駁瑟蘇斯 第 1 章 第 27/42 段

But if we must speak precisely against Celsus, who supposes that we hold the same opinions as the Jews concerning the matters set forth, we will say that, on the one hand, we both confess that the books were written by the divine Spirit, yet concerning the interpretation of what is in the books we no longer say the same things; for we do not even live as the Jews do, since we do not think that the literal interpretation of the laws is the one that contains the intent of the legislation.

And we also say that, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon the heart, in that the intent of the law of Moses is hidden from those who have not embraced the way that is through Jesus Christ.

But we know that, if anyone turns to the Lord—and the Lord is the Spirit—then, the veil being taken away, with unveiled face he as it were beholds in a mirror the glory of the Lord that lies in the meanings hidden beneath the letter, and partakes of what is called the divine glory unto his own glory—the word 'face' being used figuratively, or, as one might more nakedly name it, the mind, in which is the face of the inner man, being filled with light and glory from the truth concerning the things of the law.

Let no one suppose that I am unaware that some of them will agree that the God who is theirs is the same as the Jews', while others say it is a different one, opposed to this one, and that the Son came from that other.

Would not the disagreement among the sects of those who philosophize—not about small or trivial matters, but about the most essential ones—be considered analogous? It would then be time for medicine also to be accused on account of the sects within it.

Let there be, then, among us those who do not say that God is the same as the God of the Jews;

but on account of this those are by no means to be accused who demonstrate from these very same Scriptures that there is one and the same God of Jews and of the Gentiles;

as Paul too plainly says, having come over to Christianity from among the Jews:

"I thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure conscience." But let there also be some third class, those who name certain people "soulish" (psychic) and others "spiritual";

I think he means the followers of Valentinus.

And what is this to us who belong to the church, who accuse those who introduce natures saved by their constitution or destroyed by their constitution? And let there be also some who profess to be Gnostics, analogous to those who proclaim themselves philosophers among the Epicureans.

But neither would those philosophers who do away with providence be truly philosophers, nor would those who introduce strange fabrications that are not approved by the men of the succession from Jesus be Christians.

And let there be also some who, accepting Jesus and on that account boasting to be Christians, yet wish to live according to the law of the Jews, as do the Jewish multitudes;

these are the two kinds of Ebionites, who either confess, as we do, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or hold that he was not so born but came into being like the rest of men;

what charge does this bring against those of the church, whom Celsus named from "the multitude"? He also said there are certain "Sibyllists," perhaps having misheard some who reproached those who think the Sibyl was a prophetess and who called such people Sibyllists.

Then, pouring out a heap of names against us, he says he knows certain "Simonians" too, who, venerating Helen, or a teacher Helenus, are called Helenians.

But it escapes Celsus that the Simonians by no means confess Jesus to be the Son of God, but rather call Simon the power of God, telling marvelous tales about him—he having supposed that if he pretended to do things similar to what Jesus was thought to have done, he too would be able to gain among men as much as Jesus did among the many.

But neither Celsus nor Simon was able to understand how Jesus, as a good husbandman of the word of God, has been able to sow over much of Greece and much of the barbarian world, and to fill it with words that transfer the soul from all evil and lead it up to the Creator of the universe.

Celsus, then, knows also of "Marcellians" from Marcellina, and "Harpocratians" from Salome, and others from Mariamme, and others from Martha;

but we, who out of our love of learning, so far as is possible for us, have examined not only the things within our own doctrine and the differences among those within it, but also, as far as we are able, have investigated the writings of those who have philosophized in love of truth, have never had any dealings with these people.

Celsus also mentioned the Marcionites, who have Marcion at their head.

Then, so as to seem to know others besides those he named, he says, in his customary manner, that "different people found for themselves different teachers and demons, being evilly led astray and tossed about, in much darkness, more lawless and more polluted than the votaries of Antinous in Egypt."

And it seems to me that, touching upon the facts, he has said something true: that certain different people, finding for themselves different demons as protectors, have been evilly led astray and tossed about in the great darkness of ignorance.

But concerning the matters of Antinous, who is set side by side by him with our Jesus, having spoken in what precedes this, we will not repeat ourselves.

