Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
Again, in a certain
parable of the Gospel, where the king enters in to see the guests
reclining at the banquet, he beheld a certain individual not clothed
with wedding raiment, and said to him, “Friend, how camest thou in
hither, not having a wedding garment?” and then ordered his servants,
“Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.”[205] Let them tell us who is that king
who entered in to see the guests, and finding one amongst them with
unclean garments, commanded him to be bound by his servants, and thrust
out into outer darkness. Is he the same whom they call just? How then
had he commanded good and bad alike to be invited, without directing
their merits to be inquired into by his servants? By such procedure
would be indicated, not the character of a just God who rewards
according to men’s deserts, as they assert, but of one who displays
undiscriminating goodness towards all. Now, if this must necessarily be
understood of the good God, _i.e._ either of Christ or of the Father of
Christ, what other objection can they bring against the justice of God’s
judgment? Nay, what else is there so unjust charged by them against the
God of the law as to order him who had been invited by His servants,
whom He had sent to call good and bad alike, to be bound hand and foot,
and to be thrown into outer darkness, because he had on unclean
garments?
3. And now, what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to
be sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics. It will not,
however, appear improper if we discuss the matter with them shortly, on
the grounds of reason itself. We ask them, then, if they know what is
regarded among men as the ground of virtue and wickedness, and if it
appears to follow that we can speak of virtues in God, or, as they
think, in these two Gods. Let them give an answer also to the question,
whether they consider goodness to be a virtue; and as they will
undoubtedly admit it to be so, what will they say of injustice? They
will never certainly, in my opinion, be so foolish as to deny that
justice is a virtue. Accordingly, if virtue is a blessing, and justice
is a virtue, then without doubt justice is goodness. But if they say
that justice is not a blessing, it must either be an evil or an
indifferent thing. Now I think it folly to return any answer to those
who say that justice is an evil, for I shall have the appearance of
replying either to senseless words, or to men out of their minds. How
can that appear an evil which is able to reward the good with blessings,
as they themselves also admit? But if they say that it is a thing of
indifference, it follows that since justice is so, sobriety also, and
prudence, and all the other virtues, are things of indifference. And
what answer shall we make to Paul, when he says, “If there be any
virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things, which ye have
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account