Книга третья

I. By your order, most venerable Ambrose, in the first book of my refutation of the work of Celsus, to which he gives the loud title: “The True Word,” I, as far as possible, examined the preface to it and gave a proper assessment to each position expressed after it, thus reaching the place where a fabricated speech is being made against Jesus on behalf of a Jew. In the second (book), as far as my strength allowed me, I gave an answer to all those objections that in the speech of the Jew he introduced concern us who believe in God through Christ. I devote this third book to discussing and refuting those positions that Celsus puts forward on his own behalf. He says that “Christians and Jews argue among themselves too stupidly (εὐηθέστατα)”; he finds that “our mutual bickering about Christ does not differ at all from the well-known, proverbial dispute about the shadow of a donkey,” he believes that “there is nothing worthy of attention in the co-questioning of Jews and Christians, since both believe that the coming of some Savior of the human race was foretold by the Divine Spirit, but at the same time they cannot come to an agreement as to whether this one has come or not.” the foretold (Savior).” Yes, indeed, we Christians believe that Jesus came according to the prophetic Scriptures. The majority of Jews are too far from such a faith: those who lived at the time of Jesus plotted his intrigues, and modern Jews, sharing all the daring actions of their predecessors, also try to accuse Jesus of allegedly using some kind of magical art to instill a false idea about himself, that it was in His person that the one who was proclaimed by the prophets and whom the Jews in their native language called Christ appeared. II. But let Celsus answer us, as well as everyone who gloatingly shares his objections against us - is it really possible to liken all the sayings of the Jewish prophets to the shadow of an ass: and about the place of birth of the chief (Lord) (Mic. 5:2) of all who live in righteousness and are called the inheritance of God (Deut. 32:9; Col. 1:2); and about the Virgin who conceived Immanuel (Isa. 7:14); and about the signs and all these wonders that the foretold (Savior) was about to perform (Isa. 35:5), - that “His word flows quickly” (Ps. 147:4) and throughout the whole earth, the word of His apostles will pass, announcing His condemnation by the Jews, about His suffering (Is. 53:7) and resurrection (Ps. 15:10). Did the prophets really talk about all this to themselves (ὡς ἔτυχε), without any conviction? Was it really not conviction that prompted them not only to speak, but also to recognize their words as worthy of being included in Scripture? Is it really possible that such a great people as the Jews, who had long since acquired their own habitat, without any sufficient reason, recognized some prophets as true, and rejected others as false prophets? Did the Jews really not have any reason in the case when, among the Holy Books of Moses, recognized as Holy, they also included the speeches of those whom they later recognized as prophets? But can people who accuse Jews and Christians of stupidity convince us that the Jewish people could exist without any knowledge of the future and that with the existence of pagans around them, each of whom, according to paternal legends, had the belief that he received fortune-telling and prophecies from the so-called gods - these Jews, who were also taught to treat the pagan gods with contempt and consider them not as gods, but as demons (after all, the prophets told them: “all the gods of the nations are idols” (Ps. 95:5)), on the contrary, as if they alone did not have any person who would openly be recognized as a prophet among them and would be able, if they wanted to know the future, to distract them from the desire to turn to the demons that existed among other nations? Judge for yourself, was it really not necessary that all this people, who were taught to despise the gods of other nations, should have many prophets who in their own country could give them revelations, even more sublime and superior in quality to the oracles of all other places? III. In addition, miracles happened everywhere, at least in many places. Celsus himself further mentions Aesculapius 260, who healed diseases and predicted the future in all those cities that were dedicated to him, such as Tricca, Epidaurus, Coe, Pergamum; about Aristeas of Proconis 261 and some Klazomenets 262 and Cleomedes of Astypalaia. It is very doubtful that the Jews alone, who dedicated themselves, as they say, to God the Almighty, did not have any sign, not a single miracle that could strengthen and confirm their faith in the Creator of the Universe and instill in them hope for another better life. Can all this be in doubt? Would they not, otherwise, have immediately turned to the veneration of demons, from whom they would have sought predictions and healing? Would they not have abandoned that God of whom they were convinced that He helped them only in words and never showed His own presence in deeds? And since they did not do this, but, on the contrary, even endured all these countless disasters both in Assyria, and in Persia, and from Antiochus, and at the same time did not break away from Judaism and its laws: then cannot all these people who do not trust miraculous stories and prophecies, in such facts, receive at least some obvious evidence in favor of the position that in the prophetic predictions there is not only fiction, but that, on the contrary, in the pure soul of the prophets, who devoted all their strength to virtue, was inhabited by some kind of Divine Spirit, which aroused in them prophetic inspiration - to proclaim not only the events of their own lives, but also about future events, especially those related to the coming into the world of a certain Savior for the human race? IV. If this is so, then how is it that Jews and Christians argue among themselves “over the shadow of a donkey” when both, on the basis of prophecies in which they have equal confidence, ask the question whether the Savior announced by the prophets has come or has not appeared and is only still awaited? Let us even agree with Celsus’s assumption that Jesus is not at all the one whom the prophets proclaimed; but even in this case, the dispute is by no means “about the shadow of a donkey” on the basis of the prophetic writings. This dispute comes down to a more precise clarification of the nature and essence of what was announced by the prophets (the Savior), to an indication of His deeds, and, if possible, to determining the time of His coming. Above (See 1, LI, LIII, LIV) we cited a few of the numerous prophecies about Jesus and, on the basis of them, we have already shown that He is precisely the Christ proclaimed by the prophets. Thus, neither Jews nor Christians are mistaken when they attribute to the prophets coming from above (θεόθεν); On the contrary, those who distort the true meaning of the prophetic tales and hold false opinions regarding the person (ὅστις) and origin (ποταπὸς) of the promised (Messiah), as well as about His very expectation, are rather mistaken. V. Then Celsus expresses the opinion that “the Jews were supposedly of Egyptian origin and left their fatherland - Egypt after they rebelled against the social system (τὸ κοινὸν) of the Egyptians and began to disdain their usual religious cult.” According to him, “their actions towards the Egyptians can be equated to the disasters that they themselves then suffered from the followers of Jesus - from those who believed in Him as Christ. In both cases, the cause of the coup (τῆς καινοτομίας) was supposedly an uprising against the social order.” Let us pay attention to how Celsus acts in this place. The ancient Egyptians caused many disasters to the Jewish people, who, due to the famine that devastated Judea, moved to Egypt. They inflicted many insults on these strangers, begging for help, for which they actually suffered punishment, which all these people should have been subjected to by Divine Providence, who had conspired against a whole tribe of strangers, who, in fact, had not caused any offense to the Egyptians. That is why the Egyptians, only after they were struck by the scourge of God, finally agreed - and not without some hesitation - to release the Jews whom they had so unjustly enslaved for themselves (Ex. 5:6-19, 6:5-6, 14:12, 12:31-33). With their pride, with the obvious preference they showed for their fellow tribesmen over more righteous strangers, the Egyptians did not fail to bring all kinds of accusations against both Moses and the Jews. Since it was impossible for them to completely reject the miracles performed by Moses, they attributed them not to Divine power, but to magic. Meanwhile, Moses was by no means a magician. He, as a pious man, devoted to the God of the Universe and a partaker of the Divine Spirit, gave the law to the Jews, with the assistance provided to him by the deity (τὸ θεῖον); he recorded (in his works) all the events that happened then, in accordance with reality. VI. So Celsus was not an impartial judge of what is transmitted in different ways by the Egyptians and the Jews. Having inclined his sympathies to the Egyptians who were more kind to him, he clearly went over to their side and, despite their injustice towards foreigners, recognized them as spokesmen for the truth. On the contrary, he recognized the Jews, suppressed by injustice, as rebels who, as a result of the rebellion, allegedly left Egypt. Celsus did not even notice that it was impossible for such a huge rebellious crowd of Egyptians, in any way, only through rebellion to form into a people and at the same time with the manifestation of a rebellious spirit to change the language itself. It was impossible for people who had hitherto used the Egyptian dialect to suddenly, completely unexpectedly, completely master the Hebrew speech. Let's even say that the Jews left Egypt and hated their native language. But why did they rather not use Syrian or Phoenician speech, but, on the contrary, invent a Hebrew language for themselves, which is completely different from both? In short, in this case, it seems to me that there is every reason to conclude that the position is false that “some Egyptians rebelled against their own relatives and left Egypt and went to Palestine in order to settle in what is now called Judea.” The Jews had their own national (πάτριος) language even before their migration to Egypt. Jewish writing was completely different from the writing of the Egyptians; Moses used this writing when he wrote his five books, which are considered sacred by the Jews. VII. Equally false is the statement that “the Jews are supposedly of Egyptian origin and that they got their start through a rebellion.” It is also a lie that “those Jews seem to be similar to the Jews of the time of Jesus, who rebelled against the social system of the Jews and followed Jesus.” Celsus and his like-minded people cannot point out, in fact, a single rebellious act among Christians. And if the organization of Christians was really determined by indignation and they received their origin from the Jews, who were even allowed to take up arms in defense of their neighbors and kill enemies, then the legislator of Christians in any case would not have prohibited the murder of a person and would not have taught his disciples to avoid even such violence, which was caused by the demands of justice and was directed at even the most wicked person. (After all, he generally considered it unworthy of his Divine laws to allow any kind of murder of a person). Then the Christians, if only they owed their origin to the conspiracy, would in no case have adopted such moderate laws, thanks to which they began to be killed like sheep, and every opportunity to take revenge on their persecutors was taken away from them. And if we examine the matter in all its depth, we can even say that it miraculously happened that the entire Jewish people, upon leaving Egypt, as if by inspiration from above (θεοδώρητον), immediately (ἀθρόως) mastered the so-called Hebrew language. One of their prophets said exactly this: “when he came out of the land of Egypt, where he heard the sounds of a language that he did not know” (Ps. 80:6). VIII. And that those who actually came out of Egypt along with Moses were not of Egyptian origin, we can confirm this with the following other considerations. If the Jews were Egyptians, then they would have Egyptian names: after all, each language has its own names. But from the fact that the Jews had Hebrew names, it is obvious that they were not Egyptians. All Scripture is filled with Hebrew names; They gave them to their children even during their stay in Egypt. In a word, the falsity of the Egyptians’ claims that (the Jews) “were Egyptians, and they came out of Egypt with Moses” is obvious. The books of Moses provide clear historical evidence that the Hebrews were descended from Hebrew ancestors and spoke their own language, from which they adopted the names for their children. As for Christians, they received the commandment not to take revenge on their enemies, and, guided by (this) moderate and humane law, they really do not commit revenge, even if they have the opportunity to fight and if they have the necessary means for this. They received this (law) from God, who Himself always fights for them and at the right moments pacifies those who rebel against Christians and want to destroy them. However, a few still endure persecution for piety. But this is for a reminder, so that those who look at them can acquire greater experience and contempt for death. In a word, only a few accept death for Christian piety at certain moments, and they are easy to count. God does not allow the entire race of Christians to be completely exterminated: He wants this race to exist and the whole earth to be filled with such saving and pious teaching. On the other hand, that weaker men might recover from mortal fear, God visited by His Providence the faithful; He alone (His) will dispelled all the intrigues directed against them so that neither kings, nor the leaders of various places, nor the people were no longer able to show their cruelty against them beyond certain limits. All this serves as a sufficient refutation of the words of Celsus, with which he asserts that “as in ancient times the Jews, so in later times Christians, allegedly owe their origin to a rebellious conspiracy.” IX. What Celsus proceeds further is also an obvious lie. However, we will quote his own words. He says: “if everyone wanted to become Christians, then the latter would hardly be satisfied with it.” That such a statement is a lie is self-evident and clear from the fact that Christians, on the contrary, are using every effort in their power to spread the teaching throughout the Universe. That is why some of them even took on a special responsibility - to go around not only cities, but also villages, even towns, in order to bring new believers to God. And absolutely no one can say that they are doing this out of self-interest. They sometimes do not even take for themselves what is necessary for food. And if sometimes need forces them to take something, then they are content with only the most necessary, despite the fact that some at the same time show a willingness to give them more and supply them beyond their need. True, at the present time, with a significant number of people entering Christianity, one can point out rich people, even several high-ranking men, women known for their sophistication and nobility, who show hospitality to adherents of Christian teaching, but even with all this, who would dare to say that some preach the Christian faith because of the mere desire for glory? As for the first centuries, when the preachers of the faith in particular were in great danger, then one cannot have such suspicion applied to them. And even now the ignominy that those of other faiths have to endure significantly exceeds the glory that befalls them from those of the same faith, and even then not always. In a word, the lie is obvious, which is revealed in the position (of Celsus) that “if all people wanted to become Christians, then the latter would hardly be happy with it.” X. Let's see what Celsus gives as proof of this position. “At first,” he says, “when there were still very few of them, they showed unanimity; when their number increased significantly, sects and parties appeared among them, and each of them wanted to have their own adherents; however, from the very beginning they had a similar desire.” That at first the number of Christians was small, especially when compared with the multitude that formed later, this, of course, cannot be rejected. But generally speaking, their number even then, in any case, was not small. Envy of Jesus and the plotting of intrigues against Him on the part of the Jews began because whole crowds followed Him through the deserts, followed by five thousand, four thousand men, besides women and children (Matthew 14:21; Mark 6:44; Luke 9:14; John 6:10; cf. Matt. 15:38; Mark 8:9). There was such a fascinating power in the speeches of Jesus that not only men, but even women showed a desire to follow Him into the desert, who forgot the weaknesses of their sex and did not pay attention to what might be thought of them when they followed the Teacher into the desert. Even the children, with all their weakness, followed Him with their parents - perhaps out of imitation of their parents, but most likely because the Divinity of Jesus attracted them so strongly that it was (as it were) transmitted to them. Let us even assume that at first there were few Christians, but how does this lead to the conclusion that “the Christians supposedly had no desire to convince all people to accept their faith?” XI. Celsus makes the remark: “they all thought the same thing.” But at the same time, he does not pay attention to the fact that from the very beginning, different opinions emerged among believers regarding the meaning of the books that they considered Divine 264. Even in those days when the Apostles preached and those who saw Jesus proclaimed His teaching, a considerable dispute arose among Jewish Christians about whether those who had turned to the faith from among the pagans should observe Jewish customs or whether it was necessary to eliminate the obligation of “burden” regarding clean and unclean foods (Acts 10:14, 11:8, 15:28) for people who had already left their fathers. institutions and those who believed in Jesus. In the Epistles of Paul, who lived in the days of the men who saw Jesus, there are also passages from which it is clear that some questioned (the truth of) the Resurrection and raised the question whether this Resurrection had already happened (1 Cor. 15:12), as well as regarding the day of the Lord they asked whether it had come or not (2 Thess. 