"And these people," he says, "blaspheme one another with all manner of dreadful things, both speakable and unspeakable;

and they would in no way and on no account yield to concord, utterly detesting one another."

And in reply to these things it has been said by us that in philosophy too one can find sects warring against sects, and in medicine as well.

And we would not utter speakable and unspeakable things against those who hold opinions different from what we have received;

but rather, if we are able, we would do everything to transfer them to what is better, through holding fast to the Creator alone and doing all things as those who are to be judged.

But if the heterodox are not persuaded, we keep the saying that enjoined upon us such things as this:

"Reject a factious man after a first and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being self-condemned." Moreover, those who have understood "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Blessed are the meek" would not detest those who falsify the things of Christianity, nor would they call the deluded people "Circes" and "wily love-charms."

It seems to me that he has misheard the apostolic saying which declares:

"In later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience has been seared, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful"—and that he has also misheard those who have used these expressions of the apostle against those who have falsified the things of Christianity;

wherefore Celsus said that certain people are named "brands upon the hearing" (cauteries of the ear) among Christians.

He himself says that certain people are called "riddles," which we have never come across.

But truly the name "stumbling-block" (scandal) occurs much in these writings, which we are accustomed to use concerning those who turn the simpler and more easily deceived away from sound teaching.

But certain "Sirens" dancing wildly and "sophistresses," sealing up the ears and turning into swine the heads of those who are persuaded—we know of no such names being used, and I think no one else either among those within the church or within the sects does so.

But this man, who professes to know everything, says such things as these:

"You will hear," he says, "all of those who are so widely separated and who most shamefully refute one another in their wranglings, saying:

'To me the world has been crucified, and I to the world.'" For this alone seems to be what Celsus has remembered from Paul;

for why should we not say countless other things that are written, such as this:

"For though living in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but mighty before God for the pulling down of strongholds, tearing down reasonings and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God"? But since he says that one will hear all of those so widely separated saying:

"To me the world has been crucified, and I to the world," this too we will prove to be false.

For there are certain sects that do not accept the epistles of Paul the apostle, such as both kinds of Ebionites and those called Encratites.

Would not, then, those who do not regard the apostle as a blessed and wise man say this:

"The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world"?

Therefore in this matter also Celsus speaks falsely.

And he goes on at length, accusing the differences that exist among the heresies;

but he does not seem to me to articulate clearly what he is saying, nor to have examined or understood it carefully — namely, in what sense the Christians who are advanced in doctrine claim to know more than the Jews, and whether it is by assenting to the books while interpreting their meaning otherwise, or by not even assenting to their writings at all;

for we should find both kinds among the heresies.

Come then, even if they have no starting-point for their doctrine, let us examine the argument itself;

but first we must speak of all that, through misunderstanding and ignorance, they distort — being from the very outset improperly presumptuous about things they do not know.

And at once, against certain expressions which are continually used by those who believe the Christian teaching, he sets in opposition sayings drawn from the philosophers, wishing to show that whatever is fine in the things held among Christians (as Celsus supposes) has been said both better and more clearly among the philosophers, so that he may draw away to philosophy those who are being won over by the doctrines that of themselves display what is noble and pious.

Having brought this to a close, let us begin the sixth book from what follows.

ORIGEN'S BOOK SIX, AGAINST THE WORK ENTITLED "THE TRUE DISCOURSE" OF CELSUS. As we take up this sixth discourse against the accusations of Celsus directed at the Christians, we have need, holy Ambrose, to contend in it not against the things he sets forth from philosophy, as one might suppose.

For Celsus quoted a great many passages, chiefly from Plato, making common use of those things which are able to win over anyone of understanding from the sacred writings, asserting that they are said better among the Greeks, and without any pretension or proclamation of being from God or the Son of God.

We say, then, that if it is the aim of those who champion the cause of truth to benefit as many as possible and, out of love for mankind, to draw to it, so far as is possible, every single person — not only the clever but also the simple — and again, not only Greeks but also barbarians, and it is a great success if one is able to turn even the most rustic and uneducated;

it is clear that he must take thought also for a style of speaking that is of common benefit and able to draw on every kind of hearer.

But those who, bidding a long farewell to the uneducated as though they were mere slaves incapable of following the connected sequence of words set forth in cultivated diction and arrangement, took thought only for those reared in learning and the disciplines — these have narrowed the scope of their benefit to something exceedingly confined and meager.

