Contra Celsum ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΙ Ηʹ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ∆ΕΥΤΕΡΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΤΡΙΤΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΤΕΤΑΡΤΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΠΕΜΠΤΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΕΚΤΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΕΒ∆ΟΜΟΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ΚΕΛΣΟΥ ΑΛΗΘΗ ΛΟΓΟΝ ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΟΓ∆ΟΟΣ
Chapter LVIII.
But we have something more to say to Celsus, when he declares that “the soul is the work of God, and that the nature of body is different,” and puts forward such an opinion not only without proof, but even without clearly defining his meaning; for he did not make it evident whether he meant that every soul is the work of God, or only the rational soul. This, then, is what we have to say: If every soul is the work of God, it is manifest that those of the meanest irrational animals are God’s work, so that the nature of all bodies is different from that of the soul. He appears, however, in what follows, where he says that “irrational animals are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of divinity,” to maintain that not only is the soul of man, but in a much greater degree that of irrational animals, the work of God; for this follows from their being said to be more beloved by God than we. Now if the rational soul alone be the work of God, then, in the first place, he did not clearly indicate that such was his opinion; and in the second place, this deduction follows from his indefinite language regarding the soul—viz., whether not every one, but only the rational, is the work of God—that neither is the nature of all bodies different (from the soul). But if the nature of all bodies be not different, although the body of each animal correspond to its soul, it is evident that the body of that animal whose soul was the work of God, would differ from the body of that animal in which dwells a soul which was not the work of God. And so the assertion will be false, that there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man.
Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῦτό φαμεν τῷ Κέλσῳ εἰπόντι· ψυχὴ μὲν θεοῦ ἔργον, σώματος δὲ ἄλλη φύσις καὶ οὐ μόνον ἀκατασ κευάστως τὸ τηλικοῦτον δόγμα ῥίψαντι ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδιορίστως· οὐ γὰρ ἐσαφήνισε, πότερον πᾶσα ψυχὴ θεοῦ ἔργον ἢ μόνη ἡ λογική· φαμὲν τοίνυν πρὸς αὐτόν· εἰ μὲν πᾶσα ψυχὴ θεοῦ ἔργον, δηλονότι καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων καὶ εὐτελεστάτων, ἵνα καὶ παντὸς σώματος ἄλλη φύσις ᾖ παρὰ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς. Ἔοικε μέντοι ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς, ἐν οἷς καὶ θεοφιλέστερα τὰ ἄλογα ζῷά φησιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ θείου τὴν ἔννοιαν ἔχειν καθαρωτέραν, παριστάνειν ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ψυχὴ ἔργον ἐστὶ τοῦ θεοῦ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ θεοφιλέστερα λέγεσθαι ἐκεῖνα ἡμῶν. Εἰ δὲ μόνη ἡ λογικὴ ψυχὴ θεοῦ ἔργον ἐστί, πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ ἐσαφήνισε τὸ τοιοῦτον· δεύτερον δὲ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ ἀδιορίστως εἰρῆσθαι περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς οὐ πάσης ἀλλὰ μόνης τῆς λογικῆς οὔσης θεοῦ ἔργον, τὸ μηδὲ παντὸς σώματος ἄλλην εἶναι φύσιν. Εἰ δὲ μὴ παντὸς σώματος ἄλλη φύσις, ἀλλ' ἑκάστου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα ζῴου ἀνάλογον τῇ ψυχῇ, δῆλον ὅτι οὗ ψυχὴ θεοῦ ἔργον ἐστί, διαφέροι ἂν τὸ ταύτης σῶμα σώματος, ἐν ᾧ οἰκεῖ ψυχὴ οὐκ οὖσα ἔργον θεοῦ. Καὶ οὕτω ψεῦδος ἔσται τὸ μηδὲν διοίσειν νυκτερίδος ἢ εὐλῆς ἢ βατράχου σῶμα παρὰ τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.