2:2). The same Apostle gives instructions: to turn away from “worthless idle talk and the contradictions of false knowledge, which, having given themselves over, some have wandered away from the faith” (1 Tim. 6:20–21). From this it is clear that even at the beginning, when, according to Celsus, the number of believers was very small, there were some who misunderstood the teachings of faith. XII. Then Celsus tries to bring such an accusation against faith. He reproaches us for the divisions that have arisen in Christianity, and formulates his objections as follows. “After,” he says, “(Christians) spread in large numbers, separate parties and sects again appeared among them, everyone wanted to find their own followers; “They again separate from the majority,” he continues, “and then condemn each other in such a way that, one might say, they no longer have anything in common with each other except for the name alone. Yes, and this is one thing they, however, are already ashamed to hold back. As for everything else, everyone tries to make decisions in their own way.” This is our answer. In general, whenever something generally useful and active appears in life, various parties are always formed. Since the art of medicine, for example, is useful and necessary for people, and since it raises numerous questions regarding the method of healing the body, for this reason the Greeks, as everyone knows, had many separate sects in the field of the art of medicine; in the same way, if I am not mistaken, and among all non-Greeks who allow themselves to have the art of medicine. In the same way, philosophy strives to proclaim truth and knowledge about existence and provide guidance for the rules of life; she is trying to introduce us to those things that benefit our family. Its research covers a wide area (knowledge), which is why it splits into a number of separate schools (αἱρέσεις), of which some have gained wide fame, while others have not achieved it. In Judaism, then, different interpretations of the Mosaic writings and prophetic books also served as the reason and reason for the formation of sects. Since in Christianity not only the dregs of society found something worthy of attention (ἀνδραποδωδεστέροις), as Celsus thinks, but also many people from the Greek population, it is quite natural that sects formed here too - and this is not solely due to the love of controversy and bickering, but mainly because many learned people tried to delve deeper into the truths of Christianity. That is why it also happened that the Scriptures, which were unanimously (ἅμα) recognized by everyone as Divine, began to be interpreted differently; in a word, sects were formed that took names from those men who, although they expressed their surprise at Christianity on the main issues of its teaching, but at the same time, however, for some reason, were forced to express positions that did not agree with each other. And, of course, it would be complete recklessness if anyone began to avoid the art of medicine only because of the existence of separate opinions in it, or if someone, in his desire for an orderly (life), began to treat philosophy with contempt only on the grounds that philosophers in many cases create different opinions. Likewise, no one should deny the Holy Books written by Moses and the Prophets just because there were sects among the Jews. XIII. If all this is so, then why don’t we speak out in the same way in defense of the sects that exist among Christians? In my opinion, Paul expresses himself inimitably well about these sects in the following words. “There must also be differences of opinion among you,” he says, “so that those who are skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). Indeed, as in the field of medicine, he is a skilled man who has studied various school theories and, after careful study, chooses the best one from a whole series of theories, and just as, further, in the field of philosophy, a knowledgeable person is the one who first examines numerous (philosophical) views and trends and only then leans towards the best of them: in the same way, I can say, only he has a thorough knowledge of Christianity who has carefully delved into the study of the Jewish and Christian sects. And whoever wishes to make reproaches against Christian teaching must do the same against Socrates, from whose school many other schools arose with different school views. Then it is impossible to spare the teachings of Plato, because Aristotle rejected his school views and came to new positions, as we talked about above (Cf. 2, XII). However, it seems to me that Celsus took into account certain sects that do not even retain the common name of Jesus among us all. He may have heard of the so-called Ophites and Cainites, or some other sects, who have completely distanced themselves from Jesus. But absolutely nothing follows from this so that one can make an objection to Christian teaching. XIV. Then Celsus continues. “Their organization (σύνθημα) is even more surprising in that it does not have any more or less solid foundation in its foundation. Instead of a solid and reasonable foundation, they have indignation and the benefit achieved through it, as well as fear of external (enemies): these are the foundations of their faith.” We will answer this. Our organization truly rests on a reasonable basis, or even not just on a reasonable basis, but on Divine power; it owes its beginning to the Lord God, who told people through the prophets to await the coming of Christ, who would save people. And as all this is reviled as error - if at all it can seem like an exposure on the part of unbelievers - the Word is established as precisely the Word of God and Jesus is shown as the Son of God not only before the incarnation, but also after the incarnation. I adhere precisely to the view that for the eyes of people who have the clear eyes of their souls, the Word, even after incarnation, always turns out to be worthy of divinity (θεοπρεπέστατος), that It truly came to us from God (θεόθεν), that It received both its origin and further growth not at all from human wisdom, but, on the contrary, from Revelation (ἐπιφανείας) God, Who, with manifold wisdom and various miracles, called into life first of all Judaism and then Christianity. As for the opinion of Celsus that it was “a conspiracy and the hope of self-interest associated with it” that created the teaching that attracted so many people to itself and made them better, we have already refuted this opinion earlier. XV. And that it is not fear of external enemies that supports our organization, this is clear from the fact that, by the will of God, this fear has long ceased. However, it is very likely that the present calm state of civil life for believers cannot last long; after all, those who in every way try to bring suspicion on our faith, want to see the reason for such strong confusion of our days in the very large number of believers and in the fact that believers are no longer persecuted by the authorities, as was the case before. But the word (of God) taught us, even in times of peace, not to be careless and not to indulge in bliss, nor to fall into despair when the world persecutes us, but to preserve the love of God in Christ Jesus. We wish to openly confess the sublime principles of our faith; we do not hide them at all, as Celsus thinks. On the contrary, in those people who wish to come to us, we at the very beginning try to awaken contempt for idols and all kinds of images; we inspire them to no longer show creatures the reverence that befits God, we direct their thoughts to a higher goal and lead them to the Creator of the Universe; then we indicate that the promised one (Messiah) has appeared - and all this on the basis of the prophecies that proclaim Him and speak about Him (there are a lot of them), as well as on the basis of the Gospels and the sayings of the Apostles, carefully transmitted by those men who are capable of a deeper understanding of them. XVI. Celsus objects to us completely without proof that “we allegedly collect and invent all kinds of fables and scary stories that excite awe 265.” But let him take the trouble to at least point them out! Perhaps among these terrible inventions and stories he includes the teaching that God, as a Judge, will eventually demand from people an account of everything that they have done - a teaching that we can confirm with all kinds of evidence, taken both from the Holy Scriptures and from considerations of reason. To top it all off - out of love for the truth, I, of course, have to mention this - Celsus makes the following remark: “God forbid that I, or this, or anyone in general, would reject the doctrine of the future punishment of the wicked and the rewarding of the righteous!” If you thus accept the doctrine of punishment, then what does it have to do with the terrible stories that we allegedly invent to attract people to ourselves? Celsus states at the same time: “we, according to him, by misunderstanding and distortion of the ancient teaching, with our insertions into it, seemed to have turned the heads of people, like the priests of Cybele, who with their nonsense confused those who had the desire to devote themselves to their mysteries.” Let us ask Celsus what kind of ancient teaching is this, which we supposedly misunderstood? Perhaps this is a Greek teaching, according to which the existence of judicial tribunals is recognized in the underworld? Or maybe this teaching is Jewish, which proclaims that besides this life there is also another life - the future? In any case, Celsus will never be able to prove that in our striving for a rational faith, we supposedly misunderstood the truth, as long as we try to conform our life to this kind of teaching. XVII. He further wants to equate our faith with the views of the Egyptians. He says: “When you just approach them 266, then you are struck by beautiful groves and gardens, expensive and luxurious clothes, wondrous churches, elaborate round chapels, solemn religious ceremonies full of mystery. When you go further in, it seems to your eyes that they adore either a cat, or a monkey, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog.” But what do we have in common with this service of the Egyptians, which seems so brilliant when first introduced to it? Where can we find anything similar to those dumb animals that are adored there under the cover of exquisite porticoes? Prophecies, worship of almighty God, contempt for idols - all this, even in the eyes of Celsus, is worthy of respect, but why should Jesus Christ Crucified be equated with an unreasonable animal, which (in Egypt) serves as an object of worship? If Celsus really has such an opinion, and in my opinion, he cannot even express anything else, then we will try to remind him that we have already previously (See 1, LIV, LXI; 2, XVI, XXIII) brought a lot of evidence that serves as evidence in favor of Jesus, and showed how useful and saving for the whole world was what happened to Jesus in terms of humanity (κατ' ἄνθρωπον). XVIII. Based on the fact that the Egyptians divulge something amazing about their dumb animals and recognize them as symbols of God, or something like that, as the prophets chose to call them, Celsus further says: “these (prophets), who have comprehended such things, come to such a fantastic conviction that they did not devote themselves to the sacraments in vain.” But in our teaching there are such (truths) that are revealed to people who are wise in Christianity by grace (ἀπὸ χαρίσματος), as Paul puts it, through the medium of the Spirit (διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος), in the word of wisdom and in accordance with the Spirit (κατὰ τὸ πνεῦμα) in the word of knowledge (Compare 1 Cor. 12:8). About all this, I think, Celsus had no idea. This is clear not only from these words (just quoted), but also from his subsequent objections, which he raises against the Christian community. Celsus says that “the Christians allegedly excluded every educated person from their teaching of faith and admitted (into their society) only fools and people of the lowest position 267.” We will give an answer to this objection in due time, when we reach this place 268. XIX. “You laugh,” says Celsus further, “at the Egyptians, but they have many such mysterious teachings that do not deserve contempt (Cf. 1, XX). In your opinion, eternal ideas should be revered, and not corruptible animals, as they appear to the crowd; meanwhile, in your stories about Jesus you do not present anything sublime - nothing that would be more honorable than all these Egyptian goats and dogs.” To this we will say: you, noble man, let’s say you have the basis and right to lavish praise on the Egyptians for the fact that they possess many mysterious truths that should not be despised - for the fact that they are able to skillfully give exalted (ἀσαφεῖς) explanations regarding the veneration of animals among them, but you are completely wrong in your conviction and accusation of us that we are supposedly nothing We say (worthy of attention) that all of our (teaching) is devoid of any meaning and is worthy of mockery, especially when we, being perfect in (knowledge of) Christianity, try to explain everything concerning Jesus in accordance with the wisdom of our teaching. About these perfect (Christians) who are able to listen to the wisdom contained in Christianity, Paul gives this instruction. He says: “We preach wisdom among the perfect, but the wisdom not of this age, nor of this age, nor of the passing powers of this age; but we preach the wisdom of God, the secret, hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the authorities of this age knew” (1 Cor. 2:6-8). XX. To people who think alike with Celsus, we could ask this question here. Would Paul really in this case begin to proclaim “wisdom among the perfect” if he had no idea and knowledge of the highest wisdom? And if Celsus, with his characteristic audacity, still insists on the assertion that Paul made such a promise without being wise himself, then we will make the following objection to him: yes, friend, in advance, take a closer look at the Epistles of this man who expresses such words; try to understand for yourself the meaning of all the expressions given in his Epistles: for example, in the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Philippians and Romans - and only then show in them both, namely, that you found some of them either stupid or too insignificant. After all, whoever reads them carefully will - of this I am fully convinced - be amazed at the intelligence of this man, who was able to express great truths in simple terms. If someone is not surprised, then such a person himself will find himself in a funny position, either because he launches into an explanation and seems to understand his husband’s thought, or because he tries to object and refute such truths that, by his own admission, are fiction. XXI. I'm not even talking about all those places in the Gospel that deserve our attention - about those places, each of which allows for a multifaceted explanation, and not only for ordinary people, but also for educated people, contains a meaning that is difficult to understand. This includes, for example, a thoughtful explanation of the parable speeches with which Jesus addressed external people and which He then explained to people gifted with more subtle hearing than external people, at the time when they came to His home, privately. A thinking person will be surprised, of course, on what basis are some called “external” and others “domestic”. And again, which of the capable people can not be amazed at the sight of the travels of Jesus, how He ascends the mountain, and says all these speeches here and performs actions and is transformed, then comes down and heals the sick here, who cannot ascend to where His disciples follow him? However, this is not the place to talk about all these truly glorious and Divine acts that we read about in the Gospels, as well as about everything that we find in Paul regarding Christ, that is, regarding Wisdom and the Word. The above reasoning is sufficient to appease the unworthy ridicule of Celsus, who dares to equate the innermost secrets of the Church of God with Egyptian cats, monkeys, crocodiles, goats and dogs. XXII. In order not to miss a single type of curse or ridicule in the application to us, this buffoon (βωμολόχος) - Celsus, in his work directed against us, also mentions Dioscuri 269 and Hercules, and Aesculapius 270, and Dionysus 271, in a word about all those who, according to the beliefs of the Greeks, became gods from people. He says: “Now you do not allow calling all these gods on the basis that they were people first of all, although at the same time they did many valiant things for the benefit of people, but about this Jesus you say that after his death he was visible to his followers.” To accuse us completely, he adds: “you,” he says, “affirm only His shadow, since you declare that He has appeared.” We answer this. Celsus, to his amazement, although unclearly, made it clear that he did not honor these (heroes) as gods. He was obviously afraid that some casual readers of his works would spread the word about his atheism if he clearly and definitely expressed his opinion; on the other hand, he did not want to reveal his recognition of them as gods. However, in our answer we will have both sides of Celsus’ position. And with people who do not consider those (heroes) to be gods, we will speak in this way. Yes, they really are not gods simply because their soul was destroyed, just as, according to some, the soul of every person instantly disappears. On the other hand, if we accept the opinion of those who claim that the soul continues to live and remains immortal after death, all the same, in this last case we must agree that they, continuing to live and remaining immortal, are, in fact, not gods, but heroes, and not even heroes, but simply souls. So, if you reject the existence of gods, we, for our part, will be forced to especially insist on proving the truth of the immortality of the soul; if you affirm the existence of gods, then even then we will have to prove our belief in immortality not only on the basis of those beautiful sayings that we find among the Greeks, but also on the basis of those expressions that Revelation was pleased to bestow on us. We can turn to the Greek legends about the gods and, on the basis of them, show that the worshipers of many gods, after removing them from this life, were unable to receive better land as their inheritance, to gain a better position for themselves. In these legends we are told that Hercules showed extraordinary intemperance 272 and performed women's service for Omphale 273, that Aesculapius was struck by lightning for his actions at the behest of Zeus 274. It is also said about the Dioscuri that they One day they come to life, and on others they die again. But each of them inherited honor equal to the gods 275, - despite the fact that they often die. The question is, on what reasonable basis do they come to the idea of ​​considering any of these (heroes) a god or a hero? XXIII. As for our faith in our Jesus, we can base it on the writings of the prophets. Moreover, by comparing the life story of Jesus with the legends about those heroes, we can come to the positive conclusion that in this story there is absolutely no indication of any intemperance. Even those who plotted against Jesus and tried to find false evidence against Him did not find anything in Him that could give any reason to accuse Him of intemperance. His death itself was the result of human machinations and did not contain anything like the lightning that struck Aesculapius. And Bacchus, raging and dressed in women's clothes, did he really have anything special for which he could be revered as God? True, in order to protect all these things they turn to the help of allegories; but we still need to investigate whether there is anything sensible in these allegories - this is on the one hand, and on the other - do all these heroes, torn to pieces by the titans and cast down by them from the heavenly throne, really exist and deserve veneration and worship? But our Jesus, whom His own followers saw - let us use Celsus's expression in this case - really and truly appeared to them, so that Celsus is positively slandering when he claims that in this case, as if only His shadow was visible. However, we are not at all against finding a connection between the legends about those heroes and the story about Jesus. But Celsus himself ensures that we consider those stories (about heroes) to be true, and recognize what happened with Jesus as fiction, despite the fact that all this was written down by people who were eyewitnesses themselves, who clearly showed by deed and by their behavior that they were firmly convinced of the truth of their visions - who, in addition, proved their spiritual disposition by the fact of their selfless suffering for His teaching. And what kind of person, who wants to conform all his activities to the demands of reason, will unconsciously agree with those legends about heroes, and reject this story about the life of Jesus without any preliminary study of it? XXIV. And again, one has only to say that a large number of Greeks and barbarians assert with confidence that they have seen and still see Aesculapius, how he, not at all ghostly, but in fact, heals diseases, lavishes blessings and predicts the future - one has only to say all this, and Celsus already demands that we also believe in this; He doesn’t even accuse those who believe in Jesus, if only they would begin to trust all these (stories). On the contrary, as soon as we agree with the disciples of Jesus, who saw His miracles and who presented such clear evidence of the directness and sincerity of their convictions, which can testify to their immediate conviction from the Scriptures, we already receive from Celsus the name of feeble-minded people, although Celsus himself does not understand where he can find that many Greeks and barbarians who, according to him, believe in Aesculapius. If only in this faith does Celsus place all his strength, then we can irrefutably show him that there are countless Greeks and barbarians who believe in Jesus. And as proof that through this faith they have received extraordinary miraculous power, some perform healings simply by invoking the name of Almighty God on the sick, uttering the name of Jesus and at the same time reading the story of his life. We even saw many who in this way were freed from severe suffering, from darkness of mind, madness and many other diseases that neither people nor demons could cure. XXV. Yes, even if I agree with the position that a demon named Aesculapius has the power to heal bodily diseases, I will still begin to point out to people, imbued with a sense of surprise at this healing power and at the broadcast of Apollo, that this power of healing diseases in itself is neither good nor evil, that it is an act that can equally extend to honest and bad people, which, in the same way, is foresight the future is also a matter of indifference. After all, the fact of prediction does not necessarily mean that the predictor is honest. In a word, it is still necessary to prove whether those people who heal diseases and predict the future are never really bad, that they, on the contrary, are so perfect in all respects that they can almost be considered gods. But the whole point is that they will never prove the virtue of those people who heal diseases and herald the future. One can imagine many examples