Chapter XXI.

The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans:  “Moses having,” he says, “learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity.”  Now, in answer to this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that Moses did indeed hear a somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the Hebrews; that if the doctrine which he heard was false, and neither pious nor venerable, and if notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to those under his authority, he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert, he gave his adherence to opinions that were wise and true, and educated his people by means of them, what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation?  Would, indeed, that not only Epicurus, but Aristotle, whose sentiments regarding providence are not so impious (as those of the former), and the Stoics, who assert that God is a body, had heard such a doctrine!  Then the world would not have been filled with opinions which either disallow or enfeeble the action of providence, or introduce a corrupt corporeal principle, according to which the god of the Stoics is a body, with respect to whom they are not afraid to say that he is capable of change, and may be altered and transformed in all his parts, and, generally, that he is capable of corruption, if there be any one to corrupt him, but that he has the good fortune to escape corruption, because there is none to corrupt.  Whereas the doctrine of the Jews and Christians, which preserves the immutability and unalterableness of the divine nature, is stigmatized as impious, because it does not partake of the profanity of those whose notions of God are marked by impiety, but because it says in the supplication addressed to the Divinity, “Thou art the same,”43    Ps. cii. 27. it being, moreover, an article of faith that God has said, “I change not.”44    Mal. iii. 6.

Τούτου οὖν, φησί, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ παρὰ τοῖς σοφοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ ἐλλογίμοις ἀνδράσιν ἐπακηκοὼς ὄνομα δαιμόνιον ἔσχε Μωϋσῆς. Καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο δὲ λεκτέον, ἵν' αὐτῷ συγχω ρηθῇ Μωϋσέα ἀκηκοέναι ἀρχαιοτέρου λόγου καὶ τοῦτον Ἑβραίοις παραδεδωκέναι, ὅτι εἰ μὲν ψευδοῦς λόγου ἀκούσας καὶ μὴ σοφοῦ μηδὲ σεμνοῦ παρεδέξατο αὐτὸν καὶ παρέδωκε τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτόν, ἔγκλητός ἐστιν· εἰ δ' ὡς σὺ φῄς, συγκατέθετο δόγμασι σοφοῖς καὶ ἀληθέσι καὶ ἐπαίδευσε τοὺς οἰκείους δι' αὐτῶν, τί κατηγορίας ἄξιον πεποίηκεν; Ὡς εἴθε καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ ἔλαττον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀσεβῶν Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ σῶμα εἰπόντες τὸν θεὸν Στωϊκοὶ τοῦ λόγου τούτου ἤκουσαν· ἵνα μὴ πληρωθῇ ὁ κόσμος λόγου ἀθετοῦντος πρόνοιαν ἢ διακόπτοντος αὐτὴν ἢ ἀρχὴν φθαρτὴν εἰσάγοντος τὴν σωματικήν, καθ' ἣν καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἐστι σῶμα, οὐκ αἰδουμένοις λέγειν αὐτὸν τρεπτὸν καὶ δι' ὅλων ἀλλοιωτὸν καὶ μεταβλητὸν καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς δυνάμενον φθαρῆναι, εἰ ἔχει τὸν φθείροντα, εὐτυχοῦντα δὲ μὴ φθαρῆναι παρὰ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι τὸ φθεῖρον αὐτόν. Ἀλλ' ὁ Ἰουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν λόγος, ὁ τὸ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον τοῦ θεοῦ τηρῶν, ἀσεβὴς εἶναι νενόμισται, ἐπεὶ μὴ συνασεβεῖ τοῖς ἀσεβῆ περὶ θεοῦ φρονοῦσι λέγων ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐχαῖς· "Σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ," πεπίστευται δὲ καὶ ὁ θεὸς εἰρηκέναι τὸ "Οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι."