No More Learning

As the answer, however, of Origen to the arguments of Celsus is very
futile and inefficient, it would be admirable to see some one of the
learned divines with which the church at present abounds, leap into the
arena, and by vanquishing Celsus, prove that the Christian religion
is peculiarly adapted to the present times, and to the interest of the
priests by whom it is professed and disseminated.

The Marquis D'Argens published a translation in French, accompanied
by the Greek text, of the arguments of the Emperor Julian against
the Christians; and as an apology for the present work, I subjoin the
following translation of a part of his preliminary discourse, in which
he defends that publication.

"It may be that certain half-witted gentleman

{v}

may reproach me for having brought forward a work composed in former
times against the Christians, in the vulgar tongue. To such I might
at once simply reply, that the work was preserved by a Father of the
Church; but I will go further, and tell them with Father Petau, who gave
a Greek edition of the works of Julian, that if those who condemn the
authors that have published these works, will temper the ardour of their
zeal with reason and judgement, they will think differently, and will
distinguish between the good use that may be made of the book, and the
bad intentions of the writer.

"Father Petau also judiciously remarks, that if the times were not gone
by when dæmons took the advantage of idolatry to seduce mankind, it
would be prudent not to afford any aid, or give the benefit of any
invective against Jesus, or the Christian religion to the organs of
those dæmons; but since by the blessing of God and the help of the
cross, which have brought about our salvation, the monstrous dogmas of
Paganism are buried in oblivion,

{vi}

we have nothing to fear from that pest; there is no weighty reason for
our rising up against the monuments of Pagan aberration that now remain,
and totally destroying them. On the contrary, the same Father Petau
says, that it is better to treat them as the ancient Christians treated
the images and temples of the gods. At first, in the provinces in
which they were in power, they razed them to the very foundations, that
nothing might be visible to posterity that could perpetuate impiety, or
the sight of which could recall mankind to an abominable worship. But
when the same Christians had firmly established their religion, it
appeared more rational to them, after destroying the altars and statues
of the gods, to preserve the temples, and by purifying them, to make
them serviceable for the worship of the true God. The same Christians
also, not only discontinued to break the statues and images of the
gods, but they took the choicest of them, that were the work of the most
celebrated artists, and set them up in public places to ornament their
cities, as well as to recall to the memory of those who beheld them, how
gross

{vii}

the blindness* of their ancestors had been, and how powerful the grace
that had delivered them from it. "

The Marquis d'Argens further observes: "It were to be wished, that
Father Petau, having so judiciously considered the works of Julian, had
formed an equally correct idea of the person of that Emperor. I cannot
discover through what caprice he takes it amiss, that a certain learned
Professor** has praised the civil virtues of Julian, and condemned the
evidently false calumnies that almost all the ecclesiastical authors
have lavished upon him; and amongst the rest Gregory and Cyril, who
to the good arguments they have adduced against the false reasoning of
Julian, have added insults which ought never to have been used by any
defender of truth. They have cruelly

* The Heathens would here reply to Father Petau. Which is
the greater blindness of the two,-- ours, in worshipping the
images of deiform processions from the ineffable principle
of things, and who are eternally united to him; or that of
the Papists, in worshipping the images of worthless men

** Monsieur de la Bletric.

{viii}

calumniated this Emperor to favour _their good cause_, and confounded
the just, wise, clement, and most courageous prince, with the Pagan
philosopher and theologian; when they ought simply to have refuted him
with argument, in no case with insult, and still less with calumnies so
evidently false, that during fourteen centuries, in which they have
been so often repeated, they have never been accredited, nor enabled to
assume even an air of truth. "

A wise Christian philosopher, La Mothe, Le Vayer, in reflecting on
the great virtues with which Julian was endowed, on the contempt he
manifested for death, on the firmness with which he consoled those who
wept around him, and on his last conversation with Maximus and Priscus
on the immortality of the soul, says, "that after such testimonies of
a virtue, to which _nothing appears to be wanting but the faith to give
its professor a place amongst the blessed_*, we have cause to wonder
that

* According to this _wise Christian philosopher_ therefore,
not only all the confessedly wise and virtuous

Heathens that lived posterior, but those also who lived anterior to the
promulgation of the Christian religion, will have no place hereafter
among the blessed.