of such persons who are healed and at the same time unworthy of life - such persons who were so spoiled and led such a bad lifestyle that a prudent doctor could hardly entertain the thought of healing them. In the same way, one can see that in the predictions of the Pythia, unreasonable things are sometimes suggested. I will point out just two examples. To Cleomedes, it seems, a fighter, if I’m not mistaken, Celsus tried to give honor that could equal him with the gods; but what exactly wonderful he found in his fist art - I don’t even know, while he does not consider either Pythagoras or Socrates worthy of the same honor that he attributed to this fist fighter. Further, he calls Archilochus a favorite and admirer of the muses, despite the fact that this latter made extremely bad and unclean use of his poetic art and led a very licentious and vicious life; he even declares him a God-fearing and pious man and, as proof of this, refers to the fact that he was a favorite of the muses, who were revered by goddesses. But I don’t know if there is anyone in the crowd who could call a person pious who was not adorned with modesty or any other virtue. Would a moral person begin to tell things like those that are filled with the obscene iambic verses of Archilochus? It is clear, therefore, that neither the power of healing nor the ability to predict the future contains anything Divine. By what right, one may ask, is it possible, then, to honor Aesculapius and Apollo as holy and pure gods, even if I agreed that they really master the art of words, especially when this prophetic spirit of Apollo, a spirit pure and free from any bodily confusion, enters this so-called prophetess, sitting above the opening of the Pythian cave, through these women's places? In our teaching about Jesus and His power, we do not find such things at all. After all, the body that he received from the Virgin was composed of human matter and was subject to human suffering and death. XXVI. Now let us consider what Celsus says next, how he offers directly incredible things from historical legends, which, judging by his words, he considers trustworthy, while they themselves seem incredible. He begins with the story of Aristeus of Prokonissky and tells the following about him: “Aristaeus of Prokonissky allegedly hid so demonically from human gaze and then appeared again at various times and in various places on the earth and announced amazing things; although Apollo commanded the Metapontians 276 to show Aristaeus divine honor, no one considered him a god.” This legend seems to have been borrowed by Celsus from Pindar and Herodotus. It is from the fourth book of the history of Herodotus that it is enough to quote the following story about Aristaeus. “Where,” says Herodotus, “was Aristeas, who told all this, I have already said; Now I wish to convey the story itself, which I heard about him in Proconisse 277 and Cyzicus 278. Aristaeus, as they say, who was not inferior to any of his citizens in the nobility of his family, once entered a woolen workshop in Proconissus, where he died. Then the master locked his woolen factory and went to inform the friends of the deceased about this event. When the rumor that Aristeas had died had already spread throughout the city, when various rumors began to circulate about this event, one man came from the Cyzicus city of Artak, who began to claim that, approaching Cyzicus, he met Aristeas and entered into a conversation with him. And when this husband persistently asserted this, the deceased’s acquaintances approached the workshop, armed with everything necessary to take him out of there. But, having opened the house, they did not find Aristaeus there - neither alive nor dead. Then, seven years later, he appeared in Prokonissos and composed poems that the Greeks now call Arimaspian. According to the image of these verses, he disappeared another time. This is how these cities tell the story. A similar thing happened, as I know, with the Metapontians in Italy, two hundred and forty years after the second disappearance of Aristaeus, as I found by comparing everything that happened in Proconisse and Metapontus. The Metapontians say that Aristaeus, having appeared among them, ordered the erection of an altar to Apollo and the erection of a statue near it, which would bear the name of Aristaeus of Proconis, on the grounds that they are, in fact, the only inhabitants of Italy to whom Apollo descended to earth. Moreover, it is as if he himself, the present Aristaeus, followed him, but then, when he followed God, he seemed to be a raven. And as soon as he said this, he disappeared. They, say the Metapontians, sent to Delphi to ask God what kind of phenomenon this man was. The Pythia allegedly commanded them to obey the phenomenon, warning them that if they obeyed, they would discover piety in themselves. And they carried out this (order) and carried it out. And now there still stands a statue bearing the name of Aristeas, with that sacred image of Apollo, and surrounded by laurel trees. The statue was erected in the square. And all this has still been said about Aristaeus.” XXVII. To this story of Aristaeus we must add the following remark. If Celsus had told the story briefly as it is given, without explanation in the sense that he accepts it as true and gives it faith, then we could give a different answer. But since he says that “Aristaeus, according to him, really disappeared demonically and that he then reappeared and at various moments visited various places, where he divulged wonderful things,” since, further, he cites the saying of Apollo, who ordered the Metapontians to honor Aristaeus as a god; since he presents all this in such a way as if he does not even allow any reason to doubt it and on his own expresses complete agreement with this story, then I must turn to him with a question: how come you accept all these miracles that the disciples of Jesus tell about their teacher as pure fiction, and if you blaspheme those people who believe in them, then why is the story of Aristaeus a miracle and is not at all fiction in your eyes? You object to others, their belief in the miracles of Jesus, according to you, is unreasonable; but how then is it possible for you to believe in the facts you cited - without proof, without providing evidence in favor of the fact that they really happened? Or is the reliability of Herodotus and Pindar an undoubted fact for you, and you refuse to believe only those people who showed a desire to die for the teachings of Jesus and who for subsequent generations reported in writing only what they themselves believed? Why do you call this precisely fiction, fable and witchcraft, for which they fight so hard that they prefer rather to spend their lives amid persecution, suffer disasters and violent death? Take on the role of mediator and express your opinion about what is written about Aristaeus and about what is told about Jesus; look, based on what each of them did to correct morals and to establish piety in relation to God, is it possible, on the basis of all this, to make such a firm conviction that without Divine help and mediation what is told about Jesus could not have happened, and that, on the contrary, there is nothing Divine in the history of Aristeas of Proconis. XXVIII. And what purpose could Providence have in those miracles which it apparently performed because of Aristaeus? What benefit could it bring to the human race with such miracles as you think he performed? You can't answer this question. On the contrary, when we proclaim the miracles of Jesus, we present in their favor not some trivial basis - we say that God wanted through Jesus to establish for people the saving teaching established on the Apostles as the foundation - that teaching on which the entire edifice of Christianity is based and which was to become even more widespread in subsequent times, when far from small healings and other no less significant miracles began to be performed in the name of Jesus. And who is this, Apollo, to order the Metapontians to have Aristaeus among their gods? What does he want to achieve with this? What benefit would the Metapontians derive from obeying him and showing divine veneration to Aristaeus, and even moreover, considering as a god the one in whom they so recently saw a simple man? In our eyes, Apollo is an evil spirit to whom “incense and libation 279” are offered; and you consider trustworthy the testimony that he gives to Aristaeus, while even what Almighty God and His holy Angels announced through the mouth of the prophets, not only for the first time after the birth of Jesus, but long before his incarnation - even all this cannot force you to be filled with surprise before the prophets, who were filled with the Divine Spirit, and before the One who was the subject of their prophecies. His coming into the world, as is known, was predicted many years earlier by many prophets, and so clearly and definitely that the entire Jewish people eagerly awaited the coming of the foretold, and, at His birth, were divided into two parties. Very many recognized Jesus as the Christ whom the prophets had proclaimed and believed in Him. On the contrary, the infidels, despising the meekness of people who, because of the teaching of Jesus, did not want to cause any indignation, dared to commit crimes against Jesus, described with great love for the truth and with spiritual purity by His disciples, who did not hide from the amazing story about Him even what, apparently, can be attributed by some to the disgrace of Christian teaching. After all, neither Jesus himself nor His disciples at all wanted those approaching (the teaching) to believe exclusively in His Divinity and miracles, as if he was not at all a participant in human nature and did not accept human flesh, which in people “desires what is contrary to the spirit” (Gal. 5:17). Their faith taught them that the immersion of the power of God in human nature and human infirmities, as well as its perception 280 of the human body and human soul, served for their salvation in the same way as those actions in which the Divinity was revealed so clearly and obviously. They realized that in Him the unity of the Divine nature with the human nature was combined, 281 so that human nature, through close communication with the Divine, would also become Divine, and not only in Jesus alone, but at the same time in all those who, together with faith, perceive the life that Jesus taught - a life that leads to fellowship with God and to communion with Him of every person who lives according to the commandments of Jesus. XXIX. So, according to Celsus, Apollo orders the Metapontians to rank Aristaeus among the gods; but in their eyes, Aristeas was still only a man, and perhaps not even particularly virtuous, and they placed this conviction above the opinion of the oracle, which declared him a god and ascribed divine honor to him. That is why they did not want to obey Apollo, and it so happened that no one believed in the deity of Aristaeus. As for Jesus, we can say this about Him: the human race was benefited by the very recognition of Him as the Son of God - God, who came to earth with a human soul and body; and only for the pride of demons who were carnally minded, as well as those who considered these demons to be gods, did this recognition seem meaningless (λυσιτελές); That is why the demons hovering around the earth and are considered gods by those who were not taught about the nature of demons, and through their worshipers wanted to prevent the spread of the teachings of Jesus. After all, they clearly saw that in this case both the incense and the sacrificial fat, with which they were accustomed to enjoy, must be destroyed, if only the teaching of Jesus would prevail. But God, who sent Jesus, dispelled all the machinations of the demons and made the Gospel of Jesus triumph over the face of the whole earth in favor of the conversion and correction of people, and communities (ἐκκλησίας) were formed everywhere, which began to be governed by laws completely different from those that lay at the basis of the communities, people of superstitious, intemperate, unrighteous people. It is precisely this kind of people that make up public organizations in cities almost everywhere. In comparison with them, the communities of God, for whom Christ appeared as a teacher and educator, have become lamps in the world for all the masses among whom they live. And who will deny that even those members of our church who have not yet achieved much success in virtue and leave much to be desired for themselves, in most cases even stand much higher than those who are the best members of the societies existing among the people. XXX. Let's take, for example, the Church of God in Athens. She is a model of peace and order and seeks to attract the favor of God Almighty. On the contrary, the purely popular society of the Athenians behaves rebelliously; in no case can it compare with the Church of God there. The same can be said about the Church of God in Corinth, in comparison with the popular society of the Corinthians, and - well, at least - about the Church of God in Alexandria, in comparison with the popular society in Alexandria. If anyone listens to this without prejudice and begins to investigate the question posed with love for the truth, he will, of course, express surprise in the face of the One who carried out his decision and was able to cause churches of God to be formed everywhere, settling among popular societies in every single city. And if you compare the leaders of the Church of God 282 with the leaders of each individual city, you can find among the leaders of the church those who should fully lead the city of God, wherever such a city may be in the Universe, while worldly rulers everywhere in their behavior do not represent anything that would give them the right to an advantage by which they only outwardly differ from other citizens. If you also compare the head of the church (ἄρχοντα ἐκκλησίας) in each city with the ruler of this city, then you will find that even such heads and rulers of the Church of God, who are comparatively not distinguished by perfection and are inferior to their zealous colleagues in the performance of their duties, even these are generally superior in success in virtues to those who are distinguished in cities by their merits as rulers and chiefs. XXXI. If all this is true, then is it really not prudent to think that it was in the person of Jesus, Who could perform such great deeds, that such an unusual divinity resided, and not at all in the person of Aristaeus of Proconis, although Apollo wanted to rank him among the gods, and not at all those whom Celsus lists when he says: “not a single person considers Avaris the Hyperborean 283 to be a god, who supposedly has such strength that can run with the speed of an arrow"? Let us assume that divinity really endowed Avaris the Hyperborean with such strength that he could run at the speed of an arrow. But what benefit could the human race get from this? How was speed equal to the flight of an arrow useful to him? - and all this on the assumption that this whole story does not contain fiction at all, that all this really happened, even if under the influence of some demonic force. But if they say about my Jesus that He ascended “in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16), then here I already see a (special) economy (οἰκονομίαν). Here God, by whose will all this happened, pointed out to all eyewitnesses their teacher, so that they, fighting to the best of their ability not because of human teachings but for the Divine teaching, would completely devote themselves to God Almighty and in everything adapt to His will, with the ability to either receive a reward or suffer punishment before the judgment seat of God, according to their merits, depending on whether they did good or evil in this life. XXXII. After this, Celsus speaks of Clazomenza 284 and, having given a story about him, adds the following words: “Isn’t it also said that his soul often left his body and traveled without a body to different places? And yet none of the people considered him to be a god.” Our answer to this is this. Perhaps some evil spirits influenced the recording of such fables (I only do not allow their influence on the very implementation of these fables) - all this, perhaps, so that the prophecies about Jesus, as well as His own sayings, could be presented in the same way as fables similar to those (demonic fabrications), so that all this could not at all arouse surprise, as not containing anything significant in comparison with other things. Moreover, my Jesus spoke about his soul, which was separated from the body not by force, as happens with people, but by the Divine power given to Him in this case. He said: “No one takes it away from Me; but I myself give it away. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again” (John 10:18). Since He had the power to give it away, He gave it when He said: “My God! Why have you forsaken me!” And “having cried out with a strong voice, He gave up the ghost” (Matthew 27:46–50), warning the tormentors who broke the legs of the crucified in order to shorten their torment and punishment. He accepted the soul when he appeared to his disciples, as he had predicted even earlier to the Jews who did not believe in Him, saying: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). And He spoke this about the church of His body. We find the same prediction in the prophets in many places and especially in the following: my flesh will rest in the hope that it has not “left My soul in hell, and You will not allow Your holy one to see corruption” (Ps. 16:9, 10; cf. 2, LXII). XXXIII. Celsus also showed that he had studied many more Greek stories when he added the legend of Cleomedes the Astypalean. “This last one, according to him, went into the house and locked himself in it. When some broke down the door to capture him, it turned out that he was not there: he seemed to have disappeared from here by some demonic definition.” If this is not even a fiction, as one might think, then in this case there is no resemblance to the miracles of Jesus. In the lives of these people there is not even a shadow of Divinity, as he wishes to find in the stories about them. On the contrary, the Divinity of Jesus is proven by the communities of people (ἐκκλησίαι), which owe their salvation to Him, and by the prophecies that announced Him, and by the healings that took place in His name, and by the depth of mystery, and by the wisdom that lies in His teaching, unless, of course, one does not remain in this case at the level of simple faith alone, but explores the very meaning (νοῦν) of the Divine Scriptures, according to the commandments of Christ, who said: “Search the Scriptures” (John. 5:39), and also according to the desire of Paul, who taught that we should know “how to answer everyone” (Col. 4:6) according to his worth (κατὰ τὸ δέον), and also according to the desire of another Apostle, who said: we must always be “ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). If we must concede to Celsus and consider this story not a myth, then let him answer what exactly the supernatural force wanted to do with this disappearance from the house, at least according to some demonic definition. And if he puts forward some weighty and God-worthy intention in granting Cleomedes such an ability, then we will allow ourselves to judge what exactly needs to be said to him. If he is unable to provide any satisfactory explanation for this point - and this is obvious, because he cannot find any basis in this case - then we, of course, will declare this whole story false and will try to condemn those people who have confidence in it, or we will be able to say that some demonic force, with the same art and means with which sorcerers turn to it, simply deceived the vision of the inhabitants of Astypalaia, although Celsus in this case and am convinced that he, as if from a tripod, proclaimed that Cleomedes had disappeared from the room by some demonic determination. XXXIV. So I am convinced that Celsus knew only these examples. Only then, in order to pretend that he was voluntarily omitting all other similar examples, did he say: “it would be possible to bring to light many more similar cases.” But so be it; Let us agree that there were indeed many such people who did not provide any benefit to the human race, but what do all these people have that could be related to the work of Jesus and His miracles, about which we have spoken so much? Further, Celsus believes that in the case when we show Divine veneration to “the captured and dead” - these are his own expressions - then we seem to act in the same way as the Getae, who honor Zamolxis, as well as the Cilicians who worship Pug, the Acarnanians - Amphilochus, the Thebans - Amphiara, the Levadians - Trophonius. Celsus has no right to place us on the same level as the indicated (tribes). Of course, we will expose him for this. Those peoples erect churches and statues to the listed (persons). And we have already excluded all these things from the area of ​​(our) worship of God. We believe that all this is more befitting of demons, who - I actually don’t know why - were attached to a certain place, perhaps because they voluntarily chose it or because they were forced to stick to it, attracted here by certain superstitious rites and the art of spells. We are filled with deep reverence (for the person) of Jesus because He distracted our thoughts from all sensory things, which are not only perishable in themselves, but are actually subject to corruption, and raised us to such reverence for the Almighty God, which is inconceivable without prayer and right life, brought by us through Him Who, being, as it were, in the middle between the nature of the Uncreated and the nature of all created things (διὰ [τοῦ] ὡς μεταξὺ ὄντος τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου καὶ τῆς τῶν γενητῶν (Hebrews 3:1). XXXV. Although I don’t know why exactly Celsus talks about such things, I have a desire to argue with him on this matter and turn to him with a question that, I dare to hope, is appropriate here. I could ask him: do you recognize any significance behind the names that you listed there, and are not the miracles performed by Trophonius in Lebadaea, Amphiarius in his church in Thebes, Amphilochus in Arcanania, Mopsus in Cilicia, a simple fable? And also, is there a demon or a demigod (ἥρως) in the mentioned places, or at least a god, but one who would perform certain deeds that surpass the strength of man? After all, if he does not want to see in them any super-worldly entity - neither a demon nor a deity, then let him, at least, not hide his conviction longer, but freely and openly admit that he is an Epicurean who thinks differently from other Greeks, that he does not recognize demons and does not honor gods, like the Greeks - then it will be revealed, at least, that he was in vain in presenting to us everything that was said before - which he took for the truth, it will be in vain to propose what follows. If he says that the (creatures) he mentioned are demons, demigods or even gods, then let him pay attention to the fact that, on the basis of his own words, contrary to his wishes, it would not be proven that Jesus was in some way the same being (τοιοῦτόν τι ἦν) as He, therefore, could convince many people that He was from God sent to the people. But once he agrees with this, then see if he will not be forced to also agree with the position that Jesus was stronger than all (heroes) with whom he ranks Him. Of those, none prohibits honor in relation to others, but this one (Jesus), as self-confident in Himself, more powerful than all those, resolutely does not allow honor in relation to the first; after all, he says, they are evil spirits who have chosen a place to live exclusively on earth, because they cannot touch the purest and Divine abodes (χώρας), where the coarse material particles of the earth and all the countless evil inherent in it do not reach. XXXVI. Then Celsus goes to the favorite of (emperor) Hadrian, the young man Antinous, and speaks of the veneration that the Egyptians show him in the city of Antinopolis; Moreover (Celsus) believes that this veneration is no different from what we pay to Jesus. We must say that such a statement (of Celsus) is solely the result of some kind of hatred towards us. What can be in common between the life of Hadrian’s favorite, who satisfies the unnatural lusts of Hadrian, and our revered Jesus - that Jesus against whom His countless accusers, all His so many false witnesses - and even then could not bring even the shadow of a reproach for intemperance. Yes, if anyone examines the legends about Antinous impartially and incorruptibly, then he will in any case come to the conclusion that the magic and sorcery of the Egyptians themselves were the reason for the fact that (Antinous) turned out to be in the opinion of people even after his death as a performer of miracles in the city that bears his name. Moreover, the same legends about miracles (δεινῶν) among the Egyptians can be found in relation to other churches, and in relation to various artists, usually associated with one or another habitat of demons, announcing the future or healing the sick and also often punishing those who, contrary to their commandments, eat unclean food or touch the corpse of a dead person 285 , - and all this in order to instill fear in the common people. This is the god who is revered in Antinopolis in Egypt! His miracles (ἀρετὰς) are nothing more than a simple invention of people who in this way try to gain their own benefit, while others are drawn into deception by the evil spirit who has his abode there, and some are so suppressed by remorse of their conscience that they even believe that all this is the result of divine vengeance on the part of Antinous. The situation is no different with them with the mysteries that they celebrate; The predictions they make are also illusory. There is a huge difference between these latter and what constitutes the property of Jesus. After all, it was not a crowd of some scoundrels, seeking only the favor of the king or hegemon commanding them, who included Him among the gods: but the Creator of the whole world, by the power of miraculous power, by which faith is created in the Word 287, declares Him worthy of glorification (τιμῆς) from not only people with a good direction of will, but also from demons and other invisible ones strength It is known that these (demonic forces) still tremble before the name of the more powerful Jesus, they fulfill His orders with submissive obedience and recognize Him as their rightful Lord (ἄρχοντος). If it were not from God (θεόθεν) that such dominion (σύστασις) had been granted to Him (Jesus), then evil spirits would not have voluntarily issued from the bodies they possessed at the mere invocation of the name of Jesus. XXXVII. The Egyptians, having learned to honor Antinous, also have nothing against equating him with Apollo and Jupiter; they extol Antinous because they rank him, like these, among the gods. And now Celsus clearly sins against the truth when he says: “even they (the Egyptians) would never have agreed if anyone had wanted to place Antinous on the same level as Apollo and Jupiter.” But this can only be said in relation to Christians. For them, eternal life consists of recognizing only the true and almighty God and the One He sent - Jesus Christ (John 17:3); only they (Christians) are taught that all the gods of the pagans are voluptuous demons (Ps. 95:5), who covet sacrifices and blood and all other sacrificial offerings, and that it is these demons who try to seduce and deceive those who have refuge not in God, the Lord of all, and do not place their hope in Him. Christians at the same time know that the holy and heavenly Angels of God are of a completely different nature and have a completely different attitude than all these demons that hover over the earth and are known only to an exclusive minority - precisely those who are gifted with special vigilance and insight of the mind in order to know the essence of these (demons). Since they (Christians) know all this, they object especially persistently to anyone who wants to equate Jesus with Apollo or Jupiter, or any other of those gods who can be appeased with fat, blood and sacrifices. True, there are also those (Christians) who, due to their extreme simplicity, are not able to give a firm foundation to their faith - why should they firmly hold on to exactly what they have acquired; but on the other hand, other convictions for them can provide them with important, deep and, as the Greek would say, internal, corresponding to the very essence of things (ἐσωτερικῶν καὶ ἐποπτικῶν) foundations in which the inexhaustible source (πολύς λόγος) of the doctrine of God and about those to whom the Lord showed such honor that he made them, through the Only Begotten God the Word (διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ λόγου) partakers (μετοχῇ) of the Divinity, as well as of the name. They will be able to say a lot about heavenly Angels and about those who despise the truth and oppose it, who generally fall into error and go so far in it that they want to consider themselves gods, Angels of God, good demons or heroes, which they supposedly become through the transformation from a human soul filled with a virtuous life. Moreover, these Christians will prove that just as among philosophers there are many who think that they have allegedly found the truth, but in fact are in blindness, possessing only illusory reasons, drawn either from within their own convictions, or drawn from outside sources: in the same way, among these disembodied souls, between angels and demons, there are some who are attracted only by illusory reasons to self-deification. And since these arguments are devoid of the character of accurate and deep knowledge among people, then the safest thing for every person is to consider no one, on the basis of his own understanding, as God, except Jesus Christ alone, who directs everything, guides everything and therefore knows the very depth of things, which he reveals only to a few. XXXVIII. So, faith in Antinous and in those others who are revered - whether it is among the Egyptians or the Greeks - is, so to speak, a hopeless faith (ἀτυχής). Faith in Jesus, on the contrary, should be considered trustworthy and in any case more justified: it should be considered trustworthy (εὐτυχὴς) in relation to every person, more justified - for a small number (learned people). I speak, of course, in the sense in which they usually speak - about the trustworthiness of faith (τινα πίστιν ... εὐτυχῆ), and this does not prevent me from finding the basis of this faith in God, who, in fact, knows why people coming into the world received the gifts (of this or that knowledge) determined by him 289 . And the Greeks do not even deny that people who are considered the wisest, for the most part, attribute to a special happy coincidence of circumstances the fact that they received a good upbringing, ending up in school with the best teachers, while there were other teachers who offered opposite opinions to their students. After all, many received such an upbringing in which they could not form any idea about the higher and better (world order), and from early youth they had to either satisfy the base passions of unbridled people and tyrants, or develop among bad conditions of a different kind, under which it is impossible for the soul to assimilate sublime aspirations. Of course, Providence has its own reasons why it arranges things this way and not otherwise, but finding out these reasons in relation to people is not easy. All the above (reasonings), but in my opinion, needed to be expressed as an introduction in order to refute the objections of Celsus, who said: “This is how great the power of faith is: it takes possession of the heart as soon as it gains access to it.” Moreover, in connection with the different conditions of upbringing, I should have said about the different types of manifestation of faith in people, some of whom are in happier conditions in this regard, while others, on the contrary, are unhappy. It also follows from this that the so-called well-being (εὐτυχία) and the so-called misfortune (ἀτυχία), even among people who are apparently richly gifted, contribute to the world considering them sages and borrowing faith from them, depending on whether they are inclined towards one or another teaching (τὰ πολλὰ δόγμασιν) with a certain degree of prudence and common sense. But, however, enough on this issue. XXXIX. Now let us pay attention to what follows next from Celsus - to those objections in which he confronts us with the following: “The faith that has seized our soul,” he says, “is the reason why we show such strong affection towards Jesus.” Yes, absolutely right - faith produces such attachment in us. But look, this faith deserves special praise, isn’t it because we believe in God the Creator of all things, isn’t it because we give thanks (to Jesus), who brought us to this faith, and confess that without God’s help He could not have begun and completed (in us) this (faith)? We also believe in the purity of thoughts (προαιρέσεσι) of the writers of the Gospels and do not doubt their piety and honesty, which are revealed in their Scriptures, which do not leave even a shadow of suspicion of deception, lies, invention and malicious intent. We are convinced that such men who were completely untrained in the methods of ingenious Greek sophistry, with all its ostentatious persuasiveness, with all its subtleties - men who did not know the rhetoric so sophisticated in constructing judgments - under such circumstances could hardly invent such propositions that in themselves would contain strength and would give rise to the perception of faith and to the determination to lead a life consistent with faith. And I have no doubt that Jesus wanted to use such men precisely as preachers of his teaching, so as not to give even cause for suspicion that (His teaching) rested on only external sophistical persuasiveness, and so that it would be obvious to prudent people that the ingenuousness of the thoughts of the Holy Writers, which combined in itself - so to speak - the entire abyss of simplicity (πολὺ τό ἀφελές) God deliberately invested with a special supernatural power (θειοτέρας δυνάμεως), which accomplishes much more than could be accomplished - as can be seen - by all this pomposity of words, artificial combination of sayings, all kinds of decorations with their divisions and verbal figures inherent in the rhetoric of the Greeks. XL. Is it not also true that the truths of our faith are in agreement with the general ideas (κοιναῖς ἐννοίαις) innate in our soul, and therefore are capable of producing moral regeneration in all who listen to the teachings he preaches? After all, if moral corruption, supported by the corresponding teaching, was able to bring the masses of the people to the deification of images and objects made of gold, silver, ivory and stone, and to convince these masses that they should worship and honor these images: but the general idea nevertheless persistently continues to instill the idea that God is by no means a matter subject to decay, that. He is not revered in soulless forms of matter, which are reproduced by people as if to represent (God) or become, as it were, some kind of symbols of Him. From here follows the further conclusion that the image is not yet the essence of gods, that such works of human hands cannot at all have any affinity with the Creator, that they are nothing before God, the Lord, Who created everything, contains everything and rules everything (Acts 17:29). The rational soul, therefore, is aware of the affinity that exists between it and God, and it decisively rejects those whom it has hitherto considered to be gods; she has a natural love 290 for her Creator and, as a result of this love for Him, she is completely attached to Him, who for the first time deigned to proclaim this truth 291 to all nations through the disciples whom He chose, whom He armed with Divine strength and might, and whom he then sent to preach the doctrine of God and His Kingdom. XLI. Then Celsus - I don’t even know how many times - again accuses us of the fact that “we consider Jesus to be God despite the fact that He consists of a mortal body, and that for all this we consider ourselves exponents of piety (Cf. 1, LXIX).” After we have given a detailed answer to such an objection above, it is completely unnecessary to start a conversation on this matter again. To our objectors here we will only notice that He, (Jesus) is the One in whom we believe and about whom we have a firm conviction that He is God from eternity (ἀρχῆθεν) and the Son of God, is the very Word and the very Wisdom and the Truth itself (ὁ αὐτολόγος, ἡ αὐτοσοφία, ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια) (Cf. John 1:1). As for His mortal body and the human soul that was in Him, they - as we affirm - are exalted to the greatest dignity, not only through their communication (κοινωνίᾳ), but also through their union (ἑνώσει) and connection (ἀνακράσει) with Him, they became participants in His Divinity and deified (εἰς θεὸν μεταβεβληκέναι). If anyone is tempted by our teaching about His (Jesus) body, then let him ask the Greeks about matter: they teach that matter in itself has no quality and that it is clothed only in those qualities that the Creator pleases to give it, and that often, having put aside the first 292, it then takes on different ones. And if this teaching (of the Greeks) is correct, then what is surprising if the quality with which the mortal body of Jesus was clothed was changed by the thinking of the Divine will into the ethereal and Divine? XLII. Celsus reveals little skill in dialectics when, comparing “the human flesh (τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας σάρκας) of Jesus with gold, silver and stone, he says that His flesh is more susceptible to corruption than these objects.” If we speak in precise language, then, in fact, there is nothing incorruptible that would be more incorruptible than the incorruptible, and equally, there is nothing corruptible that would be more corruptible than the corruptible. And even assuming the position that among changeable things there is something more susceptible to corruption, we still have the right to give the following answer to Celsus’s objection: if matter, which lies at the basis of all qualities, can change its qualities, then why was it not possible for the flesh of Jesus to also change its qualities and become what it should have been, to rotate in the ether and sub-ethereal places and not have anything that Celsus calls “impurity” (μιαρώτερα)"? Celsus clearly sins against the laws of philosophy. After all, unclean in the proper sense is that which comes from sin (ἀπὸ κακίας). The nature of the body is not uncleanness (οὐ μιαρά); corporeality in itself, by its nature, is not connected with sin, this source and root of impurity. Suspecting that we will give just such an answer, Celsus, on the question of the change in the body of Jesus, says: “perhaps He (Jesus) becomes God after changing these qualities? But then, shouldn’t Aesculapius, Bacchus and Hercules have done the same thing with greater right?” We will also answer with the question: what great things did Aesculapius, Bacchus and Hercules accomplish? Where are those persons to whom they could refer as evidence that they converted them by their word and example, served for their improvement, and thereby earned themselves the right to be numbered among the gods? We have read many historical stories about these (gods) of yours, but look if they were free from debauchery, untruth, stupidity, cowardice! If they did not have any of these vices, then Celsus would still have the right to place them on the same level as Jesus. But since, in fact, along with some praiseworthy deeds, history tells us about whole thousands of deeds of a completely different kind - such deeds that cannot at all justify them, then can there be any basis for the remark (of Celsus) that it is much more fitting for them, after laying aside their bodily shell, to be gods than for Jesus? XLIII. Further, at our address, Celsus says that “we laugh at the worshipers of Jupiter, while his tomb is indicated on (the island of) Crete, and that we, not knowing how and why the Cretans do this, at the same time ourselves honor the one laid in the tomb 293.” So, you see that in this case Celsus takes under his protection both the Cretans, and Jupiter, and his tomb, although at the same time he hints at some figurative expression, thoughts in which the fictitious mythical story about Jupiter is conveyed, and, on the contrary, he charges us with a crime for confessing our buried Jesus, although we claim that He rose from the grave, which the Cretans do not tell about their Jupiter. Since Celsus seems to be sympathetic (to the legend) about the tomb of Jupiter in Crete, when he reproaches us that we do not know how and for what reason the Cretans do this, we, for our part, will note that such an allegorical story about Jupiter and his tomb was not known even to Callimachus of Cyrene, who re-read many works of poets and studied almost all Greek historical literature. In his hymn written in honor of Jupiter, Callimachus even reproaches the Cretans, speaking of them like this: Cretans are always deceitful; and a tomb even for you, king The Cretans built, although you did not die and you are always alive 294. However, saying “you are not dead, you are always alive,” and disputing the existence of the tomb of Jupiter in Crete, Callimachus at the same time tells about the initial moment of the death of Jupiter. After all, entry into earthly existence is already the beginning of death. Callimachus literally says this: You received life 295 from Rhea on Paros. And just as Callimachus rejected the birth of Jupiter on Crete through his tomb, he should have known that Jupiter, by the very fact of his birth in Arcadia, had already shown that birth was followed by death. Callimachus puts it this way: Jupiter! some say that you were born on the Idean Mountains, Others assigned you to the Arcadians - who didn’t lie? Cretans are always deceitful 296, and so on. Celsus himself forced us to this explanation by his unfair attitude towards Jesus. Celsus