Against Celsus, Book 8

Origen · a new plain-English translation from the Greek

I have already reached the completion of seven books, and I wish to begin an eighth as well. May God, and his "only-begotten" Word, be present with us, so that Celsus's falsehoods may be nobly refuted—falsehoods vainly entitled True Word—and so that the teachings of Christianity may be powerfully demonstrated, so far as lies in these dictated pages. We pray that we may say, "we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, since God is appealing through us,"

to speak with Paul's own disposition and to "act as ambassador on behalf of Christ" to human beings, just as the Word of God appeals to friendship with himself, wishing to draw into intimacy with righteousness and truth and the remaining virtues those who, before accepting the teachings of Jesus the Christ, had spent their time in darkness concerning God and in ignorance concerning their Creator. And again

I will say that may God grant us the noble and true word—the Lord who is mighty and powerful "in war" against wickedness. And now we must proceed to the next passage of Celsus and to our response to it. In what precedes this he raised the difficulty against us: why do we not worship the demons? And to what

he said about the demons we replied according to what seemed to us to be the intention of the divine word. Then, following upon that, he introduces us as saying, in response to his difficulty, when he wants us also to worship the demons, that it is not possible for the same person to "be enslaved" to more "masters." This, he supposes, is the voice of faction on the part of those who, as he himself put it, wall themselves off and break away from the rest of humankind.

He thinks that those who say this are, so far as lies in their own power, imprinting their own personal feeling onto God. Hence he supposes that among human beings it makes sense that one who is enslaved to someone could not reasonably also "be enslaved" to another person, since the other party is harmed by the divided servitude, nor could one who has already sworn allegiance to one person swear allegiance also to another as though harming him—and there is

reason in not being enslaved at the same time to different heroes and such demons; but in the case of God, whom neither harm nor grief ever touches, he considers it unreasonable to be as guarded about worshiping several gods as one would be in matters concerning men and heroes and such demons. He also says that one who worships several gods, by worshiping any one thing that belongs to the great God, is thereby also doing

that very thing for him, and he adds that it is not even permitted for anyone to be honored to whom this has not been granted by that God. For, he says, one who honors and reveres all the beings that belong to that God does not grieve the God to whom they all belong. Let us see, then, before proceeding further, whether we do not reasonably accept the saying "No one can be enslaved to two masters," to which is added, "for either he will

will despise the one and love the other, or he will cling to the one while holding the other in contempt," and next comes "You cannot be enslaved to God and to mammon." This defense calls us to a certain deeper and hidden discourse concerning gods and lords. For the divine scripture knows that the great one is Lord above "all the gods"; and among these "gods" it does not mean the

we hear that they are worshipped among the nations, having learned that "every god of the nations is a demon," but also "gods," of whom the prophetic word knows a certain assembly. And the God over all distinguishes these and assigns to each his proper task. For "God stood in the assembly of gods, and in the midst he will judge the gods." And indeed he is "God, the Lord of gods."

who through his Son summoned the earth into being, from where the sun rises to where it sets. And we are bidden to offer praise to "the God who rules the gods," having learned also that "God belongs not to the dead but is God of the living" — things said not only through the passages set out but also through countless others. Such things the divine words teach us to examine and think concerning lord and lords,

saying in one place: "Praise the God who reigns over the gods, for his mercy is everlasting; praise the Lord who reigns over the lords, for his mercy is everlasting," and in another that God is "King of those who reign and Lord of those who rule." And the word knows gods, some merely called so and others actually being so, whether

called so or not; teaching the same thing also concerning lords, both those that exist and those that do not, Paul says: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords." Then, since "the God of gods" calls "from the rising" and "the setting" to his own portion through Jesus

whomever he wishes, and the Christ of God, being Lord, shows through the fact that he has advanced to the boundaries of all things, and calls to himself from all boundaries, that he differs from all who rule; because of this, knowing these things, Paul says after what I have already cited: "but for us there is a single God, the Father, source of all things, and a single Lord, Jesus Christ, through

whom are all things, and we through him." And perceiving a certain marvelous and mysterious word in that passage, he adds to them: "but not in all is there knowledge." And when he says: "but for us there is a single God, the Father, out of whom the universe exists, and a single Lord Jesus Christ, on whose account the universe exists," he says "for us" referring to himself and all of those who

have ascended to the God who is over all, the God "of gods," and to the Lord who is over all, the Lord "of lords." And he has ascended to the God who is over all who worships him without division, without separation, and without partition, through the only Son who brings one near to him, the Word of God and Wisdom beheld in Jesus — that is, those who by every means try to make themselves, through exceptional words

and deeds and thoughts [and reasonings], at home with God, the craftsman of the universe. But apart from these things, and things resembling them, I think it is the ruler "of this age," the one who reshapes himself "into an angel of light," who has produced the saying: "and there follows him an army of gods and demons, arranged according to eleven divisions." Among these, concerning himself and those who have practiced philosophy, he says: "with Zeus we go,

...others together with other daemons." Since many gods, or so-called gods, are spoken of, and likewise many lords, we do everything so that we may rise not only above the things worshiped as gods among the nations on earth, but also above those whom the scriptures call gods, concerning whom those "foreign to" the covenants given through Moses and our savior Jesus know nothing—foreign, that is, to the

covenants of God, and alien to the promises of his that are made known through them. Now the one who does nothing pleasing to daemons rises above the slavery owed to all daemons, and the one who fixes his gaze, whether it is as those men say or however the matter really stands, not "on the things that are seen but on the things that are not seen," rises above the portion of those whom Paul calls gods; and one who sees in what

way "the eager expectation of creation awaits the revelation of the sons of God," "not of its own will but because of him who subjected it in hope," speaking well of creation and watching in what way all of it "will be set free from the slavery of corruption" and will arrive "at the freedom belonging to the glory of God's children," is not drawn aside into serving both God and someone else

together with him, nor into "serving two masters." It is therefore not the voice of sedition when those who have understood such things and are unwilling to "serve" a plurality of "masters," and are for this reason content with the Lord Jesus Christ, who trains under himself those who serve him, so that once they have been trained he may hand them over, become a "kingdom" worthy of God, to God the Father. Rather, they cut themselves off and tear themselves away from

those estranged from God's "commonwealth" and foreign to "his covenants," so that they might hold citizenship in "the citizenship that is in the heavens," drawing near to the living God "and to God's city, heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels gathered in festival, and to the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven." But it is not because God is harmed—as a man seems to be harmed by someone who serves another besides him—that we turn away from serving

anyone else but God through his word and his truth; rather, it is so that we ourselves may not be harmed by cutting ourselves off from the portion belonging to the God who is over all, living as befits his blessedness by the special "spirit of adoption"—the spirit that belongs to the sons of the Father who is in heaven—crying out, not in mere little words but in deed, loudly, according to what is hidden, "Abba,

Father." Now the envoys of the Lacedaemonians did not bow down before the king of the Persians, even though his bodyguards pressed them hard to do so, because they feared their one lord, the law of Lycurgus; but those who serve as envoys "on behalf of Christ" in a far greater and more divine embassy would bow down before neither the ruler of the Persians, nor of the Greeks, nor of the Egyptians, nor of any nation whatsoever, even if the daemons who are the bodyguards of the

rulers, and the angels of the devil, wish to compel them to do this and try to persuade them to bid a long farewell to the law that is greater than every law on earth. For the lord of those who serve as envoys "on behalf of Christ" is Christ himself, on whose behalf they serve as envoys—he who was the Word "in the beginning," and was "with God," and was "God." Then, since it seemed necessary to him to examine more deeply what appeared to him among the visible things...

Celsus raises a certain argument about heroes and certain daimons, saying, after his argument about servitude toward men, that the first master, whom someone wishes to serve, is harmed if that person also wishes to serve a second master, and that the same would hold for heroes and such daimons as well. He must be asked what he means by "heroes," and what sort of beings he says these daimons are.

so that the one who serves this hero must not serve another, and the one who serves this daimon must not serve another either — on the ground that, in a manner analogous to men who are harmed, the first daimon is harmed by those whom someone served before the second ones. But let him also show what harm he supposes there to be to heroes or to such daimons. For he will be forced either, having fallen into a sea of nonsense, to take back his statement and set aside what he has said, or, unwilling to talk nonsense, to admit that he understands the nature neither of heroes nor of daimons.

And as for the argument about men — that the first masters are harmed if someone serves a second one — this must be said: what harm does he claim comes to the first man, if the one who serves him wishes to serve another too? For if he means it

as a layman would, and means by "harm" the unphilosophical sort that has to do with external possessions of ours, he would be refuted simply by attending to what was well said by Socrates: "Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they cannot harm me; for it is not permitted that the better be harmed by the worse." But if he means by "harm" a movement or disposition toward vice, it is clear that no

harm at all comes about with regard to wise men when someone serves two wise men who are in separate places. And if this too is not reasonable, then his example has been taken up in vain, since it argues against the saying "no one can serve two masters." And the argument about servitude to the God of all will prevail all the more, since it comes about solely through his Son who brings us to God. But we shall not

serve God as though he were in need, nor as one who is grieved if we do not serve him, but rather as ourselves benefiting from our service to God, and becoming free from grief and free from passion by serving, through his only-begotten Word and Wisdom, the God who is over all. Observe, then, how untested is the statement: "For if you serve any other of the beings within the whole

you will serve one in whom is manifested the service of God" — that we should be brought, without any harm to ourselves, quite simply to some one of the things belonging to God. But as though sensing that he had not put this soundly — "for if you serve any other of the beings within the whole" — he then takes it back and offers a correction to what he had said in this: "nor is it permitted to honor anyone to whom this has not been granted by that God."

Let us also ask Celsus concerning those who are honored as gods or daimons or even heroes: from where, my good man, can you demonstrate that the honoring of these has been granted by God, and not that it arises from human ignorance and lack of learning, when people wander astray and fall away from the one who is properly to be honored? At any rate, as you yourself said a little earlier, Celsus, the boy-favorite of Hadrian is honored, and not

You will say somewhere that it has been given by the God over all things that Antinous be honored as a god. We will say the same thing about the others too, demanding proof that it was given to them, by the God over all, to be honored. But if he brings against us a similar objection about Jesus, we will show that being honored has been given to him by God: "so that all

may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." For the prophecies before his birth were attestations of his honor. But also the wonders performed by him had, not by trickery as Celsus supposes, but by a divinity foretold by the prophets, testimony from God — so that the one who "honors the Son," who is the Word, doing nothing irrational, might profit from

honoring him. And by honoring him, who is Truth, he becomes better from honoring Truth; and so too from honoring Wisdom and Righteousness and everything that the divine words say the Son of God is. That the honor paid to the Son of God results in a healthy life — and likewise also the honor paid to God and

Father — see whether we are not taught this both from "you who boast in the law, through transgression of the law dishonor God," and from "how much worse a punishment do you suppose he will be deemed worthy of who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace." For if "through transgression

of the law" the one who transgresses the law dishonors God, and the one who does not trample underfoot the Word tramples underfoot "the Son of God," it is clear that the one who keeps the law honors God, and the one adorned with the word of God and his works reveres God. But if Celsus knew who belong to God, and that

only the wise do, and who are the strangers, and that all the base are those who incline in no way toward the recovery of virtue, he would have seen how one ought to say it: someone, then, honoring and revering all who belong to that God — how does this grieve God, whose they all are? Next after this he says: and indeed the one who says that one Lord has been spoken of, in speaking about God, commits impiety

by dividing the kingdom of God and causing sedition, as though there were a faction and some other rival power set against him. This would have had force if he had established by geometric proofs that those worshiped as gods by the nations really are gods, and had established that those thought to reside about the images and the temples and the altars are not certain base demons. But also

the kingdom of God, spoken of and written among us continually — we for our part pray both to understand it and to become such that we may be ruled by God alone, and that the kingdom of God may come to be in us too. But he, teaching us to worship many gods, ought rather — if he considers what follows from his own position — to speak of a kingdom of gods than of God. There are, then, no factions with God

nor is there any god who takes up arms against him, even if some Giants or Titans, on account of their own wickedness, should wish to wage war on the gods alongside Celsus and those who have taken up war against the one who, through countless witnesses, has set forth the truth about Jesus, and against the very one who, for the salvation of our race, has given himself all at once to the whole world as the Word, as each is able to receive him. It would seem

that someone might next say something plausible against us along these lines: if these people worshipped no one else besides one God, there would perhaps be some argument in their favor, unyielding against the others; but as it is, they excessively venerate this one who has recently appeared, and yet think they commit no offense against God, even if his servant is also worshipped. But it must be said in reply to

this too, that had Celsus grasped the saying "I and the Father are one," together with what the Son of God spoke in his prayer—"even as you and I are one"—he would never have imagined us to be worshippers of some being distinct from the God over all. For "the Father," he says, "is in me, and I am in the Father." But if

anyone is going to be pulled aside by these words into somehow deserting to those who deny that there are two hypostases, Father and Son, let him fix his attention on "the heart and soul of all who believed were one," so that he may see what "I and the Father are one" means. It is one God, then, as we have shown, whom we worship, the Father and the Son. And the argument that stands unyielding against

the others remains ours, and it is not the case that we excessively venerate one who only lately came into view as if he had not existed previously. We rely instead on his own word, "before Abraham came to be, I am," and his declaration, "I am the truth"; and none of us is so servile as to suppose that the essence of truth did not exist before the times of Christ's manifestation. We worship, then,

the Father who is truth and the Son who is truth itself, these being two things distinct in hypostasis, but one in like-mindedness and harmony and identity of will; so that whoever has beheld the Son, who is the "radiance of the glory" and the stamp "of the substance" of God, has beheld God in him, since he is the image of God. Then he supposes that from our

worshipping the Son along with God, it follows for us that not only God but also his servants are worshipped by us. Now if he meant the true servants of God after the only-begotten of God — Gabriel and Michael and the rest of the angels [archangels] — and said that these too ought to be worshipped, perhaps we would, after clarifying

the sense in which he means "worship" and the actions of the one who worships, have said on the point, as people discussing such great matters, whatever we were able to understand about them; but as it is, since he supposes the demons worshipped by the nations to be servants, he does not draw us along by any logical consequence into worshipping such beings — beings that reason proves to be servants of the evil one and of the ruler of

of this age, who separates from God whomever he can. So it is not that we decline to worship and serve, as servants, all those whom the rest of mankind worship; for if we had been taught that they were servants of the God over all, we would not have called them daimons. Therefore we worship the one God and his one Son and Word and Image with such

supplications and petitions as are possible for us, bringing our prayers to the God of all through his only-begotten; to whom we first offer them, asking him, who is the "propitiation for our sins," to present, as high priest, our prayers and sacrifices and petitions to the God over all. Our faith in God, then, is through his