{ix}

Cyril should have tried to make us believe, that Julian was a mean and
cowardly prince*. Those who judge of men that lived in former ages by
those who have lived in more recent times, may feel little surprise at
the proceedings of Cyril. It has rarely happened that long animosity and
abuse have not been introduced into religious controversies. "

After what has been above said of Julian, I deem it necessary to
observe, that Father Petau is egregiously mistaken in supposing that
Cyril has preserved the whole of that Emperor's arguments against the
Christians: and the Marquis D'Argêns is also mistaken when he says, that
"the passages of Julian's text which are

* This is by no means wonderful in Cyril, when we consider
that he is, with the strongest reason, suspected of being
the cause of the murder of Hypatia, who was one of the
brightest ornaments of the Alexandrian school, and who was
not only a prodigy of learning, but also a paragon of
beauty.

{x}

abridged or omitted, aire very few. " For Hieronymus in Epist. 83. _Ad
Magnum Oratorem Romanum_, testifies that this work consisted of seven
books; three of which only Cyril attempted to confute, as is evident
from his own words, [--Greek--] "Julian wrote three books against the
holy Evangelists. " But as Fabricius observes, (in Biblioth. Græc. tom.
vii. p. 89. ) in the other four books, he appears to have attacked the
remaining books of the Scriptures, i. e. the books of the Old Testament.

With respect, however, to the three books which Cyril has endeavoured to
confute, it appears to me, that he has only selected such parts of these
books as he thought he could most easily answer. For that he has not
given even the substance of these three books, is evident from the
words of Julian himself, as recorded by Cyril. For Julian, after certain
invectives both against Christ and John, says, "These things, therefore,
we shall shortly discuss, when we come particularly to consider

{xi}

the monstrous deeds and fraudulent machinations of the Evangelists*. "
There is no particular discussion however of these in any part of the
extracts preserved by Cyril.

That the work, indeed, of Julian against the Christians was of
considerable extent, is evident from the testimony of his contemporary,
Libanius; who, in his admirable funeral oration on this most
extraordinary man, has the following remarkable passage: "But when the
winter had extended the nights, Julian, besides many other beautiful
works, attacked the books which make a man of Palestine to be a God, and
the son of God; and in _a long contest_, and with strenuous arguments,
evinced that what is said in these writings is ridiculous and nugatory.
And in the execution of this work he appears to have excelled in wisdom
the Tyrian old man. **

* [--Greek--]

** viz. Porphyry, who was of Tyre, and who, as is well
known, wrote a work against the Christians, which was
publicly burnt by order of the Emperor Constantine.

{xii}

In asserting this however, may the Tyrian be propitious to me, and
benevolently receive what I have said, he having been vanquished by his
son*. "

With respect to Celsus, the author of the following Fragments, he lived
in the time of the Emperor Adrian. and was, if Origen may be credited,
an Epicurean philosopher. That he might indeed, at some former period of
his life, have been an Epicurean maybe admitted; but it would be highly
absurd to suppose that he was so when he wrote this invective against
the Christians; for the arguments which he mostly employs show that he
was well skilled m the philosophy of Plato: and to suppose, as Origen
does, that he availed himself of arguments in

* [--Greek--]

[xiii]

which he did not believe, and consequently conceived to be erroneous, in
order to confute doctrines which he was persuaded are false, would be
to make him, instead of a philosopher, a fool. As to Origen, though he
abandoned philosophy for Christianity, he was considered as heterodox
by many of the Christian sect. Hence, with some of the Catholics,
his future salvation became a matter of doubt*; and this induced the
celebrated Johannes Picus Mirandulanus, in the last of his _Theological
conclusions according to his own opinion_, to say: "Rationabilius est
credere Uriginem esse salvum, quam credere ipsum esse damnatum," _i. e.
It is more reasonable to believe that Origen is saved, than that he is
damned. _

I shall conclude this Introduction with the following extract.