believes and agrees with Scripture when it says that Jesus died and was buried. When the Scripture says that Jesus rose from the dead, Celsus wants to see only fiction, although countless prophets prophesied about the resurrection and there were many signs of the appearance of Jesus after death. XLIV. Then Celsus turns against us some objections from a few individuals who, although they bear a Christian name, are far from the teachings of Jesus. These persons, in his opinion, are not among the sensible people, and belong to the category of uneducated simpletons. Celsus says: “It is a general rule among you: let no one come (to us) unless he is educated, or a sage, or simply an intelligent person. All such qualities in our eyes are nothing but evil. But if anyone is uneducated, stupid, simple-minded, undeveloped 297 - all such persons, go boldly. Considering such people worthy of your God, you thereby clearly show that only people of this kind - insignificant people, of low birth, unreasonable, all these slaves, women, children are the only ones who can and want to accept your faith 298.” To this I will give my answer. This is how, for example, Jesus teaches about abstinence: “Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). If someone saw even a small minority of people who, considered Christians, live dissolutely, then he, of course, could rightfully object to them that their lives contradict the teachings of Jesus; but he would have acted extremely unreasonably if he began to transfer the objection that such people deserve to the very teaching of Jesus. Thus, it is clear that the teaching of Christians calls for wisdom - moreover, as well as anywhere else - meanwhile there are detractors who, out of their ignorance, persist and try to justify their behavior and present reasons, it is true - not those that Celsus ascribes to them (after all, no matter how simple and ignorant such people are, they would never reach such shamelessness as to say such things), but far less important ones, who are precisely capable of turning them away from the desire for wisdom and exercise in it. XLV. And the fact that our teaching disposes us to wisdom - we can prove this not only from the books of the Old Testament, which are in use equally among us and among the Jews, but also from those Scriptures that were compiled after Jesus and are recognized by the Church as Divine Scriptures. So in the Fiftieth Psalm, in his prayer addressed to the Lord, David says: “You have shown me Your wisdom within me” (Ps. 50:8). And whoever has opened the Psalms can, of course, find that this book is full of wise instructions. As for Solomon, he asked for wisdom and received it. Traces of his wisdom can be seen in his writings, where he gives the form of short sayings to sublime thoughts. In many places he praises wisdom and urges the need to strive for it. And Solomon himself was so wise that even the Queen of Sheba 299 was aware of the name of Solomon and the name of the Lord and came to test him in fortune telling: she asked him about everything that was in her heart. And Solomon explained to her all the words that she offered him; and there was nothing unfamiliar to the king that he did not understand to her. And the Queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and all the property that he owned, so she could not resist saying to the king: the speech that came to my ears in my kingdom about you and your understanding is true, but I did not believe those who divulged it to me until I came and saw with my own eyes and was convinced that I was not even half told; your wisdom and your virtues far exceed the rumors that I have heard (1 Kings 10:1-7). About the same king (Solomon) the Scripture also says that the Lord gave Solomon very great understanding and wisdom and a heart as wide as seaside sand. And the wisdom of Solomon increased exceedingly more than all the wise men of Egypt. And (Solomon) became more wise than all the people, more wise than Gethan the Ezarite and Hamad, and Chalkad, and Arad, the sons of Mad; and his name became famous all around among all nations. And Solomon spoke three thousand proverbs, and his song was five thousand. And he spoke about the trees, from the cedar of Lebanon even to the hyssop that comes out of the wall. And he spoke about fish and cattle. And they gathered from all nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom (1 Kings 10:1-7). Our teaching (λόγος) has a clear desire to have wise men among its followers, and in these forms it proclaims part of its truths in the form of images and comparisons, and offers the other part in the form of hidden and mysterious expressions, and all this in order to exercise the mental abilities of listeners. This is what Hosea, one of the prophets, says at the end of his book: “Who is wise to understand these things? who is intelligent to know this? (Hos. 14:10) Daniel and the captives who were with him were so successful in the sciences taught by the wise men in Babylon at the king's court that they turned out to be ten times more successful than others (Dan. 1:20). That is why in Ezekiel the leader of Tire, who was proud of his wisdom, is asked the following question: “Behold, you are wiser than Daniel, is there any secret hidden from you?” (Ezek. 28:3) XLVI. If we turn to the Sacred works written after Jesus, then here too we will find, on the one hand, a simple mass of believers standing as if on the outside (ἔξω) and, when listening to parables, capable only of perceiving the external meaning of the words (ἐξωτερικῶν λόγων), and, on the other hand, disciples studying the explanation parable "alone". After all, Jesus “explained everything to the disciples in private” (cf. Mark 4:34) and thus He exalted them before the crowds of people as people prepared for His wisdom. To those who believed in Him, He gives a promise to send them wise men and scribes, saying: “Behold, I am sending to you prophets and wise men and scribes, and others you will kill and crucify” (Matthew 23:34). And when Paul lists the gifts of grace sent from God, he puts in the first place the “word of wisdom”, in the second - the “word of knowledge”, thereby denoting the idea that the latter follows the first, and after both, in the third place he puts “faith” (Cf. 1 Cor. 12:8, 9). And since He valued the word more than the gifts of miracles, therefore, he lists “the actions of powers and the gifts of healing” at the end and considers them lower than spiritual gifts (τὰ λογικὰ χαρίσματα) 300. The comprehensive knowledge of Moses was testified by Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles when he said: “Moses was taught in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). Obviously, he (Stephen) drew this (evidence) from ancient books that were not in use among the crowd. That is why it was suspected that the miracles of Moses were performed not by a promise coming from God, as he said, but with the help of a mysterious art that he learned from the Egyptians, treating them as a sage. In view of this suspicion, the king also ordered the convening of Egyptian spellcasters, sages and wizards, and then it became known that their knowledge was insignificant in comparison with the knowledge of Moses, who surpassed all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Ex. 7:11). XLVII. It is very likely that the words quoted by (Apostle) Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians about the Greeks, extremely arrogant in their Hellenic wisdom, gave rise to some to think that our faith supposedly has a negative attitude towards educated people (σοφούς). But whoever holds this opinion, let him pay attention to the fact that the Apostle in the same place reproaches ordinary people who reject the contemplation of spiritual, invisible and eternal truths and are concerned only with sensory things and concentrate all their thoughts and aspirations on them. That is why the Apostle calls such people “wise men of the world” (1 Cor. 1:20). There is a great difference between the various contemplations that exist in this regard. Some perceive only the material and sensual; in their opinion, all things, even those that belong to a higher being, are only bodily entities. Apart from them, they attach no value to anything. They reject the existence of invisible or incorporeal spirits. Paul considers such contemplation to be “the wisdom of the world,” which is devoid of any meaning and turns into stupidity; he calls it only the wisdom of this age. There are also other teachings that distract the soul from the desire for bliss in God and His so-called kingdom; they want a person to despise the sensual and visible as perishable and turn his aspirations to the invisible - to what is not accessible to the sensory gaze. The Apostle Paul considers this worldview to be “the wisdom of God.” Moreover, as an impartial admirer of the truth, he expresses himself this way about some of the Greek sages - in relation to those points of their teaching where they are conductors of the truth: “they, having known God, did not glorify Him as God and did not give thanks” (Rom. 1:21). He thus attributes to them evidence that they knew God, but at the same time explains that without God's help this (testimony) would have been impossible for them; he says: “God has revealed it to them” (Rom. 1:19). If I am not mistaken, Paul is speaking here of those who have been exalted from sensible things to invisible things. This is how he himself writes: “His invisible things, His eternal power and Divinity, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creation, so that they (the pagans) are unresponsive. But how, having known God, they did not glorify Him as God and were not grateful” (Rom. 1:20, 21). XLVIII. Paul writes in another place: “Look, brothers, who you are who are called: not many of you are wise according to the flesh, not many of you are mighty, not many of you are noble. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong things; And God chose the base things of the world and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh should boast before God” (1 Cor. 1:26-29). It is very possible that these words also led some to the opinion that “no educated, or wise and reasonable person has access to our faith (τῷ λόγῳ).” We resolutely reject such an opinion as unreasonable. After all, the Apostle does not write: “there is not a single wise man according to the flesh,” but says only: “a few wise men according to the flesh.” And when Paul in one place enumerates the qualities that so-called bishops should possess, then, among other qualities of a bishop, he also indicates one that relates to his position as a teacher. He says: a bishop must have the ability to “convict those who oppose” (Tit. 1:9), so that with his inherent wisdom it would be possible to stop the mouths of idle talkers and corrupters (cf. Titus 1:10–11). And just as he considers more worthy of the title of bishop “the husband of only one wife”, and not the one who married a second time - “impeccable”, and not worthy of reproach, “sober”, and not a drunkard, “chaste”, and not a libertine, “modest”, preferably before one who is not entirely modest: in the same way, he wants that those who are preparing to accept the episcopate could teach and be able “reprove those who resist.” What basis does Celsus have for accusing us of allegedly saying: “Whoever is educated, whoever is wise, whoever is intelligent, do not come near us”? No, let the educated, the wise, and the intelligent come to us, if they wish; We by no means reject the unlearned, the foolish, the uneducated, and the child. Our teaching promises healing to everyone who comes—even such people—it makes everyone worthy of God. XLIX. Also false is the conclusion of Celsus that the preachers of the Divine Word allegedly “strove to attract to the faith only uneducated, ignorant and stupid people, only slaves, women and children.” True, our teaching also appeals to such individuals, wanting to make them better; but it does not refuse to attract those who, compared with the latter, occupy a completely different position. After all, Christ is the “Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10) and most of all of those who believe, regardless of whether these believers are developed people or simple people; Christ is “the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also (for the sins) of the whole world” (1 John 2:1, 2). After this, it is completely unnecessary to respond to such an objection from Celsus as his next words. He asks us the question: “What kind of evil is it if we strive for learning, refine our minds with sublime ideas, and become and seem to be wise people? What obstacle could there be here for the knowledge of God? On the contrary, doesn’t the desire that leads to the possession of truth thereby become easier?” Possessing true learning is, of course, not evil; for education leads to virtue. But there is still a question whether to count among educated people those who hold perverse teachings (ἐσφαλμένα δόγματα), which even Greek philosophers will not dispute. And, conversely, who would not agree that it is good to feed your spirit with noble ideas (λόγων τῶν ἀρίστων)? But what ideas shall we consider noble and beautiful, if not those which constitute the expression of truth and motivate us to virtue? Yes, it is good to be reasonable, but not to seem only so, although Celsus affirms this latter opinion. Knowledge itself does not serve as an obstacle to the knowledge of God: teaching, noble ideas, rationality even lead to it. And we have much more right to say this than Celsus, especially if we bear in mind that in his person we expose an Epicurean. L. Let's move on to Celsus's next objections! He says: “we see that all these people 301, showing off and performing their nonsense (τὰ ἐπιρρητότατα) in the markets, usually avoid the presence of reasonable men and do not dare to show their tricks (τὰ ἑαυτῶν) in front of them, but as soon as they see the boys, the crowd slaves and a crowd of simple onlookers rush here and find an expression of delight here.” Pay attention to the very method of Celsus’s slanderous statements, which equates us (Christians) to people who gather a crowd around them in the squares and do various stupid things there! The question is, what kind of nonsense are we showing? Are we really so similar to those charlatans when we read the Holy Scriptures before the people and give explanations on them in order to incite people to worship the almighty God and lead them to the virtues closely related to the worship of God, and also to turn them away from disrespect for God and from those things that are contrary to common sense? After all, philosophers also tried to gather around them numerous listeners who would listen to their teaching about the beautiful. This was especially the case with some of the Cynics 302 who conducted public conversations with a crowd of casual listeners. Can these people, who gathered not just any learned people, but invited listeners from cross streets, be compared with charlatans chattering all sorts of nonsense on forums? It is unlikely that Celsus and any of his like-minded people will charge these philosophers with a crime for the fact that, due to their inherent love of humanity, they turn their speech to the dark people? LI. If those philosophers do not deserve blame for such actions, then one may ask, how can Christians be blamed, since they are even more diligent in calling the world (πλήθη) to virtue? Philosophers who conduct their conversations publicly do not even understand their listeners; according to them - stand and listen, everyone who wants to. Christians, on the contrary, first of all try, as far as possible, to penetrate into the very soul of those wishing to join the ranks of their disciples: they first subject them to a preliminary test in private and only after the listeners - even before entering the community (εἰς τὸ κοινὸν) - discover their sincere readiness for an honest life (καλῶς βιοῦν), they are finally accepted here (τὸ τηνικάδε εἰσάγουσιν), while subjecting them to a special test: a completely special group consists of beginners and newly admitted (τῶν ἄρτι ἀρχομένων καὶ εἰσαγομένων), who have not yet had time to accept the symbol of purification (τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ ἀποκεκαθάρθαι) 303, on the second (highest) level are those who, to the best of their ability, have already proven their firm intention to desire only what is in accordance with the requirements of Christian life. With them 304 special persons have also been appointed, whose duties are to monitor the life and morals of those entering the community. These persons prevent people from joining the community (ἐπὶ τὸν κοινὸν σύλλογον) who have stained themselves with bad deeds and continue to lead a vicious life, but joyfully (ὅλῃ ψυχῇ) accept people of a different direction, whom prepared gradually (ὁσημέραι) to lead to even greater perfection. In relation to stubborn sinners, and especially in relation to those who indulge in debauchery, Christians generally have such a custom (ἀγωγὴ) to deprive such people of access to the community 305. This is what Christians do, whom Celsus compares to people who, as he puts it, “in the public squares talk all sorts of nonsense”! The famous school of Pythagoreans looked at members who fell away from their teachings as if they were dead and built tombstones for them. In the same way, Christians mourn as lost and dead for God all those who fall under the power of debauchery or some other indecency and, on the contrary, they honor as if risen from the dead all those who have discovered in themselves a degree of moral correction worthy of faith; such people are accepted into the community, although somewhat later and after a longer period, which is determined for those coming for the first time 306. These persons, as those who have fallen after confessing faith, are for the future already deprived of the right to any position and any power in the Church of God. LII. So, after all that has been said, is it not clear that Celsus compares positions that do not have even the slightest similarity with each other? Isn’t he telling an obvious lie when he expresses (about Christians): “we also see those who gather people around them in the squares and show (before them) their criminal and stupid arts”? These people “who gather a crowd around them in the squares and show off their tricks,” these people, to whom Celsus equates us, seem to, as he put it, “never enter the assembly of reasonable people and do not dare to show all their tricks in their presence,” but as soon as they see boys, a crowd of slaves and a gathering of empty onlookers, they rush there, and here they find themselves an enthusiastic reception.” Expressed this way, Celsus starts to squabble, just like street women who have a tendency to slander one another. As for us, we, for our part, are using all our efforts to ensure that our society consists of intelligent people; the sublime and beautiful truths of our teaching, only then can we carry out in our public speeches if we have educated listeners before us; on the contrary, we must close our lips and remain silent about deep truths (τὰ βαθύτερα), if we see before us only simple people who still need teaching, which can figuratively be called “milk” (Compare 1 Cor. 3:2). LIII. In this case we follow our Paul. He writes this in his Epistle to the Corinthians, who, although they were Greeks by birth, had not yet led a pure and sinless life. “I fed you with milk, not with solid food; for you were not yet able, and even now you are not able, because you are still carnal. For if there is envy, strife, and disagreement among you, are you not carnal and acting according to human custom?” ( 1 Cor. 3:2-3 ). He knew well that there is a more perfect nourishment for the soul, as well as the fact that the nutrition of those newly received (into the church) can be equated to the milk of babies. This is exactly what he says in another place (Heb. 5:12–14): “You also needed milk, and not solid food. Everyone who is fed on milk is ignorant of the word of righteousness, because he is a child. Solid food is characteristic of the perfect, whose senses are accustomed to distinguish between good and evil.” If we recognize these words (of the Apostle) as correct and beautiful, then will it not be necessary to derive the conviction that the sublime truths of our faith cannot really be the subject of discussion “in the assembly of educated and intelligent men” and that, on the contrary, teachers can divulge Divine and venerable secrets only where “they see before them boys, a crowd of slaves and a crowd of simple people” and only in the face of such listeners can they shine with such secrets? But for anyone who tries to delve into the full depth of thought of our Holy Scriptures, it is, of course, clear that Celsus, directing all these false accusations against us without any illumination of them (from the point of view of the Holy Scriptures), is inflamed towards Christians only with hatred, which is usually driven by this entire crowd of common people. Liv. Yes, we, in fact, do not argue or reject the fact that our desire is to educate everyone in the