Son, who confirms this faith in us, and Celsus is unable to point to any faction among us concerning the Son of God. And we do indeed venerate the Father, marveling at his Son as Wisdom and Word, Truth and Justice, and all else that we have come to know the Son of God to be, and equally at the one begotten from so great a Father. So much for this. But since

Celsus says again that if you were to teach them that this one is not the child of that one, but that that one is the father of all, whom alone one must truly worship, they would no longer be willing, unless this one too, who for them is the author of the faction, were worshipped. And they have named this one the Son of God, not because they greatly worship God, but because this one they greatly

exalt. We, then, having come to know who the Son of God is, and that he is the "radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his substance," and "a vapor of God's power, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty," and further a "radiance of eternal light, and a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness," we know that this one

is a son from that one, and that one is the father of this one. And there is nothing unseemly in the doctrine, nor unfitting for God, in his bringing into being such an only-begotten Son. And no one shall talk us out of the conviction that such a one is indeed the son of the unbegotten God and Father. But if Celsus has overheard some who do not confess the Son of God to be the son of the one who fashioned this

universe, he himself would know it, along with those who assent to such a doctrine. Jesus, then, is not the author of faction but of all peace, he who told his disciples: "My own peace I leave you, this peace I give to you." Then, since he knew that the men of the world, and not of God, would make war on us, he added to those words: "Not as the world gives peace do I give it to you."

And we take courage on his account, even if we are afflicted in the world, since he said: "In the world you have affliction, but take courage, I have overcome the world." And this one we say is the Son of God; of God whom, if we must follow Celsus's own words, we greatly worship, and we know his Son to have been greatly exalted by the Father. Let there be some, as in a multitude of believers,

and admitting a discrepancy, because of their rashness, they suppose the savior to be the greatest God over all — but we are certainly not of that sort. Trusting him as he declares, "The Father who sent me is mightier than I am," we would therefore not subordinate to the Son of God the one whom we now call Father, as Celsus slanders us by saying. After this Celsus says that—

I am not forming this opinion at random; I will use their own words. For somewhere in the heavenly dialogue they say, in words something like these: "If the Son of God is stronger, and the Son of Man is his lord — and who else will lord it over the ruling God? — how is it that many are around the well, and no one is in the well? Why, though traveling so great

a road, are you fainthearted? It escapes you: courage and a sword are at my disposal." Thus their proposed object is not this — the God above heaven — but the one whom they supposed to be his father, around whom they have gathered to worship, so that, under the pretext of the great God, they might worship only this one whom they set at their head, the Son of Man, whom they declare to be stronger and lord "of the ruling God." From this comes for them

that command, not to "serve two masters," so that their allegiance may be kept fixed on this one alone. And here again — taking these things, I know not from what utterly obscure sect, he brings charges against all Christians on their basis. And I say "utterly obscure" because even we, who have often trained ourselves against those from the sects, do not have a clear notion of the opinion from which Celsus

has taken this — if indeed he has taken it, and not fabricated it or added a fitting sequel of his own. Indeed we, who hold that even the perceptible world belongs to the maker of all things, plainly affirm that the Son is weaker than the Father, subordinate to him. We say this in obedience to his own statement: "It is the Father, who sent me, that is greater than I." None among us is so senseless as to

say that "the Son of Man" is "lord" of God. We say that the savior rules chiefly when we understand him as God's Word, Wisdom, Righteousness, and Truth — ruling, insofar as he is these things, over all that is subject to him, but not over the Father and God who rules him. Then, since the Word does not rule the unwilling, and there still are some base beings, not only

men but also angels and all demons, we say that he does not yet rule over these, since they do not yield to him willingly; but in another sense of "rule" he rules over them too — just as we say that man rules over irrational animals without having subjected their governing faculty, in the way he rules, by taming them, over certain lions and domesticated beasts — nevertheless he does everything so that

he might also, by persuading those who now do not obey him, come to rule over them as well. So in our view what Celsus says, as though reported by us, is a falsehood: "Who else will lord it over the ruling God?" Then, I think, once again confusing matters, he brings in from another sect the saying, "How is it that many are around the well, and no one is in the well?" and "Why, though traveling so great"

"...traveling the road, are you without courage? It escapes you," and "for I have courage and a sword" — of these we, who belong solely to the church named after Christ, say that none is true. Having said this in advance, he seems to be saying things consistent with himself, but they have nothing to do with us. For our aim is not to worship some god on the basis of a hypothesis, but the maker of this

universe, and of anything else whatever that is neither perceptible nor demonstrable. And those who walk "another road" and "other paths," denying this maker and giving themselves over to some newly-fashioned figment and to the name only of a god, as though it were greater than the creator, will find this out — and if indeed there is anyone who says that the Son and Lord is stronger than "the God who rules," he too will find it out. We have given the reasoning that appears to us

to show why one must not "serve two lords," since we have also demonstrated that no division can be shown to exist with regard to Jesus and the Lord among those who confess that he has surpassed every lord, while serving as lord only the Son of God, the Word of God. After this Celsus says that we avoid setting up altars, statues, and temples, because he supposes our conviction

to be a token of a hidden and secret fellowship — not seeing that our altars are the governing faculty of each righteous person, from which are sent up, truly and intelligibly, fragrant "incense offerings," "prayers" arising from a pure conscience. That is why it is said in John's Apocalypse: "the incense offerings are the prayers of the saints," and in the psalmist: "let my prayer rise"

"like incense before you." And our statues and offerings fitting for God are not fashioned by vulgar craftsmen, but are given clear shape and form within us by the Word of God: the virtues, which are imitations of the firstborn "of all creation," in whom are the patterns of justice, self-control, courage, wisdom, piety, and the rest of the virtues. It is present, then, in all who according to

the divine Word have fashioned for themselves self-control, justice, courage, wisdom, piety, and the other constructions of the virtues — statues, by which it is fitting, we are convinced, to honor the archetype of every statue, the image "of the God who cannot be seen," the only-begotten God. But also those who strip off "the old self together with its deeds and put on the new,"

"being renewed unto knowledge according to the image of the one who created him," taking up the being "according to the image of the one who created" — these make statues within themselves, of the sort the God over all wills, statues of him. And just as among the makers of statues some achieve the work admirably — Phidias, say, or Polyclitus, or the painters Zeuxis and Apelles — while others make statues of lesser quality than these,

and still others of lesser quality than these second-rank ones, and in short there is a great difference in the making of statues and images — in the same way, some make statues of the God over all better, and according to perfect knowledge, such that there is no comparison between the Olympian Zeus fashioned by Phidias and the statue fashioned "according to the image of the creator" God; of all

But that which is in all creation is far better and more excellent in our Savior, who says, "The Father is in me." And in each of those who, according to their power, imitate him in this respect too, there is an image, "according to the image of the one who created," which they fashion by beholding God with a pure heart, having become "imitators of God." And absolutely all Christians

try to set up altars such as we have described and images such as we have presented — not lifeless and insensate things, nor things capable of receiving greedy demons lying in wait for lifeless objects, but things receptive of the Spirit of God, who dwells, as in what belongs to him, in the aforementioned images of virtue and in "the image of the one who created." And in this same way the Spirit of Christ settles upon those who are, if I may put it so, conformed to him. And wishing to set forth such things

the Word of God recorded God as saying, in a promise to the righteous, "I will make my home among them and move about among them; I will become their God, and they will become my people," and the Savior as saying, "If anyone hears my words and does them, I and the Father will come to that person and make our home there." Let

whoever wishes, then, compare the altars I have described with the altars Celsus speaks of, and the images in the soul of those who worship the God of the universe with the images of Phidias and Polyclitus and their like; and he will clearly know that the latter are both lifeless and destroyed by time, while the former remain in the immortal soul for as long as the rational soul

wishes to remain. And if temples too must be set beside temples, so that we may show those who accept Celsus's claims that we do not shrink from establishing shrines fitting for the images and altars described, but that we turn away from building lifeless and dead shrines for the giver of all life — let whoever wishes hear in what way we are taught that our bodies are "a temple of God," and "if anyone"

through licentiousness or sin "destroys" "the temple of God," this person, as one truly impious toward the true temple, will himself be destroyed. But of all the things thus called temples, better and more excellent than any shrine was the holy and pure body of our Savior Jesus, who, knowing that the temple of the God within him could indeed be plotted against by the impious, yet not

so that the purpose of those plotting against it should prove stronger than the divinity that built the temple, said to them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days." And this "he said concerning the temple of his body." And in another sense too the divine words, teaching mystically about the resurrection to those able to hear the words of God with a more divine hearing, say that they will be rebuilt

with living and most precious stones, hinting that each of those who breathe together through the same word into piety in keeping with it is a precious stone of the whole temple of God. In this respect it is said by Peter, "And you yourselves are being built up as living stones, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices well-pleasing to God through Jesus Christ," and by Paul

the text, "raised upon a foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone." The passage in Isaiah carries a similar mystical sense, addressed to Jerusalem as follows: "Behold, I am preparing for you a stone of carbuncle, and your foundations of sapphire, and I will make your battlements

of jasper, and your gates stones of crystal, and your surrounding wall choice stones, and all your sons taught by God; and in great peace shall your children be, and you shall be built up in righteousness." There are, then, some among the righteous who are a stone of carbuncle, others who are sapphire, others jasper, others crystal; and in this way every kind of choice and precious stone

the righteous are. Now to explain the meaning that concerns stones and the reasoning about their nature, and to what sorts of souls the name derived from a precious stone can be applied, is not something for the present occasion to set out; only it was needful to be reminded, briefly, of the intent behind our own temples, and of the one temple of God built from precious stones. For just as,

if each people took pride, over against the others, in the temples reckoned sacred according to their own cities, those who prided themselves greatly on the more honored temples would cite the special features of their own to the reproach of the lesser ones, so too, against those who accuse us — since we do not think it right to worship the divine among senseless temples — we bring forward in reply our own temples, and we show to those who are

not senseless, nor comparable to their own senseless gods, that there is no comparison at all — neither of our images to the images of the nations, nor of our altars and, so to call them, our incense to their altars and the fat and blood offered at theirs — nor even of the temples that have been consecrated to us compared with the temples of

senseless things, marveled at by senseless people who have never even conceived in imagination the divine perception by which one perceives God and his images and temples and altars, such as are fitting for God. It is not, then, for the sake of gaining credit for some hidden and secret fellowship, or for such a token, that we avoid setting up altars and images and temples, but because, having discovered through the teaching of Jesus the manner of

true piety toward the divine, we flee from those things that, under a mere appearance of piety, render impious those who have strayed from the piety that comes through Jesus Christ — who alone is the "way" of piety, truly saying, "I am the way, the truth, and life itself." Let us now look also at what Celsus goes on to say about God, and how he urges us toward the

use — in reality — of food sacrificed to idols, or, to put it another way, sacrificed to demons; or as he himself would call it, not knowing what is truly sacred, and what sort of sacrifices are offered among these people, food sacrificed to what he considers holy. What he says is this: God, at any rate, is common to all, good, and free of need, and beyond envy; what, then, prevents those who are especially devoted to him, even at the public

