we Christians pronounce him to be a certain compound ; and we judge it meet, that he, who had predetermined to sojourn among us like a man, should not unseasonably expose himself to mortal danger.For, since he wished to appear only as a man testified of God, there would have been an inconsistency in any extraordinary aid, which might indicate, that, under the appearance of a man, he possessed somewhat more divine: namely, that he was properly the Son of God, even God the Word and the Power and the Wisdom of God, who is called Christ 1.

1 Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ἑξῆς ὁ Ἰουδαῖος πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ λέγει.

Τί δὲ καί σε νήπιον ἔτι ἐχρῆν εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐκκομίζεσθαι, μὴ ἀποσφαγῇς; Θεὸν γὰρ οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν περὶ θανάτου δεδοικέναι καὶ ἄγγελος μὲν ἧκεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, κελεύων σοὶ καὶ τοῖς σοῖς οἰ κείοις φεύγειν, μὴ ἐγκαταληφθέντες ἀποθάνητε. Φυλάσσειν δέ σε αὐτόθι, ὁ δύο ήδη διά σε πεπομφὼς ἀγγέλους, ὁ μέγας Θεός, τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν οὐκ ἐδύνατο;—

Ἡμεῖς δ', αὐτῷ πιστεύοντες Ἰησοῦ, περὶ μὲν τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ θειότητος λέγοντι, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωὴ, καὶ εἴ τι τούτοις παραπλήσιον· περὶ δὲ τοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῳ σώματι ἦν, ταῦτα φάσκοντι, Νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον, ὅστις τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα ̇ σύνθετόν τι χρῆμα φαμὲν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι, καὶ ἐχρῆν τὸν προνοούμενον τῆς ὡς ἀνθρώπου ἑαυτοῦ εἰς τὸν βίον ἐπιδημίας μὴ ακαίρως ομόσε χωρεῖν τῷ ἕως θανάτου κινδύνῳ.—Τὸ γὰρ πάνυ παράδοξον τῆς ἐπ' αὐτὸν βοη θείας, καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐμφανὲς, οὐκ ἦν χρήσιμον τῷ βούλεσθαι αὐ τὸν διδάξαι ὡς ἄνθρωπον μαρτυρούμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχειν τι θειότερον ἐν τῷ βλεπομένῳ ἀνθρώπῳ· ὅπερ ἦν ὁ κυρίως υἱὸς Θεοῦ, Θεὸς Λόγος καὶ Δυνάμις καὶ Θεοῦ Σοφία, ὁ καλούμενος Χριστός. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 51. 52. Spencer. Cantab. 1618.

Goc, he continues in die peran of mis fictitious Jew to address Jeans, cannot ice such a body as thime.

But, in answer to wild, we may : tid, sojourning in life as a man, he crimed, from a fenke, a body like the human body capable of dead

His fictitions Jew goes on to sèject: How could we deem him to be coo, zho performed making of the things which he promised; and ziɔ, when we had comricted him, was at length apprehended after a disgraceful attempt to hide himself; and who was betrayed by the very persons, whom he called disciples? Had he been cop, he could neither have fled, nor could he have been led away in bonds.—

To this we reply: that we do not suppose the visible and sensible body of Jesus to be God, nor even indeed his human soul concerning which it is said, My soul is sorrowful even unto death: but, in our opinion, the Word, who is God and the Son of the God of all things, spoke, in Jesus, both the saying, I am the way and the truth and the life, and the saying, I am the gate, and the saying, I am the living bread that descended from heaven, and other sayings of a similar nature. Well, therefore, do we censure the Jews for not deeming him to be God, who is by the prophets so often testified of, as being

1

Φησὶν, "Οτι Θεοῦ οὐκ ἂν εἴη τοιοῦτον σῶμα, οἷον τὸ σύν. ̓Αλλ' ἡμεῖς, πρὸς ταῦτα, σῶμα αὐτὸν λέγομεν ἀνειληφέναι, ὡς ἀπὸ θηλείας, τῷ βίῳ ἐπιδημήσαντα ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ θανάTov dvoрúrov dEKTIKÓV. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 54.

THE GREAT POWER AND GOD according to the God and Father of all things. For we assert, that, in the Mosaic Cosmogony, the Father addressed to him the command, Let there be light, and Let there be a firmament, and whatsoever other things God commanded to be made. He, moreover, said to him; Let us make man after our image and our likeness : and the Word, having received these commands, did all the things which the Father enjoined him.-But we speak thus, not as separating THE SON OF GOD from the man Jesus: for, after the economy, the soul and the body of Jesus became most intimately one with THE word of God'.

