Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter LIV
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter LIV.
But as in the words which I quoted from Celsus,
which are a paraphrase from the Timæus, certain expressions occur,
such as, “God made nothing mortal, but immortal things alone,
while mortal things are the works of others, and the soul is a work of
God, but the nature of the body is different, and there is no
difference between the body of a man and that of a bat, or of a worm,
or of a frog; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part
alike,”—let us discuss these points for a little; and let
us show that Celsus either does not disclose his Epicurean opinions,
or, as might be said by one person, has exchanged them for better, or,
as another might say, has nothing in common save the name, with Celsus,
the Epicurean. For he ought, in giving expression to such
opinions, and in proposing to contradict not only us, but the by no
means obscure sect of philosophers who are the adherents of Zeno of
Citium, to have proved that the bodies of animals are not the work of
God, and that the great skill displayed in their construction did not
proceed from the highest intelligence. And he ought also, with
regard to the countless diversities of plants, which are regulated by
an inherent, incomprehensible nature,3929
| 3929 ὑπ᾽
ἐνυπαρχούσης
ἀφαντάστου
φύσεως
διοικουμένων. |
and which have been created for the by no means despicable3930
| 3930 πρὸς χρείαν
οὐκ
εὐκαταφρόνητον. | use of man in general, and of the animals
which minister to man, whatever other reasons may be adduced for their
existence,3931
| 3931 ὅπως
ποτὲ ἄλλως
ὄντων. | not only to have
stated his opinion, but also to have shown us that it was no perfect
intelligence which impressed these qualities upon the matter of
plants. And when he had once represented (various) divinities as
the creators of all the bodies, the soul alone being the work of God,
why did not he, who separated these great acts of creation, and
apportioned them among a plurality of creators, next demonstrate by
some convincing reason the existence of these diversities among
divinities, some of which construct the bodies of men, and
others—those, say, of beasts of burden, and others—those of
wild animals? And he who saw that some divinities were the
creators of dragons, and of asps, and of basilisks, and others of each
plant and herb according to its species, ought to have explained the
causes of these diversities. For probably, had he given himself
carefully to the investigation of each particular point, he would
either have observed that it was one God who was the creator of all,
and who made each thing with a certain object and for a certain reason;
or if he had failed to observe this, he would have discovered the
answer which he ought to return to those who assert that corruptibility
is a thing indifferent in its nature; and that there was no absurdity
in a world which consists of diverse materials, being formed by one
architect, who constructed the different kinds of things so as to
secure the good of the whole. Or, finally, he ought to have
expressed no opinion at all on so important a doctrine, since he did
not intend to prove what he professed to demonstrate; unless, indeed,
he who censures others for professing a simple faith, would have us to
believe his mere assertions, although he gave out that he would not
merely assert, but would prove his assertions.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