...share in the festivals? I do not know what he imagines makes it follow, from God's being good and free of need and beyond envy, that those consecrated to him should share in the public festivals. And I say that it would indeed follow, from God's being good and free of need and beyond envy, that they should share in the public festivals themselves, if it could be shown that the public festivals have nothing

amiss in them, but were established by law on the basis of true doctrine about God, as being consonant with the service and reverence owed to him. If, however, the public festivals, down to their very names, have no demonstrable rationale that fits them for the service of the divine, but are exposed instead as fabrications by whoever happened to legislate them on account of certain human events, or even on account of theories of nature concerning water,

earth, or the fruits believed to come from it, then it is evident that those wishing to worship the divine with precision would be acting reasonably in not sharing in the public festivals. For "festival," as one of the Greek sages well says, "is nothing other than doing what is required"; and the one who truly keeps festival is the one who does "what is required," praying continually,

and offering at all times, in his prayers to the divine, the bloodless sacrifices. This is why, I think, Paul put it with singular brilliance: "You observe days and months and seasons and years; I fear for you, that I may somehow have labored over you in vain." But if someone objects with the matter of our Lord's days, or Fridays, or Passover,

or Pentecost, which fall on fixed days, we must say to this as well that the perfect person, being always in the words and works and thoughts of the Word of God who is Lord by nature, is always among his days and always keeps the Lord's days; and also, always preparing himself for true life and abstaining from the

pleasures of life that deceive the many, and not feeding "the mind of the flesh" but "beating his body" and enslaving it, he always keeps Fridays. Further, the one who has understood that "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed," and that one must keep festival by eating the flesh of the Word, never fails to keep the Passover — which is translated "crossing over" — always crossing over in reasoning and in every word and every deed from the affairs of life to God,

and hastening toward his city. Beyond these, the one who can say with truth, "we rose together with Christ," and also, "he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in Christ," is always in the days of Pentecost, and especially when,

having gone up "into the upper room" as the apostles of Jesus did, he devotes himself to supplication and "to prayer," so as to become worthy of the "mighty rushing wind" borne from heaven, which rushes to blot out the wickedness in human beings and what comes from it, and worthy too of some portion of a tongue of fire from God. But the great many of those who seem to believe, and who do not need so weighty a reminder,

not wishing, or not able, to observe all such days by means of perceptible examples, lest he slip away completely. I think Paul had something of this sort in mind when he called the festival kept on days appointed apart from others a "part of a festival," hinting by the way he put it that our life is, not "in part a festival," but wholly and unceasingly a festival, according to the

divine word. Look again, then, at what has been said about the festivals kept among us, set alongside the public festivals of Celsus and of the nations, and see whether these festivals of ours are not far more solemn than the public ones, in which "the mind of the flesh," as it keeps festival, runs riot, turning aside into drunkenness and licentiousness. It would take too long now to say why the

festivals kept according to God's law teach us to eat "the bread of affliction" or "unleavened bread with bitter herbs," or why they say, "humble your souls," or something similar to this. For it is not possible for the composite human being, so long as "the flesh still desires in opposition to the spirit, even as the spirit is opposed to the flesh," to keep festival with his entire self; for either one who keeps festival in the spirit afflicts

the body, which is not naturally suited to keep festival together with the spirit on account of "the mind of the flesh," or one who keeps festival according to the flesh has no room also for the festival according to the spirit. But this is enough, for the present, on the subject of festivals. Let us now look at the arguments Celsus uses to urge us to make use of food offered to idols and the public sacrifices at public

festivals. What he says is something like this: if these idols are nothing, what harm is there in sharing in the general feast? But if there are indeed certain spirits, clearly these too belong to God, and one ought to trust them, offer them proper sacrifice under the laws, and pray so that they may be favorable. It would be useful, for these matters, to take in hand the whole discussion "concerning food offered to idols" spoken by Paul

in his first letter to the Corinthians, and to clarify it; in which, answering the point that "no idol truly exists within the world," he set out the harm that comes from making use of food offered to idols, showing to those able to hear such things that the one who partakes of food offered to idols does something no less bad than a murderer, destroying his own brothers, for whom "Christ died."

And after this, laying it down that the things sacrificed are sacrificed to demons, he establishes that those who partake of "the table of demons" become "partners with demons"; and he establishes that no one can "share both the Lord's table and that of demons" at once. But since the account of these matters in the letter to the Corinthians requires a whole treatise, demonstrated at greater length, we will be content with what has been given briefly; from which

it will be clear to anyone who examines them that, even if the idols are nothing, it is nonetheless just as terrible to share in the general feast of idols. We have said, then, in moderation, also this: that even if there are indeed some spirits to whom the things sacrificed are sacrificed, we who understand how "the Lord's table" differs from "that of demons" ought not to partake of them, and because we know this,

doing everything so that we may always share in "the table of the Lord," but guarding ourselves in every way so that we may never become partners in the "table" of the "demons." Since Celsus says in this passage that the demons too belong to God, and that for this reason they are to be trusted, and sacrifices are to be offered to them in accordance with the laws, and prayers are to be made to them so that they may be well-disposed toward us, we must also teach those who wish to learn about this,

that the word of God does not wish to proclaim any of the wicked to be a possession of God, judging it unworthy of so great a Lord. For this reason not all human beings are called "men of God," but only those worthy of God — such as Moses and Elijah were, and anyone else recorded as a "man of God" or resembling those so recorded. In the same way, not all angels

only the blessed ones are called "angels of God"; those who have turned aside into wickedness bear the name of the devil's angels, just as wicked human beings are termed men of sin, or sons of pestilence, or sons of injustice. Since, then, among human beings some are excellent and some are base, some are therefore said to belong to God while others are reckoned the devil's own; but likewise

among the "angels" some belong "to God" and others to the evil one, whereas among demons this is no longer a twofold matter, for all of them are shown to be base. For this reason we will say that Celsus's statement is false when he says: "and if there are certain demons, clearly these too belong to God" — or let anyone who wishes show that the division we have made between men and angels is not sound reasoning, or that a similar

line of reasoning can be shown to hold for demons as well. But if this is impossible, it is clear that the demons do not belong to God either — for God is not their ruler, but, as the divine scriptures say, "Beelzeboul" is. Nor should the demons be trusted, even though Celsus urges us toward them; rather, one must die before being persuaded by demons, and one must endure absolutely anything while remaining persuaded by God. In the same way,

sacrifice ought not to be offered to demons either; for it is impossible to offer good sacrifice to those who are base and who work harm upon human beings. But according to which laws does Celsus want us to sacrifice to the demons? For if according to those established in the cities, let him demonstrate that they harmonize with the divine laws; but if he cannot do this (for the laws of the many cities do not even agree with one another),

it is clear that they are not, properly speaking, laws at all, but the laws of base men, which are not to be trusted; for it is God, rather than men, whom "one must obey." So away with Celsus's advice, when he says that prayer must be offered to demons — not even the smallest part of it should be heeded; for prayer belongs only to the God who rules over everything, and prayer is indeed to be offered to the only-begotten and firstborn "of all creation," the Word of God. And he is to be asked,

as high priest, to carry up to his God, who is also our God, and to his Father, who is also the Father of all who conduct their lives by God's word, the prayer that has reached him on our behalf. For just as we would not wish to have well-disposed toward us those men who want us to live according to their own wickedness, if they happen to be well-disposed toward none of those who choose the opposite course to them.

since their goodwill makes us enemies of God — unless perhaps he is not favorable toward those who wish to keep such beings favorable to themselves. In the same way, those who have understood the nature, purpose, and wickedness of demons could never wish to have the demons favorable to them. For even if the demons are not favorable to them, they could suffer nothing at their hands, being guarded by the

one who is favorable to them because of their piety toward the God over all, who sets his divine angels over those worthy of being guarded, so that they may suffer nothing from the demons. And the one who has the God over all favorable to him because of his piety toward him, and because he has accepted as Lord Jesus, the angel of God's "great counsel," being content with God's favor shown through

Christ Jesus, would say with confidence, expecting to suffer nothing from the entire host of demons: "The Lord is the light of my salvation; whom should I dread? The Lord shields my life; before whom should I tremble?" And he will say further: "Should a camp be arrayed against me, my heart will feel no fear." So much, then, on the question of whether there are certain demons; clearly

these too belong to God (or: to whom), and one must trust them, offer sacrifices to them in the manner the laws prescribe, and pray to them, so that they may be favorable. Having set out the next passage as well, come, let us again examine it as far as we are able; it runs as follows: "If, then, in accordance with some ancestral custom they abstain from certain sacrificial animals of this or that kind, they must altogether abstain from eating all animals whatsoever" — which is indeed the view of Pythagoras, who honors

the soul and its instruments. "But if," as they say, it is so that they may not feast together with demons — I congratulate them on their wisdom, that they are so slow to understand, though they are forever fellow-diners with demons; and it is only at that one point that they guard against this, whenever they see a sacrificial victim being slaughtered. But when they eat grain and drink wine and taste fruits from trees, and breathe the very water and the very air, do they not then receive each of these things from certain

demons, to each of whom the care of some particular portion has been assigned?" I do not know how it seemed good to him to conclude, from these premises, that those whom he named as abstaining, in accordance with some ancestral custom, from certain sacrificial animals ought to abstain from eating all animals. And we do not say this on the ground that the divine word suggests nothing of the kind, since for the sake of a safer and purer life it too has said: "It is good

not to eat meat nor to drink wine, nor to do anything that trips up your brother," and again: "Do not destroy, for the sake of food, the one on whose behalf Christ died," and once more: "If meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no meat forever, so that I may not cause my brother to stumble." One should know, however, that, whereas the Jews suppose they understand

the law of Moses and observe, with regard to foods, the practice of partaking of what is reckoned clean to them while abstaining from what is unclean, and moreover not using the blood of any animal for food, nor animals killed by wild beasts, nor other such things — about which there is much discussion, and it is therefore not opportune to examine them now — the teaching of Jesus, wishing to call all people to pure worship of God and

so as not to use the pretext of the heavier legislation concerning foods to hinder, from Christianity, many of those who could be benefited toward good character, he declared: "it is not the things that enter the mouth that defile a person, but the things that go out from the mouth." For the things "entering the mouth," he says, "pass into the stomach and are cast out into the latrine," but the things going out from the mouth

are evil "thoughts" once spoken, and "murders" and "adulteries" and "fornications, thefts," and "false testimonies" and "blasphemies." Paul too says that "food will not commend us to God; for neither if we eat do we have more, nor if we do not eat do we have less." Then, since these statements carry some obscurity unless they receive clarification, the apostles of Jesus, together with "the elders," resolved as follows —

elders gathered together for this purpose in Antioch, together with — as they themselves called it — "the Holy Spirit," resolved to send a letter, addressed to the believers drawn from the nations, forbidding only what they called the "necessary" things to eat: namely, food sacrificed to idols, or strangled meat, or blood. For what is sacrificed to idols is sacrificed to demons, and the man of God ought not to become a partaker

of "the table of demons"; and strangled meat, since the blood has not been drained out of it — and this, they say, is the food of demons, who are nourished by the vapors rising from it — the word forbids, so that we not be nourished on the food of demons, since perhaps certain such spirits would come to be nourished together with us, were we to partake of strangled meat. And from what has been said about "strangled meat," the matter of abstaining from "blood" can be made clear as well. And

it is not out of place, now that I have arrived at this subject, to call to mind a most graceful maxim — one that many Christians also come across, recorded among the Sentences of Sextus — which runs as follows: "the use of living creatures is a matter of indifference, but abstinence is the more rational course." It is not, then, simply in keeping with some ancestral custom that we abstain from what are reckoned sacrificial victims and are offered to beings termed gods, heroes, or demons — rather, our reason is

a good many reasons, some of which I have set out in part. But it is not the case that, just as one must abstain from all vice and from what arises from vice, so too one must abstain from eating any living creature at all. Rather, one must abstain not only from eating living creatures but from anything whatsoever, if we would be using foods out of vice or out of what arises from vice; for one must abstain from eating out of gluttony, or insofar as one is led by pleasure apart from the purpose

of bodily health and its care. Yet we by no means hold that there is a transmigration of the soul, a falling of it down even into the irrational animals — certainly not, at any rate, in the manner of Pythagoras. And even if we do at times abstain from living creatures, it is not because we refuse to make use of their flesh. For we know how to honor only the rational soul, and to hand over its organs for burial with honor, according to established custom; for it is fitting

the body in which a rational soul makes its home ought not be cast aside dishonorably and at random, as though it were the same as that of the irrational creatures — especially since Christians have believed that the honor due the body, in which a rational soul has dwelt, extends even to reaching the one who receives, in due course, the soul that has fought its good fight through such an instrument. But concerning "how are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?" I have spoken above through

of few things. As the text required, we have set it out. After this Celsus states what is admittedly said by Christians and Jews when they defend their abstinence from food sacrificed to idols, saying that those devoted to the God over all must not feast together with demons; to which he replied with what follows. We, then, so far as concerns food and drink, know of no other ways of feasting together with demons than

these: by which someone eats what most people call "sacred offerings" and drinks the wine of the libations poured out to demons. But Celsus thinks that even the one who partakes of grain, and drinks wine of whatever kind, and tastes tree-fruits, feasts together with demons — indeed, even if someone partakes only of water, he says that in this too the one drinking feasts together with demons.

He adds to this that the one who breathes this air also receives it from certain demons, since the demons appointed over the air grant living beings the air for breathing. Let whoever wishes, then, set this out in support of Celsus's argument and show how it is not certain divine angels of God but demons — whose whole race is base — who are appointed to administer all the things just mentioned.

