Chapter XIV.

But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in the following fashion:  “And again,” he says, “let us resume the subject from the beginning, with a larger array of proofs.  And I make no new statement, but say what has been long settled.  God is good, and beautiful, and blessed, and that in the best and most beautiful degree.667    ῾Ο Θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι, καὶ καλὸς, καὶ εὐδαίμων, καὶ ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ καὶ ἀρίστῳ.  But if he come down among men, he must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst.  Who, then, would make choice of such a change?  It is the nature of a mortal, indeed, to undergo change and remoulding, but of an immortal to remain the same and unaltered.  God, then, could not admit of such a change.”  Now it appears to me that the fitting answer has been returned to these objections, when I have related what is called in Scripture the “condescension”668    κατάβασιν. of God to human affairs; for which purpose He did not need to undergo a transformation, as Celsus thinks we assert, nor a change from good to evil, nor from virtue to vice, nor from happiness to misery, nor from best to worst.  For, continuing unchangeable in His essence, He condescends to human affairs by the economy of His providence.669    τῆ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ.  We show, accordingly, that the holy Scriptures represent God as unchangeable, both by such words as “Thou art the same,”670    Ps. cii. 27. and” I change not;”671    Mal. iii. 6. whereas the gods of Epicurus, being composed of atoms, and, so far as their structure is concerned, capable of dissolution, endeavour to throw off the atoms which contain the elements of destruction.  Nay, even the god of the Stoics, as being corporeal, at one time has his whole essence composed of the guiding principle672    ἡγεμονικόν. when the conflagration (of the world) takes place; and at another, when a rearrangement of things occurs, he again becomes partly material.673    The reading in the text is, ἐπὶ μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς, which is thus corrected by Guietus:  ἐπιμερὴς γίνεται αὐτὸς.  For even the Stoics were unable distinctly to comprehend the natural idea of God, as of a being altogether incorruptible and simple, and uncompounded and indivisible.

Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ ἅπερ ἑξῆς φησιν ὁ Κέλσος μετὰ μεγάλης ἐπαγγελίας τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἔτι δέ, φησίν, ἄνωθεν πλείοσιν ἀποδείξεσιν ἀναλάβωμεν τὸν λόγον. Λέγω δὲ οὐδὲν καινὸν ἀλλὰ πάλαι δεδογμένα. Ὁ θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ καλὸς καὶ εὐδαίμων καὶ ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ καὶ ἀρίστῳ· εἰ δὴ ἐς ἀνθρώπους κάτεισι, μεταβολῆς αὐτῷ δεῖ, μεταβολῆς δὲ ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ εἰς κακὸν καὶ ἐκ καλοῦ εἰς αἰσχρὸν καὶ ἐξ εὐδαιμονίας εἰς κακοδαιμονίαν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀρίστου εἰς τὸ πονηρότατον. Τίς ἂν οὖν ἕλοιτο τοιαύτην μεταβολήν; Καὶ μὲν δὴ τῷ θνητῷ μὲν ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ μεταπλάττεσθαι φύσις, τῷ δ' ἀθανάτῳ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν. Οὐκ ἂν οὖν οὐδὲ ταύτην τὴν μεταβολὴν θεὸς δέχοιτο. ∆οκεῖ δή μοι πρὸς ταῦτα λέλεχθαι τὰ δέοντα διηγησαμένῳ τὴν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς λεγομένην κατάβασιν θεοῦ πρὸς τὰ ἀνθρώπινα· εἰς ἣν οὐ μεταβολῆς αὐτῷ δεῖ, ὡς Κέλσος οἴεται ἡμᾶς λέγειν, οὔτε τροπῆς τῆς ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ εἰς κακὸν ἢ ἐκ καλοῦ εἰς αἰσχρὸν ἢ ἐξ εὐδαιμονίας εἰς κακοδαιμονίαν ἢ ἐκ τοῦ ἀρίστου εἰς τὸ πονηρότατον. Μένων γὰρ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἄτρεπτος συγκαταβαίνει τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις πράγμασιν. Ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ θεῖα γράμματα παρίσταμεν ἄτρεπτον λέγοντα τὸν θεὸν ἔν τε τῷ "Σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ" καὶ ἐν τῷ "Οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι"· οἱ δὲ τοῦ Ἐπικούρου θεοί, σύνθετοι ἐξ ἀτόμων τυγχάνοντες καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ συστάσει ἀναλυτοί, πραγματεύονται τὰς φθοροποιοὺς ἀτόμους ἀποσείεσθαι. Ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ τῶν Στωϊκῶν θεός, ἅτε σῶμα τυγχάνων, ὁτὲ μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν ἔχει τὴν ὅλην οὐσίαν, ὅταν ἡ ἐκπύρωσις ᾖ· ὁτὲ δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς, ὅταν ᾖ διακόσμησις. Οὐδὲ γὰρ δεδύνηνται οὗτοι τρανῶσαι τὴν φυσικὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔννοιαν ὡς πάντῃ ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἁπλοῦ καὶ ἀσυνθέτου καὶ ἀδιαιρέτου.