word of God, although this may not coincide with the desire of Celsus; We also impart such teaching to children and give such instructions as are appropriate to their age; We also teach slaves how, through faith, having accepted a free soul (ἐλεύθερον φρόνημα), you can make it noble. The teachers of our faith (παρ' ἡμῖν πρεσβεύοντες) publicly and quite clearly state that they are debtors “to Greeks and barbarians, to the wise and to the ignorant” (cf. Rom. 1:14). They do not reject the fact that they must heal the souls of the “ignorant”, that they too must be helped in their feasible desire to put aside ignorance and succeed in the highest level of knowledge, remaining obedient to Solomon, who says: “Learn, O foolish ones, prudence” (Proverbs 8:5), and “Whoever is foolish, turn here!” And she (Wisdom) said to the weak-minded: “Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine that I have dissolved; forsake foolishness, and live and walk in the way of understanding” (Prov. 9:4–5). Bearing in mind the above, I would like to contrast the words of Celsus with the following question: don’t philosophers also require boys to be attentive to their teaching? Do they not persuade and encourage young people who lead wicked lives to convert and return to a better path? Don't they at least somewhat want slaves to devote themselves to philosophy? Are we really going to blame the philosophers for exhorting their slaves to turn to virtue? Are we going to blame Pythagoras, who did the same with Zamolxis, and Zeno, for his attitude towards Perseus 307, and from modern times - all those who turned Epictetus to philosophical pursuits 308? Or maybe your Greeks have a special right to encourage young people, slaves, and uneducated people to engage in philosophy, and only for us it is a crime against humanity if we do the same, if we, through the healing of our faith, want to heal every rational being and want to bring him to fellowship with God, the Lord and Creator of all things? All that has been said, I think, is enough to refute the objections or - better said - all this abuse of Celsus. LV. Since Celsus, apparently, takes special pleasure in lavishing his abuse on us, he also adds the following objections to what was said earlier. We intend to introduce them too, so that it can be seen how Celsus, with his objections, shames himself rather than Christians. “As we see,” he says, “in private houses, wool-makers, tailors, weavers, all these uneducated and rude people, in the presence of their elders and their comparatively more intelligent masters, do not even dare to open their mouths, but as soon as they remain in the company of only children and some women of the same level of mental development as them, they will then begin to rant about various amazing things and prove that one should not listen to one’s father and one’s teachers, but to believe only them, that they they talk only nonsense and are out of their minds and that, thanks to their stubbornness in their empty ravings, they are not even able to understand or implement anything really good, but that they alone know how to live, and that if the children follow them, then they themselves will prosper, and the whole house will be happy. And if during these harangues they notice that one of the leaders of education is approaching them, in general, one of the smart people or even the father himself, then the more cowardly of them begin to become timid, and the more daring ones do not miss the opportunity to inspire the children to throw off the yoke and get out of obedience, and they whisper in their ears that in the presence of their father or their teachers they will not even want and cannot teach children to nothing good, since they do not at all want, in view of the stupidity and cruelty of these completely spoiled people, deeply mired and sunk in the mud of sins, to experience their persecution and rage; but that if they only want to learn something good from them, then they must leave both their father and teachers and, accompanied by women and their companions, go to the women’s half of the house or to a tailor’s workshop, or to a wool slaughterhouse and here receive perfect knowledge. These are the words with which they try to influence convictions! LVI. In these expressions of Celsus, pay attention to how he scatters witticisms addressed to our teachers of faith - those teachers who in every possible way try to elevate the soul to the Creator of all things, persistently insist that we should despise the sensible, fleeting and visible and act in everything in such a way as to achieve communion with God and contemplation of invisible and supersensible things, to find a blessed life with God, together with the friends and favorites of God. These are the kind of people Celsus equates “to wool-makers, tailors and weavers who trade in private houses” - to all these “darkest people of the world.” It is they, 309, in his opinion, who direct children, especially young men and women, to do everything bad, encouraging them to leave their father and teachers and follow them. But at least Celsus would at least show us that reasonable father or teachers who instruct in everything honest, from whom we have rejected children and women! Let Celsus compare what the children and women who accepted our teaching learned from us with what was told to them before, and after that prove to us that what he taught before is better than our teaching! Celsus must also answer how we could snatch from children and women those good and honorable truths implanted in their hearts, and turn their attention towards evil views? But he, of course, will never be able to accuse us of anything like that (bad). After all, we even demand from these women that they avoid shamelessness and criminal relationships with their cohabitants; we try to tear them away from their unreasonable passion for theatrical performances, dancing, and magic; We also turn boys who have barely reached adulthood and have already discovered a penchant for sensual pleasures to the path of abstinence and modesty, trying to instill in them not only how shameful fornication is in itself, but also what danger threatens the soul of the wicked, what punishment awaits it, what suffering it must experience. LVII. And who are these teachers whom Celsus takes under his protection and who, as he puts it, teach the best, while we call them “babblers and crazy people”? Maybe he considers good and quiet teachers to be those who invite women to superstition and dirty shows; maybe, in his eyes, these are those insane, reasonable men who lead and drag young people to all these obscene acts that they commit everywhere, as we know for certain? For our part, we make every effort to encourage philosophically educated people to accept our religion and convince them of the sublimity and purity of our faith. That we do this, Celsus, however, passes in silence; he only emphasizes that we are appealing to ordinary people only. But in this case we will object to Celsus: if you made an objection to us in the sense that we are captivating people who have already devoted themselves to the study of philosophy and have nourished their spirit with it, then in this case, of course, you would not have told the truth, but still your speech would have some shade of persuasiveness. But since you say that we distract the boys who come to us from their good teachers, then you must show us other (good) teachers who would be like this, besides teachers of philosophy or besides those who impart other useful knowledge. But Celsus, of course, will not be able to fulfill this requirement. Then: we promise - and this openly, without any concealment - bliss to those who live according to the law of God (κατὰ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον), who turn everything to Him, who, no matter what they do at any moment, do it all with such a thought that God is their witness. Is this all really the instruction of “wool cutters, tailors, weavers, ignorant and rude people”? But, of course, he is not able to prove this either. LVIII. Those who, according to Celsus, are similar to “domestic wool-makers” are similar to “tailors, weavers, uneducated and rude people, as if, in the presence of their father and teachers, they do not even want to open their mouths and cannot give explanations to children about good.” Regarding this point of Celsus’s objections, we will ask him the following question: who, my dear, do you call father and who teacher? If someone who loves virtue distances himself from evil and strives for the best, then listen - we are not at all afraid to communicate our teaching to children in the presence of such people, in the confidence that such a judge will only approve of us. But we are silent in front of a father who is hostile to virtue and honesty, in front of teachers who preach knowledge that is contrary to common sense. And this can hardly be blamed on us, but if you do, it’s unfair. You yourself will not reveal the secrets of philosophy to young men and children in the presence of bad parents who consider philosophy an empty and useless activity, and you will want the children you brought to study philosophy to separate from their parents who are unfit for this; you will look for an opportune moment when your philosophical instructions will find access to the hearts of young people. I will say the same about teachers. If we try to keep young people away from such teachers who teach them shameless comedies, immoral iambics or other things of the same kind, which for the teachers themselves do not serve as a source of noble aspirations, and only cause harm to the students (after all, the students, listening to such verses, cannot maintain a philosophical mood of spirit, and the teachers in this case are not able to explain the verses in such a way that there could be benefit for the young men): then in any case we are not ashamed admit to such behavior. If you point out to me teachers who lead their listeners to wisdom and instruct them in it, then I will not at all distract young people from them, but I will even try so that young men, after the preliminary preparation they received from studying general sciences and philosophy, can achieve a glorious and sublime state of Christian eloquence, inaccessible to the majority of the people. the masses, in the form of those highest and most important questions that in each individual case testify and reveal the existence of a philosophical discussion of them among the prophets of God and the Apostles of Jesus (Christ). LIX. Then Celsus himself, as it were, admits that he is too sharply directing his denunciations against us, and therefore - as if justifying himself - he builds his further reasoning this way. “I,” he says, “even if I spoke out somewhat harshly, in any case, only insofar as the truth forced me to do so. Anyone can be convinced of this from the following: (your teachers), who invite you to various kinds of sacraments (τελετὰς), loudly shout this: whoever has clean hands and is wise in words; at the same time, others (echo them): whoever is pure from all evil deeds, who does not recognize any sin in his soul, who has led a good and righteous life (come)! And all this is proclaimed by those who at the same time despise cleansing from sins. But let’s hear what kind of people Christians call to glorify their sacraments! The Kingdom of God, they say, is prepared for sinners, simpletons, children, in a word, for all the unfortunate. And who are these people whom you call sinners! These are various wicked people, thieves, destroyers of walls, poisoners, sacrileges, desecrators of graves! In a word, these are the kind of people whom only the ataman of the robbers can call into his gang! This is our answer. It is a completely different matter to call the sick in soul to healing, and another thing to call the healthy to the knowledge and contemplation of Divine things. We understand this difference very well and, therefore, we try in advance to convince people to improve; We urge: sinners to obey teachers who try to turn them away from their sins, and unreasonable people to listen to those who want to make them reasonable, as well as children so that they can achieve spiritual perfection, and in general we urge all unfortunate people to create happiness for themselves, or, more precisely, to strive for bliss. And if we see that such people listen to our admonitions, convert and, to the best of their ability, become better, then only we initiate them into our sacraments (τελετὰς). After all, “we preach wisdom among the perfect” (1 Cor. 2:6). LX. Since we teach that “wisdom will not enter into an evil soul, nor will it dwell in a body enslaved” to sin (Wis. 1:4), then we say: whoever has clean hands and who, therefore, lifts up clean hands to God (1 Tim. 2:8), who thus already has contact with everything sublime and heavenly and can cry: “The reward of my hands is like the evening sacrifice” (Ps. 140:2) - only such a person should come to us! And whoever is wise in words, since “he meditates on His law day and night” (Ps. 1:2), and “the senses are trained by skill to distinguish between good and evil” (Heb. 5:14) - he will no longer have any difficulty in approaching solid, spiritual food, corresponding to the needs of those who are, so to speak, champions of piety and all virtue. And since the grace of God is with all those who with pure and unchanging love serve the One who taught us the doctrine of immortality and showed the way to it, we say: whoever is clean not only from any grave accusation, but also from sins considered unimportant, only let him dare to begin initiation into the sacraments of a pious life, in accordance with the covenants of Jesus (μυστήρια τῆς κατὰ Ἰησοῦν θεοσεβείας), - sacraments prepared for only the saints and pious. The initiate into the sacraments, to whom Celsus points, says: whoever is not aware of any sin in his soul, let him come to us; the secret leader to God in the spirit of the teachings of Jesus, on the contrary, says to people with a purified soul: whoever has not been aware of the presence of sin in his soul for a long time, especially from the moment when he felt the healing and saving power of our faith, let him heed the teaching that Jesus revealed privately to his close disciples. Obviously, Celsus places the heralds of the sacraments among the Greeks above the preachers of the teachings of Jesus, without noticing that it is another thing to call sinners to salvation, and quite another thing to introduce people who are at the highest level of purity into the innermost secrets. LXI. So, to the sacraments (ἐπὶ μυστήρια) and to participation in the wisdom “the hidden secret, which God destined before the ages for glory” (cf. 1 Cor. 2:7) of his righteous, we do not call any of the like people whom Celsus, with his art, could have listed many more. We call all these people only to healing. After all, our Divine faith contains, on the one hand, a means that can provide healing even to the sick, as the Scripture says: “Those who are healthy do not need a doctor, but those who are sick” (Matthew 9:12), on the other hand, it also possesses a means that people who are pure in soul and body are given grace, “given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages, which has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Tim. 1:9–10), which is revealed to each of the perfect (people) and illuminates their minds so that they can achieve true and unfalse knowledge of things. Out of a desire to increase the strength and significance of the accusations brought against us, Celsus, listing various scum (among) people 310, inserts the remark: “and what other people would a robber gather around himself if he decided to form a band of robbers?” And to this we will answer this. The leader of a band of robbers, of course, will turn to such people in order to take advantage of their depravity against the people whom he wants to kill and rob. But if a Christian calls to himself the same people as the robber, then he does this with a completely different intention; he does this in order to bind up their wounds with his teaching, in order to pour into the soul, inflamed by the fervor of passions, the medicines offered by faith, like wine, oil and other drugs used in the art of medicine. LXII. When we, both verbally and in writing, strive to direct people who lead a bad life to conversion, when we call them to repentance and correction of the soul, then Celsus ridicules these actions of ours; according to his understanding, we seem to teach that “God is sent only for sinners.” In this case, Celsus acts exactly as if he began to accuse people who say that the philanthropic king sent a doctor to the city for the sake of the sick there. God the Word, of course, as a doctor, is sent for sinners, but he is a teacher of the Divine secret for those who are already pure and no longer sin. Celsus is not able to understand this difference, since he did not want to think even the most thoroughly, and therefore he goes on to say: “Why was He (your Jesus) not sent to those who do not have any sin in themselves? Doesn’t it mean, then, that the sinless state is in some way evil?” We answer: if Celsus includes among the sinless those who no longer sin, then it means that Jesus, our Savior, was also sent for such, no longer as a doctor. If he connects with the word “sinless” the concept of people who have never even sinned (his words, in fact, are not distinguished by clarity and distinctness), then we will have to say that it is impossible to imagine such a person who in this sense would not have any sin behind him. This we can say, excluding only the man conceived (νοουμένου) in Jesus, “who committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22). Celsus also slanderes us when he ascribes to us the following words: “The unjust will be accepted by God if only he humbles himself, but the righteous will not be accepted, even if with all his virtues he raised his gaze to God from the very beginning.” But according to our teaching (cf. Job 14:4, 15:14; Ps. 51:7; Rom. 3:9, 23, 55:12, 17; 1John 1:8) it is impossible for a person to possess virtue from the beginning and, remaining strong in it, lift his gaze to God. After all, it was necessary that from the beginning sin received its power in people, as Paul testifies to this: “when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died” (Rom. 7:9). In general, we do not teach that a sinner can humble himself to such an extent as to be accepted by God; no, we say: if a person condemns his previous life in advance and humbles himself in his own consciousness, humiliates himself, and in the future thinks about decorating his soul with virtues, then only God will accept him. LXIII. Celsus does not understand the meaning of the words: “whoever exalts himself will be humbled” (Matthew 23:12); since he does not know the teachings of Plato, who said: a good and honest man makes his way modestly and decently, 311 it is natural for him not to understand the meaning of our following sayings: “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:6). That is why Celsus says: “even judges who honestly perform their judicial duties cannot bear to see the accused cry and weep; this is so that in their judgment they will not have to be guided more by mercy than by truth. (Your) God, in carrying out his judgment, pays attention not to the truth, but to flattery.” But what kind of flattery, what kind of expression of groaning can be seen in the Holy Scriptures, since the sinner, in his prayer offering to God, expresses himself: “But I revealed my sin to You and did not hide my iniquity; I said: “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord” (Ps. 31:5)” and so on? And can Celsus prove that such confession of sinners, combined with prayer and self-abasement before God, does not lead to correction? Blinded by his passionate zeal to slander us, Celsus falls into contradiction with his own words: on the one hand, he wants to know a sinless and righteous person who, in trusting in his virtue, can from the beginning fix his eyes on God; on the other hand, he no longer attaches importance to this position in the case when we, according to Scripture, ask: “What is man that he should be pure, and that he who is born of a woman should be righteous” (Job 15:14)? Celsus himself seems to agree with this (last) position when he says: “in any case, it is indisputably true that the human race by its nature has a tendency to sin.” Having then cited the expression that the call of the Gospel does not extend to everyone, he notes at the same time: “wouldn’t it be necessary, simply put, to call everyone, since everyone is sinners.” Above we have already quoted the words of Jesus: “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Thus, all people suffering and possessed by this tendency to sin are called to that peace of God that our teaching promises them. For “he sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their graves” (Ps. 107:20). LXIV. Then Celsus asks: “So why is it that sinners (among you) are given some preference.” He also asks some other similar questions. To such objections we answer him: in any case, a sinful person is not preferred to