For we too say that it is not without the oversight of invisible — if I may call them so — farmers and other stewards, not only of what grows from the earth but also of every spring of water and of the air, that the earth is said by nature to bear what it bears, and that water falls as rain and flows in springs and native rivers, and

that the air is kept uncorrupted and becomes life-giving to those who breathe it. We do not, however, say that these invisible beings are demons; but — if one may venture to say it — if indeed these things are the works of demons, we shall say that famines, failures of the vine and of tree-fruits, droughts, and also the corruption of the air to the ruin of crops, and sometimes also the death of animals

and pestilence against human beings — all these things are worked directly by demons acting as executioners, who by some divine judgment receive authority to bring them about at certain times, either for the conversion of people who have run aground into the outpouring of wickedness, or else for the training of the rational race; so that some, remaining devout even amid such trials and becoming in no way worse, may for a time become manifest — to unseen and visible spectators alike — to those who do not see

their true disposition; while others, disposed to the contrary and concealing the display of their wickedness, being exposed by what befalls them for what they themselves really are, may both become conscious of themselves and become manifest to the spectators — if I may so call them. The hymn-writer testifies to this, that by divine judgment the harsher things are worked directly by certain wicked angels, in the verse

"He sent against them the wrath of his anger, wrath and indignation and affliction, a mission of wicked angels." But if anything else besides these things occurs, it is when the demons are permitted to act — always wishing to do these things, but not always able, because they are hindered. Let whoever is able examine this, picturing the divine judgment, so far as is possible for human nature, concerning the massing together of many

...souls' release from the body, using such paths as lead to the middle death. For indeed "great are the judgments of God," and because of their greatness they are not comprehensible to the mind that is still bound to a mortal body; hence they are also "hard to explain," and to uneducated souls they are not perceptible even to the smallest degree. Hence too the more reckless, through their ignorance of these matters and their...

...recklessness, through their heedlessness toward the divine, increase impious doctrines against providence. We do not, therefore, get each of the things needed for life's necessities from demons — especially not those of us who have learned to use them rightly — nor do those who partake of grain and wine and fruits and water and air feast together with demons, but rather with the divine angels who are appointed over such things. These angels...

...are, as it were, invited to the hearth of the pious person who has heard the teaching word say such things as: "Whether you eat or drink or do anything, do all things to the glory of God." Elsewhere too it stands written: "Whether you eat or drink" — do everything "in the name" of God. Since, then, it is "to the glory of God" that we take food, take drink, draw breath, and, according to the word...

...we do all things, we feast with none of the demons but with the divine angels. For indeed "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is made holy by God's word and by entreaty." It could not, however, be "good," nor could it possibly be sanctified, if, as Celsus supposes, these things had been assigned to demons. From this it is clear that we have also answered...

...what he says next, which runs as follows: "Therefore one must either not live at all, in any way whatsoever, nor even come forward to this life, or else, having entered upon life on these terms, one must give thanks to the demons who have been allotted the things of earth, and render firstfruits and prayers, for as long as we live, so that we may obtain their kindness." We must, then, indeed go on living — and our life must follow the word of God — so far as...

...it is possible, and so far as it is granted, to live according to him; and this permission extends to every occasion, for whether eating or drinking, we do "all things to the glory of God." And we must not refuse to use, with thanksgiving to the Creator, the things he has made for our sake. And it was for these reasons, rather than for those Celsus supposes, that we were brought by God into life, and we are not subject to demons...

...but to the God over all, through Jesus Christ who has brought us to him. And by the laws of God, no demon has been allotted the things of earth; but because of their own lawlessness they have perhaps divided the regions among themselves, where knowledge of God lies utterly barren, together with the life lived according to him, or where there is much that is alien to divinity. Or perhaps, as...

...being fit overseers and chastisers of the wicked, they were appointed by the word that governs the universe to rule over those who have subjected themselves to wickedness and not to God. And for such reasons, let Celsus, as one ignorant of God, render his thank-offerings to demons; but we, giving thanks to the Maker of the universe, and bringing forward, with thanksgiving and prayer over what has been given...

We eat loaves that have become, through the prayer, a body that is holy and sanctifies those who use it with a sound purpose. But Celsus wants first fruits to be dedicated to demons; we, however, dedicate them to the one who said, "Let the earth bring forth green growth, plants bearing seed according to their kind and their form, and fruit-bearing trees yielding fruit whose seed is within it according to its kind, upon"

the earth. To him to whom we render the first fruits, to him likewise do we direct our prayers, since we "have a great high priest, one who has passed through the heavens—Jesus, Son of God," and we hold fast to "the confession" for as long as we live, receiving the benevolence of God and of his only-begotten, made manifest to us in Jesus. And if we also long for a multitude of those benevolent ones whose favor we wish to obtain, we learn "that a thousand thousands

stood in attendance before him, while ten thousand times ten thousand rendered him service" — beings who, seeing those who imitate their own piety toward God as kinsmen and friends, join in working for the salvation of those who call upon God and pray sincerely, appearing to them and thinking it right to hear them, and coming down, as it were at a single signal, for the benefit and salvation of those who direct their prayers to the very God whom these beings also worship. For

indeed "they are all ministering spirits, sent out to serve for the sake of those who are going to inherit salvation." Let the wise among the Greeks say, then, that the human soul has been allotted demons from birth; but Jesus instructed us that we must not look down upon the "little ones" who belong to the church, saying that "their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven," and

the prophet says that "the angel of the Lord will encamp around those who fear him and will deliver them." We too, then, do not deny that there are many demons upon the earth; but we say that they exist and have power among the base, on account of the wickedness of those men, yet have no power at all against those who have put on "the whole armor of God" and taken up strength "to"

stand firm against "the schemes of the devil," continually studying the tricks used against them in this wrestling match, knowing "that our struggle is not against blood and flesh but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Let us also consider another passage of Celsus, which runs as follows: either

the satrap of the king of the Persians or of the Romans, or a viceroy, or a general, or a governor — indeed even those who hold lesser offices or superintendencies or services — could do great harm if neglected, while the aerial and earthly satraps and servants would do little harm if treated with contempt? See now how he brings in human satraps of the God over all, and viceroys

and generals and governors and those holding lesser offices and superintendencies and services, as doing great harm to those who treat them with contempt — not seeing that not even a wise man would wish to harm anyone, but would use whatever power he has to turn those who insult him toward what is better and to improve them; unless, indeed, the satraps according to Celsus are worse than Lycurgus the lawgiver of the Lacedaemonians and Zeno of Citium.

and viceroys and generals serving the God who rules over the universe — that Lycurgus, when he got power over the man who had knocked out his eye, not only did not take revenge but did not stop working on him with persuasion, until he convinced him to take up philosophy; and Zeno, to the man who said, "May I perish, if I do not punish you," replied, "And may I perish, if I do not make you my friend." Nor am I yet speaking of those who, according to

the teaching of Jesus, have been shaped by it and have heard, "Love your enemies and pray for those who mistreat you, so that you may become sons of your Father in the heavens, who makes his sun rise on the wicked and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." And in the prophetic words too the righteous man says such things as: "Lord my God,"

if I have done this, if there is injustice in my hands, if I have repaid those who repaid me evils, then let me fall away empty from my enemies; let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and trample my life into the ground." But it is not, as Celsus supposes, that the true satraps and viceroys and generals and stewards of

God's angels harm those who insult them; but if certain demons do harm — the ones Celsus too imagined — they harm as base beings, entrusted with no satrapy or generalship or stewardship from God, and they harm those subject to them, those who have subjected themselves to them as to masters. Perhaps indeed for this very reason those who, in each place, transgress by not eating the foods that are customarily forbidden,

if they belong to those under those demons, are harmed; but if some, not being under them nor having subjected themselves to the deity of that place, are free from suffering at their hands, having bidden such deities a distant farewell — yet, having subjected themselves to others through ignorance about other matters, can suffer at the hands of those others. But not the Christian — the true Christian, who has subjected

himself only to God and to his Word, could suffer anything at the hands of demons, being in fact superior to demons; and indeed he would not suffer, since "the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and rescues them," and it is his angel who, gazing "continually" upon "the face of" the "Father" "in the heavens," ever brings his prayers up through the sole

high priest to the God of the universe, joining in prayer himself with the one entrusted to his care. So let Celsus not try to frighten us, threatening harm from demons on the grounds that we neglect them; for demons, though neglected, could do nothing to us, who are devoted to the one alone who is able to help all who are worthy, and who stations, no less, his own angels over those who worship him,

so that neither the opposing angels nor the one called their "ruler" "of this age" may be able to work anything against those devoted to God. Then, forgetting that he is speaking to Christians, who address their prayers to God alone through Jesus, and blending together the affairs of others, joining them irrationally to Christians, he says: if someone names them in barbarian fashion, they will have power, but if in Greek or

...in the Roman manner, no longer. For let him show what name we call upon in barbarian fashion when we invoke him for help, and let him be persuaded that Celsus has said these things against us in vain — pointing out, as he does, that the rest of Christians do not even use the names laid down and appointed for God in the divine scriptures when they pray; but the Greeks pray in Greek terms and the Romans in Roman ones,

and thus each one prays to God according to his own dialect and praises him as best he can; and the Lord of every dialect hears those who pray in every dialect as though it were one voice, if I may call it that, hearing the sense that is signified, made plain through the various dialects. For the God over all is not some one of those allotted to a particular dialect,

barbarian or Greek, no longer understanding the rest, or no longer caring for those who speak in other dialects. Then after this, having heard this from no Christian at all, or from some lawless and uneducated person among the crowd, he says that Christians say: 'Look, standing before the statue of Zeus or Apollo or whatever god it may be, I blaspheme it and strike it, and nothing defends it.' He does not

see that in the divine legislation it is also commanded, 'You shall not speak evil of gods,' so that our mouth may not grow accustomed to speaking evil of anyone at all, since we hear, 'Bless and do not curse,' and are taught that 'the abusive' 'will not inherit' 'the kingdom of God.' Who among us is so foolish as to say such things and not see that nothing of this kind can do anything toward overthrowing the

opinion held concerning the so-called gods? Seeing that even those who are utterly godless and have done away with providence, and who have formed a school of so-called philosophers through wicked and impious doctrines, neither they themselves have suffered anything of what most people count as evils, nor have those who have embraced their doctrines — rather, they are wealthy and healthy in body. But if one seeks harm in those people,

let him see that they are indeed the ones who have been harmed. For what greater harm is there than failing to perceive, from the order of the world, the one who made it? And what worse misery than to have the mind blinded and not to see the maker and father of every mind? Having pinned such statements on us and slandering Christians, who do not say such things, he thinks he is providing himself a defense — a jest

rather than an actual defense, in which he speaks as if addressing us: 'Do you not see, then, my good man, that when someone stands before your daimon he not only blasphemes him but proclaims him banished from every land and sea, and binds you, who are devoted to him as if you were his statue, and leads you away and impales you? And the daimon, or as you say, the son of God, does nothing to ward it off'?

This defense would have had some standing if we used the sort of statements he has recorded us as saying; and yet not even so did he speak the truth, in calling the Son of God a daimon. According to us, then, who say that all daimons are wicked, it is not a daimon that has turned so many toward God, but rather the divine Word, God's own Son; but according to Celsus,

having shown nothing about wicked demons, somehow forgetting himself, calls Jesus a demon. Later, however, the statements about the impious will come, after all the remedies that they did not accept, upon those caught, as one might say, in incurable wickedness. And we, whatever we say about punishment, and through our teaching about punishment,

turn many away from their sins. But let us consider what sort of answer the priest of Apollo or of Zeus gives, according to Celsus: "Late," he says, "grind the mills of the gods, and it comes upon children's children, whoever are born hereafter." See how much better than this is: "Fathers shall not die for their children, nor shall sons die for their fathers; each shall die for his own sin," and

this: "the teeth of him who ate the sour grape shall be set on edge," and: "a son will not carry his father's guilt, nor will a father carry his son's guilt; each righteous man's righteousness rests upon himself, and each lawless man's lawlessness rests upon himself." But if someone should say that it resembles the line "and it comes upon children's children, whoever are born hereafter" the verse "repaying the fathers' offenses upon their children, to the third

and fourth generation of those who hate me," let him learn that in Ezekiel such a thing is called a "parable," spoken against those who say: "the fathers ate sour grapes, and the children's teeth were set on edge," to which it is added: "As I live, says the Lord," "but each shall die for his own sin." It is not, however, the present occasion to explain what the passage about

assigning "sins" to "the third and fourth generation" signifies as a parable. Then, reviling us like old women gossiping, he says: you mock and revile their images. Yet if you had reviled Dionysus or Heracles himself in person, you would perhaps not have gotten off rejoicing; but when they abuse and punish your god present among them, those who do these things suffer nothing, not even afterward

in all the rest of their lives. What new thing has come of it to the one who believes that he was not a deceiving man but the son of God? And the one who sent his son, for the sake of certain messages, so cruelly punished—so that even the messages perished along with him—overlooked it, and though so much time has passed, has not turned back to avenge it. What father is so unholy? He, then, perhaps wished, as

you say, to be so mistreated for this reason. But these others, whom you blaspheme, one might say also wish it and therefore endure being blasphemed—for it is best to compare like with like. But in fact these gods take strong vengeance on the one who blasphemes, either making him flee and hide because of it, or having him caught and destroyed. And to this I would reply that we

we abstain from reviling anyone, convinced as we are that those who hurl abuse will find no share in the kingdom of God, and we take to heart the words: "speak well of those who curse you," and "speak well, and do not curse." We likewise know the saying: "when reviled, we answer with a blessing." And even if reviling has some justification as a defense for one who seems to have been wronged, the word of God does not permit us even this; how much more, then, where reviling displays great foolishness, not

Why must one revile them? It is equally foolish to revile stone or gold or silver, shaped into the form conventionally attributed by those far from divinity to the gods. In the same way, we do not mock the lifeless carved images themselves, but at most those who worship them. But not even if certain daimons are established within certain statues, and one of them is supposed to be Dionysus and

another Heracles, do we revile even these; for such a thing is vain, and in no way consistent with one who is gentle and peaceable and calm of soul and has learned that one ought not to revile anyone for their wickedness, whether man or daimon. I do not know how Celsus unwittingly stumbled into this: that those whom shortly before he hymned as daimons or gods, he now demonstrates in fact to be utterly base, and to punish more out of vengeance than to correct by chastisement, whenever someone reviles them.

