Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
But as he afterwards says that “the teacher of Christianity acts
like a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but
who prevents them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his
ignorance would be exposed,” we shall inquire in reply, “What are
the physicians to whom you refer, from whom we turn away ignorant
individuals? For you do not suppose that we exhort those to embrace
the gospel who are devoted to philosophy, so that you would regard
the latter as the physicians from whom we keep away such as we
invite to come to the word of God.” He indeed will make no answer,
because he cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged to
betake himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their
own accord servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods,
and to whatever other opinions are entertained by ignorant
individuals. In either case, then, he will be shown to have employed
to no purpose in his argument the illustration of “one who keeps
others away from skilled physicians.” But if, in order to preserve
from the philosophy of Epicurus, and from such as are considered
physicians after his system, those who are deceived by them, why
should we not be acting most reasonably in keeping such away from a
dangerous disease caused by the physicians of Celsus,—that, viz.,
which leads to the annihilation of providence, and the introduction
of pleasure as a good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away
those whom we encourage to become our disciples from other
philosopher-physicians,—from the Peripatetics, for example, who deny
the existence of providence and the relation of Deity to man,—why
shall we not piously[460] train and heal those who have been thus
encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves to the God of all
things, and free those who yield obedience to us from the great
wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be
philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that we turn away from
physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible
god, and assert that his essence consists of a body, which is
capable of being changed and altered in all its parts,[461] and who
also maintain that all things will one day perish, and that God
alone will be left; why shall we not even thus emancipate our
subjects from evils, and bring them by pious arguments to devote
themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of the Christian
system, who has so arranged that instruction of the most benevolent
kind, and fitted for the conversion of souls,[462] should be
distributed throughout the whole human race? Nay, if we should cure
those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the
transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will
have it that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds
of irrational animals, and sometimes into that state of being which
is incapable of using the imagination,[463] why should we not
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