a sinless one, but sometimes it happens that a sinner, driven by the consciousness of his sinfulness and therefore in a state of repentance, humble in view of his sins, is preferred to a person who, in comparison with him, seems not so sinful, and who himself not only does not admit his sinfulness, but, on the contrary, exalts himself and is proud of his merits, with which, in his opinion, he is decorated. The fairness of this position can be verified by anyone who, without prejudice, turns to the Gospels and here reads the parable of the publican and the Pharisee. The first said: “Be merciful to me, a sinner,” and the second, with proud arrogance, praised himself and cried out: “I thank You that I am not like other people, robbers, offenders, adulterers, or like this tax collector.” And Jesus expressed this opinion about the prayer of both. “This one went to his house justified more than the other: for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:11, 13, 14). So, we are not at all guilty of blaspheming God and are not lying when we teach that there is no person who is not aware of his insignificance in comparison with the greatness of God, and that we must constantly ask God for what our nature lacks, since He alone can provide us with everything that we do not have. LXV. Celsus imagines that “we addressed sinners with such exhortations with the intention of converting them because we were not actually able to acquire a single truly useful and just husband, and therefore we opened the doors (of the church) to the most evil and outcast people.” But if our community (ἄθροισμα) is considered without prejudice and without a preconceived goal, then there will be some of those (members) in it who, before their conversion, did not live so sinfully, and there are even more of them than people who previously led a vicious life. After all, it is quite natural for people with a sensitive conscience to want to actually preach about the rewards God has prepared for good people. Therefore, they are more inclined to demonstrate their faith than those who led a completely vicious life. For the latter, their corrupted conscience prevents them from admitting the mere thought that they will be punished by the Judge of all and will experience torment, depending on the degree of their guilt in such crimes, according to the just decision of the Judge of all. Sometimes, however, completely vicious people are inclined to believe in the doctrine of retributive justice in the hope of receiving forgiveness through repentance; but it is also difficult for them to do this, since they are accustomed to sin, as if they have plunged into a vicious life, and only with great effort is it possible for them to free themselves from it and begin a correct and reasonable life. Celsus also knew this, at least quite unexpectedly, we find in him the following expressions: “everyone knows well that such people who have already turned their natural tendency to sin into a habit become completely incapable of improvement, even if they experience fear of punishment and hope for conversion; After all, a complete change in one’s nature is an extremely difficult matter. Only those who are completely sinless become participants in a better life.” LXVI. And here, in my opinion, Celsus falls into error, asserting that “people who by nature have a tendency to sin, which becomes a habit among them, seem to be completely unable to improve, even with the help of punishment.” Let us admit that all people are naturally inclined to sin and that some are not only inclined to sin, but also sin out of habit, but, however, not all people are completely incapable of change. After all, not only any philosophical school, but also Divine Revelation can point as an example to persons with whom such a great and noticeable change has occurred that they can be considered as examples of the best life. These are the cases that happened in heroic times with Hercules and Odysseus, and in later times with Socrates and in the most recent period with Musonius 312. Consequently, we are not the only ones who assert that Celsus is mistaken when he says: “It is clear to everyone that those who have turned the natural tendency to sin into a habit cannot be converted by anyone to something better, even with the help of punishments.” Even all true philosophers do not agree with Celsus, since they do not deny the possibility of turning people to virtue. Let us even admit that Celsus did not express what he wanted clearly enough, but still we must recognize his position as incorrect, with all our condescending attitude towards the meaning of his words. And these words are as follows: “People who turn their tendency to sin into a habit cannot be converted or corrected by anyone, even through punishment.” We have presented an understanding of the very meaning contained in these words, as far as possible for us, earlier. LXVII. Perhaps, in these words, he only wanted to convey the idea that even through punishment it is absolutely impossible to correct such people who are drawn to certain atrocities not only by nature, but also by habit, especially to atrocities committed by the most notorious villains? But this understanding is also false, as can be proven by examples from the lives of some philosophers. So, shouldn’t one be considered the most corrupt person who obeys a master who orders him to go to a house of debauchery and fulfill the whims of anyone there? And yet, this is what they say about Fedrn. Who would not further call a complete scoundrel a man who, accompanied by a flutist (αὐλητρίδος) and violent companions in revelry, burst into the school of the venerable Xenocrates and here mocked this husband at a time when other comrades listened to him with the greatest surprise? And yet the reason in these men could produce such a change that they both could make enormous progress in philosophy. One of them was even honored by Plato to convey Socrates’ speech on the immortality of the soul and talk about the steadfastness of his spirit in prison, with which he was not afraid even of hemlock, and without any fear, in a completely calm state of mind, expressed so many sublime thoughts on such important and deep issues that even those men who devoted all their attention to him and were not distracted by any worries could hardly follow him. And Polemon, who changed his former unbridled life to the most abstinent way of life, even became the successor of Xenocrates in school - that Xenocrates who is famous for his sublime seriousness. So Celsus is wrong when he asserts that “people who turned their natural tendency to sin into a habit could never improve, even through punishment.” LXVIII. And it is not at all surprising that philosophical instructions, moreover, expressed harmoniously, coherently and eloquently, had such an irresistible influence in the conversion of the above-mentioned people, mostly those who led a bad life. But as soon as we see that the preaching (λόγους) of these simple and uneducated men - as Celsus expresses them about them - produced (on the listeners) such an irresistible influence that indicated the presence in them of a kind of special mysterious power of sorcery (ἐπῳδὰς δυνάμεως πεπληρωμένους) 313, as soon as we see that through these preachers people in whole crowds rushed from debauchery to a chaste life, from wickedness to righteousness, as soon as we see that cowardly and cowardly people through them turned into men with a courageous and persistent character so much so that because of the love of faith, they accepted them, they began to consider even death as nothing: then don’t we have solid grounds and all the data to be surprised at the power that was contained in their words? After all, the word of the men who first began to preach the Gospel and, by the sweat of their brow, to found the churches of God, began to influence people, but not at all by the means that were used by the followers of Plato or other philosophers, who, as people, could not accomplish anything beyond their human strength. But the proofs to which the Apostles resorted were given to them by God, full of the Spirit and power (cf. Ps. 118:4; 2 Thess. 3:1) and, therefore, were able to have an impact on the hearts (of people). Here lies also the reason why it was their words, or - better to say - the word of God, that received such rapid and rapid spread; after all, through them, in fact, God converted those many who, being naturally inclined to sin, turned this tendency into a habit, and this word formed and transformed, and turned to the will of God even those whom no one could improve, even through punishment. LXIX. What he says next also corresponds to Celsus’s entire worldview. “Changing nature, he claims, is extremely difficult.” As for us, we know that all rational souls are of one nature (μίαν φύσιν), and we teach that not one of them was evil when it came out of the hands of the Creator of all things, 314 but that many (souls) through education, through example, through bad speech became bad to such an extent that sin became in them, as it were, another nature. That is why we believe that for the Divine word it is not only not impossible, but even not at all difficult, to change this corruption, which, so to speak, has become in them as if a second nature, if only one learns the truth that it is necessary to believe in the God of all and do everything with the intention of pleasing Him, who, as the poet puts it: Equal honor is found in both the bad and the noble 315, The lazy one and the one who does a lot have an unequal lot 316. If such a change is a difficult matter for some, then the reason for this lies in their own will, which refuses to recognize the truth that Almighty God will judge with all the severity of his justice everyone in everything he has done throughout his life. Indeed, when doing things that are very difficult or - to put it hyperbolically - almost impossible, good will, in combination with exercise, is of no small importance. In fact, as soon as a person is imbued with a strong desire, through exercise and diligence he can achieve, for example, the art of walking on a highly stretched rope from one side of the theater to the other, and, moreover, carrying even larger and heavier weights. Is it really completely impossible to free yourself from previous wickedness, whatever it may be, and begin a virtuous life, even with a good mood of the will? I am even perplexed: is the honor of the One who called a rational being into existence not more insulted than the honor of the creation itself if we assert that God gave man the ability to do such difficult and, moreover, completely useless things, but, on the contrary, deprived him of the power to control his own will and achieve bliss? But these reasonings are enough, directed against Celsus’s position that “a complete change in nature is an extremely difficult thing.” Celsus goes on to say that “the sinless are participants in a better life.” But he does not clearly indicate whom he calls sinless - whether those who were so at first, or those who became so after their conversion. However, there cannot be one who would be sinless at first; and those who become sinless after their conversion and after accepting the saving teaching, then there are only a few of them. Yes, and they accept faith at a time when they are not yet sinless. In general, apart from our faith - perfect faith, not a single person can be free from sin. LXX. Then Celsus, in the form of an objection, refers to our usual expression: “God can do everything.” But he does not know what the meaning is in these words, what is meant by the word “all” and how the word “can” should be understood. However, there is no need to discuss these issues now. And Celsus himself does not stop at the above passage, although, apparently, he would be able to counter some objections to it; but he does not do this either - either because he could not give an answer, or, if he could, he foresaw in advance the possibility on our part of rebuffing these objections. In any case, we teach that “God can do everything,” which does not contradict the concept of God’s existence, goodness and wisdom (of God). Celsus discovers that he does not understand in what sense it is said of God that “He can do everything,” since he adds the following expression: “God will never desire anything unjust.” With this additional expression, Celsus conveys the idea that God can do something unjust, but he just does not want it. Our teaching, on the contrary, says: just as objects that are sweet by their very nature, thanks to this natural property, can make other objects sweet and cannot make them bitter, because such an action would be contrary to their essence, and just as those very objects that, thanks to their luminosity, are destined to shine, cannot be a source of darkness, so in the same way God cannot do anything unjust at all. The ability to do injustice is not consistent either with His Deity, or with His omnipotence, which is inherent in Him due to His Deity. If some of the creatures can sin due to a natural inclination to sin, then this is because there is nothing in their nature that would exclude in them the very possibility of doing injustice. LXXI. What, in the extreme case, is the subject of the beliefs of only the simple, and to which no significance is attached by all enlightened Christians, is, according to Celsus, our general teaching, namely, that “God, like people who cannot resist their cries, sends down His grace on those sinners who, with their tears, manage to arouse compassion in Him, while He pushes the pious away from Himself, since they don't allow anything like that. And this,” he adds, “is an act that is extremely unfair.” According to our teaching, God does not accept a single sinner unless he first turns to virtue, and equally does not exclude anyone from himself if only he is on the path to righteousness; We also do not teach that God should accept and take pity (we attach the most general and ordinary meaning to this word) over those who only by groans and sobs try to arouse His compassion for themselves. But, on the contrary, according to our teaching, people who severely condemn themselves for their sins, consider themselves as if lost because of sins, and therefore cry and groan and present sufficient evidence of real and real conversion - God accepts such people, in view of their repentant contrition that they led a vicious life before their conversion. For virtue, entering their soul and expelling from here the sin that previously dominated there, turns the former life into oblivion. If the soul has not yet actually become virtuous, but has already moved forward along the path to improvement, then even then this procession, if it occurs, is quite sufficient to expel the power of wickedness and to weaken it to such an extent that its very presence close to the soul is no longer found. LXXII. Then, as if on behalf of the teacher of our faith, Celsus says: “the wise do not want to listen to us, their wisdom keeps them from doing so and misleads them.” We will answer: if wisdom is the knowledge of things Divine and human and their primary causes, or, as defined by Holy Scripture, the soaring power of God and the pure outflow of the glory of the almighty Creator, the reflection of eternal light, the unspoiled mirror of the greatness of God and the image of His goodness (Wis. 7:25-26), then no truly wise person will distance himself from listening to the instructions of a Christian teaching about the mysteries of his faith; and philosophy will not serve as an obstacle to him in this case and will not mislead him. After all, it is not true wisdom, but ignorance that leads to error; in the world nothing is as stable as knowledge and truth - these two daughters of wisdom. However, if, in contrast to and in contradiction with the concept of wisdom, you understand by a sage a person who can make every favorite opinion completely acceptable along with its ostentatious thoroughness, then we must admit that a sage of your type will really turn away from the Divine teaching, confused by all these probabilities and sophisms and completely entangled in them. According to our teaching, wisdom does not consist in knowledge of resourcefulness alone, but knowledge of resourcefulness (so to speak) is characteristic of those who teach lies and deceive themselves with all these illusory reasons; That’s why I, for my part, would call such knowledge rather ignorance than wisdom. LXXIII. After this, our opponent again enters into a squabble with the preacher of Christianity and confronts him with the fact that he “does funny things,” although he does not name these ridiculous things and does not discuss them as such. “Not a single reasonable person,” he continues to carry on his squabble, “has accepted their teachings; the very multitude of their followers terrify him.” But to say this means to assert that not a single wise person obeyed, for example, the laws of Solon, Lycurgus, Zaleucus 317 or any other legislator only because there was a huge number of simple and uneducated people who followed these laws; his statement will turn out to be even more strange if by a reasonable person we understand one who has become one through his life spent in virtue (τὸν κατ' ἀρετὴν ποιόν). And those legislators gave their laws also in accordance with the needs of the lower classes of the people, since in this case they found the laws useful in order to keep the people within certain boundaries in this way; In exactly the same way, God, having given laws through Jesus to all people throughout the entire earth, achieves obedience on the part of people who are least capable of it, since they can only be led to a better (life) in this way. That is why God, who knew this well, turned to Moses with the following words that we have already cited 318: “They have provoked Me with no God; they have upset Me with their vain things; and I will provoke them to anger with a people that is not theirs; I will provoke them to grief with a foolish people” (Deut. 32:21). Paul also knew this, and therefore he said: “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise” (1 Cor. 27). He speaks of the wise in the ordinary sense of the word, and by them he means those who, although they apparently made great progress in knowledge, fell away from God and became servants of polytheism, “calling themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:22-23). LXXIV. In addition, Celsus also blames our teacher for the fact that “he is looking for the insane.” But I would say to this: who do you call crazy? To put it precisely, every bad person is already insane. So, if by crazy you mean bad (people), then what about you, calling for philosophy - which of the two are you trying to win over, the bad or the educated 319? Of course - uneducated, because the educated had already become philosophers; therefore - bad. But if you attract bad people to you, does that mean unreasonable people? If this is so, then, consequently, you are trying to attract this entire crowd (unreasonable people) to philosophy; in a word, you are looking for crazy people (followers). I, too, am looking for myself, perhaps, just as crazy, but in this case I am already like a doctor who, in his philanthropy, is looking for the sick in order to heal them, in order to restore their strength. If by insane you mean such in the proper sense, i.e. people with weak mental abilities, then in this case I will answer you that I try, if possible, to bring such people into a better state, although I would not like them to form a Christian society (ἄθροισμα). I am looking for more intelligent, more capable ones - those who would be able to penetrate the meaning of the images and hidden places in the law of the prophets and in the Gospels. You, of course, treat these Scriptures themselves with contempt, believing that their content does not contain anything important and is devoid of (special) meaning; but you do this only because you have not examined their meaning and have not even tried to penetrate into the thoughts of their compilers. LXXV. “The preacher of Christianity,” Celsus continues further, “is like a man who promises to bring health to the sick, but at the same time does not want a doctor to be invited to him, and thereby his ignorance will be discovered.” And here I will also allow myself to ask: what kind of doctors are you talking about, from whom we push the simpletons away? After all, of course, you yourself will not allow the assumption that we encourage philosophers to believe in the Gospel, which is why these latter cannot be those (alleged) doctors from whom, in your opinion, we repel people who strive to accept the Gospel. Our opponent, of course, will never be able to answer where he can get his doctors, or, of necessity, he must look for them among those classes of ordinary people who are not ashamed to be content with polytheism and believe in all sorts of extravagant nonsense, which are generally widespread among uneducated people. So, Celsus falls into a double error, using in vain the example of a person who distracts (people) from experienced doctors. Moreover, if we are distracting (our followers) from Epicurean philosophy and, so to