For he says: as if, had you reviled Dionysus or Heracles himself in his presence, you would perhaps not have come away rejoicing. But how one hears anything when not present, let whoever wishes explain, and why he is present at one time and not present at another, and what business

the daimons have in migrating from place to place. Next he says this, supposing that it is the strained and punished body of Jesus, and not the divinity within it, that we call God, and that when it was strained and punished it was believed to be God — that the very ones who strained and punished your God, though he was present, suffered nothing for having done these things. But concerning what he suffered

in his human experiences we have spoken at greater length above, and now willingly pass the matter by, so as not to seem to repeat ourselves. But since he says that not even afterward, in the long span of their lives, did those who punished Jesus suffer anything for it, we shall show him and all who wish to learn that the very city where the people of the Jews insisted Jesus be crucified, crying, "Crucify, crucify him" (for they preferred

the robber, who had been thrown "into prison" "for insurrection and murder," to be released, and "Jesus," who had been handed over "out of envy," to be crucified) — not long afterward was plunged into war, and was besieged for so long a time that it was overthrown from its foundations and laid utterly waste, God judging the inhabitants of that place unworthy of the common life they shared with others; and sparing them, if I may put it in this surprising way,

and seeing that they were incurably disposed against change for the better, and were increasing day by day in the outpouring of their wickedness, he handed them over to those making war on them. And this came about because of the blood of Jesus, shed through their plot upon their land, which could no longer bear those who had dared so great a defilement against Jesus. A new thing, then, has come about since

the time Jesus suffered — I mean both what happened to the city and everything concerning the nation, and everything concerning the sudden birth of the nation of the Christians, as though begotten all at once; and new too is the fact that strangers to God's "covenants," and aliens from the promises, far removed from the truth, receive it by some divine power. These things are not the work of a human

...was not that of a sorcerer, but the works of God, who sent his own message by means of his own word in Jesus, punished though he was so cruelly that the cruelty of those who unjustly punished him stands accused, while he endured it most courageously and with complete gentleness. His punishment did not destroy God's message, but rather, if one may put it so, brought that message to full recognition. As Jesus himself taught, saying

"Unless the grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." Jesus, then, the "grain of wheat," having died, brought forth "much fruit," and the Father continually watches over the fruits that have come, are still coming, and will yet come from the death of the "grain of wheat."

Holy, then, is the Father of Jesus, who did not spare "his own Son" but "gave him up on behalf of us all," his own lamb, so that this "lamb of God," dying for the sake of the whole world, might lift away "the world's sin." On its account he endured, not under compulsion but willingly, what was inflicted on him by his abusers. After this, Celsus, resuming his argument concerning

those who blaspheme the images, says: "As for these gods you blaspheme, one might say that they themselves are willing, and for that reason tolerate being blasphemed—for it is best to set like against like. But in fact they defend themselves vigorously against the one who blasphemes, whether he flees and hides on that account, or is caught and destroyed." The demons, then, believe that Christians are avenging themselves not by blaspheming but by turning away from

the carved images and from human bodies and souls. For Celsus, not understanding what actually happens, has spoken something true at this point without realizing it—true in the sense that the souls belonging to those who condemn Christians, together with those who betray them and those who take pleasure in warring against Christians, are filled with base demons. But because the souls of those who die for Christianity, dying for piety's sake,

depart from the body with glory, and so strip away the power of the demons and render their scheming against human beings weaker, I think it is for this reason—having learned by experience that they are overcome and mastered by the martyrs of the truth—that the demons have grown afraid to come again to take revenge; and so, until they forget the sufferings they have undergone, it is likely that the world will have peace with

Christians. But when they have gathered their strength again and, blinded by wickedness, wish once more to take revenge and persecute Christians, they will again be brought down; and then again the souls of the pious, stripping off their bodies for piety's sake, will overthrow the camp of the evil one. I think that the demons, perceiving that those who conquer and die for piety's sake bring down

their dominion, while those who are overcome by their sufferings and deny their reverence for God become subject to them, at times contend eagerly over the Christians who are handed over for punishment—being brought low, as it were, by their confession, but finding rest in their denial. And indeed traces of this can be seen even among the judges, who are brought low by those who endure outrages and torments, yet exult

...whenever a Christian is defeated. Indeed they do not even do this out of a humaneness that only seems such to them, seeing clearly that 'the tongue' of those overcome by pain 'has sworn,' but 'the mind is unsworn' — and these things unto the... but these men themselves take vigorous revenge on the one who blasphemes, whether he flees because of this and hides, or is caught and destroyed. And if

some Christian flees, he does not flee out of cowardice, but by keeping his teacher's commandment and guarding himself pure for the salvation of others who will benefit. Let us also look at what follows, which runs thus: 'What need is there to list all that, on the one hand from oracles — prophets and prophetesses — and on the other from other possessed persons, both men and women, who foretold things with inspired voice? Or all the wonders that were heard from the very shrines? Or all

that was made clear to those who consulted through victims and sacrificial offerings, or all that came through other portentous signs? To some, manifest apparitions appeared. The whole of life is full of these things. How many cities were set upright by oracles and put away diseases and famines, while how many others, neglecting or forgetting these things, were wretchedly destroyed? How many were sent out as colonies and, having followed what was ordained, prospered? How many

rulers, and how many private persons, fared better or worse on this account? How many, distressed at their childlessness, obtained what they had asked for [and how many] escaped the wrath of the daimons? How many were healed of bodily mutilations? How many, again, who committed outrage at the shrines, were at once seized — some overpowered there and driven out of their minds, others who confessed openly what they had done, others who did away with themselves, and others bound fast by incurable diseases?

And before now a heavy voice out of the very shrines has struck some down. And I do not know how Celsus can put these things forward as manifest, and yet count as myths the marvels recorded among us — whether Jewish, or those concerning Jesus and his disciples. For why should our accounts be true, but what Celsus says be mythical fabrications,

which not even the sects of the Greek philosophers have believed — such as that of Democritus, and that of Epicurus, and that of Aristotle — though they might perhaps have believed our accounts because of their manifest clarity, had they encountered Moses, or one of the prophets who worked wonders, or Jesus himself? It is recorded that the Pythia once even gave a corrupted oracle; but our prophets were not only

admired by their contemporaries because of the manifest clarity of what was said by them, but also in the times that followed. For from what the prophets foretold, both cities were set upright, and men were healed, and famines ceased. Moreover, the whole nation of the Jews clearly came as a colony from Egypt into Palestine in accordance with oracles — a nation which, having followed

what was commanded by God, prospered, but having failed, repented. And what need is there to say how many rulers and how many private persons, according to the histories of Scripture, fared better or worse by attending to the prophecies or by neglecting them? And if one must also speak of childlessness, on account of which some who became fathers or mothers were distressed, and who sent up their prayers concerning this to the Creator of all things, let him read

Let him read what concerns Abraham and Sarah, from whom Isaac was born when they were already old — Abraham, who fathered the entire Jewish people and others beyond them as well. And let him read too what concerns Hezekiah, who not only received release from his disease according to the prophecies of Isaiah but also spoke with confidence, saying: "For it is from this time forward that I will raise up children, and they shall make known your righteousness."

And in the fourth book of Kingdoms, the woman who received Elisha, who by God's grace had prophesied concerning the birth of a son, became a mother in accordance with Elisha's prayers. But also countless disabilities were healed by Jesus. And others who dared, at the temple in Jerusalem, to insult the Jewish religion suffered what is recorded in the books of the Maccabees. But the Greeks will say these are myths.

And yet these are attested as true by two whole nations. Why should the myths of the Greeks not be regarded this way rather than these? But if someone, taking a stand against the argument, in order not to seem to accept his own people's accounts arbitrarily while disbelieving those of others, should say that even the accounts of the Greeks came about through certain demons, and those of the Jews either through God by means of the

prophets, or through the angels, or through God by means of the angels, and those of the Christians through Jesus and the power of his that worked in the apostles — come, let us set them all beside one another and see the end result of the intention of those who produced them, and the benefit or harm, or neither, that came from this to those who received what are regarded as the benefits — unless he will see that the Jewish nation was philosophical

of old, before they behaved insolently toward the divine — by whom, because of their great wickedness, they were forsaken; while Christians, who came together in an astonishing way, were drawn in particular at the beginning by miraculous events rather than by exhortatory speeches, so as to abandon their ancestral ways and choose things foreign to their ancestral ways. For indeed, if one must also make use of a plausible argument concerning

the origin of the Christian community from the beginning, we will say that it is not credible either that the apostles of Jesus, men unlettered and untrained, would have trusted in anything else to proclaim Christianity to human beings than the power given to them and the grace present in their word for the matters being made known, or that those who heard them changed from their ancestral customs of long standing without some considerable power and

miraculous events moving them toward things so foreign and alien to the doctrines they had grown up with. Then, somehow, Celsus, after citing the eagerness of those who struggled even unto death rather than renounce Christianity, adds — as though equating our practices with what is said by the priests who perform initiations and mysteries — and says: Above all, my good fellow, just as you believe in eternal punishments,

so too do the interpreters and initiators of those sacred rites and mystery-guides — punishments which you threaten others with, and they threaten you with. It is possible to consider which of the two is truer or more prevailing. For in argument each of you asserts with equal confidence about your own claims; but if proofs are needed, they display many clear works, both of certain demonic powers and of oracles.

and bring them forward out of every kind of divination. So by these he wants us and the mystagogues to speak on equal terms about eternal punishments, and wants an inquiry into which of the two speak the truth more. I would say that those speak the truth who are able to dispose their hearers, in the way they live, to act as though these things were so. Jews and Christians are disposed in this way concerning what they call the age to come and the

rewards in it for the righteous and the punishments for sinners. Let Celsus, then, or whoever wishes, show which people have been disposed concerning eternal punishments by the mystery-initiators and the mystagogues. For it is likely that the intention of the father of these sayings was not merely to perform a ritual duty and speak about punishments, but to dispose the hearers, so far as

lies in their power, to guard against and themselves work against the causes of punishment. But the prophecies too, for those who read them not carelessly but attend to the foreknowledge in them, seem to me sufficient to persuade the person who reads with both understanding and fairness that a divine spirit rested upon those men — a foreknowledge such that none of the works displayed by demons, nor any of the powers from oracles, nor any of the divinations,

can be compared, even to a small degree. Let us look also at what Celsus goes on to say to us next: 'And further, how are these views of yours not absurd — that the body should long for and hope that this very thing will rise again, as though nothing were better or more valuable to us than it, and yet that you should turn around and cast it into punishments as something dishonorable? But

it is not worth arguing this point with those who are persuaded of this and are wasted away with the body — for these are people who are also boorish in other respects, and unclean, and who share in the sickness of sedition without reason. But to those who hope to have the soul, or the mind (whether they wish to call this a spiritual thing, or a holy and blessed intelligent spirit, or a living soul, or an offspring of a divine and bodiless nature, supracelestial and incorruptible,

or whatever else they take pleasure in naming it) — to those who hope to have this eternally with God, to them I will address my argument. This much they think rightly, that those who have lived well will be happy, while the wholly unjust will be bound fast by eternal evils; and let neither these people nor anyone else ever depart from this doctrine' — so extending his remarks. Now concerning the resurrection, even if

he himself has already reproached it many times, we, having set forth as best we could what seemed reasonable to us on the topic, are not going to keep defending ourselves against one accusation repeated again and again. Celsus slanders us as though we thought nothing better or more valuable than the body in our constitution; for we say that the soul of every body, and especially the rational soul, is a thing

more valuable, even though it is the soul that is capable of 'the image of the one who created it,' and not at all the body. For God is not, in our view, a body — lest we fall into the absurdities that those who philosophize after Zeno and Chrysippus fall into. And since he reproaches us also as though we longed for the body, let him know that if the longing is a base one, we long for nothing of the kind; but if

in between, we desire everything that God promises to the righteous. So then we also desire and hope for the resurrection of the righteous. But Celsus thinks that we contradict ourselves, in that in one place we hope for the resurrection of the body as worthy of honor from God, while in another we cast it into punishments as dishonorable. But nothing that suffers for the sake of piety and

chooses hardships for the sake of virtue is dishonorable. Rather, everything that is consumed in wickedness among pleasures is dishonorable. For the divine word says: "What kind of seed is honorable? The seed of man. What kind of seed is dishonorable? The seed of man." Then Celsus thinks that one ought not converse with those who hope for things concerning the body, as though they were people who had irrationally wasted away over something impossible to attain, calling them rustic and

unclean, and people who cling without reason to their position, when instead, as one who loves humanity, he ought to help even the more rustic. For the capacity for community has not been cut off from the more rustic sort of people the way it has from irrational animals; rather, he who made us has made us sociable toward all people equally. It is worthwhile, then, to converse even with rustic people, and, so far as one is able, to lead them over to

something more refined, and to converse even with the unclean, and to make them, as far as possible, purer—and to help those who think whatever they think without reason and are sick in soul, so that they may no longer act without reason nor be sick in soul. After this he accepts those who hope to have the soul, or the mind, or what is called among them the spiritual or rational spirit—intelligent, holy, and

blessed—or a living soul, and to have it eternally, and that it will be with God; and he rightly accepts as sound the doctrine that those who have lived well will be happy, while the unjust will be altogether bound fast by eternal evils. And indeed, among everything Celsus says, I have marveled at what he adds in this way to what has just been said, where he states: and

from this doctrine may neither these people nor anyone else among men ever depart. Yet he ought to have seen, since he was writing against Christians—for whom the whole substance of their faith is God, and the promises through Christ concerning the righteous, and the teachings concerning punishment for the unjust—that it is likely that a Christian overturned through accepting the arguments against

