twelfth part, and in which of its sixty parts; and
the more careful calculators add, in which sixtieth of that sixtieth. And the
observer, they say, ought to do |191 this in the case of each one of the
planets, investigating its relation to the fixed stars. He must, moreover,
scanning the eastern horizon, observe not only which sign 568 of the Zodiac is
there, but also the part of the sign, and the sixtieth part of this part,
whether the first or second sixtieth. How, then, since an hour, roughly
speaking, is equivalent to half the twelfth part, can any one ascertain the
sixtieth part, unless he has a corresponding scale for the division of the
hours? For example, who could know that such an one was born at the fourth hour,
plus half an hour, plus a quarter, plus an eighth, plus a sixteenth, plus a
thirty-second of an hour? For they say it makes a great difference in the things
indicated if there is an error, not of a whole hour, but even of a fraction of
an hour. Anyway, in the birth of twins there is frequently only a momentary
interval; and yet, according to them, the twins differ widely in their fortunes
and performances, because they who were thought to have observed the hour were
not quite correct as to the relation of the stars, and the part of the sign on
the horizon. For no one can say to the thirtieth of an hour what the interval"
between the two births is. But let us allow that they are able to determine the
hour.

18. There is a well-known theorem which proves that the Zodiac, like the
planets, moves from west to east at the rate of one part in a hundred years, and
that this movement in the lapse of so long a time changes the local relation of
the signs; so that, on the one hand, there is the invisible 569 sign, and on the
other, as it were, the visible figure of it; and events, they say, are
discovered not from the figure, but from the invisible sign; though it cannot
possibly be apprehended. But let us grant that the invisible sign can be
apprehended, or admit the possibility of getting at the truth through the
visible sign; still even they will admit their inability to preserve in due
proportion what they call the "blending" 570 of the signs in |192 these
positions, for it often happens that the influence of a malignant star which
appears is more or less weakened by the aspect of a more benign one; and again,
that the weakening of the influence of the malignant star by the aspect of the
benign one is hindered, because of some particular position and relation of the
other, though it is indicative of evil. And I think that any one who studies the
passages must despair of understanding such matters, inasmuch as the knowledge
is not disclosed to men, but at the most only goes as far as the indication 571
of events. And any one who has had actual experience will know that speakers and
writers more frequently fail than succeed in their guesses at the truth.
Wherefore Isaiah, believing that these things cannot be discovered by men, says
to the daughter of the Chaldeans, who above all others were professors of the
art, "Let now the astrologers, the star-gazers, stand up and save thee; let them
tell thee what shall come upon thee." 572 We are thus taught that the most
learned in these matters cannot show beforehand what the Lord intends to bring
upon every nation.

19. We have already given instances of the literal fulfilment of prophecy. And if Jacob speaks of reading in the pages of the sky what should befall his sons, and if any one on the strength of this should meet us with the objection that the contrary to what we say is proved by Scripture,----for we said that men cannot comprehend the signs, and Jacob says that he read in the pages of the sky,573 ----our defence will be that our wise men, guided by a marvellous superhuman spirit, are not taught the mysteries by human skill but by the power of God; as Paul says, "I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."
574 For they know the alterations of the |193
turning of the sun, and the change of seasons: the events of years, and the position of stars,"
575 not from men nor through men, but because the Spirit reveals them, and reveals them clearly, as God wills, announcing the Divine purposes. And another way also Jacob was more than human, for he supplanted his brother, and confessed in the same book from which we quoted the words, "I read in the pages of the sky," that he was commander-in-chief of the host of the Lord and had long ago gained the name Israel; all of which he acknowledges when ministering in bodily form, when the Archangel Uriel
576 reminds him of it.

20. It now remains to inquire and show those who believe that the lights of
heaven are set for signs, but have been misled by fanciful interpretations of
the passages, why it is that God has made these signs in the sky. And we must
first observe that if we believe the mind of God to be great enough to embrace
the perfect knowledge of every individual existence, so that not the least
ordinary occurrence escapes His Divinity, this belief involves the tenet, not
demonstrably certain, but held as being consistent with the eternity of God's
understanding, which transcends all nature, that His knowledge is, as it were,
infinite. In order, then, that superhuman beings, and also the holy souls which
have escaped from the bondage of this present state, may by experience grasp
this truth, God created in the heavens beings who have been taught and shall be
taught, as well by the revolution of the heavens as by other means, to read the
signs which God gives as if they were written and stamped on the face of the
sky. And it is not surprising that God should create some one for the sake of a
manifestation to the blessed, for the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, "For this very
purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my
name might be published abroad in all the |194 earth." 577 For if Pharaoh was
preserved for the sake of showing the power of God and publishing abroad His
name in all the earth,578 consider what a marvellous manifestation of the power
of God there is in the heavenly signs, for all of them have been from
everlasting to everlasting engraved in the book of the heavens, a book worthy of
God. And, secondly, I conjecture that the signs are exposed to the Powers which
administer human affairs, in order that they may only know some things, and
effect others; just as in our books some things are written that we may know
them, as, for example, the story of the Creation, or any other mystery, and
others that we may know and do them, as, for instance, the commandments and
ordinances of God. It is indeed possible that the writings of the heavens, which
Angels and Divine powers can read well, contain some things to be read by the
Angels and ministers of God in order that they may rejoice in their knowledge;
and other things in order that they may receive them as commandments and do
them.

21. And we shall not err if we maintain the analogy between the things in the Law and that which is written in the heavens and the stars. Even supposing that inferior energies, different from human kind, do bring about some of the events foreknown and indicated in the heavens, there is no necessity for supposing that they effect the results because they are reminded by the writings of God (in the heavens). Just as men when they act unjustly, effect the injustice through their own wickedness, not because they have learnt that God foreknows that some one will be unjustly treated by them; so the opposing Powers, though God foreknows the wickedness of the men and Powers who devise the detestable results, bring things to pass of their own shameful free choice. As regards the holy Angels, however, the ministering spirits sent forth to do service,579 it is probable that inasmuch as they follow 580 the commands of God's written law, they produce the |195 better results in an orderly way, having regard to time, manner, and degree; for it is absurd to suppose that being Divine, they at random, and not deliberately, approach some transaction, for instance, with Abraham, and do something for Isaac, and deliver Jacob from danger, or impress the spirit of some prophet. In order, therefore, that they may not thus act at random or haphazard, they read God's book; and thus they do the things belonging to them. And, as we said before, we, as regards our own conduct, or the working of the opposing Powers against us, act of our own free choice; when we sin, the choice is disorderly; when we do such things as are pleasing to God, the choice is disciplined; not however that we can dispense with Angels, the Divine Scriptures, or assisting saints. And Clement of Rome 581 in his argument with his father at Laodicea has some comments on the question before us----the passage occurs in The Travels,582----which agree with the foregoing. Towards the end he speaks with great force on the seeming results of "Nativity," Book X.

22. The Father.----Pardon me, my son, what you said yesterday was so true that I had no choice but to agree with you; but my conscience, like the weakness left by a fever, torments me with a lingering doubt, for I feel that everything in my nativity has come to pass.

I answered, consider with me, father, what the nature of Astrology 583 is, and
upon what grounds I give you my advice. If you meet with an astrologer, and
begin by telling him that at a certain time you had poor luck, and ask him to be
good enough to inform you what star was the cause of it, he will, say that a
malignant Mars or Saturn ruled the times, or that one of them was periodic,584
or that one |196 of them regarded the particular year from the point of
quadrature, or diametrically,585 or in conjunction, or centrally,586 or was
retrograding,587 and no end of things besides. He will tell you that either an
auspicious planet was not counteracting 588 a malignant one, or it was not
observable, or was in figure,589 or was retrograding, or in eclipse, or in
detriment,590 or was among the dim stars. And because there are many ostensible
causes, he is still able to adapt his proofs to what he has been told by you.
Now, if you afterwards go to another astrologer and tell him the opposite, viz.
that at that same time you had a piece of good fortune, and ask him from what
star of your nativity it has arisen, though you have deceived him, he is able,
as I said before, out of many figures to find one, or two, or three, or more,
which he will make out to be the true cause of your good fortune. For it is
impossible that at any man's nativity, at any hour, some of the stars should not
be favourably placed, others unfavourably; for the circle 591 admits of equal
divisions, is diversified in contents, and admits of unlimited shuffling, so
that any astrologer can say what he likes. We can sometimes make nothing of
ambiguous dreams, but the event enables us to give them the most fitting
interpretation. So it is with Astrology. Before the events it can tell us
nothing certain, but when the facts are related the result clearly shows the
cause. This is why in predicting the future they frequently err, and after the
event blame themselves, and say, "It was this or that caused it, and we did not
know." As I said yesterday, the reason why the very |197 learned astrologers err
is that they do not know what is certainly the cause of a man's nativity, and
what is not certainly so, and what things we certainly long to do, and are not
certain to do. The cause is clear to us who have learnt the secret, viz. that
being free to exercise our faculties of reason we sometimes yield to
concupiscence and suffer defeat, sometimes resolve to check it, and succeed. But
astrologers, through not being acquainted with this very secret, though they
have expatiated on the whole subject of man's Free Will from the first, have
fallen into the error of devising climacterics; for they regard our power of
choice as a most obscure subject, as we pointed out yesterday. Now it is your
turn. If you have anything to say in reply, please say it. And the father
answered with an oath, Nothing can be truer than your words.