These things I have said in defense concerning the plainness of language in the Scriptures, which is accused by Celsus and others, and which seems to be dimmed by the brilliance of polished composition;

since the prophets among us, and Jesus and his apostles, were intent on a manner of proclamation that not only contained the truth but was also able to draw the many, until, being exhorted and led on, each one according to his ability might ascend to the things that are spoken in a hidden way in the expressions that seem to be plain.

And, if one may venture to say it, the exceedingly beautiful and elaborate diction of Plato and of those who wrote in like manner benefited few, if it benefited any;

whereas the diction of those who taught and wrote in a plainer, more practical, and more thoughtfully aimed way for the many benefited more.

At any rate, one can see that Plato is in the hands only of those reckoned to be men of letters, while Epictetus is admired even by ordinary people who have an inclination to be benefited, for they perceive the improvement that comes from his words.

And we say these things not in order to bring a charge against Plato — for the great world of mankind has borne him too with profit — but also in order to show the intention of those who said:

"And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." And the divine word declares that what is spoken is not sufficient, even though it be in itself true and most convincing, to reach the human soul, unless some power from God be also given to the speaker, and grace blossom upon the words — and this grace not coming without God to those who speak effectively.

At any rate, the prophet says in the sixty-seventh psalm that "The Lord will give a word to those who proclaim the good tidings with great power."

So that, although in certain matters the same doctrines may be held by the Greeks and by those of our teaching, yet they are by no means able to do the same thing toward subduing and disposing souls accordingly.

For this reason, the unlearned — as compared with Greek philosophy — being disciples of Jesus, traveled through many nations of the inhabited world, disposing each of the hearers according to his worth, as the Word willed;

and these, in proportion to the inclination of their free will toward the acceptance of the good, became far better.

Let ancient and wise men, then, be set forth for those able to understand; and in particular let Plato the son of Aristo, in one of his letters, declare what concerns the first good, and let him assert that the first good can by no means be expressed in words, but comes into being from much association with it, and suddenly, as a light kindled from a leaping fire, blazes up in the soul.

We assent to these things as being well said, for God revealed to them these and all else that has been well said.

And for this reason we say that even those who grasped the truth concerning God, but did not practice a piety worthy of the truth about him, are subject to the punishments of sinners.

For in these very words Paul speaks concerning such people: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them;

for God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, from the creation of the world, are clearly perceived, being understood through the things that are made — namely his eternal power and divinity — so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor give thanks, but became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things.

And so they too hold the truth — as our word also testifies — those who hold that the first good can by no means be expressed in words, and who say that it comes to be in the soul as a light kindled from a leaping fire, from much association concerning the matter itself and from living together with it, a light which then already feeds itself.

But those who wrote such things concerning the first good go down to the Piraeus to pray to Artemis as to a god, and to watch the festival celebrated by the common folk;

and having philosophized to such heights concerning the soul, and having expounded the manner of life of one who has lived well, they forsake the greatness of what God revealed to them, and think mean and petty things, paying a cock to Asclepius.

And although they perceived in imagination the invisible things of God and the Forms from the creation of the world and from sensible things, from which they ascend to the things apprehended by the mind, and saw not ignobly his eternal power and divinity, nonetheless they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless heart wallows in darkness and ignorance concerning the worship of the divine.

And one can see those who pride themselves greatly on wisdom and theology bowing down to the likeness of an image of corruptible man — "in honor of that one," they say — and sometimes even descending, along with the Egyptians, to birds or four-footed beasts or creeping things.

And though some may even seem to have risen above these things, yet they will be found to have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and to worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator.

Wherefore, since the wise and learned among the Greeks went astray in their deeds concerning the divine, God chose the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and the lowly and the weak and the despised and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are;

and truly so, that no flesh might boast in the presence of God.

But first our wise men, Moses the most ancient and the prophets who followed him, knowing that the first good can by no means be expressed in words, nevertheless wrote — as of God revealing himself to those who are worthy and fit — that God appeared, for example, to Abraham or to Isaac or to Jacob.