Christians made by Celsus will, once he has cast aside the reasoning, cast aside along with it the very doctrine as well—the doctrine which he himself says neither Christians nor anyone else among men should ever abandon. But I think Chrysippus acted more kindly than Celsus in his Treatise on the Therapy of the Passions, wishing to heal the passions, since they press hard upon and trouble the human soul, relying first of all on the arguments that seemed to him sound, but secondly and thirdly also

on doctrines that do not even please him. "For even if," he says, "there are three kinds of goods, the passions must still be healed in this way, without meticulously scrutinizing, at the moment when the passions are inflamed, the doctrine already held beforehand by the one troubled by the passion, lest, through the ill-timed leisure spent overturning the doctrines that had previously taken hold of the soul, the treatment that was still possible be lost." And he says

That "even if pleasure is the good, and the one mastered by passion believes this too, he must nonetheless be helped, and it must be shown to him that every passion is in disagreement even with those who posit pleasure as the good and the end." Celsus, then, having once granted, in speaking of it, the doctrines concerning those who lived well — that they will be happy — and concerning the unjust — that they will be bound entirely to eternal punishments —

ought consistently with himself to have done the same, and, if it were possible, after the argument that seemed to him primary, to have gone on to build a further case and to demonstrate at greater length that the unjust really will be bound entirely to eternal punishments and that those who lived well will be happy. For we too, first of all, because of the many countless things that have persuaded us to live according to Christianity, wish, so far as we are able, to win over all people with the whole

body of Christian teaching to make it their own. But wherever we find people already gripped in advance by slander against Christians, so that they will not even lend an ear to the notion that Christians are not even pious — because of certain persons who profess to teach the doctrines of the divine word — there, out of love for humanity, we take our stand as far as we are able, so that, even if we do nothing else, by establishing the doctrines concerning eternal punishment for the impious we may bring even

those unwilling to become Christians to accept our reasoning. In the same way we wish to instill conviction also concerning those who have lived well, since we see that many things pertaining to a sound life are said in the same way even by those alien to the faith; for one could not find that they have utterly lost the common notions about what is noble and shameful, and just and unjust. All human beings, then, seeing the world and the

order established within it — the motion of heaven and of the fixed stars, and the arrangement of those called planets, which move in a direction contrary to the motion of the world — and seeing too the blending of the airs suited to the benefit of living creatures, and especially of human beings, and the abundance of the things that have been made for the sake of human beings — let them beware of doing anything displeasing to the maker of the universe and of their own souls

and of the mind within them, and let them be convinced that they will be punished for their sins, and will be brought, in proportion to their right actions, or to the deeds duly rendered, to rewards corresponding to those right actions or duly rendered deeds, by the one who administers to each according to merit; and let all human beings be convinced that they will depart well if they have done better, but that the wicked will be handed over to toils and torments

for their wrongdoings, their licentiousness and intemperance, and further for their cowardice and timidity, and for every form of folly. Having said this much on this point as well, let us look also at another passage of Celsus, which runs as follows: "Since human beings, bound to a body, have come into being — whether for the ordering of the universe, or paying the penalty for sin, or because the soul, weighed down by certain

sufferings, must be purified until it completes its appointed cycles — for, according to Empedocles, it must wander thrice ten thousand seasons away from the blessed, becoming, in the course of time, every kind of mortal form — one must therefore believe that they have been handed over to certain overseers of this prison-house." Observe here too how many matters he raises human doubts about, setting out the doctrines of a good many thinkers concerning the cause of our coming into being,

he shows a certain caution, not daring to declare that any of these things is false. Was it not fitting, then, for such a man, having once judged the matter, neither to assent to it at random nor rashly to set aside what the ancients had held? And concerning the account of the Jews declared by their prophets, and concerning Jesus, even if he was unwilling to believe, he might at least have hesitated and considered how likely it

was that those who served the God of all things, and who for the sake of their honor toward him and toward the things entrusted to them by him had established laws, and had often faced countless dangers and deaths, were not overlooked by God, but that some manifestation had come to them too — men who despised the human craft that goes into making images, but who, when they tried to raise their reasoning up to the God who is over all,

succeeded? What he should instead have weighed is this: the common father and maker of all things, who watches over all and hears all, judging each person's purpose according to its worth — a purpose that seeks him and wishes to be pious — grants to such people as well some fruit of his providence, so that they might increase all the more the conception of him which they had once received. For if Celsus and those who hate

Moses and the prophets among the Jews, and Jesus, and those of his genuine disciples who have suffered for the sake of his teaching, had reasoned in this way, they would not have poured such abuse on Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles; nor would they, alone among all the nations on earth, have rejected the Jews, calling them worse even than the Egyptians, who, whether out of superstition

or for whatever other cause or error, had at least, so far as lay in them, brought down honor toward the divine even to irrational animals. We have said these things not to urge anyone toward doubt concerning the Christian message, but to show that for those who revile the Christian message in every respect, it would be preferable even to entertain doubt about these matters rather than to speak so recklessly about Jesus or

his disciples about things they do not understand, and to make pronouncements not in accordance with what the Stoics call "cognitive impression," nor by any other criterion, concerning which each philosophical school has constructed what appears to it, as it has seen fit. Then, since Celsus says: "one must therefore believe that they are handed over to certain overseers of this prison," it must be said to him that a serious soul,

once freed from the bonds of wickedness and, in this life, from the bonds of what Jeremiah called "the earth" of prisoners, because of Jesus who spoke — as the prophet Isaiah foretold long before his coming — for what did he foretell but "come out, you prisoners, and you who are in darkness, be revealed"? And this is indeed that Jesus, just as the same Isaiah foretold concerning

him: "upon those seated in a region and shadow of death a light has dawned," so that on account of this we say: "let us break their bonds asunder and cast off from us their yoke." But if Celsus and those disposed like him against us could have heard the depth of the gospels, he would not have advised us to obey those he called overseers of the prison. And it is written,

in the Gospel, that there was "a woman bent double and unable to straighten up completely." Jesus saw her, and seeing why she was bent double, not permitted to straighten up "completely," said: "But this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan bound, look, eighteen years, was it not necessary that she be loosed from this bond on the

day of the Sabbath?" And how many others now, bound by Satan, are bent double, unable because of him to "straighten up completely," since he wants us to look downward? And no one straightens them upright except the Word who came to dwell in Jesus, and who had also inspired prophets before. And Jesus indeed came to set free "all who were being oppressed by the devil." And

speaking of that one with a depth fitting to him, he said: "Now the ruler of this world has been judged." We do not therefore revile the demons in this realm, but we expose their activities, which work toward the destruction of the human race, since under the pretext of oracles and the healing of bodies and certain other things they wish to separate from God the soul that has fallen into "the body of humiliation"; which

those who have understood it cry out: "Wretched man that I am. Who will rescue me from the body of this death?" But it is not without purpose that we offer up our body to be racked and beaten on the wheel; for he does not offer his body to these things without purpose, who is plotted against by the earthbound demons and by those who worship them, on behalf of preventing the demons from being proclaimed gods. And we have indeed considered it dear to God

and reasonable to hold that being beaten to death for the sake of virtue, being racked for the sake of piety, and dying for the sake of holiness are things we have judged reasonable. For "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his holy ones"; and we say that not clinging to life is also a good thing. But Celsus, likening us to criminals who reasonably endure what they suffer on account of robbery, and not ashamed to do so, declares so great a purpose as ours to be similar to the disposition of robbers, making himself a brother

in this to those who reckoned Jesus among the lawless. Concerning whom the scripture that says, "He was reckoned among the lawless," has been fulfilled. Next after this Celsus says: reason takes one of two options. If they refuse to worship those set as overseers of the things suited to this life, then they must neither go to a husband nor take a wife nor raise children nor do anything else in life,

but must depart from here altogether, leaving no offspring behind, so that such a race would be utterly wiped from the earth. But if they will marry wives and have children and taste the fruits of the earth and share in the things of this life and endure the evils appointed to it (for it is the nature of things that all men experience evils; for evils must exist of necessity, and there is no other place

for them to go), then they must render the honors due to those who have been entrusted with these things, and perform for this life the services that are fitting, until they are released from their bonds, lest they be seen as ungrateful toward these beings. For it is indeed unjust to share in what these beings provide while contributing nothing to them in return. But we say in reply to this too that no departure seems reasonable to us except that which comes through piety and

virtue alone. Whenever one of the two is put before us by those thought to sit in judgment, or by those who seem to hold power over our life — either to live by acting against what Jesus commanded, or to die by obeying his words. But God has also permitted us to marry, since not everyone makes room for what is superior, that is, what is entirely

pure, and to those who marry, to raise without exception the children born to them and not to destroy the children given by providence. And none of this is at odds with our refusal to obey the demons who have divided the earth among themselves; for having armed ourselves with the full armor of God, we take our stand as champions of piety confronting the tribe of demons that schemes against us. And even if by his own argument Celsus should banish us altogether

from life, so that, as he supposes, our kind might be utterly wiped from the earth, we for our part will order our lives by God's own statutes among the ordinances of him who created us, in no way willing to be enslaved to the laws of sin. And we will take wives, if we wish, and receive the children given to us in our marriages. And if need be, we will also

take part in the affairs of life, enduring the hardships laid upon us as trials of the soul. For this is the customary way the divine scriptures name what happens among human beings: circumstances in which the soul of a person, tested like gold in fire, is either exposed or shown to be admirable. And it is for the very evils Celsus speaks of that we have so prepared ourselves that we even say: "Examine me, Lord,

and test me; try my kidneys and my heart." For indeed no one "is crowned unless he competes lawfully," here, on earth, in the body of "humiliation." Beyond this, we do not render the honors thought due to those whom Celsus says have been entrusted with the affairs here below. For it is the "Lord" our "God" whom we worship, and him "alone" we serve, praying to become imitators

of Christ, who, to the devil who said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me," replied, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone you shall serve." And for this reason we do not render the honors thought due to those whom Celsus says have been entrusted with the affairs here below, since "no one can serve two masters," and we cannot at once "serve God and

mammon," whether that is called one thing or several. But if, by "transgressing the law," one dishonors the lawgiver, this much appears plain to us: since two laws stand opposed to one another, that of God set against that belonging to mammon, it is the better course, in transgressing mammon's law, to dishonor mammon, so that by

keeping the law of God we may honor God, rather than dishonoring God by transgressing his law, so that by keeping the law of mammon we might honor mammon. Celsus, then, thinks he is rendering the proper service to life until people are freed from their bonds, whenever, according to what is customary among the many, one offers sacrifices to each of

the gods reckoned according to city, not understanding what is truly fitting as grasped by exact piety. But we say that the one who serves life properly is the one who remembers who the maker is and what things are dear to him, and who does everything with a view to what is dear to God. And again, Celsus does not want us to be ungrateful toward the local daemons,

supposing that thank-offerings are owed to them by us. Yet we, spelling out plainly our doctrine of gratitude, say that toward those who confer no benefit but rather stand opposed to us, we do nothing ungrateful when we do not sacrifice to them nor pay them service. Rather, it is toward God that we take care not to be ungrateful, since we are full of his benefits, being both his creations and objects of his providence,

judged by him to exist in whatever way we do, and awaiting from him our hopes even beyond this life. And we have as a symbol of our thanksgiving toward God the bread called "the eucharist." But the daemons do not, as we said above, have charge of the things created for our needs; hence we do no wrong in partaking of what is created while not sacrificing to those

to whom it does not belong. And even if we should suppose them to be, not daemons, but angels set in charge over the earth's produce and the coming-to-be of animals, we speak well of them and call them blessed, since they have been entrusted by God with what is useful to our race; yet we do not assign to these the honor owed to God, for neither does God wish this, nor do

they themselves who have been entrusted with such offices. And indeed they approve of us when we refrain from sacrificing to them, or even when we do sacrifice; for they have no need of the vapors rising from the earth. After this Celsus says the following: that indeed among these things, down to the smallest, authority is given to one or another. One may learn this from what the Egyptians say:

that having divided the human body into thirty-six parts, certain daemons or ethereal gods (some say there are far more) have been assigned, each one to govern some part of it. And they know the names of these daemons in the local tongue, such as Chnoumen and Chnachoumen and Knat and Sikat and Biou and Erou and Erebiou and Ramanor and Reianoor, and whatever other names they call them by in their own language; and

by invoking these they heal the afflictions of the several parts. What, then, prevents someone who pays court to these and to the others, if he wishes, from being healthy rather than sick, and fortunate rather than unfortunate, and from being freed, as far as possible, from torments and punishments? And by these arguments Celsus, trying to draw our soul down

to the daemons, declaring that they have obtained our bodies by lot and that each one presides over a part of our body, wants us to believe the deities he speaks of and to serve them, so that we may be healthy rather than sick, and fortunate rather than unfortunate, and, so far as possible, freed from torments — and thereby he has so far condemned the undivided and indivisible honor owed to the God of the universe, that he does not

believing that God alone, when worshipped and glorified aloud, is sufficient to furnish the one who honors him, out of his very act of reverence, with a power that wards off the demons' plotting against the holy man — for he has not seen how the name of Jesus, when invoked by those who believe genuinely, has healed not a few people of diseases, demonic possessions, and other afflictions. It is likely that

the one who embraces Celsus's arguments will laugh when we say that "in Jesus' name every knee shall bend, of beings heavenly, earthly, and beneath the earth, and every tongue shall openly own Jesus Christ as Lord, unto the honor belonging to God the Father"; yet having laughed, he will accept as sounder demonstrations that these things stand thus, the stories he tells of the names Chnoumen and Chnachoumen and Knat

and Sikat and the rest of the Egyptian catalogue, on the grounds that they are invoked and heal the afflictions of the various bodily parts. And observe how, while turning us away from believing in the God of all things through Jesus Christ, he summons us to faith in thirty-six barbarian demons for the healing of our body — demons which only the magicians of Egypt invoke, and I do not

know how they promise us anything better by doing so. It is time, then, on Celsus's reckoning, for us to practice sorcery and wizardry rather than to be Christians, and to put our trust in a countless multitude of demons rather than in the God who is manifest of himself, living and evident, the God over all, through the one who by great power has sown the pure word of the reverence of God throughout the whole inhabited world of men. And I will not lie by

adding and saying that the same is true of other rational beings who need correction, healing, and a change away from wickedness. Celsus, then, suspecting the slide into magic on the part of those who have learned such things, and being somewhat aware of the harm that will come to his hearers, says: this, however, must be guarded against — that no one who associates with these beings, becoming absorbed in the ritual attendance upon them, should, having grown attached to the body

and turned away from the better things, be seized by forgetfulness. For it is perhaps necessary not to disbelieve wise men, who claim that the greater part of the earthbound demons, being fused to the process of coming-into-being and nailed fast to blood and the savor of sacrifice and to melodies and certain other such things, could be capable of nothing better than healing a body and foretelling the coming fortune of a man or a city, and whatever else

concerns mortal affairs — these things they know and are able to do. Since, then, so great a slide lies about this subject — as even the enemy bears witness to the truth of God — how much better it is, without any such suspicion, instead of becoming absorbed in such demons, or growing attached to the body and turning away from the better things and being seized by forgetfulness of them, to entrust oneself to the God over all, through

Jesus Christ, who has laid down for us this teaching, and to ask from him all help and the guarding protection of holy angels and righteous men, that they may deliver us from the earthbound demons, fused to the process of coming-into-being, nailed fast to blood and the savor of sacrifice, led about by outlandish melodies, and bound to certain other such things — demons which, admittedly, even on Celsus's own reckoning, are capable of nothing better than

...to heal the body. But I would say that it is not even clear that these daimons, however they are cattered to, are able to heal bodies. Rather, the healing of bodies must be carried out—if one wishes to live a simpler and more common life—by the medical approach; but if one wishes to live better than the many, by piety toward the God over all and by prayers to

him. For you yourself should consider, on your own, which character the God over all is more likely to welcome—since he is able to do what no one else can, for everything, and for the benefit of human beings, whether concerning the soul or the body or external things—whether it is the one who has devoted himself to him in all things, or the one who busies himself with the names, powers, and deeds of daimons, and with incantations, and

herbs proper to daimons, and stones and the engravings on them, matched to the forms—whether symbolic or however they are—that are handed down for daimons. But it is clear to anyone able to follow even a little that the unaffected and uncontrived character, precisely because it is devoted to the God over all, will be acceptable to God and to all who are made his own; whereas the character that, for the sake of bodily health

and love of the body and success in the midst of worldly affairs, busies itself with and seeks out the names of daimons—how will it charm the daimons with certain incantations?—since God will abandon it, as base and impious and more demonic than human, to the very daimons it has chosen when it utters such things, to be torn apart by the reasonings that each of them insinuates, or by other evils as well. For it is likely that they, being base,

and, as Celsus himself admitted, riveted to blood and the savor of fat and melodies and certain other such things, do not even keep faith—so to speak, a pledged right hand—with those who gratify them with these. For when others call upon them, against the very ones who have served them, and purchase their servitude with more blood and fat and whatever service they require, they would plot against the one who served them just yesterday and shared with them their beloved

feast. Celsus, having said many things before this, sent us as far as the oracles and their divinatory shrines, as though to gods; but now he has done something better, admitting that those who foretell coming fortune for a man or a city, and all who are earthbound daimons concerned with mortal affairs, are fused to their birth-genesis and riveted to blood and the savor of fat and melodies and certain other such things,

bound fast, able to do nothing greater than these. And it is likely that, when we stood against Celsus as he theologized the oracles and the forms of service among those reckoned gods, someone supposed us impious for saying these were the works of daimons dragging down the souls of human beings into the affairs of birth-genesis; but now let the one who supposed this about us be persuaded by the things rightly said, as proclaimed by Christians,

seeing that even the very man who writes these things against Christians has now, at the end, as though overcome by the spirit of truth, written them down. So then, even if Celsus says we must show some deference to these things, insofar as it is expedient—for reason does not allow doing this in every respect—we must not show deference to daimons fused with the savor of fat and with blood, nor, so far as lies in our power, defile the divine by dragging it down to base daimons. If

But if Celsus had grasped precisely the notion of what is beneficial, and had seen that what is beneficial in the proper sense is virtue and action in accordance with virtue, he would not have applied the phrase "to the extent that it is beneficial" to such beings — beings which, as he himself admitted, are demons. We, then, choose: if health and good fortune in the affairs of life were bound to come to us through the service of such demons, we would rather be sick

and unfortunate in the affairs of life while keeping a conscience purely pious toward the God of all things, than be healthy in body and enjoy greater good fortune in the affairs of life while being split off and fallen away from God, and while the soul is diseased and ill-starred in the utmost degree. And one must draw near to him who is in need of nothing whatsoever except the salvation of human beings and of every rational being — not to those who crave the savor of fat

and blood. Celsus, then, I think, after so many words he has spoken about demons needing the savor of fat and blood, as if coming round to a recantation of his own error, says that we ought rather to suppose that the demons need nothing at all and want for nothing, but rejoice in those who act piously toward them. But if he thought this to be true, he ought not to have set down those earlier statements, but to have struck them out. But

in fact human nature is not utterly abandoned by God and by the truth that is his only-begotten. That is why Celsus, in his discussion of the savor of fat and blood which the demons need, spoke the truth at one point; and then again, through his own wickedness, slipped down into falsehoods, and makes the demons out to be like men who do righteous deeds in a wholly just manner even though no one shows them any gratitude for it.

But in fact they do good to those who repay them with gratitude. It seems to me that on this point he is confused, saying at one moment that our governing faculty is thrown into disorder by the demons, and at another that, sobering up from the irrationality caused by them, it sees a little of the truth for a moment. For again he adds: "One must never, in any way, abandon God, neither by day nor by night, neither"

in public nor in private, but in every word and deed continually. But indeed, whether in company with these things or apart from them, let the soul always be stretched out toward God." I take "in company with these things" to mean: in company with public life, and with every deed, and with every word. Then again, as though wrestling in his reasoning against the fits of frenzy caused by the demons,

and mostly getting the worse of it, he adds and says: "If this is how things stand, what is so terrible about propitiating the rulers here below — the other powers, and among men the potentates and kings as well, since even these have not been allotted their place here without demonic power?" In the passages above, then, as far as lay in his own power, he was dragging our soul down toward the demons; but now he wants us

to propitiate the potentates and kings among men as well — of whom, since life and the history books are full, I have not thought it necessary here to set out examples. We must, then, propitiate the one God who is over all, and pray that he be gracious to us, being made gracious by piety and every virtue. But if he also wants us to propitiate certain others besides the God who is over all, let him consider that, just as...

Just as the motion of a shadow follows the moving body, in the same way, when the God who is over all is made propitious, it follows that all his friends—angels, souls, and spirits—become propitious to us as well. For they perceive along with him those who are worthy of God's favor, and they not only become favorable themselves toward the worthy, but also work together with those who wish to

worship the God who is over all: they are made propitious, they join in prayer, and they join in petitioning together—so that we dare to say that for people who, by deliberate choice, set the better things before themselves and pray to God, countless holy powers, unbidden, pray along with them, coming to the aid of our perishable race and, so to speak, sharing its anguish because of the demons they see arrayed and contending against the salvation especially of those who have dedicated themselves to God and give no

thought to the hostility of the demons, should those demons grow savage against a person—a person who flees their worship by means of fatty smoke and blood, and who by every means of word and deed hastens to make himself akin to, and united with, the God who is over all, through Jesus, who overthrew countless demons when he went about "healing" and turning back "those oppressed by the devil." We, however, must hold in contempt the propitiation

of human beings and kings—not only when we would win their favor through bloody murders, debauchery, and the most savage acts, but also when we would do so through impiety toward the God of the universe, or through some servile and abject speech that is foreign to men of courage and greatness of soul, men who are willing to take up endurance, as the greatest virtue, along with the rest. Yet in this we do nothing contrary to the law and

word of God; we are not mad, nor do we set ourselves in motion to stir up against ourselves the wrath of a king or ruler, bringing upon ourselves outrages, torments, or even deaths. For we have read also this: "Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God; so that whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God" and

stands against it. In our commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, so far as it was possible for us, we examined these very words at greater length and in various ways; but here, for the present purpose, we have taken them up more simply, according to the more common interpretation, since Celsus says that these men too were not deemed worthy of their position in this world apart from demonic power. And since there was much to say about

the establishment of kings and rulers, and much inquiry was called for on this point on account of those who have ruled more savagely and tyrannically, or who, from ruling, have run aground upon dissipation and luxury, for this reason we have for the present deferred examining the problem. We do not, however, swear by the Fortune of the king, any more than by any other supposed god. For whether, as some have named it,

Fortune is merely an expression for what appears and for the way things stand, we do not swear by that which in no way exists as though it were a god, or as though it were something wholly subsistent and capable of doing anything, lest we take up the power of an oath for things we ought not to; or whether, as it has seemed to some who say that those who swear by his Fortune swear by the demon of the Roman emperor, the so-called Fortune of the emperor is a demon, and

So we must rather die than swear by a wicked and untrustworthy daemon, one who often sins along with the man to whose lot he has fallen, or even sins more than that man does. Then again Celsus, like those who sometimes rally from a fit of demon-possession and then again collapse, saying something as if he were sober, speaks in this vein: 'If, however, someone orders a person — say, one who is worshiping a god — either to act impiously or to say something else shameful...'

'...shameful, one must in no way whatsoever believe it, but before doing so must hold out under every torture and endure every kind of death, rather than — I will not say say, but even give a thought to — anything unholy concerning God.' Then again, out of ignorance about our doctrine, and besides that out of a habit of muddling everything together, he says things of this sort: 'But if someone orders you to speak well of the Sun or of...'

'...Athena, be most eager to speak well of them too, with a fine hymn of praise; for in this way you will seem to revere the great God all the more, if you also sing hymns to these as well; for piety toward God, carried through all things, becomes the more complete.' We say, then, that we do not wait for the Sun to command us before we speak well of it — we who have learned to speak well not only of those set beneath the [divine] ordinance but also of our enemies. We speak well of the Sun, then, as a fine work of God...

'...and one that keeps the laws of God and hearkens to "Praise the Lord, sun and moon," and, to the extent of its power, hymns the Father and Maker of the universe. Athena, however, ranked together with the Sun, the myths of the Greeks fashioned into a story, whether speaking with hidden meanings or without them, declaring that she was born fully armed from the head of Zeus; and that she was then pursued by...'

'...Hephaestus, who wished to violate her virginity; that he failed to catch her, and that she, when his seed fell to the ground out of his desire, took it in with affection and raised it, calling it Erichthonius — "whom once," they say, "Athena reared, the daughter of Zeus, and the grain-giving earth bore him." And we see that for the one who accepts Athena as the daughter of Zeus, many myths and fabrications must also be accepted along with her — myths that a person who flees...'

'...myths but seeks the truth would not accept. And in order that she may also be given a figurative reading, and be said to be Wisdom — that is, Athena — let someone set forth her subsistence and essence, as existing according to this figurative reading. But if Athena, having once been some ancient woman, has been honored — with those who wished her name to be sung among men as a god's having handed down mysteries and initiation rites to their subjects...'

'...far more, then, one ought not to hymn Athena or glorify her as a god, if indeed it is not even lawful for us to worship so great a thing as the Sun, even while we speak well of it.' Celsus, then, says that we would seem to honor the great God more if we also hymn the Sun and Athena, but we know the opposite: for we address our hymns to God alone, who is over all, and...