* 'In Prato Spiritual! , c. 26, quod citatur, à VIL Synodo,
et à Johanne Diacono, lib. ii. c. 45. vitas B. Gregorii
narratur fevelatio, qua Origines viras est in Gehenna ignis
cum Alio et Netftorio. "*--Fobric. BMiotk Grate torn. v. p.
216

{xiv}

Directions of Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, to a young divine.

"It will be of great use for a divine to be acquainted with the arts,
knavery, and fraud of the Roman inquisitor, in purging, correcting, or
rather corrupting authors in all arts and faculties. For this purpose
we may consult the _Index Expurgatorius_. By considering this Index, we
come to know the best editions of many good books.

"1st. The best books; that is, those that are condemned.

"2nd. The best editions; viz. those that are dated before the _Index_,
and consequently not altered.

"3rd. The _Index_ is a good common place book, to point out who has
written well against the Church, p. 70.

"Ockam is damned in the _Index_, and therefore we may be sure he was
guilty of telling some great truth, p. 41. *"

* The Bishop's rule is as good for one church as for
another, and every church has its Index.




THE ARGUMENTS OF CELSUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS

[Illustration: Celsus]

"THE Christians are accustomed to have private assemblies, which are
forbidden by the law. For of assemblies some are public, and these are
conformable to the law of the land; but others are secret, and these are
such as are hostile to the laws; among which are the Love Feasts of the
Christians *.

* Why the Romans punished the Christians:

"It is commonly regarded as a very curious and remarkable
fact, that, although the Romans were disposed to tolerate
every other religious sect, yet they frequently persecuted
the Christians with unrelenting cruelty. This exception, so
fatal to a peaceable and harmless sect, must have originated
in circumstances which materially distin-. . .

{2}

"Men who irrationally assent to anything, resemble those who are
delighted with jugglers and enchanters, &c. For as most of these are
depraved characters, who deceive the vulgar, and persuade them to assent
to whatever they please, this also takes place with the Christians. Some
of these are not willing either to give or receive a reason for what
they believe; but are accustomed to say, 'Do not investigate, but
believe, your faith will save you.

. . . guished them from the votaries of every other religion. The
causes and the pretexts of persecution may have varied at
various periods; but there seems to have been one general
cause which will readily be apprehended by those who are
intimately acquainted with the Roman jurisprudence. From the
most remote period of their history, the Romans had
conceived extreme horror against all nocturnal meetings of a
secret and mysterious nature. A law prohibiting nightly
vigils in a temple has even been ascribed, perhaps with
little probability, to the founder of their state. The laws
of the twelve tables declared it a capital offence to attend
nocturnal assemblies in the city. This, then, being the
spirit of the law, it is obvious that the nocturnal meetings
of the primitive Christians must have rendered them objects
of peculiar suspicion, and exposed them to the animadversion
of the magistrate. It was during the night that they usually
held their most solemn and religious assemblies; for a
practice which may be supposed to have arisen from their
fears, seems to have been continued from the operation of
other causes. Misunderstanding the purport of certain
passages of Scripture, they were. . .

{3}

'For the wisdom of the world is bad, but folly is good*,'

"The world, according to Moses, was created at a certain time, and has
from its commencement existed for a period far short of ten thousand
years,--The world, however, is without a beginning; in consequence of
which there have been from all eternity many conflagrations, and
many deluges, among the latter of which the most recent is that of
Deucalion**.

. . . led to imagine that the second advent, of which they lived
in constant expectation, would take place during the night;
and they were accustomed to celebrate nightly vigils at the
tombs of the saints and martyrs. In this case, therefore,
they incurred no penalties peculiar to the votaries of a new
religion, but only such as equally attached to those who,
professing the public religion of the state, were yet guilty
of this undoubted violation of its laws. "--Observations on
the Study of the Civil Law, by Dr. Irving, Edin. 1820. p.
11.

"It is not true that the primitive Christians held their assemblies in
the night time to avoid the interruptions of the civil power: but the
converse of that proposition is true in the utmost latitude; viz. that
they met with molestations from that quarter, because their assemblies
were nocturnal. "--Elements of Civil Law, by Dr. Taylor, p. 579.