speak, from Epicurean doctors who, according to the philosophy of Epicurus, heal everyone whom they mislead, then aren’t we acting in this way extremely prudently? After all, we free people from the terrible disease into which they are plunged by the doctors of Celsus, who reject Providence and invent their teaching that pleasure is good. Let us distract people who want to turn to our faith, and from their desire to seek medical help for themselves from various other philosophers, for example, from the Peripatetics, who reject the Providence of God in relation to us and in general any relationship of the Divine to people, then in this case we are not the implementers of piety, since we help people accept our faith, we convince them to serve the God of all completely, we heal those who listen to us from those severe wounds that are caused to them by the teachings of these these philosophers? Let us also prevent them from turning to the Stoic doctors, who recognize God as subject to corruption, and consider His being to be corporeal and changeable, capable of taking on various forms - who admit that one day everything will perish and come into destruction and that only God will remain: is it not also true in view of such a teaching that we free people who follow us from all (mentioned) evils and introduce them to the doctrine of piety, teaching them cleave to the Creator, marvel at the Father of Christian teaching, who took such loving care (φιλανθρωπότατα) for the conversion of souls, for the spread of teaching among the entire human race? If, with all this, we also provide medical assistance to people involved in the unreasonable doctrine of the transmigration of souls (μετενσωματώσεως) by those doctors who allow the transition of rational nature either into a completely unreasonable entity, or into an entity devoid of the ability of imagination, then do we not create a moral improvement in their souls, as soon as we teach them that punishment the wicked does not consist in the deprivation of sense and reason, but that, on the contrary, the suffering and punishment determined by God for sinners are for them means of healing, facilitating their return (to God)? This is how Christians who rationally organize their lives think, and they then communicate this worldview to poorly educated people, treating them with the same care as fathers do with their children. So, “neither in relation to immature people, nor in relation to uneducated simpletons” do we act in such a way as to tell them: “Avoid doctors!” Nor do we tell them: “Beware lest any of you receive a scientific education (e'pisth'mh_s)!” It is also not typical for us to teach that knowledge is evil 320; We are not so crazy as to have the opinion that “the knowledge (gnw'si_s) that a person possesses harms his mental health,” or to assert the position that “wisdom leads to destruction.” And when we teach, we also do not say: “cleave to me,” but we call: hold fast to the God of all and to Jesus, who gave us the knowledge of God. μαθημάτων τῷ Ἰησοῦ). None of us is infected with such arrogance as to say to our student what Celsus puts into the mouth of our teacher: “It is only in me alone that you find your salvation.” So, look how many lies and untruths Celsus spoke about us. We did not even think of saying that “true doctors destroy those to whom they promise healing.” LXXVI. Celsus gives another comparison directed against us. He argues that “our teachers act like a drunkard who, being among his drunken comrades, accuses the sober ones of being drunk.” But let Celsus take the trouble to prove - at least on the basis of the writings of Paul - that this Apostle of Jesus was drunk and that his words were not the speech of a sober man, or let him also prove from the writings of John that his thoughts and sayings do not belong to a man of abstinent life, not involved in the vice of drunkenness! In general, there is not a single sane preacher of Christian teaching who would be devoted to drunkenness, and the slander that Celsus showers us with in this regard does not fit with his position as a philosopher. Let him also name for us those sober people whom we, the preachers (πρεσβεύοντες) of the Christian teaching, supposedly want to blaspheme (classifying them as drunkards)? True, we call drunks, but those who pray in front of inanimate objects and think that they are praying to God. And what do I say: “drunk”? Not only that, but in this case those who, rushing to churches and worshiping statues and animals as deities, are downright insane. No less mad are those who think that the true gods can be worshiped through images fabricated by simple artisans, often even worthless people. LXXVII. Then Celsus compares (our) teacher to a blind man, and his listeners to people who see no better than him. “The blind man,” he says, “among the blind, accuses those who see perfectly of being blind.” But who are these people whom we imagine as blind? Greeks, we address this question to you! Are these not those blind people who, due to such overwhelming greatness and beauty of things in the world, cannot raise their eyes to the Creator of these things and are completely unable to understand that He alone must be prayed to, Him alone glorified and revered? Are these not the blind ones who do not recognize the truth that not a single object made by human hands and intended for the veneration of the gods should in any way, according to the law of truth, be venerated, regardless of whether this veneration will be performed independently of the service to God the Creator, or along with and together with this service? Only people stricken with spiritual blindness can equate God, who is infinitely superior to any created being, with such objects that in no case can be compared with Him. Thus, we do not at all claim that people with good eyesight have poor or almost no vision, but that those who do not recognize God and, therefore, cleave to statues in the church and are devoted to the so-called monthly holidays 321 and focus all their attention on them - they are spiritually blind, especially in the case when they combine an immoral life with their atheism, when they do not pay any attention to shame and commit all sorts of abominations. LXXVIII. After Celsus has brought so many serious charges against us, he hints that he could still present several objections, but that he wishes to remain silent about them. “This is what,” he says, “I had to object to them and, in addition, I could present other objections of the same kind, but in order not to list them completely, I intend to make only the remark that they (Christians) are in error and rebel against God, sinning in that they lure (various) wicked people with vain and empty hopes in order to attract them to their side and convince them of what should be despised their property and leave it, because they can achieve the highest blessings if they treat these (earthly) blessings with contempt.” In response to this objection, we can say that from the activity that depends on those who come to Christians, it follows that it is not so much the atheists themselves who are brought to the (Christian) teaching, but relatively simple people and villagers (ἄκομψοι), as they are usually called. Indeed, it is primarily the fear of the punishments that our faith threatens that leads to the determination to leave everything that can cause punishment for them, and to the intention to turn to that piety that is defined by Christianity, moreover, faith acquires such great importance for them that because of the fear of punishments, which - according to the teachings of faith - are called eternal, they do not pay attention to all the torments invented by people, to all the countless sufferings and persecutions, even to death itself. And no reasonable person would call such determination an expression of bad mood (πονηρῶν προαιρέσεων). Is it possible that, on the basis of a bad disposition, the exercise of abstinence and chastity, as well as compassionate and sociable love (τὸ μεταδοτικὸν καὶ κοινωνικόν) can grow? This latter would not be capable of that fear of the Divine, which the doctrine of faith (ὁ λόγος) recognizes as useful for all who are not yet able to know what is worthy of love in itself, to choose it as the highest good, valuable and dear, like all the promises that can be bestowed on us. After all, even fear can no longer have any effect on the human soul, which has decided to lead a decent life. LXXIX. Perhaps someone will think that the majority of believers consists not only mainly of vicious people, but also partly of superstitious people, and therefore our teaching is accused of leading people to superstition. We answer this: one of the legislators, who was asked whether he had given good laws to his fellow citizens, gave the answer to this question that he did not give them completely good laws (οὐ τοὺς καθάπαξ καλλίστους) but the best of those that they needed 322 . In the same way, the Founder of Christianity 323 could speak about Himself like this: I gave them the best laws and the best teaching that were necessary for the Christian people to improve their lives; Moreover, I threatened sinners with suffering and punishments - not just imaginary, but real, which are necessary to improve those who persist, although the latter most often do not understand either the purpose for which punishments are sent, or the fruits that correspond to punishment. And this teaching about (future) punishments is as useful as it is in accordance with the truth; It is also entirely appropriate in this case that the sermon is conveyed in a hidden form (μετ' ἐπικρύψεως). And just as, further, it is completely untrue that our teachers (for the most part) convert only bad people to the Christian faith, it is just as false that we refuse to give God due reverence. After all, we teach about Him only what constitutes the (immutable) truth - what even a simple person can understand, although not as clearly and intelligibly as only a few can do, trying to more deeply understand (φιλοσοφεῖν) the mysteries of faith. LXXX. Since Celsus says that we give vain hopes to people in order to convert them to Christianity, since the very doctrine of the blessed life and reunification with God evokes reproach on his part, we will ask (our opponent) the following question: dear, then, then, it means that those who have mastered the teaching of Plato and Pythagoras about the soul are guided by vain hopes, and, therefore, hold the opinion that the soul by nature has the ability to ascend to the heights of heaven and contemplate here, in some heavenly place (ἐν τῷ ὑπερουρανίῳ τόπῳ), the sights that the blessed enjoy? This means that those who believe in the existence of the soul after death and, therefore, lead a life that can eventually make them demigods and give them participation in the abodes of the gods - even these, in your opinion, Celsus, indulge in empty and vain hopes? But perhaps, in the eyes of Celsus, this passion for vain hopes is applicable only to those who hold the view that the soul enters the body from the outside (θύραθεν) and that it is not involved in death? But let him at least do us a favor and join the fight, without hiding the fact to which school he himself belongs; let him openly and bluntly admit that he is an Epicurean and refute those absolutely contemptible grounds with which the Greeks and barbarians defend the immortality of the soul and its existence after death! Let him show that all this is speech that entangles people who give them faith with empty hopes; let him prove that, on the contrary, the views of his own philosophy do not arouse any vain hopes, but only give certain, well-founded hopes, or do not give any hopes at all, which will most of all correspond to his worldview, according to which the soul perishes immediately and completely, upon separation from the body. For their part, Celsus and the Epicureans may not consider vain only those hopes that they associate with lust - this highest happiness, the only and true good in their eyes - as well as with sensual pleasures: on this point the indisputable authority of Epicurus is certainly preserved. LXXXI. Do not think that my views contradict the Christian faith when, in contrast to Celsus, I refer to the testimony of philosophers who recognize the immortality of the soul and its existence after the death of the body. If we agree with them in many respects, then without much difficulty we can also prove that those people who have the courage to expect a future happy life are those who have adopted the piety that flows from the teachings of Jesus - who serve the Creator of all things with a right and pure heart, without any admixture of what relates to the veneration of the created being. And what exactly are these best things of yours, the insignificance of which we are trying to convince people - let anyone who has the desire to tell about this. Let him compare that happy lot (τέλος), which, in our opinion, will be enjoyed, by the goodness of God, with God (παρὰ θεῷ) in Christ, that is, in His Word, Wisdom and all Power (πάσῃ ἀρετῇ), all those who led an impeccable and pure life and served the God of all with constant and faithful love (ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἄσχιστον); let him, I say, compare this fate with the end that individual Greek and non-Greek philosophical schools and their secret teachings expose to people. He must then prove that this comparison cannot speak in our favor, that the final destiny (τέλος), which others put on display, exceeds the bliss we promised, that this final destiny is consistent with reason and, therefore, is an expression of the truth, while ours (bliss) does not correspond to the goodness of God and the merits of people who led a good life, that, further, everything we say is not an expression of the teaching of the Divine Spirit, which filled the pure souls of the prophets. He, then, must also prove that thoughts and sayings, in whose purely human origin the whole world serves as a guarantee, stand much higher than those (sayings) that turned out to be Divine and proclaimed through Divine suggestion (ἐκ θεοφορίας), as we can prove this with our Scriptures. Finally, what are these goods, in return for which, after their loss, according to our teaching, we promise other better goods? However, there is hardly any need to expand: in itself it is already clear that nothing more sublime and better can be invented, namely, to surrender entirely to the all-powerful and all-good God and firmly adhere to His teaching, which frees us from all created things, elevates us above it and leads us to the Lord God through His quickened and living Word (δι' ἐμψύχου καὶ ζῶντος λόγου), which at the same time is living Wisdom (σοφία ζῶσα) and the Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ). And this third book of our refutation of Tsel’s essay has grown to very significant proportions. Therefore, I intend to finish it so that next time I can continue my defense against further attacks and objections of Celsus. Greek god of healing, son of Apollo and Coronis, daughter of King Phlegias. According to some evidence, he lived in the 9th century, and 7 years after his death he reappeared in Prokonesse; and after 340 years he again appeared in Metapontium (in Italy). i.e. Hermotim from Clazomena, a city of the Ionians in Asia Minor. περὶ τὴν θείοις βιβλίοις ἐκδοχὴν – actually: regarding the mutual relationship and succession of St. books of the New and Old Testaments. Wed. Tertullian "Svid. souls", ch. 2 and Minucius Felix “Octavius”, ch. 5. That is, to become familiar with the views of the Egyptians. ἀνδραποδώδεις – actually: the scum of society, pariahs, slaves. See below III, 44. 50. 55. 74. i.e. Castor and Polydeuce, sons of Zeus from Leda. Greek god of healing arts. Bacchus (or Bacchus), son of Zeus and Semele, god of wine and winemaking. This refers to the furious nature of Hercules, thanks to which he accomplished many wild feats. Omphale, daughter of Iardan, widow of Tmol, queen of Lydia. As punishment for the murder of his friend Ifrit, Hercules, by order of the Delphic Oracle, had to perform all the usual women's work for Omphale for three years. Aesculapius was struck by lightning for his medical art, in which Zeus saw a terrible weapon against the death of people. Homer's Odyssey II, 303–304. Metapontum is a Greek city on the eastern coast of Lucania, on the Gulf of Tarentum. Island in the Propontis, in the Sea of ​​Marmara. Milesian colony in Phrygia. Homer "Iliad", IV, 49; XXIV, 70. ἀπ' ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις – actually: it got its from him the beginning of the combination of the Divine and human natures. βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ - actually: the council of the Church of God, in the sense of the representation of special persons who make up the administrative structure of the Church of God as a society, which is contrasted here with a civil, secular society in the pagan way of life of the state. Under this name in ancient folk tales the priest of the god Apollo is known, in whose life there are many different legendary adventures of miraculous properties. The dates of Avaris’s life are unknown. Hermotimus from Klazomene in Asia Minor. Among the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans, the corpses of dead people were considered unclean and touching them was considered desecration. This belief is still preserved among the Jews (Dollinger ludenthum, S. 198:379, 431:540). i.e. in the church of Antinopolis. ἀκολούθως τῇ ἐν τῷ λέγειν (according to Guye’s version - ἐν τῷ λόγῳ) τεραστίως πειστικῇ δυνάμει. that is, enlightened Christians who can rise to the level of reasonable comprehension of the truth of faith. ἐπὶ τὸν εἰδότα θεὸν τὰς αἰτίας τῶν ἑκάστῳ μεμερισμένων ἐπιδημοῦντι τῷ βίῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. φίλτρον, in fact, is a means of stimulating love. In the manuscript N. instead of φίλτρον ‒ ἀγάπην i.e., the doctrine of love as the basis of a person’s religious relationship with God. i.e., previously given by the Creator. τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου, a person from the grave, that is, laid in a coffin. Callimachus, Hymn, in love V, 8. 9. νήπιος, young man, in this case, a person gifted with a youthful mind, little developed in mental and moral terms. Lucian makes exactly the same objection against Christians in Op. “The Death of Peregrine” (12 et seq.); Wed Minucius Felix's Octavius. Sawa, or Sheba, is a country in southern Arabia. i.e. gifts - wisdom (σοφίας) and knowledge (γνώσεως). This refers to preachers of Christianity and Christians in general. The Cynic school was founded by Antisthenes the Athenian (lived about 400 BC), first a student of Georgias and later of Socrates, after whose death he founded a special school-gymnasium in Kinosargos (an area near Athens with the Church of Herakles) to educate the illegitimate children of the Athenians. Hence the very name of the school – Cynic. i.e., subjects of the first and second categories. ἀπελαύνουσι τοῦ κοινοῦ, actually: expel from the community. κατ’ ἀρχὰς – first, initially. This refers to believers who, from the very beginning of their entry into the community, have demonstrated the inflexibility of their faith and the stability of their moral life, in contrast to people who are weak, hesitant, and unstable in faith and life according to the covenants of Christ. Perseus of Cyttus, first a slave, and then a student of Zeno and a Stoic philosopher, to whom we owe some valuable literary works. He lived at the court of the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonatas and died around 243 BC. Epictetus, a Phrygian by birth, a slave of one of the bodyguards of Emperor Nero, then a freedman, was a student of Musonius and later a teacher of Stoic philosophy in Rome. i.e. Christian preachers. from the translator: “various scum of people.” Musonius Rufus, the son of a Roman rhetorician, a Stoic philosopher, was expelled from Rome under Nero (about 65), and subsequently returned to Rome again. Origen expresses himself this way about Christian preachers from the point of view of pagan ideas. On the issue of the origin of souls, Origen here pursues the theory of creationism, i.e., the direct creation of souls by God. Solon came from an ancient royal family, born between 640 and 630. BC, was a famous legislator among the Athenians, numbered among the seven sages of the Greek people. Lycurgus, legislator of Sparta, lived and acted in the 9th century. BC Zaleucus (born, probably in the middle of the 7th century BC) was a legislator in Locri (in southeastern Italy). He was the first to give written laws, about which, however, very little is known. ἀστείους, actually – urban, i.e. who received a more refined, urban and cultural education. Ἀστείος is opposed to φαῦλος, i.e. simple - in the sense of uneducated, bad. Wed. from Clement of Alexandria: “There is no knowledge without faith, and no faith without knowledge.” (“Stromata” 5:1). τὰς λεγομένας ἱερομηνίας; ἱερομηνία – sacred time dedicated to certain days of the month. Wed. Plutarch Solon, cap. XV, 2. ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστιανῶν λόγου. You might be interested in: