5. Celsus seems to think that the argument leads to the conclusion that "all men ought to live according to the customs of their country, and that they should not be blamed for so doing; but that Christians having forsaken their ancestral usages, and not being one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for following the teaching of Jesus." Let him then tell us whether men of a philosophic turn of mind, who have been taught to avoid superstition, are right in forsaking their ancestral usages and in going so far as to eat things forbidden in their own countries; or will they act unbecomingly in so doing? For if on account of their philosophy, and what they have learned in opposition to superstition, they do not keep their ancestral customs, but would eat of things traditionally forbidden, why should not Christians also, since reason persuades them not to concern themselves with images, and statues, or even with the works of God, but to rise above these and bring the soul near to the Creator, why should not they be free from blame when they are only doing what the philosophers do? If for the sake of defending his pet theory, Celsus or his supporters should say that even a philosopher will observe his country's customs, it is time for philosophers to make a laughing-stock of themselves, in Egypt, for instance, by refraining from eating onions that they may observe their country's customs, or certain parts of a carcase, head or shoulder, for example, that they may not transgress the traditions of their fathers. So then, also, if a man has been brought by the Word to |168 worship the Supreme God, and out of regard for ancestral usage lingers somewhere down among the images and statues of men, and is not willing by deliberate choice to rise to the Creator, he would be like those who are acquainted with philosophy, but fear where no fear is, and count it impiety to partake of such food.