* See Erasmus's Praise of Folly, towards the end.

** See on this subject the Tinusus of Plato.

{4}

"Goatherds and shepherds among the Jews, following Moses as their
leader, and being allured by rustic deceptions, conceived that there is
[only] one God.

"These goatherds and shepherds were of opinion that there is one God,
whether they delight to call him the Most High, or Adonai, or Celestial,
or Sabaoth, or to celebrate by any other name the fabricator of this
world*; for they knew nothing farther. For it is of no consequence,
whether the God who is above all things, is denominated, after the
accustomed manner of the Greeks, Jupiter, or is called by any other
name, such as that which is given to him by the Indians or Egyptians. "

Celsus, assuming the person of a Jew, represents him as speaking to
Jesus, and reprehending him for many things. And in the first place he
reproaches him with feigning that he was born of a virgin; and says,
that to his disgrace he was born in a Judaic village from a poor Jewess,
who obtained the means

* In the original there is nothing more than [--------] i.
e. this world; but it is necessary to read, conformably to
the above translation, [--------]. For the Jews did not
celebrate the world, but the Maker of the world, by these
names.

{5}

of subsistence by manual labour. He adds, That she was abandoned by her
husband, who was a carpenter, because she had been found by him to
have committed adultery. Hence, in consequence of being expelled by her
husband, becoming an ignominious vagabond, she was secretly delivered
of Jesus, who, through poverty being obliged to serve as a hireling in
Egypt, learnt there certain arts for which the Egyptians are famous.
Afterwards, returning from thence, he thought so highly of himself,
on account of the possession of these [magical] arts, as to proclaim
himself to be a God. Celsus also adds, That the mother of Jesus became
pregnant with him through a soldier, whose name was Panthera*.

"Was therefore the mother of Jesus beautiful, and was God connected with
her on account of her beauty, though he is not adapted to be in love
with a corruptible body? Or is it not absurd to suppose that God
would be enamoured of a woman who was neither fortunate nor of royal
extraction, nor even scarcely known to her neighbours; and who was also
hated and ejected by the carpenter her

* The same thing is said of Jesus in a work called "The
Gospel according to the Jews, or Toldoth Jesu. " See Chap. I.
and II. of that work.

{6}

husband, so as neither to be saved by her own credulity nor by divine
power? These things, therefore, do not at all pertain to the kingdom of
God. "

Celsus, again personifying a Jew, says to Christ, "When you were washed
by John, you say that the spectre of a bird flew to you from the air.
But what witness worthy of belief saw this spectre? Or who heard a voice
from heaven, adopting you for a son of God, except yourself, and some
one of your associates, who was equally a partaker of your wickedness
and punishment?

"Jesus having collected as his associates ten or eleven infamous men,
consisting of the most wicked publicans and sailors, fled into different
places, obtaining food with difficulty, and in a disgraceful manner. "

Again, in the person of a Jew, Celsus says to Christ, "What occasion
was there, while you were yet an infant, that you should be brought to
Egypt, in order that you might not be slain? For it was not fit that a
God should be afraid of death. But an angel came from heaven, ordering
you and your associates to fly, lest being taken you should be put to
death. For the great God [it seems] could not

{7}

preserve you, his own son, m your own country, but sent two angels on
your account. "

The same Jew in Celsus also adds, "Though we do not believe in the
ancient fables, which ascribe a divine origin to Perseus, Amphion,
Æacus, and Minos, yet at the same time their deeds are demonstrated to
be mighty and admirable, and truly superhuman, in order that what
is narrated of their origin may not appear to be improbable. " But
(speak-ing to Jesus) he says, "What beautiful or admirable thing have
you said or done, though you was (sp) called upon in the temple to give
some manifest sign that you were the son of God? "

Celsus, pretending not to disbelieve in the miracles ascribed to Christ,
says to him, "Let us grant that these things were performed by you; but
they are common with the works of enchanters, who promise to effect
more wonderful deeds than these, and also with what those who have been
taught by the Egyptians to perform in the middle of the forum for a
few oboli; such as expelling dæmons from men, dissipating diseases by a
puff, evocating the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous suppers, and
tables covered with food, which have no reality. These magicians also
represent animals as moving, which are not in reality animals, but
merely appear