But who it was that appeared, and of what kind, and in what manner, and to whom among the faculties within us, they left to be examined by those who are able to make themselves like those to whom God appeared;

appearing to them not with the eyes of the body, but with the pure heart.

For indeed, according to our Jesus, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

But that a light is suddenly kindled in the soul, as from a leaping fire, the Word knew earlier, having said in the prophet:

"Kindle for yourselves the light of knowledge." And John, who came after that one, says that "What came to be in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men" — which true light enlightens every man coming into the true and intelligible world, and makes him a light of the world.

"of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Wherefore a most ancient prophet, who prophesied many generations before the kingdom of Cyrus — for he was older than him by more than fourteen generations — says this:

"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?" and:

"Your law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths," and:

"The light of your countenance has been marked upon us, O Lord," and:

"In your light we shall see light." And, urging us on toward this light, the word in Isaiah says:

"Shine, shine, O Jerusalem;

for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you." And this same prophet, prophesying concerning the coming of Jesus, who turns men away from the worship of idols and images and demons, says that "Upon those sitting in the region and shadow of death a light has dawned for them," and again:

"The people who sat in darkness saw a great light."

See, then, the difference between what was well said by Plato concerning the first good, and the things said in the prophets concerning the light of the blessed;

and see that the truth in Plato concerning this matter helped its readers nothing toward sincere piety — nor even helped the very man who philosophized thus about the first good — whereas the plain language of the divine writings made those who genuinely read it become filled with divine inspiration;

with whom this light is nourished by the oil spoken of in a certain parable, the oil that keeps the light of the torches burning in the five wise virgins.

And since Celsus also sets forth another saying, having this content, from the letter of Plato:

If it had seemed to me that these matters could be sufficiently set down in writing for the many, and were fit to be spoken openly, what nobler thing could I have accomplished in life than to write what would be of great benefit to mankind and to bring nature into the light for all? But come, let us discuss this point briefly too: whether Plato possessed anything more venerable than what he wrote and more divine than what he left behind, or not—leaving each person to examine this as far as he is able, while we show that our prophets also understood certain things greater than what they wrote, which they did not commit to writing.

For Ezekiel took the roll of a book, written within and without, in which were lamentation and mourning and woe; and when the Word commanded him, he ate up the book, so that he might not write it down and betray it to the unworthy.

And John too is recorded to have seen and done something very similar.

Moreover, Paul also heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

But Jesus, who is greater than all these, is said to have spoken the word of God to His disciples privately, and especially in His withdrawals; yet what the things were that He said has not been recorded.

For these things did not seem to them fit to be sufficiently set down in writing for the many, nor to be spoken openly.

And, if it is not offensive to speak the truth concerning men of such stature, I say that these men saw, from the thoughts they received by the grace of God, more clearly than Plato did, which things were to be written and how they were to be written, and which were by no means to be written for the many; and which things were fit to be spoken openly, and which were not such.

And again John, teaching us the difference between things that are to be written and things not to be written, says that he heard seven thunders speaking certain things to him and teaching him, yet forbidding him to commit their words to writing.

And many things could be found in Moses and in the prophets—who are older not only than Plato but also than Homer and than the very invention of writing among the Greeks—which are worthy of the grace of God toward them and are full of greatness of thought;

and these men did not, as Celsus supposes, say such things from having misunderstood Plato.

...to have handed down such things concerning God.

Now Celsus, having often already harped on the claim that one is required to believe straightway, again brings it up as though it were something new beyond what was previously said;

but what we have said in reply to these matters is sufficient for us.

And since he also sets forth another passage of Plato, in which he says that, through those who use questions and answers, wisdom shines forth among those who philosophize after his manner, come, let us demonstrate from the sacred writings that the divine Word also urges us toward dialectic—in one place Solomon saying:

"Instruction that is unexamined goes astray"; and in another place where Jesus the son of Sirach, who left us the writing of Wisdom, declares:

"The knowledge of a fool is words without scrutiny." Among us, then, there are rather kindly refutations, for those who have learned that he who presides over the word must be able to refute those who speak against it.

But if some are slothful, not practising attentiveness to the divine readings, nor searching the Scriptures, nor seeking—according to the commandment of Jesus—the meaning of the Scriptures, nor asking of God concerning them, nor knocking at their closed places, it is not on that account that the Word is empty of wisdom.