CHAP. XXIV. ----Matter is not uncreated, or the cause of evil. From Book VII. of the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius of Palestine.

1. I suppose you are aware that two uncreated things cannot exist together;
though you seem to assume that they can, and to put the assumption in the
forefront of your argument, when you say that one of two things must be
admitted, either that God is separated from matter, or, on the contrary, that He
is united to it. Now, if any one would maintain that God is united to matter,
this is saying that there is one uncreated substance; for each of these two
uncreated substances will be a part of the other, and, as they are parts of one
another, they will not be two uncreated, but one, consisting of different parts.
We do not because a man has different parts divide him into many created
substances, but, as reason demands, we say that a single being, a man with many
parts, has been created by God. Similarly, of necessity, if God is not separated
from matter, we must allow that there is one substance, and that uncreated. But
if any one will say that God is separated from matter, there must be something
between |198 the two which also proves their separation; for it is impossible to
arrive at any idea of distance between two objects, unless there be a third to
form the basis of measurement. And this holds good not only of a single
substance, as in the present case, but of any number you please; for our
argument respecting the two uncreated substances must be no less sound if we
suppose that there are three. For we should ask respecting these, whether they
are separated from one another, or whether, on the contrary, each is united to
its neighbour. If any one decides to assert the union, our reply will be the
same as before; if, on the other hand, he holds to the separation, he will have
to face the question of the necessary separating medium. And should any one
thereupon say that there is a third account which may be fitly given of the
uncreated substances, viz. that God is neither separated from matter nor united
with it, but is, as it were, locally in matter, or matter in God, let me tell
him, and it is the gist of the whole argument, that if we say matter is the
place of God, we must of necessity affirm that He is finite and circumscribed by
matter. He must, moreover, like matter, be subject to irregular disturbance; He
cannot stay in one place, nor abide self-dependent, inasmuch as that wherein He
is contained is carried first one way, then another. Besides this, it follows
that we must affirm God to be in the lower forms of being. For if matter ever
was unordered, and God of His own free choice ordered it with a view to
progressive development, there was a time when God had no order of His own,592
and we might fairly ask whether God filled matter, or was in a part of it. If
any one prefers to say that God was in a part of matter, he makes God infinitely
smaller than matter: if a part really contained the whole of God. If he says
that God is in all matter and pervades the whole of matter, let him tell us how
God worked on matter. Either there was some contraction of God before He worked
on that from which He withdrew, or He worked at Himself as well as |199 the
matter, because He had no place to withdraw to. If any one will maintain that
matter is in God, we must similarly inquire whether we are to suppose that God
stood apart from Himself, and as living creatures are in the air, that He split
up and divided Himself to receive the things in Him, or whether matter is in Him
locally, like water in earth. If we say that matter is in Him like birds in the
air, we are bound to admit that God is divisible; if we say that matter is in
God as water is in earth, and if matter was in a state of confusion and
disorder, and, moreover, contained even evil things, we must of necessity allow
that God was the place of disorder and of evil, which does not seem to me
consistent with piety, but to be rather dangerous. For you postulate the
existence of matter, so that you may not have to admit that God is the Author of
evil, and in your determination to avoid this error, you affirm that He is a
receptacle of evil. If you told me that what you see in created substances 593
leads you to suppose that matter was originally uncreated, I should have had
many arguments to prove the impossibility of this conclusion; but as you say the
origin of evil is the cause of such a supposition, I must, I think, proceed to
inquire into the nature of evil. For once it is clear how evil comes to exist,
and, if because matter is subject to God, we cannot possibly deny that He was
the cause of evil, there will, I think, be an end of your supposition.

2. Do I understand you to say that unqualified matter is co-existent with God,
and that out of it He created the world?

It seems so to me.

So, then, if matter had no qualities, and the world was made by God, and
qualities are in the world, God is the Maker of the qualities.

Just so. But I think you said before that nothing can possibly come out of
nothing. Please tell me, therefore, whether |200 you think that the qualities of
the world have not sprung from already existing qualities?

It seems so. And that these qualities are quite distinct from the substances?

Yes.

Well, then, if God did not make the qualities out of existing qualities, and
they have not come from the substances, because they are not substances, we are
driven to the conclusion that they were made by God out of nothing. And this is
why you seemed to me to urge in vain that we cannot possibly suppose that
anything was made by God out of nothing. Let us look at the matter this way.
Among ourselves we see men making various things out of nothing; out of nothing
I say, though they certainly do seem to be creators in their own departments.
Take architects, for example. They do not build cities out of cities, nor,
similarly, temples out of temples. If because substances exist which are at
their command, you suppose the architects to produce cities and temples out of
existing things, you are mistaken, for it is not the substance which makes the
city, nor the temples, but the skill in treating the substance. And the skill
does not spring from any skill existing in the substances, but from a skill
which has no existence in them. You may meet me with the objection that the
artist out of the skill which he himself has makes the skill in the substance.
It seems to me a fair rejoinder that the man's skill does not arise from any
previously existing skill. It cannot be that skill as a self-existent entity
gives the skill; for it belongs to the class of accidents, and to those things
which receive a real existence when they inhere in substance. You may have the
man without the architect's skill, but you cannot have the architect's skill
unless the man first exist; and we must therefore maintain that the various
forms of human skill have nothing out of which they arise.594 Now, if we have
shown that this |201 is so with men, must we not much rather admit that God can
make not only qualities out of nothing, but also substances? For if it is proved
that anything arises out of nothing, it is also proved that the same holds good
of substances.

3. But I know you are longing to investigate the origin of evil; I will
therefore go on to the discussion of that topic. And I should like to briefly
ask you, Do you regard evil things as substances, or qualities of substances?

I think it is right to say, qualities of substances. But matter, you thought,
was unqualified and unformed? So I assumed when we began the discussion.

Well, then, if evil is a quality of matter, and matter was unqualified, and you
affirm that God is the Maker of the qualities, it follows that God will also be
the Creator of evil. Since, then, we cannot even thus avoid making God the cause
of evil, it seems to me superfluous to make Him inseparable from matter. If you
have any answer to this, pray say on. If we were disputing for victory, I should
think the question of evil decided; but as we are making the inquiry more in a
friendly spirit and to do one another good, I think we may re-open the
discussion. My aim and object must, I think, be very obvious, and you must be
conscious how earnestly I desire in arguing not to score a victory on the
strength of plausible lies, but by careful inquiry to point out the truth. And I
am quite sure that you are so disposed. So please, therefore, without hesitation
use such means as you consider best for the discovery of the truth, for by so
doing you will profit not yourself only but me also, by showing me my ignorance.
It seems clear to me that evil has a substantial existence, for I never see what
is evil apart from substances.

4. Ho! Ho! If you say that things evil are substances, I must examine the
meaning of substance. Do you think that substance is a kind of bodily compound?

I think so. And the bodily compound is self-existent, needing nothing to give it
existence? |202

Just so. And do you think that evil things are a man's actions?

It appears so to me. And the actions then only begin when the agent is present?
Of course. And if there is no one to act, there are no actions?

There cannot be any.

Well, then, if substance is a kind of bodily compound, and the bodily compound
needs nothing to give it existence: and if evil things are a man's actions, and
the actions require some one to act, and when he acts they then begin to be, it
follows that evil things are not substances. But if evil things are substances,
and murder is an evil, murder will be a substance; murder, however, is a man's
action; murder will therefore not be a substance. If you mean that the things in
action are substances, I agree; as, for example, the murderer, inasmuch as he is
a man, is a substance; but the murder which he commits is not a substance, but
something, done by the substance. Now we say that a man is sometimes bad because
he commits murder, and sometimes, on the contrary, we call him good because of
his well-doing; and these names are accidentally associated with the substance,
though the accidents are not the substance itself. For neither is murder a
substance, nor adultery, nor is any such like evil thing. But as the grammarian
is so called from grammar, and the rhetorician from rhetoric, and the medical
man from medicine, though neither medicine nor rhetoric nor grammar is a
substance, and the substance takes its title according to its accidents, neither
of which it is; in the same way, it appears to me, the substance receives a name
from what are considered evil things, though it is neither one nor the other of
them. Consider further, that if you imagine some other deity to be the cause of
the evil which men do, he too, inasmuch as he acts in men, is evil because of
the evil which he does. For the reason why he too is said to be evil, is that he
is |203 an author of evil; and what a man does, is not the man himself, but his
actions, and it is from these the title "evil" is derived. If we were to say
that a man is what he creates, and he creates murders, and adulteries, and
thefts, and all sorts of such things, he will be all these. But if he is all
these, and they exist only when they are being done, and have no existence when
they are not being done, and if they are done by men, men will be the creators
of them, and the causes of their existing or not existing. If you admit that
these evil things are the man's actions, it is what from what he does that he
has the quality of evil, not from what he is as a substance. For we said that he
is called evil from the accidents of the substance, which accidents are not the
substance itself, as the medical man is so-called from medicine. And if every
man is evil through his actions, and his actions have a beginning, he himself
began to be evil, and these evil things, too, had a beginning. If this be so,
the man was not evil when his wickedness began, nor can the evil attaching to
him be unoriginate; we say it did originate with him.

5. I think, my friend, you have given a sufficient answer to your companion, and
I thought you drew an excellent conclusion from his own premises; for, in truth,
if matter was unqualified, and God was the Creator of the qualities, and the
qualities are evil, God will be the Author of evil. We are agreed, then, that he
has been well answered. But it seems to me false to speak of unqualified matter,
for we cannot say that any substance whatsoever is without qualities; in fact
the very affirmation that it is unqualified, and the description of matter thus
given, point out a particular kind of quality. So, if you please, once more
discuss the matter with me; for matter seems to me to have had qualities from
all eternity; and if I maintain that evil is an effluence of matter, it is that
God may not be the cause of evil, but matter the cause of all the evil in the
world.

I am delighted with your ready acquiescence, my friend, and commend your
earnestness in the discussion: for every one who is desirous to learn ought not
to give a mere |204 random assent to what is said, but should carefully weigh
the arguments. For supposing one of two disputants to take up a false position,
and thus lead his opponent to the conclusion he desires, that will not convince
the man who hears him; but if there seems to be a good opening for a remark, the
latter will make it on the spot; for one of two things will happen: he will
either after hearing what has been said be absolutely benefited by his
impressions, or he will convict his antagonist of not speaking the truth. And in
my opinion you are not right in saying that matter was qualified from all
eternity. For if this be so, what is there for God to create? If we say
substances, we have admitted that they already existed; if, on the contrary, we
say qualities, we have recognised their pre-existence also. So, then, if both
substances and qualities are already in existence, it seems to me useless to
call God a Creator. But that I may not seem to argue all on my own side, let me
ask you a question: In what sense do you say that God was a "Creator"? 595 Is it
that He changed the substances so that they no longer were what they were
before, but became something different? Or is it that He kept the substances as
they previously were, but changed their qualities?

6. I do not suppose there was a change in the substances; that is to me an
obvious absurdity; what I say is that there was a change of the qualities, and I
maintain that in respect of them God is a Creator. For just as we may say that a
house is built of stones, but cannot say that, because the stones have become a
house, they do not remain stones in substance: for I maintain that the house is
built in virtue of the quality of arrangement, the former quality of the stones
having been of course changed; so, it seems to me, God, while the substance
remained the same, created a change of its qualities, and I maintain that this
change justifies us in saying that God made the world.

Well, then, since you say that a change of the qualities was brought about by
God, I wish you would briefly tell |205 me whether you likewise think that
things evil are qualities of the substances?

I think so. And were these qualities themselves in matter from the very first,
or had they a beginning?

I say that these qualities were eternally co-existent with matter. But do you
not say that God produced a change of the qualities?

Yes. That is what I say. Was it for the better, or for the worse?

I think I must admit it was for the better.

Well, then, if the evil things are qualities of matter, and God changed its
qualities for the better, we are bound to inquire into the origin of evil. For
the qualities did not remain what they were by nature. If the qualities were not
bad at first, and you say that through the change which God made, matter
acquired its first bad qualities, God will be the cause of evil, because He
changed qualities which were not bad, so that they became bad; or do you suppose
God not to have changed the bad qualities into better ones, but that the only
ones left, the indifferent ones, were changed by God for the sake of putting all
in order? That has been my view from the first.

7. How, then, do you account for His having left the qualities of bad things as
they were? Do you say that He had the power to destroy them, but did not choose
to do so, or that He had not the power? If you say that He could, but would not,
you are bound to admit that He was the cause of these things: for though He had
the power to abolish evil He allowed it to remain as it was, particularly when
He began to work at matter. If he had not concerned Himself at all with matter,
He would not have been the cause of those qualities which He allowed to remain;
but since He worked upon a portion of it, and let alone another portion though
He might have changed it for the better, it appears to mo that He deserves
blame, because He left part of the matter in its evil state, to the |206
destruction of the part on which He worked. In truth, very great injustice seems
to have been done to this part of matter; inasmuch as though He reduced it to
order, it now partakes of evil. For if any one will carefully look into things,
he will find that the present condition of matter is worse than that of the
original chaos. Before it was differentiated, it had ho perception of evil; but
now every part of it has the perception of evil. Take man, for instance. Before
he was fashioned, and by the Creator's skill became a living creature, he had no
natural participation in evil; but as soon as God made him a man, he became
conscious of approaching evil; and what you say God intended for the benefit of
matter is found to have done it more harm than good. If you say that the reason
why evil was not stopped was that God could not remove it, you will affirm that
God is impotent; and His impotence must either be caused by natural weakness, or
be due to the fact that, as if He were the slave of some stronger power, He is
overcome by fear. If you venture to say that He is weak by nature, you appear to
imperil your salvation; and if you say that He is overcome by fear of some
stronger power, you will be affirming that evil is mightier than God, inasmuch
as it is strong enough to resist and overcome His will; and this seems to me an
absurd statement to make about God. These things, which according to you are
able to overcome God, must surely be the true gods, that is to say, if by God we
mean Omnipotence.

8. And I should like to also ask you a short question about matter itself. Tell
me, is matter simple or compound? for the difference in things brings me to this
turn in the argument. If matter is simple and uniform, and the world is
compound, and consists of different substances and commixtures,596 we cannot say
that it is made of matter, because compound things cannot consist of one simple
substance; for when we speak of "compound" we mean a mixture 597 of several
simple things. If, on the other hand, |207 you say that matter is compound, you
will certainly affirm it to be compounded of simple things; and if it is
compounded of simple things, there was a time when these simple things existed
apart from one another, and it was by their being compounded together that
matter was made; and this shows that matter was created. For if matter is
compound, and compound things consist of simple things, there was a time when
matter was not, that is, before the simple things came together; and if there
was a time when matter was not, and there never was a time when the uncreated
was not, it follows that matter cannot be uncreated. But from your view it
follows that there will be many things uncreated. For if God was uncreated, and
the simple things of which matter is compounded were uncreated, there will not
be two and only two uncreated. But do you think that nothing opposes itself?
That is my opinion. But water is the opposite of fire?

Certainly.

And, likewise, darkness is the opposite of light, and heat of cold? And moisture
of drought?

Just so.

Well, now, if nothing opposes itself, and the things I have mentioned are
opposed to one another, it follows that they are not one and the same matter,
nor made of one and the same matter. And I wish to ask you a question like the
others: Do you admit that the parts of a thing are not destructive of one
another?

I do. And that fire and water, and the others I mentioned, are parts of matter?

Just so. And do you not also agree that water is destructive of fire, light of
darkness, and so on with all similar things?

Yes.

If, then, the parts of a thing are not destructive of one another, and these
things are destructive of one another, it follows that they are not parts of one
another; and if they |208 are not parts of one another, they will not be parts
of one and the same matter. But in fact they will not be matter at all, because
that nothing is destructive of itself, as is the case with opposites. For
nothing is opposed to itself, opposites being by nature opposed to things other
than themselves; as for example, white is not the opposite of white, but is said
to be opposed to black; light, too, is shown not to be opposed to itself, but to
darkness, and similarly with countless other things. So then, if matter is a
single substance, it cannot be its own opposite; and if this doctrine of
opposites holds good, it appears that there is no such matter. The foregoing is
taken from Book VII. of the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius; being, as he
says, the work of Maximus,598 a Christian writer of some distinction. But it has
been discovered word for word in Origen's discussion with the Marcionites and
other heretics, Eutropius defending, Megethius opposing.

CHAP. XXV. ----That the "separation" which arises from foreknowledge does not do away with Free Will. From Book I. of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, at the words "separated unto the gospel of God."

1. The third point to notice is the phrase "separated unto the Gospel of
God";599 and in the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle says the same thing
about himself: "When it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me even from
my mother's womb, to reveal his son in me." 600 They who do not understand that
any one who is predestined through the foreknowledge of God is the cause of the
events foreknown, take hold of such expressions as these, and think they can by
them establish their doctrine that men are so constituted by nature that they
must be saved. And some employ such passages to destroy man's Free Will, and
also make use of the words in the Psalms, "The wicked are estranged from the
womb." We may |209 easily meet this by asking them to explain what comes next;
for it is written, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as
soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a
serpent." 601 And we will ask those who insist on the clearness of the words,
whether the wicked who were estranged from the womb, as soon as they were born
went astray and erred from the way of salvation, and whether this was their own
doing. And how could the wicked who were estranged from the womb, both go astray
as soon as they were born and also speak lies? For our opponents, I suppose,
will never be able to show that in the moment of birth they uttered an
articulate cry, and told lies. If, however, we observe the steps by which we
approach predestination in the argument of the epistle which we are examining,
we shall, once we have disposed of what inclines the simpler sort of readers to
justify the charge of injustice brought against God's decree, be able to defend
Him Who separated from his mother's womb, and separated unto the Gospel of God,
Paul the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle. The words stand thus:
"We know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to
them that are called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also
foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
first-born among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified."602

2. Let us, then, attend to the order of these statements. God first calls, and
then justifies, and He does not justify those whom He did not call; and He
calls, having before the calling foreordained, and He does not call whom He did
not foreordain;603 and the foreordaining is not the origin of His calling and
justifying; for if it were the origin of all that follows they who bring in by a
side wind the absurd doctrine of souls being "naturally constituted" 604 |210
might very plausibly have claimed the victory; but the foreknowledge comes
before the foreordaining, for "whom he did foreknow," says the Apostle, "he also
foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son." 605 So then, God first
surveyed the long series of events, and perceiving the will of certain men to be
inclined to godliness, and also their efforts to attain thereto when their will
was so inclined, and further, how they would wholly give themselves up to a
virtuous life, He foreknew them, for He knows the present and foreknows the
future; and whom He thus foreknew, He foreordained to be conformed to the image
of His Son. Now we know there is a Person, Who is the image of the invisible
God,606 and it is His image which is called the image of the Son of God; and we
think that this image is the human 607 soul which the Son of God assumed, and
which for its merit became the image of the image of God. And it was to this,
which we think is the image of the image of the Son of God, that God
foreordained those to be conformed, whom, on account of His foreknowledge of
them, He did foreordain. We must not therefore suppose that the foreknowledge of
God is the cause of future events; but inasmuch as these events would follow the
agent's own impulses, on this account He foreknew, for He knoweth all things
before they be:608 and inasmuch as He knoweth all things before they be, He
foreknew certain individuals and foreordained them to be conformed to the image
of His Son; but others He saw |211 estranged. And if any one objects, and asks
whether what God foreknows might possibly not occur, we shall say it possibly
might not; but granting this possibility, there is no necessity that it should
occur, or not occur; and the events will not in the least be necessitated, but
there is also the possibility of their not occurring. The subject of
possibilities, however, belongs to the science of the skilled logician; so that
if a man will cleanse the eye of his mind, he may thus be able to follow the
subtle arguments, and may understand how, even in the course of ordinary events,
there is nothing to prevent the possibility of a given circumstance issuing many
ways, though, in fact, there will be only one out of the many, and that not
necessitated; and the foreknowledge of it means that it will be, but will not of
necessity be; for though it may possibly not occur, the prediction of it will
not be conjecture but real foreknowledge.

3. And let no one think that we have said nothing about the phrase "according to his purpose," because it may seem to hamper our argument; for Paul says, "We know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose."
609 The critic should observe that the Apostle also at once gave the reason for their being culled according to His purpose, saying, "Whom he did foreknow, them he also foreordained to bo conformed to the image of his Son." And who more fitting to be included in the justifying calling by the purpose of God, than those who love Him? And that the cause of the purpose and foreknowledge lies in our Free Will is clearly shown by the words, "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God"; for Paul all but said that if all things work together for good, the reason is that they who love God are worthy of their working together. And here let us ask our opponents a question, and let them give us an answer. Just for a moment let us assume that we have some measure of Free Will,----and we will tell them that this is a fact, though they
|212
seek to destroy Free Will,----until on that assumption we can prove the unsoundness of their view. If Free Will is indeed a reality, will God, when He considers the chain of future events, foreknow what will be done by each possessor of Free Will through the exercise of that Free Will, or will He not foreknow? To say that He will not foreknow, is worthy of a man who knows nothing of the omniscience and majesty of God. But if they will admit His foreknowledge, let us ask them another question: Is His knowing the cause of future occurrences, assuming that men have Free Will? Or does He foreknow because the events will come to pass? And is it the truth that His foreknowledge is by no means the cause of what will result from man's Free Will? It is then possible for a man created free, under given circumstances, not to do one thing and to do another.

4. For these reasons, and others like them which might be adduced, we uphold the
words, "Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few
things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord,"
610 and meaning attaches to all commendation. There is sound reason also in the
words, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou oughtest to have put my money to
the bankers." 611 Only thus can we maintain the justice of what is said to those
on His right hand, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me
meat," 612 and so on; and to those on the left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed,
into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was
an hungred, and ye gave me no meat," 613 and so on. But even supposing that the
words "Separated unto the gospel of God," 614 and "He that separated me from my
mother's womb," 615 imply some necessity, how could the Apostle reasonably say,
"I buffet my body and bring it into bondage, lest by any means, after that I
have preached to others, I myself should be |213 rejected." 616 And further,
"Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel." 617 For he clearly shows hereby
that if he did not buffet his body and bring it into bondage as much as he
could, he would be rejected after preaching to others, and that woe might have
been unto him if he did not preach the Gospel. Perhaps, then, it was under these
conditions that God separated him from his mother's womb: God saw the cause of
the just separation, viz. that Paul would buffet his body, and bring it into
bondage, because he feared lest having preached to others he himself might be
rejected, and that, knowing there would be woe to him unless he preached the
Gospel, being moved with fear towards God so that he might not be in woe, he
would not hold his peace but would preach the Gospel. And this He also saw Who
separated him from his mother's womb, and separated him unto His own Gospel,
viz. that he would be in labours more abundantly,618 in prisons more frequently,
in stripes above measure, in death oft; that of the Jews he would five times
receive forty stripes save one, that he would be thrice beaten with rods, once
be stoned; and that he would suffer all this rejoicing in tribulations, and
that, knowing that tribulation worketh endurance,619 he would endure. For these
reasons it was meet that he should be separated unto the Gospel of God, as it
was foreknown that he would be, and that he should be separated from his
mother's womb. And he was separated unto the Gospel of God not because his
nature was specially endowed and by its constitution surpassed the natures of
men unlike him, but on account of his actions, first foreknown, but afterwards
realised, every one of them, through his apostolic fitness and apostolic
purpose. This is not the time to discuss the passage in the psalm, for it was a
digression; so, God willing, it shall be discussed in its proper place, whenever
we interpret the psalm. The foregoing will abundantly suffice for the term
"separated." |214

CHAP. XXVI. ----Of the question of things "good"and "evil"; that they partly depend on our own efforts
620 and partly do not; and (that) according to the teaching of Christ, but not as Aristotle thinks. From the treatise on the 4th Psalm, at the words, "Many say, who will show us the good things?"
621

1. Seeing that there is so much discussion as to what things are "good," what
"evil," some affirming that good things and the contrary do not depend 622 on
our own efforts, pleasure,623 for instance, as they declare, being a good thing,
trouble an evil thing; while others identify "good" and "evil" with things
dependent on our own efforts only, for they say that good 624 things are the
virtues only and virtuous actions, and that evil things are the vices and
vicious actions; and a third set of thinkers unite the two views, and tell us
that good and evil things partly depend on our own efforts, partly do not: no
wonder, if distracted by these sophistries the majority of believers, longing to
learn what are really good things, cry out with the psalmist, "Who will show us
the good things?" 621 That the good things naturally depend upon our own
efforts, everybody who accepts the passage in the Gospel where the judgment is
described, would unhesitatingly allow. For it says that a man is good, supposing
him to hear the sentence, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been
faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into
the joy of |215 thy Lord." 625 And that is also good which proceedeth from the
good man, out of his heart, as the Saviour says, "The good man out of the good
treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good." 626 And, in general,
every fruit of a good tree, because it depends on a man's own efforts, is a good
thing: such as love, peace, joy, long-suffering, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, meekness, self-control; and the contraries are evil things. And
if, according to the teaching of Christ, there is a something good and evil, and
we must still look for it in things independent of our choice, and it should
prove to be independent of our efforts, we shall on further investigation very
quickly show. But, at any rate, things so called by those who unite what is
within our choice with what is not, could not be good and evil; for they think
that some good things pertain to the soul, others to the body, and that others
are external; and similarly with evil things. And in respect of the soul, they
speak of virtue and virtuous conduct, or vice and vicious conduct; as concerns
the body, of health and vigour and beauty, or disease and sickliness and
deformity; as regards externals, wealth, good birth and reputation, or poverty,
humble origin and disgrace.

2. And some will suppose that likewise according to the Scriptures there are
three kinds of good things, and three of evil; for while they allow that virtues
and vices are "good" and "evil," according to the recognised distinction between
virtue and vice, and the corresponding conduct on either side, they will make
use of passages which declare that oven things pertaining to the body, and
things external, are good or evil. And as regards virtues and vices, need I say
anything? for we are taught by ethics that we ought to choose righteousness, and
temperance, and prudence, and courage, and regulate our conduct according to
these virtues; and that we ought to shun the contraries to them. We therefore
require no illustrations of good things which are the objects of |216 our own
choice; but from many places they will adduce instances of good things which are
bodily and external. On the present occasion it will suffice if we adduce
certain passages from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, to prove that promises
are made to those who keep the commandments' while there are threats and curses
against those who transgress them; for example, that health is a blessing, and
disease the opposite, the following quotation from Exodus will show: "If thou
wilt keep my commandments and my ordinances, I will put none of the diseases
upon thee, which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the Lord that healeth thee."
627 And the words also from Deuteronomy against sinners might be supposed to
make bodily plagues and diseases an evil thing, and health and bodily strength,
of course, a good thing. The passage stands thus: "If thou wilt not observe to
do all the words of this law which are written in this book, that thou mayest
fear this glorious and marvellous name, The Lord thy God; then The Lord thy God
will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great
plagues, and marvellous, and sore sicknesses, and very many. And he will bring
upon thee again all the grievous plague of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and
it shall cleave unto thee. Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not
written in the book of this law, will the Lord bring upon thee, until it utterly
destroy thee." 628 And again to transgressors it is said, "I will appoint over
you even fever and jaundice, that shall consume your eyes, and make your soul to
pine away." 629 Further, in Deuteronomy 630 the Word threatens with incurable
lockjaw 631 those who forsake godliness.

3. And they who understand outward blessings to be promised by the Divine word
in Leviticus, will make use of the following: "If ye walk in my statutes, and
|217 keep my commandments, and do them: then I will give you the rain in its
season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the plains shall
yield their fruit. And your threshing shall overtake the vintage, and the
vintage shall reach unto the sowing time, and ye shall eat your bread to the
full, and dwell in your land safely," 632 and so on. And from Deuteronomy they
will take and use the passage, "And it shall be when ye shall pass over Jordan
unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and ye observe to do all his
commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God shall set thee
on high above all: and all these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake
thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.633 Blessed shalt
thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be
the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, the herds of thy kine, and
the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy garners and thy kneading-troughs,"
634 and so on. And so again, on the contrary, it is said to the ungodly, "Cursed
shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall
be thy garners and thy kneading-troughs. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body,
and the fruit of thy ground, cursed the herds of thy cattle and the flocks of
thy sheep." 635 And countless other passages will be brought forward by those
who will have it that good and evil things are bodily and external. And they lay
hold of the Gospels also, and tell us that the Saviour when He came took away
from men, inasmuch as He deemed them evil things, bodily blindness, and
deafness, and palsy, and healed every disease and every sickness,636 and gave
instead of the evil things which previously prevailed, clearness of bodily
sight, and hearing, and every form of health and strength; and they will put you
out of countenance by what they allege, unless we are prepared to admit
possession by devils and lunacy |218 to be evil things,637 and, on the contrary,
deliverance from them to be a good thing. Nay, the Apostles also in exercising
the gifts of healing, and in working miracles, by the very nature of what they
did brought good things to men and freed them from evil things. And they who say
such things will pass over to the world to come, and allege that because pain is
an evil thing sinners are committed to age-long fire; and if pain is an evil
thing, pleasure must be a good one.

4. The foregoing clearly shows the arguments which mostly silence such readers
as cannot dispose of the. scriptural statements which are adduced in favour of
there being three kinds of good things and three of evil things. Moreover, not
only have confessedly unsophisticated believers been thus beguiled, but even
some of those who profess wisdom according to Christ have fallen into the snare;
for they suppose such promises as these to be made by the Creator,638 and that
beyond their literal signification the threats have no meaning. Well, then, in
reply to all who so strangely apprehend the Scriptures, we must further inquire
whether the Prophets, against whom no charge is brought, kept the law; Elias,
for instance, the poorest of men, so poor that he had not bread of his own to
eat, and was therefore sent to a woman of Zarephath which belonged to Zidon;639
and Eliseus, who at the house of the Shunammite had a very little chamber, and a
bed, and a cheap candlestick, who also fell sick and died;640 and Isaiah, who
went three years naked and barefoot;641 and Jeremiah, who was cast into a miry
pit, and was constantly derided, so that he prayed he might have a lodging-place
in the wilderness;642 and John, who was in the deserts and ate nothing but
locusts and wild honey, who had a leathern girdle about his loins, and was
clothed in raiment of camel's hair.643 They will, I suppose, admit that these
men kept the law. And we will ask whether |219 what our opponents consider good
things, were the lot of those who kept the law. And if they cannot show that
this was so, there will be no escape for them; they will have to allow either
that the promises which are said to be given to the godly are false, or that
being true they must be anagogically interpreted; and once they are compelled to
resort to allegory, there is an end of their supposition that the law threatens
the ungodly with bodily disease, and such external things as are reckoned to be
evils, and that the promise of bodily health and wealth is for those who follow
after God.

5. And is it not foolish to make such a point of the ills of life, and to boast of those who suffer from them? For if tribulations are evil, and the Apostle speaks of rejoicing in tribulations,644 it is clear that he rejoiced in evil things; but this is foolish, and the Apostle was not a fool; and it follows that such exercises of the Apostle as he speaks of were not evil; being pressed on every side he is not straitened; he is perplexed, yet not unto despair;645 tempted, but not killed; thought to be poor, he maketh many rich, and supposed to have nothing, he possesses all things; for the whole world of wealth belongs to the believer, and not an obol to the unbeliever. And further, they who suppose that according to Scripture there are three kinds of good and three kinds of evil, have to face another fact, viz. that the righteous are ever in the midst of evils, for the word of prophecy says truly, "Many are the afllictions of the righteous."646 And they who suppose certain things to be evils might not unfitly remember what befell Job, to whom after that he had nobly borne the trials which compassed him about, the Divine word says, "And dost thou suppose that I dealt with thee for any other purpose than that thou mayest appear righteous?"
647 For if Job is shown to be righteous no other way than through this and that befalling him, how can we say that the causes of his appearing righteous are evils to him? And it follows that even the Devil is
|220
not an evil to the holy man. At all events, the Devil was not an evil to Job, for all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.648 And we further say that it is far from clear that, if the blessings are taken literally, the "righteous" man will be a partaker of those things which in the Scriptures are considered "good." For the story of many a holy man's life contradicts such interpretations. It is absurd to suppose that the holy man will be a money lender, opening banks in many nations,649 in town after town, distracted over payments and receipts, and following a prohibited business; for "the righteous man
650 putteth not out his money to usury, and taketh not rewards against the innocent"; and "he that doeth these things shall never be moved."
651 And, according to Ezekiel, "the holy man giveth not forth his money upon usury nor taketh increase."
652 And as for thinking that fever is inflicted on account of sins, that is an opinion of very ignorant people, for the causes of such a sickness are often clear enough; either the neighbourhood, or the quality of the water, or the character of the food. And if health and wealth are rewards for the righteous, no ungodly man ought to have health or wealth. But we must look for this health in the constitution of a man's soul, and the wealth we must take to be that ransom of a man's soul of which Solomon speaks,----"The ransom of a man's soul is his own riches."
653 But we must shun poverty, which is thus described: "A poor man endureth not a threat." And further, by wounds and bruises and sicknesses we must understand the evils which befall heedless souls through their wickedness; and the prophet blames the sufferers this way for being in such a condition, saying, "From the sole of the foot even unto the head, neither wound, nor bruise, nor festering sore (is healed); there is no plaster, nor oil, to put upon them, neither have they been bound up."
654 |221

6. This will be enough to enable any but the very dull, when they read the
distracting passages of Scripture, to arrive at a worthy conception of the
action of the Holy Spirit. But in order to silence those who think that in these
passages we have the good things which shall be given to the saints, and, on the
other hand, the evil things which shall be awarded to sinners, we must further
observe that everything which exists on account of a given object is less
important than that for which it exists; for instance, surgical operations,
cauteries, and plasters, which are means to health, are less important than the
health in view. And even supposing that regarded as remedies of the physician
these things are called "good," we must understand that they are not the final
good things of the healing art, but causes of them; from the physician's
standpoint bodily health is the final good. Similarly, if we must keep certain
commands for the sake of securing certain blessings, and the rewards are bodily
and external, the good actions will not be good as ends in themselves, but only
as productive of the blessings; and the wealth which our opponents suppose the
Scripture to promise, and the bodily health, will excel the righteousness, and
the very holiness, piety, and fear of God which constitute the upright and
virtuous conduct. It is for men who do not know the dignity of virtue, but
prefer material things to virtue itself, to accept such doctrines; for of all
things it is most absurd to say that wealth and bodily health surpass upright
and virtuous conduct. And, in fact, it is on account of these detestable
opinions that some persons have come to believe that even after the Resurrection
one of the first things promised is that we shall eat and drink such and such
things, and some hold that we shall even beget children. As soon as ever these
opinions reach heathen inquirers, they will make Christianity appear a very
foolish thing; for some who are strangers to the Faith hold far better views.

7. Now we will apply what appears to be the results of our investigation of the
sacred oracles. We alleged that |222 we were content to say that "good" things
and "evil" things, partly depend on our own efforts, and partly do not. We did
not,655 however, reckon among the blessings which do not depend on our efforts,
health and beauty and high descent and riches, and, as best we could, we
endeavoured to briefly solve these perplexing passages. We must now say what the
good things are which do not depend on our efforts; for it is true that "except
the Lord build the house, they labour but in vain who build it"; and "except the
Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." 656 Every one who is
making progress is building a house, and every one that is perfect keepeth a
city; and the work of him that buildeth is in vain, except the Lord build and
the Lord watch. The power of the Lord which assists in the building of him that
buildeth, and which cooperates with him who is himself unable to complete the
edifice, is one of the good things which do not depend on our efforts; and we
must take the same view of the city which is being watched. And just as if I
were to say that the "good thing" of agriculture, that which produces the fruit,
partly depends on ourselves in respect of the husbandman's skill, and partly
does not so depend, in respect of the working of Providence for a genial
atmosphere and an abundant supply of rain: so the "good thing" of the rational
creature is made up of man's purpose, and the Divine power assisting him, when
he has chosen the better life. There is need, therefore, both of our own purpose
and of the Divine assistance, not only that we may become good and upright, but
also that having become good and upright we may abide in virtue; for even if a
man has been perfected he will fall away, if he be puffed up over his goodness
and accounts himself the cause thereof, and does not fitly ascribe glory to Him
who contributes more than all besides to the acquiring and keeping of his
virtue. |223 Something like this, we think, explains how it was that he who in
Ezekiel is said to have walked blameless in all his ways, until iniquity was
found in him,657 fell from heaven, viz., as Isaiah tells us, Lucifer, once a
morning star, afterwards, undone and cast clown to earth.658 For not only of the
sons of men is it true that if a man be perfect and have not the wisdom of God,
he is accounted but a thing of nought; but it is true even in the order of
Angels, and of sovereign Powers, and in every rank of being that is Divine so
far as God is with it. Anyway, perhaps because the holy Apostle sees that our
purposing counts for far less than the power of God in the acquisition of the
good things, he says that the result is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;659 not as though God showeth mercy
without our willing and running, but because our willing and running is as
nothing in comparison with the mercy of God; and therefore, as is right and
meet, he gives the credit of the good result rather to the mercy of God than to
human willing and running.

8. Although we knew we should seem to be widely digressing, we have gone into
all these details, for we are convinced of the necessity of the inquiry, if we
are to handle the words, "Many say, who will show us the good things?" 660 As
far as we could we have clearly pointed out to the many who say "Who will show
us the good things?" what the good things are, and, consequently, also, what are
the evil things, in order that through our exercises and prayers we may acquire
the good things, and repel the evil things from our souls. But since in speaking
men sometimes use literal expressions, and sometimes, I suppose, even use words
in a wrong sense, we must not be surprised if occasionally we find those who
hold unsound opinions applying the terms "good" and "evil" to bodily things, and
what we call things external. For example, in Job we read, "If we receive good
at the hand of God, shall wo not endure evil? " 661 And in Jeremiah, "Evil came
down from |224 the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem." 662 Instead of saying, "If
we receive such and such useful and pleasant things at the hand of Providence,
shall we not put up with the unpleasant and painful ones?" Job says, "If we
receive good at the hand of God, shall we not endure evil?" And instead of,
"These particular events providentially happened to Jerusalem for the
chastisement of its inhabitants," we have, "Evil came down from the Lord to the
gates of Jerusalem." So then, readers who understand the facts must not quibble
over the names, but must ascertain when the names are to be taken literally, and
when on account of their limited connotation they are not taken in their strict
sense. And even if the Saviour healed some of these disorders, and gave health,
and sight, and hearing to men, we must look chiefly for their spiritual meaning,
since the narratives prove that the word of the Gospel does heal the disorders
of the soul. And there is no absurdity in supposing in such cases that what is
related in the narrative was done to astonish the men of that time; so that if
any were not convinced by argument and instruction, they might be silenced
through the marvellous miracles, and yield assent to the teacher.

CHAP. XXVII. ----The meaning of the Lord's hardening Pharaoh's heart.

1. Nearly all readers of the Book of Exodus, both they who disbelieve, and they who say they believe it, are disturbed at the frequently occurring words, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh,"
663 and "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh."
664 For among many other causes of men's disbelief we must include this, that things unworthy of God are spoken of God, and it is unworthy of God to bring about the hardening of any man's heart, and to effect the hardening in order that he who is hardened may disobey the will of Him who hardens. And they further ask, Is it not absurd for God to influence any one to disobey His will? That would be a clear proof that God did not wish
|225
Pharaoh to be obedient to His commands. And to ordinary believers it sounds very harsh to say, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." For readers who are convinced that there is no other God but the Creator,665 think that God arbitrarily, as it were, has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will,666 when there is no reason why one man should have mercy shown him by God, and another be hardened by Him. And others, better advised than these, say they look upon Scripture as containing many secrets, and that they do not on that account turn aside from the sound faith; and one of the secrets they hold to be the true
667 account of this portion of Scripture. Others, alleging that there is a God other than the Creator, will have Him to be just but not good, very foolishly and impiously going the length of severing righteousness from goodness, and supposing that it is possible for righteousness to exist in any one apart from goodness, and for goodness to be separated from righteousness. And although they say this, they nevertheless, in contradiction of their own conception of a righteous God, concede the point that He hardens the heart of Pharaoh, and makes him disobedient to Himself. For if He who giveth to every man his due, and bestoweth on those who have themselves been the cause of progress or deterioration, such things as He knoweth each one to be fitted to receive,----if He is just, how can that God be just Who was the cause of Pharaoh's sin? not absolutely the cause, indeed, but so far as they understand Him to have contributed to Pharaoh's becoming a most unrighteous man. For inasmuch as they refer the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to nothing worthy of the purpose of a just God, I fail to understand how, even on their own showing, they can make the hardener of Pharaoh's heart a just God. We must therefore press them in the exposition of the passage before us either to show how a just God hardens, or to pluck up courage and say that the Creator, because He hardens, is a wicked God. If they can find but scanty proofs that the just God is capable of hardening a man's
|226
heart, and dare not be so godless as to own that they charge the Creator with wickedness, let them take refuge in some other way of interpreting the words, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh,"
668 and no longer contradict their own conception of a just God, because they think they understand the literal meaning. They will at last, perhaps, confess that they are at a loss to know what the Word is hinting at.

2. Away, then, with such conceptions of the Divine nature as we are
investigating in the question before us. They are torn to shreds. But inasmuch
as there are those who advance the plea of natural constitution, supposing some
persons to have been created to perdition, and adduce these passages in support
of their views, maintaining that their contention is clearly proved by the fact
that Pharaoh's heart was hardened by the Lord, come, let us ask them a few
questions. A man created to perdition would never be able to grow in goodness,
because his original nature neutralises his efforts to attain to virtue. What
need, then, was there for Pharaoh, who was, as you say, a son of perdition, to
be hardened by God so that he should not let the people go? For you tell us that
if he had not been hardened he would have let them go. Further, we should like
an answer to another question: What would Pharaoh have done if he had not been
hardened? If he had let them go, not being hardened, he had not a nature doomed
to perdition. If he had not let them go, the hardening of his heart was
superfluous; for he would just the same have refused to let them go, even if he
had not been hardened. And what did God do to control his reason when he
hardened him? And how is it that He blames him, saying, "Because thou disobeyest
me, behold I will slay thy first-born." 669 Can it be that He who hardens,
hardens one already hard. Clearly, the hard is not hardened, but the change is
from softness to hardness; and softness of heart is, according to the Scripture,
praiseworthy, as we have often observed. Let them, |227 therefore, tell us
whether Pharaoh turns from good to bad; further, whether God in blaming Pharaoh
blames him without cause, or not without cause; if without cause, how is He any
longer wise and just? if not without cause, Pharaoh was responsible for his sins
of disobedience; and if he was responsible, he had not a nature doomed to
perdition. We must certainly ask another question, because the Apostle, pushing
his arguments to their full conclusion, says, "So then he hath mercy on whom he
will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he
still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? " 670 Who, we ask, is it that
hardeneth and hath mercy? The hardening surely does not belong to one God, and
the having mercy to a different one, if we follow the apostolic utterance, but
both are attributed to the same God. Either, then, they who in Christ find
mercy, belong to Him Who hardeneth Pharaoh's heart, and it is idle for our
opponents to invent any other god than (as they allow Him to be) the good God,
Who not only hath mercy but also hardens; or He would no longer be, as they
suppose, even good.

3. We have advisedly gone into all these details at considerable length, in
opposition to those who unwarrantably congratulate themselves on their
understanding, and complain of our simplicity, in order to show that neither in
their conceptions of God, nor in their doctrines of natures, does the Word when
examined give them any support. For ourselves, we are for many reasons
convinced, both as we study the sacred Scriptures, and as we contemplate the
magnitude of the forces at work in creation, and the evidences of orderly
design, that things visible and invisible, things temporal and things eternal,
come from God the Creator, Who is to be regarded as one and the same with the
Father of our Lord and Saviour, the good and just and wise God; and in handling
the Scriptures we strive to keep that steadily in view, begging God our Saviour
to show us all things pertaining to a good |228 and just and wise God, for we
suppose that the things we speak of cannot be regarded, at least by intelligent
beings, as the result of chance, but that we must ask ourselves whether they are
consistent with His goodness and justice and wisdom.

4. Something like this, then, we suppose to be the meaning of the words,"The
Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." 671 The Word of God is a physician of the
soul, and uses the most diverse, suitable, and seasonable methods of healing the
sick; and of these methods of healing, some more, some less, give pain and
torment to those who are under treatment; and the remedies, moreover, seem
unsuitable, sometimes not; and, further, they act speedily or slowly; and are
sometimes applied when the patients have had their fill of sin, or when, so to
speak, they have only touched it. The whole of inspired Scripture abounds in
proofs of each of these statements. For example, we read that remedies more or
less sad were applied to the people in the course of what befell them, for the
sake of punishment and correction, in wars of greater or less magnitude, and in
famines of longer or shorter duration; and we have an instance of seemingly
unsuitable treatment in the passage, "I will not punish your daughters when they
commit whoredom, nor your brides when they commit adultery." 672 It may be that
God leaves to themselves the souls that eagerly desire the sweets of bodily
pleasure, until being satiated they abandon the objects of their longing; they
are, as it were, sick of them, and not likely to fall quickly into the same
snares, because they are disgusted and have been so far tormented. Souls are
more slowly healed, because, if they were soon rid of their sufferings, they
would think little of falling a second time into the same evils. The God who
designed them knows all their different constitutions, and, for that He is an
expert in the art of healing, it is for Him alone to say what is best to be done
for each, and when.

5. In some bodily sicknesses, when the mischief is, as |229
they say, deep-seated, the physician with the aid of certain drugs draws and forces the matter to the surface, producing severe inflammation and swelling, causing more pains than those which a patient had before he put himself under treatment----as is the practice in cases of Hydrophobia and similar diseases. So God also, I think, deals with secret, deep-seated mischief in the soul. The physician might say in one of his cases, "I will set up inflammation round about the injury, and will force certain parts to swell, so as to produce a bad abscess"; and when he speaks thus, one hearer will not blame a scientific expert but will even praise him for, as it were, threatening to produce these effects, while another hearer will blame him, and will allege that a man who makes a cure depend on inflammations and abscesses must be a quack; so it is, I think, when God says, "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh."
673 And seeing that these things are written, he that heareth them as the oracles of God, observing the dignity of the Speaker, accepts them, and every one who seeketh, findeth a way of showing even herein the goodness of God;674 for the people were through the numerous miracles more openly assured of safety; and, secondly, there was goodness as regards the Egyptians, as many as, amazed at what took place, intended to follow the Hebrews: for "a mixed multitude," says the historian, "of the Egyptians went out with them";675 and there was perhaps a deeper and more secret purpose of benefiting Pharaoh himself, when he shall no longer conceal the poison nor check the malady, but draw it forth to the light, and perhaps by his conduct put a stop to it: so that having gone through all the stages of the eruption of the wickedness within him, he may find the tree which bore the evil fruit less vigorous, perhaps at last withering away, when he is overwhelmed in the sea: not, as one might suppose, to perish altogether, but that he may cast away and be relieved of the burden of
his sins, and, it |230
may be, descend to Hades in peace, or in less warfare of the soul.

6. Readers, however, may hardly be convinced: they will suspect that there is
something forced in our version of the matter, viz. that the hardening of
Pharaoh's heart was for his good, and that everything we are told, right up to
the overwhelming in the sea, was for his sake. Let us see, then, if we cannot
remove this reluctance, and convince our readers of the truth of what we say.
"Many are the scourges," says David, "of the wicked";676 and his son teaches
that "God scourgeth every son whom he re-receiveth." 677 And elsewhere David in
a prophetic promise concerning Christ and those who believe on Him, says, "If
his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they profane my
statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions
with the rod, and their iniquities with scourges. But my mercy will I not
utterly take from them." 678 So, then, it is a favour from the Lord that the
transgressor is visited with a rod and the sinner with scourges. And so far as
the sinner is not scourged, he is not yet brought under discipline and
correction. And this is why God threatens, that if the sins of the inhabitants
of Judah become great, He will no longer punish their daughters when they commit
whoredom, nor their brides when they commit adultery.679 And elsewhere he says,
"Because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, I will not again be
furious over thee, nor again be jealous over thee." 680 So, then, there are
sinners with whom God is not furious; if I may so speak, though He is angry, He
is not furious.

7. We must also observe that the threats of the Prophets against the many end
with "They shall know that I am the Lord";681 and not only the threats against
the Israelites, but also those against the Egyptians and Assyrians and the other
enemies of the people. And this |231 familiar ending of many threats is found
also in the Book of Exodus: "And all the Egyptians shall know that I am the
Lord":682 the usual sufferings being brought upon them for this very purpose,
that they may know the Lord. And in the Maccabees something similar is said:
"Now I beseech those that read this book, that they be not discouraged for these
calamities, but that they judge those punishments not to be for destruction, but
for a chastening of our nation. For it is a token of His great goodness, when
wicked doers are not suffered any long time, but forthwith punished. For not as
with other nations whom the Lord forbeareth to punish, till they be come to the
fulness of their sins, so dealeth he with us; but though he punish with
adversity he doth not forsake his own people." 683 If the incurring punishment
for sins is a token of God's great goodness, I would have you consider whether
Pharaoh, inasmuch as he was punished after the hardening of his heart, and
chastised as well as his people, was not punished with good reason, and
according to his own wickedness. And David, as it were imitating God, and having
due regard to times and seasons, when he gives Solomon command concerning Joab,
to chastise him for his offences against Abner the son of Ner, and to slay him
for his errors, goes on to say, "And thou shalt bring down his hoar head in
peace to the grave." 684 And it is clear, as the Jew 685 also told us, that
Joab's resting in peace would be the result of his punishment, torment and
punishment being no longer due to him after his discharge therefrom, for he had
therein already received his deserts. And so we think that every threat and pain
and punishment, things that come from God, are never inflicted to injure the
sufferers, but always to do them good. And what are considered the severest |232
terms we can apply to God, fury and anger, are called rebuking and chastening in
the passage, "O Lord, rebuke me not in thy fury, nor chasten me in thine
anger";686 where the suppliant begs that he may not need rebuke through God's
fury, and chastening through God's anger, for some there were who would be
rebuked in God's fury, and chastened in His anger.

8. But that we may the more readily assent to what has been said, we must make use of similar passages from the New Testament. The Saviour says, "I came to cast fire upon the earth; and what will I, if it is already kindled."
687 If the fire which He came to cast upon the earth had not been a saving fire, at all events a saving fire for men, the Son of the good God would not have said this. And then there is the case of Peter, who, when with the sword of his mouth he slew Ananias and Sapphira, because they sinned by lying,688 not to men but to the Lord, had in view not only the edification of such as seeing what was done would show more reverence towards the Faith of Christ, but also the welfare of the offenders visited with death. He wished them to depart from the body purified by their sudden and unexpected death; for they had some right on their side, inasmuch as they gave even the half of their possessions for the wants of the needy. And Paul also, though he pronounces the sentence of blindness on the companion of Sergius Paulus the Proconsul, endeavours through suffering to turn him from sin to godliness, for he says to him, "O full of all guile, and all villainy, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season."
689 What "season" would it be, except such time as, having been punished and tormented for his sins, he would repent and become worthy of both ways seeing the sun?----with his bodily eyes, that the Divine power might be proclaimed in the restoration of his sight,
|233
and with the eyes of the soul, when, as a believer he would delight in godliness. Demas, too, and Hermogenes, whom Paul
690 delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, experienced something like what we have spoken of. And the man at Corinth that had his father's wife was himself, also, delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.691 No wonder, then, if the treatment of Pharaoh, so that he was hardened and finally involved in such chastisements, is to be traced to the goodness of God. For the present let the foregoing, which we put down as it came into our head, suffice for the words, "And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart."
692 If any one with due regard to God's glory should discover better arguments, and such as have no tincture of impiety, and can support them with the evidence of the Divine Scriptures, we will gladly avail ourselves of them.

Origen elsewhere discusses the same subject----

9. Among other considerations, I would further urge that possibly as physicians
in the treatment of Hydrophobia, to prevent the poison from getting a hold
within and killing the man, draw it to the surface, thus causing more acute
suffering and inflammation: so God through His healing art draws out the secret
mischief lurking in the depths of the soul, and makes it show itself, in order
that He may afterwards induce a healthy state. This, I think, is the meaning of
what we read in Deuteronomy: "And thou shalt remember all the way that the Lord
thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might humble
thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep
His commandments, or no. And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and
fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that
He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing
that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." 693 Observe here
that God humbles |234 and tries, in order that what is in each man's heart may
be known, inasmuch as it lies deep and is revealed through tribulations. And
such is the declaration of the Lord to Job in storm and whirlwind: "Dost thou
think that I have dealt with thee for any other purpose than that thou mayest
appear righteous?" He did not say, "That thou mayest be righteous," but, "That
thou mayest appear righteous.694 Righteous he was even before his trials, but
God would have him show his righteousness by what befell him.

Elsewhere in the same Commentaries on Exodus----

10. One of our friends to relieve the difficulty takes an illustration from daily life, and tells us how frequently it happens that masters who are kind and long-suffering towards their erring servants say, "I ruined you"; and "I spoiled you"; meaning to imply that their kindness and long-suffering seem to have occasioned worse behaviour. As then a sophistical reasoner may say that because the master speaks thus, he confesses that he has spoiled the servant; so, it may be urged, what God in His goodness does, having been made the occasion of Pharaoh's hardness, is described as having hardened Pharaoh's heart. And our friend will discover in the Apostle's own words the softer meaning he desires: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works." 695 Anyway, the same Apostle, in the same Epistle to the Romans, says, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction," 696 as if the long-suffering of God having endured the vessels of wrath, had, as it were, produced them. For if, because of His long-suffering He did not chastise the sinners but took pity on them, and if wickedness thereby abounded, He in a way by His long-suffering endured |235 the vessels of wrath, and, so to speak, Himself made them vessels of wrath, and accordingly Himself hardened their heart. For when Pharaoh, although so many signs and wonders were wrought, is not persuaded, but after his strange experiences still resists, is he not certainly proved to be harder and more unbelieving, and does it not look as though the hardness and unbelief had arisen from the marvellous miracles? The passage in the Gospel is similar: "For judgment came I into this world";697 for the Saviour did not purpose to come for judgment, but His coming for judgment of those who after His marvellous works believed not on Him was a consequence of His coming; He, moreover, came for the fall of many;698 but He did not purpose when He came to make them fall for whose fall He came. And elsewhere----

11. So the marvellous things, to those who accept them and believe, as was the case with the mixed multitude of Egyptians who went out with the people, mean mercy; but to the unbelieving they bring hardness of heart. And, further, besides what has been said, we may adduce similar passages from the Gospel, which go to show that even the Saviour appears to have been the cause of evil to some people. "Woe unto thee. Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And thou, Capernaum," 699 and so on. The Saviour knew beforehand the unbelief of the dwellers at Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum, and that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for them. Why, then, does He do His marvellous works in Chorazin and Bethsaida, though He sees that those works will make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for the people of Tyre and Sidon than for them? |236 And again----

12. "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son, my first-born: and I have said unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and if thou refusest to let him go: behold, I will slay thy son, thy first-born." 700 Let me ask those persons who allege that this is the action of a just God, and suppose, according to the literal meaning of the words, that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, how He Who hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he might not let the people go, can be just, and at the same time threaten that unless Pharaoh will let them go, He will slay his first-born son? Being hard pressed they will confess that He must be a bad God. Then, again, they will be upset by other passages and forced to escape from their bondage to the letter, inasmuch as the literal meaning, according to them, is inconsistent, with the justice of the Creator.701 And once they are compelled to investigate the matter, they will proceed so far that they will no longer accuse the Creator, but will allow that He is good. Let us then ask those who think they understand the words, "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh," 702 whether they believe the above threats were uttered by God through the mouth of Moses inspired for the occasion, or whether there was no truth in them? If there was no truth in them, God according to them is neither just nor true, and on their own showing is not God at all; but if the words were truly spoken, I would have them consider whether God does not blame Pharaoh as a free agent when He says, "If thou wilt not let my people go";703 and in another place, "How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?"704 For the question, "How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me?" 704 is intended to shame Pharaoh, because, if he did not humble himself, it was not that he could not, but that he would not. And then there is what was said before by Moses to Pharaoh: "That thou mayest know that the earth is the Lord's. |237 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye have not yet feared the Lord." 705 This shows that they will fear----a good argument against the heterodox, for it proves the goodness of God, and disproves their tenet of a man's being naturally doomed to perdition. And in Book II. of the Commentaries on the "Song of Songs "----

13. Observe further that the sun though white and shining seems to be the cause
of a man's turning black, not because of what it does itself, but because of him
who turns black.706 And so also, perhaps, the Lord hardens Pharaoh's heart,
though the cause of this was connected with the king's making the lives of the
Hebrews bitter with hard service, in clay and in brick, and in all the service,
not on the mountains and hills, but in the plains.707 For becoming a material
man through his own wickedness, and living a life in all things according to the
flesh, just because he is fond of clay, he wishes to turn 708 the Hebrews also
into clay, for his own reason is not purified from the clay; and just as clay is
hardened by the sun, so his reason was hardened by the bright beams of Godhead
visiting Israel. And that something like this is the interpretation of the
passage, and that it is not the purpose of God's servant to write mere history,
will be clear to any one who notices that when the children of Israel groaned
they did not groan because of the brick, nor because of the clay, nor because of
the straw, but because of the service; and their cry went up to God not because
of the clay, but, we repeat, because of the service.709 Wherefore God also heard
their groans, though He did not hear the groaning of such as cried to Him, not
because of the service, but because of the clay and their earthly condition.
|238 This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2003. All material on this page
is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 42: PROLOGUE OF RUFINUS
========================================================================

Prologue of Rufinus.

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 colleague1 had, at the earnest
entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs
out of Greek into Latin, he prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that
work, as to inspire every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen,
saying that the expression, "The King hath brought me into his chamber,"2 was
appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his other works
surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed even himself. He
promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will present the books on the
Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works of Origen, in a Latin
translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding greater pleasure in compositions
of his own, pursues an end that is attended with greater fame, viz., in being
the author rather than the translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the
undertaking, which was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot
compose in a style of elegance equal to that of a man of such distinguished
eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result should
follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second teacher of
knowledge and wisdom in the Church after the apostles, should, through the
poverty of my language, appear far inferior to what he is. And this
consideration, which frequently recurred to my mind, kept me silent, and
prevented me from yielding to the numerous entreaties of my brethren, until your
influence, my very faithful brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it
impossible for my unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore,
that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to
my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, how ever, that in my
translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my
predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned
above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of
Origen which are styled Homilies and a considerable number also of his writings
on the apostles, in which a good many "stumbling-blocks "are found in the
original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin
reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief.
His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal
power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care
not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the works of Origen which are
inconsistent with and opposed to each other. The cause of these variations we
have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence
of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I
think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous
places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which
you now require me to undertake the translation, i.e., the books which may be
entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other
respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those
subjects with respect to which philosophers, after spending all their lives upon
them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much
as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and
the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes
of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any
statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself
piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being
corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward
agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself If, indeed,
in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and
knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the
passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same
subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of
our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other
portions of his writings.

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.

1: Jerome is the person alluded to.

2: Cant. i. 4.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-origen-of-alexandria/
========================================================================