1 Μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ἰουδαῖος Πῶς δ ̓ ἐμέλλομεν τοῦτον νομίζειν Θεὸν, ὃς, τά τε ἄλλα ὥσπερ ἐπηκούετο, οὐδὲν ὧν ἐπηγ γέλλετο ἐπεδείκνυτο; καὶ, ἐπειδὴ ἡμεῖς ἐλέγξαντες αὐτὸν καὶ καταγνόντες ἠξιοῦμεν κολάζεσθαι, κρυπτόμενος μὲν καὶ διαδιδράσκων ἐπονειδιστότατα, ἑάλω· ὑπ' αὐτῶν δὲ ὧν ὠνόμαζε μαθητῶν προυδόθη. Καί τοι Θεόν, φησιν, ὄντα, οὔτε φεύγειν ἐνῆν, οὔτε δεθέντα ἀπάγεσθαι.

Πρὸς ταῦτα δὲ φήσομεν, ὅτι οὐδ ̓ ἡμεῖς ὑπολαμβάνομεν τὸ βλεπόμενον τότε καὶ αἰσθητὸν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ σῶμα εἶναι Θεόν. Καὶ τί λέγω τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὴν ψυχὴν, περὶ ἧς λέλεκται τὸ, Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου· ̓Αλλὰ,—καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς, ὁ Λόγος Θεὸς, καὶ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων υἱὸς, ἔλεγεν ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ τὸ, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· καὶ τὸ, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα· καὶ τὸν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς· καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τούτοις παραπλήσιον. Ἐγκαλοῦμεν οὖν Ιουδαίοις τοῦτον μὴ νομίσασι Θεὸν, ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν πολλαχοῦ • μεμαρτυρημένον ὡς μεγάλην ὄντα Δυνάμιν καὶ Θεὸν, κατὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα. Τούτῳ γὰρ φαμὲν, ἐν τῇ κατὰ Μωσέα κοσμοποιΐα, προστάττοντα τὸν Πατέρα εἰρηκέναι τὸ, Γενηθήτω

upon the whole body of the Christians, both by Pagans and by Jews and by Pagans assuming the controversial character of Jews, long anterior to the commencement of the fourth century.

The importance of the charge, so far as historical testimony is concerned, depends entirely upon the manner in which it was received.

If the charge were readily and instantaneously and constantly denied: the very denial would afford a distinct proof; that The early Christians recognised no such doctrine as that of the Trinity and of the godhead of their Master.

But, if, on the contrary, the charge were always freely admitted; if the opinion, involved in it, were strenuously defended; and if, in various instances,

Vetus erat decretum, ne deus ab imperatore consecraretur, nisi a senatu probaretur, ut M. Æmilius de deo suo Alburno fecit et hoc ad causam nostram, quod apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur. Nisi homini deus placuerit, deus non erit homo jam deo propitius esse debebit.-Quales ergo leges istæ, quas adversus nos soli exercent impii, injusti, turpes, truces, varii, dementes? Tertull. Apol. adv. Gent. Oper. p. 815, 817.

Such a law could not have affected Christians; unless it had been known, and unless they themselves had freely confessed, that they worshipped Christ as God. The Pagans, with their notions, might probably sometimes imagine, that Christ was the canonised hero-god of the Nazarenes: but this could not have been the case with the more curious and accurate inquirers among them; because, as I observe in the text, the very stress of their objections rests upon the alleged absurdity, that a crucified malefactor could be the Supreme Divinity.

the charge itself originated from the very language of those against whom it was brought: such an admission and such a defence will afford, I apprehend, a no less distinct proof; that The doctrine of Christ's godhead, included in the doctrine of the Trinity, was the standard doctrine of the Catholic Church during the period throughout which the charge was so perpetually propounded.

Having made these preliminary observations, I shall now, agreeably to the plan which has been laid down, trace the matter retrogressively from the era of the first Nicene Council.

I. About the year 303, or about the latter end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century, flourished Arnobius, originally a pagan rhetorician at Sicca in Africa, afterward a convert to Christianity.

This writer gives the following account of the charge, as it stood in his time.

The gods, says the pagan enemy of the Gospel, are not angry at you Christians, because you worship the Omnipotent God. But they are indignant: both because you contend, that ONE, WHO

WAS BORN A MAN AND WHO WAS PUT TO DEATH BY THE IGNOMINIOUS PUNISHMENT OF CRUCIFIXION, IS

GOD; and because you believe him still to survive ; and because YOU ADORE HIM WITH DAILY SUPPLICATIONS 1.

1 Sed non, inquit, idcirco dii vobis infesti sunt, quod Omnipotentem colatis Deum; sed quod hominem natum, et quod per