Then he says, after other Platonic passages which show that the good is known to few—since the many, filled with an unsound contempt and a lofty, empty hope, as though they had learned certain venerable things, assert certain things as true—that, although Plato had said these things beforehand, nevertheless he does not deal in marvels nor does he bar the mouth of one who wishes to ask further what exactly it is that he proclaims; nor does he forthwith command men to believe straightway that God is of such a kind and has such a son, and that this son came down and conversed with me.

And in reply to these things I say that, concerning Plato, Aristander, I think, recorded that he was the son not of Ariston but of a phantom, which came to Amphictione in the form of Apollo;

and many others of the Platonists have said such things in their life of Plato.

But as for Pythagoras, who dealt in very many marvels—who displayed at a Greek assembly a thigh of ivory, and claimed to recognize the shield he had used when he was Euphorbus, and was said to have appeared on one and the same day in two cities—what need is there to speak? Yet whoever wishes to accuse, as if a marvel-tale were being told concerning Plato and Socrates, will also bring forward the swan that appeared to Socrates in his sleep, and the teacher's saying upon the youth's commendation:

"This, then, was that swan." Moreover, the third eye which Plato saw himself as having will also be taken up as a marvel-tale.

Slander and defamation will not lack those malicious men who wish to revile the things that have been manifested to the greater souls beyond the many;

such men will even scoff at the daemon of Socrates as a fabrication.

We, then, do not deal in marvels when we recount the things concerning Jesus, nor did His genuine disciples record such tales about Him.

But Celsus, who professes to know all things and cites many of Plato's sayings, deliberately, I think, keeps silent about the doctrine concerning the Son of God which Plato stated in his letter to Hermeias and Coriscus.

Plato's words run thus:

"...calling to witness God the ruler of all things, both of the things that are and of the things that are to be, and the Father and Lord of the Ruler and Cause;

whom, if we truly philosophize, we shall all clearly know, so far as is possible for men who are blessed." And Celsus sets forth yet another passage of Plato, which runs thus:

"Furthermore, it has come into my mind to speak at greater length concerning these matters;

for perhaps the things about which I speak might become clearer once they have been stated;

for there is a certain true doctrine, opposed to anyone who has dared to write anything whatever of such matters—one often stated by me before too, and indeed it seems now also must be stated.

For each of the things that exist there are three things through which knowledge of it must necessarily come about, and the fourth is knowledge itself; and one must posit as the fifth the very thing that is knowable and truly is."

...named in Plato; and Jesus, who is shown by him to be second after John, to whom the saying "the Word became flesh" applies, being analogous to the Word in Plato.

Plato, then, says that the third is an image.

But we, applying the name "image" to something else, will say more plainly that the impression of the marks which comes to be in the soul after the word is that very Christ which is in each one, deriving from the Word who is Christ.

And whether the wisdom that is Christ, found among the perfect ones in our community, is also analogous to the fourth, which is knowledge—he who is able will give attention to it.

Then he says: "You see how Plato, although he firmly maintained that it is not utterable, nevertheless, lest he should seem to be retreating into something that cannot be examined, offers a reasoned account of this difficulty;

for perhaps even 'nothing' might be utterable."

But since this tends to establish that one ought not to believe simply, but to render an account of the things believed, we too will use the saying of Paul which censures him who believes rashly, in which he says:

"Unless you believed in vain." And as far as in him lies, Celsus compels us to repeat ourselves, by repeating himself, when after the aforesaid he says, as it were the boastings of boasters, that Plato does not boast nor lie by claiming that he himself discovers something new, or that he comes from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges whence these things come.

One might therefore say, in reply to this too, wishing to confront Celsus, that Plato also boasts in the harangue of Zeus in the Timaeus, when he says:

"Gods of gods, of whom I am the maker and father," and so forth.

But if someone will defend these things on account of the intention of Zeus haranguing in Plato, why should not he who examines the intention of the words of the Son of God, or of the words of the Demiurge that are in the prophets, say something even greater than the harangue of Zeus in the Timaeus? For what characterizes deity is the announcement of things to come—things spoken of not according to human nature, and judged by their outcomes to show that it was a divine Spirit that announced them.