'...to his only-begotten God, the Word. And indeed we hymn God and his only-begotten, just as the whole heavenly host does — "the moon and sun" and "the stars" alike. For all these, being a divine chorus, together with the righteous among men, hymn the God who is over all and his only-begotten. Now we have already said earlier that one must not swear by the king among men...'

or his so-called fortune. For that reason we have no need to defend ourselves again against the point that even if some human king should order you to swear an oath, this too is nothing terrible. For to him have been given the things on earth, and whatever you receive in life, you receive from him. But we say that the things on earth have not all been given to him without qualification, nor is it the case that whatever

we receive in life, we receive from him. For when we receive rightly and well, we receive from God and his providence — for instance, the cultivated fruits and bread, which "strengthens the heart of man," and the pleasant vine and the wine that "gladdens the heart of man." And also the fruits of the olive we have from the providence of God, "to make the face shine with

oil." Next Celsus says that one must not disbelieve a man of old, who long ago declared: "Let there be one king, to whom the son of crooked-counseled Cronus gave" the scepter. And he adds that if you dissolve this maxim, the king will justly take vengeance on you. For if everyone did the same as you, nothing would prevent him from being left alone and desolate, and the things on earth from falling to

the most lawless and savage barbarians, and no renown for either your religion or true wisdom would any longer be left among men. Let there indeed be one ruler, one king — not the one to whom the son of crooked-counseled Cronus gave the scepter, but the one to whom he gave it who sets up "kings and" removes them, and raises up the one who is useful in due season upon the earth. And it is not the son

of the one cast down into Tartarus, as the myths of the Greeks say, who, having driven him from his rule, establishes kings — nor need one allegorize the matters concerning these regions — but rather the God who administers all things knows what he is doing at any given time in the matter of the establishment of kings. We therefore dissolve the maxim: "to whom the son of crooked-counseled Cronus gave" the scepter, since we are persuaded that neither crooked nor devious is the will of

God, or the Father of God. But we do not dissolve the doctrine concerning providence and the things that come to be through it, whether as its primary intention or as consequences following upon other things. Nor would a king reasonably take vengeance on us for saying that it was not the son of crooked-counseled Cronus who gave him his kingship, but rather the one who removes "kings and" establishes them. And let everyone do the same as I do, in this respect:

dissolving the Homeric maxim while keeping the divine teaching concerning the king, and observing the precept "honor the king." And in such a case, the king will neither be left alone, nor will he be desolate, nor will the things on earth fall to the most lawless and savage barbarians. For if, as Celsus says, everyone did the same as I do, clearly even the

barbarians, once they draw near to God's word, will turn most law-abiding and most gentle; and every other religion will be dissolved, and only that of the Christians will prevail — the one that indeed alone will one day prevail, since the word ever gains for itself more souls. Then Celsus, not listening to himself, having said things inconsistent with "for if everyone did the same as you," says: "but surely you will not say this." As though—

if Romans, persuaded by you, should neglect their customary observances toward gods and men and call upon your Most High—or whomever you wish—he will come down and fight on their behalf, and no other strength will be needed. For indeed the same god, in earlier times, promising these things and far greater things than these, as you yourselves say, to those devoted to him—see how much he benefited both them and you.

of whom, instead of being masters of the whole earth, not a single clod of soil or a hearth remains; while of you, even if someone still escapes notice while wandering about, he is nevertheless hunted down to face the death penalty. Since he asks hypothetically whether, if the Romans, persuaded by the teaching of the Christians, having neglected the customarily recognized gods and the earlier laws concerning human affairs, should worship the Most High—

what would come of it? Hear what we hold to be true about this. We say that, if indeed—"if two" of us "agree on earth about any matter, whatever they ask will be done for them" by the Father "in heaven"—of the righteous, for God takes pleasure in harmony among beings endowed with reason, and shrinks from discord itself—what must we think, if not only

very few agree now, but the whole empire ruled by the Romans? For they will pray to the one who also once said to the Hebrews when they were being pursued by the Egyptians, "The Lord will fight on your behalf, and you shall be silent"; and having prayed in complete unanimity, they will be able to overcome far more numerous pursuing enemies than those whom the prayer of Moses, crying out to God, and of those with him, destroyed.

But if the things God promised to those keeping the law have not come about, this is not because God lies, but because the promises rested on covenants—covenants concerning observance of the law and a life shaped by the law. And if neither clod of soil nor hearth remains to the Jews, who received the promises on the basis of covenants, one must blame

the whole of their lawlessness, and especially their offense against Jesus. But as for those Romans who, on Celsus's hypothesis, would all be persuaded and, praying, would either overcome their enemies or not be warred upon at all, guarded by a divine power that had pledged, for the sake of fifty righteous men, to keep five whole cities from ruin—for the men of God are a preserving salt for the arrangements of things on earth, and

the things on earth hold together only so long as the salt is not spoiled; "for if the salt loses its savor," it is "no longer of use, neither for the earth nor for the manure heap," but "being thrown out" it will be trampled underfoot "by men." "Let the one who has ears hear" how these things are said. And we too, when God permits the tempter, giving him authority to persecute us, are persecuted; but when

God does not want us to suffer this, then even in a world that hates us we unexpectedly have peace and take courage in him who said, "Take courage, I have conquered the world." And he has truly conquered "the world"; therefore the world has strength only to the extent that he, having conquered it, allows, having received from the Father the power to conquer "the world." And we take courage in his victory. If

But if he wants us again to strive and contend for piety, let opponents come forward, against whom we will say: "I have strength for all things in Christ Jesus our Lord, who empowers me." For indeed, when two sparrows are sold, as scripture named it, for "an assarion," "not one falls into a snare without the Father who is in the heavens." And to such an extent does divine providence embrace all things, that

not even the hairs "of our head" have escaped being numbered by him. Then again, as is Celsus's habit, he muddles things in what follows, saying things that none of us has ever written; for he speaks as follows: nor indeed is that tolerable which you say, that if our present rulers, persuaded by you, are captured, you will persuade those who rule in turn, and then others, if those too are captured, and

others upon others, until, when all who are persuaded by you have been captured, some ruling power that has come to its senses and foreseen what would happen will destroy all of you utterly, root and branch, before it is itself destroyed first. It is not reasonable to speak of these things, for none of us says concerning the present rulers that, if they are persuaded and captured, we will again persuade those after them, and when those too are captured, we will again persuade those who follow.

And where did he even fling out the idea that, by a succession of ever-later people being persuaded by us and captured because they fail to defend themselves against enemies, some ruling power that has come to its senses and foreseen what would happen will destroy us utterly, root and branch? But he seems to be stringing together absurdities one after another and to have blurted this out on his own authority. After this, having voiced a certain wish, namely: if indeed it were possible

for the Greeks and barbarians throughout Asia and Europe and Libya, scattered to the ends of the earth, to come to agreement under one law, having judged this to be impossible he adds that whoever supposes so knows nothing. But if this too must be addressed, a few things will be said on the topic, though it requires much examination and elaboration, in order to show that what is said is not only possible but also true

concerning every rational being coming to agreement under one law. Now those of the Stoa, once the stronger of the elements has prevailed as far as possible, say there will be a conflagration, as all things change into fire; but we say that the Word will at some point master the whole rational nature and transform every soul into his own perfection, once each person, exercising his bare power of choice,

chooses what he wishes and comes to be in what he has chosen; and we say that it is not likely, just as in the case of bodily diseases and wounds, that some of the things that occur are stronger than the whole art of medicine, that likewise in the case of souls there is something arising from wickedness that cannot be healed by the Reason and God who is over all things. For being

more powerful than all the evils in the soul, the Word, and the healing that is in him, applies itself to each person according to the will of God, and the end of things is that wickedness be abolished; but whether it is abolished in such a way that it can never in any way be permitted to arise again or not, it is not for the present discussion to teach. Many, then, are the prophecies concerning the complete abolition of evils and

the correction of every soul is spoken of in secret sayings, but for the present it is enough to set down the text from Zephaniah, which runs as follows: "Prepare yourself, rise early; all their gleanings are destroyed. Therefore wait for me, says the LORD, until the day of my rising up as a witness; for my judgment is to gather the nations, to receive kings, to pour out upon them all my fierce anger,"

for the whole earth shall be consumed in the fire of my jealousy. For then I will change over upon the peoples a tongue for her generation, so that everyone may invoke the LORD's name and serve him beneath a single yoke. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia they will bring me offerings. In that day you shall not be put to shame for all the deeds by which you have sinned impiously against me; for

then I will remove from you the disdainful acts of your arrogance, and you shall no longer boast proudly upon my holy mountain. And I will leave in you a meek and humble people, and the remnant of Israel shall stand in awe of the name of the LORD, and they shall do no wrong and speak no vain things, and there shall not be found in their mouth

a deceitful tongue; because they themselves shall graze and take their rest, with no one left to make them afraid." Let whoever is able set forth an understanding of the whole clarity of this prophecy, and let him examine above all what it means that, when the whole earth is consumed, "a tongue is turned to the peoples for her generation," corresponding to the state of affairs before the confusion of tongues; and let him consider what it means that all "should call upon"

the LORD's name, so as to be his servants beneath a single yoke," so that "the disdainful acts of arrogance" are taken away, and there is no longer any "wrongdoing," nor vain words, nor a deceitful tongue. These things it seemed to me fitting to set down moderately, and not with a precise exposition, on account of Celsus's statement, since he thinks it impossible for the Greeks and barbarians who inhabit Asia, Europe, and Libya to come to agreement.

And perhaps it is indeed true that such a thing is impossible for those still in bodies, yet it is not impossible for those who have been released from them. Then next Celsus urges us to help the emperor with all our strength, and to labor together with him for what is just, and to fight on his side, and to serve as soldiers with him if he presses us, and to hold command jointly with him. To this too we must reply that we do at the proper time offer

to emperors a divine help, so to speak, taking up the "whole armor" of God. And we do this in obedience to the apostolic voice which says: "I urge you therefore first of all to make petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all people, for kings and all who are in positions of authority." And the more pious a person is, the more effective he is in helping those who rule than are the soldiers

who go out to the battle lines and kill as many enemy soldiers as they are able. And further, we would say this too to those outside the faith who ask us to fight on behalf of the common good and to kill human beings: that your own priests of certain images and the temple-wardens of the gods you recognize keep their right hand unstained for the sake of the sacrifices, so that with unbloodied hands

and offer the customary sacrifices, with hands clean of bloodshed, to the gods you speak of; and surely you do not, when war breaks out, also conscript the priests into military service. If, then, this is done reasonably, how much more, when others are serving as soldiers, do these men also serve as soldiers—as priests and attendants of God—keeping their right hands clean while they contend, through prayers offered to God, on behalf of those who serve justly in the army,

and on behalf of the one who reigns justly, so that everything hostile and opposed to those who act justly may be brought down? We, by our prayers, overthrow all the demons who stir up wars, who violate oaths, and who disturb the peace; and in doing so we give more help to those who rule than do those who seem to be soldiering. We labor together for the common good, we who offer up our prayers with righteousness, together with the disciplines and

the exercises that train us to scorn pleasures rather than be governed by them. We fight for the king all the more; and although we do not campaign alongside him, even when he presses for it, we do wage war for his sake, assembling our own encampment of piety through our prayers to the divine. And if Celsus also wishes us to serve as generals for our homeland, he should know that we do this as well, though not for the sake of being watched

by men and to gain empty glory from doing so; for in secret, in the very seat of our governing faculty, prayers are offered, sent up as if by priests, on behalf of our fellow citizens. Christians benefit their countries more than do the rest of mankind, since they instruct the citizens and teach them to be pious toward the God of the city, and they take up into a certain divine

and heavenly city those who have lived well in the smallest of cities; to such a one it might be said: in the smallest city "you proved faithful," come now also into the great one, where "God has taken his stand in the assembly of the gods, and in their midst he judges the gods," and he numbers you among them, provided you no longer die as a mere man, nor fall "like one of the princes." Celsus also urges us

to take up rule over our country, if it should also be necessary to do this for the preservation of the laws and of piety. But we, in each city, recognizing a different system of "country," founded by the word of God, urge those who are capable in speech and of sound life to take up rule—rule over the churches; not welcoming the power-hungry, yet compelling by force those who, out of great modesty, are unwilling rashly to take upon themselves the common care of

the church of God; and those among us who rule well do so under compulsion, constrained by the great King, whom we are persuaded to be the Son of God, the Word, God. And if those who rule well hold rule in the church of the country that is according to God—I mean the church—whether they are said to rule, or are compelled to, they rule according to what has been ordained by God, and in this they defile none of the established laws.

And Christians, far from shirking the ordinary public duties of life, do not avoid such things at all; rather, reserving themselves for a more sacred and more essential service—that of God's church, directed toward saving mankind—they govern both out of necessity and with justice, caring for everyone: for those inside, so that they may live better each day, and for those who appear to be outside, so that they may come to belong among the honorable

of true worship of God in word and deed, and so, worshiping God in truth and teaching many others to the extent of their power, they may be blended together with the word of God and the divine law, and thus be united to the God who is over all through his Son who unites them to him — at once Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness of God — every one who is turned toward living, in all things, according to God. You have,

then, in these books, holy Ambrose, the completion, so far as our present strength allows and as was granted to us, of what you enjoined. And we have set down within eight books everything that we judged fitting to dictate against the work entitled the True Word of Celsus. It falls to the reader to take up his treatise together with what we have dictated against it, and to judge which of the two breathes more of the true God

and of the manner of piety owed to him, and of sound teachings reaching toward humankind that urge them on to the best life of truth. Know, however, that Celsus promises to compose another treatise after this one, in which he has undertaken to teach how those who wish and are able to be persuaded by him ought to live. If, then, he did not write the second discourse he promised, it would be well for us

to be content with the eight books dictated against his discourse; but if he did begin that one too and brought it to completion, seek it out and send us the work, so that, dictating a reply to that as well — whatever the Father of truth may grant us — we may overturn the false opinion contained in it, while wherever something true is said, we may bear witness to it without contentiousness, as something well spoken.

← All of Origen: Against Celsus