Part 4 (1/2)
”The Christians again will say, How can G.o.d be known unless he can be apprehended by sense? To this we reply, that such a question is not the interrogation of man, nor of soul, but of _the flesh_. At the same time, therefore, let them hear, if they are capable of hearing any thing, _as being a miserable worthless race, and lovers of body!_ If, closing the perceptive organs of sense, you look upward with the visive power of intellect, and, averting the eye of the _flesh,_ you excite the eye of the soul, you will thus alone behold G.o.d*. And if you seek for the leader of this path, you must avoid impostors and enchanters, and those who persuade you to pay attention to [real] idols; in order that you may not be entirely ridiculous, by blaspheming as idols other things which are manifestly G.o.ds**, and venerating that which is in reality more worthless than any image, and which is not even an image, but _a dead body_***; and by investigating a Father similar to it.
* This is most Platonically said by Celsus.
** Such as the sun and moon, and the other heavenly bodies.
*** The Emperor Julian in the fragments of his Arguments against the Christians, 'preserved by Cyril, says, speaking to the Christians: ”You do not notice whether any thing is said by the Jews about holiness; but you emulate their rage and their bitterness, overturning temples and altars, and cutting the throats not only of those who remain firm in paternal inst.i.tutes, but also of...
{32}
”There are essence and generation, the intelligible and the visible.
And truth indeed subsists with essence, but error with generation*.
Science, therefore, is conversant with truth, but opinion with generation. Intelligence also pertains to, or has the intelligible for its object; but what is visible is the object of sight. And intellect indeed knows the intelligible; but the eye knows that which is visible.
What the sun therefore is in the visible region,--being neither the eye, nor sight, but the cause to the eye of seeing, and to the sight of its visive power, to all sensibles of their being generated, and to himself of being perceived;--this the supreme G.o.d [or _the good_] is in intelligibles: since he is neither intellect, nor intelligence, nor science, but is the cause, to intellect, of intellectual perception;
...those heretics who are equally erroneous with yourselves, and who do not lament a dead body in the same manner as you do. For neither Jesus nor Paul exhorted you to act in this manner. But the reason is, that they did not expect you would arrive at the power which you have obtained. For they were satisfied if they could deceive maid-servants and slaves, and through these married women, and such men as Cornelius and Sergius; among whom, if you can mention one that was at that time an ill.u.s.trious character, (and these things were transacted under the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,) believe that I am a liar in all things.”
* Generation signifies the whole of that which is visible.
{33}
to intelligence, of its subsistence on account of him; to science, for its possession of knowledge for his sake, and to all intelligibles for their existence as such. He is likewise the cause to truth itself and to essence itself, of their existence, being himself beyond all intelligibles, by a certain ineffable power*. And these are the a.s.sertions of men who possess intellect. But if you understand any thing of what is here said, you are indebted to us for it. If, likewise, you think that a certain spirit descending from G.o.d announced to you things of a divine nature, this will be the spirit which proclaimed what I have above said, and with which ancient men being replete, have unfolded so many things of a most beneficial nature. If, therefore, you are unable to understand these a.s.sertions, be silent, and conceal your ignorance, and do not say that those are blind who see, and that those are lame who run,
* This sentence in the original is as follows: [--------].
But it is requisite to read, conformably to the above translation, [--------]. Celsus has derived what he here says from the Sixth Book of Plato's Republic, and what he says previous to this from the Timaeeus of Plato.--See Taylor's translation of these Dialogues.
{34}
you at the same time possessing souls that are in every respect lame and mutilated, and living in body, viz. in that which is dead.
”How much better would it be for you, since you are desirous of innovation, to direct your attention to some one of the ill.u.s.trious dead, and concerning whom a divine fable may be properly admitted! And if Hercules and Esculapius do not please you, and other renowned men of great antiquity, you may have Orpheus, a man confessedly inspired by a sacred spirit, and who suffered a violent death. But he perhaps has been adopted as a leader formerly by others. Consider Anaxarchus, therefore, who being thrown into a mortar, and bruised in the cruellest manner, most courageously despised the punishment, exclaiming, 'Bruise, bruise the sack of Anaxarchus, for you cannot bruise him.' This, indeed, was uttered by a certain truly divine spirit. Him, however, some physiologists have already vindicated to themselves. In the next place, consider Epictetus, who when his master twisted his leg violently, said, smiling gently and without being terrified, 'You will break my leg;' and when his master had broken his leg, only observed, 'Did I not tell you that you would break it? What thing of this kind did your G.o.d utter when
{35}
he was punished*? The sibyl, likewise, whose verses are used by some of you, is far more worthy to be regarded by you as the daughter of G.o.d.
_But now you have fraudulently and rashly inserted in her verses many things of a blasphemous nature_**; and Christ, who in his life was most reprehensible, and in his death most miserable, you reverence as a G.o.d.
How much more appropriately might you have bestowed this honour on Jonas when he was under the gourd, or on Daniel who was saved in the den of lions, or on others of whom more prodigious things than these are narrated!
”This is one of the precepts of the Christians: 'Do not revenge yourself on him who injures you; and if any person strikes you on one cheek, turn the other to him also.' And this precept indeed is of very great antiquity, but is recorded in a more rustic
* Christ when on the cross exclaimed, ”My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?” But Socrates in his Apology to his Judges, as recorded by Plato, most magnanimously said, ”Anytus and Melitus may indeed put me to death, but they cannot injure me.”
** The collection of the Sibylline Oracles which are now extant, are acknowledged by all intelligent men among the learned to be for the most part forgeries.--See the account of them by Fabricius in vol. i. of his Bibliootheca Graeca,
{36}
manner by Christ. For Socrates is made by Plata in the Crito to speak as follows: 'It is by no means therefore proper to do an injury. By no means. Hence neither is it proper for him who is injured to revenge the injury, as the mult.i.tude think it is; since it is by no means fit to do an injury. It does not appear that it is. But what! is it proper or not, O Crito, to be malific? It certainly is not proper, Socrates. Is it therefore just or unjust for a man to be malific to him by whom he has been hurt? for in the opinion of the vulgar it is just. It is by no means just. For to be hurtful to men does not at all differ from injuring them. You speak the truth. Neither, therefore, is it proper to revenge an injury, nor to be hurtful to any man, whatever evil we may suffer from him.' These things are a.s.serted by Plato, who also adds: 'Consider, therefore, well, whether you agree, and are of the same opinion with me in this; and we will begin with admitting, that it is never right either to do an injury, or revenge an injury on him who has acted badly towards us. Do you a.s.sent to this principle? For formerly it appeared, and now still appears, to me to be true.' Such, therefore, was the opinion of Plato, and which also was the doctrine of divine men prior to him. Concerning these, however, and other particulars which the Christians have corrupted, enough has been said. For he who