{8}

to the imagination to be such. --Is it fit, therefore» that we should
believe these men to be the sons of God, because they worked these
wonders? Or ought we not rather to say, that these are the arts of
depraved and unhappy men! "

Again the Jew says, "It is but recently, and as it were yesterday, since
we punished Christ; and you, who are [in no respect superior to] keepers
of oxen, have abandoned the laws of your ancestors and country. Why
likewise do you begin from our sacred institutions, but afterwards in
the progress [of your iniquity] despise them? For you have no other
origin of your dogma, than our law. Many. other such persons also as
Jesus was, may be seen by those who wish to be deceived. How too is it
probable that we, who have declared to all men that a person would be
sent by God as a punisher of the unjust, should treat him ignominiously,
if such a person had appeared among us? Again: How can we think him to
be a God, who, that I may omit other things, performed, as we learn,
nothing that was promised? And when, being condemned by us, he was
thought worthy of punishment, having concealed himself and fled, was
most disgracefully made a prisoner; being betrayed by those whom he
called his disciples? If, however, he was a God, it was not proper that
he should either fly, or be led

{9]

away captive. And much less was it fit, that, being considered as a
saviour and the son of the greatest God, and; also the messenger of this
God, by his familiars and private associates, he should be deserted and
betrayed by them. But what _excellent_ general, who was the leader of
many myriads of men, was ever betrayed by his soldiers? Indeed, this
has not happened even to the chief of a band of robbers, though a man
depraved, and the captain of men still more depraved than himself, when
to his associates he appeared to be useful. But Christ, who was betrayed
by those of whom he was the leader, though not as a good commander, nor
in such a way as robbers would behave to their captain, could not obtain
the benevolence of his deluded followers. --Many other things also, and
such as are true, respecting Jesus might be adduced, though they are not
committed to writing by his disciples; but these I willingly omit. His
disciples also falsely pretended, that he foreknew and foretold every
thing that happened to him.

"The disciples of Jesus, not being able to adduce any thing respecting
him that was obviously manifest, falsely assert that he foreknew all
things; and have written other things of a similar kind respecting lum.
This, however, is just the same as if some one should assert that a
certain person is a just

{10}

man, and notwithstanding this should show that he acted unjustly; that
he is a pious man, and yet a murderer; and, though immortal, died;
at the same time adding to all these assertions, that he had a
foreknowledge of all things.

"These things Jesus said after he had previously declared that he was
God, and it was entirely necessary that what he had predicted should
take place. He therefore, though a God, induced his disciples and
prophets, with whom he ate and drank, to become impious. It was,
however, requisite that he should have been beneficial to all men, and
particularly to his associates. No one likewise would think of betraying
the man, of whose table he had been a partaker. But here the associate
of the table of God became treacherous to him; God himself, which is
still more absurd, making those who had been hospitably entertained by
him to be his impious betrayers. "

The Jew in Celsus also says, that "What is asserted by the Jewish
prophets may be much more probably adapted to ten thousand other persons
than to Jesus. Besides, the prophets say, that he who was to come would
be a great and powerful king, and would be the lord of the whole earth,
and of all nations and armies: but no one would

{11}

infer from such like symbols and rumours, and from such ignoble
arguments, that Christ is the son of God.

"As the sun, which illuminates all other things, first shows himself [to
be the cause of light], thus also it is fit that this should have been
done by the son of God*. But the Christians argue sophistically, when
they say that the son of God is _the word itself_. And the accusation
is strengthened by this, that _the word_ which was announced by the
Christians to be the son of God, was not a pure and holy _word_, but a
man who was most disgracefully punished and put to death.

"What illustrious deed did Jesus accomplish worthy of a God, who beholds
from on high with contempt [the trifling pursuits of] men, and derides
and considers as sport terrestrial events?

"Why too did not Jesus, if not before, yet now at least, [i. e. when he
was brought before Pilate,] exhibit some divine indication respecting
himself; liberate himself from this ignominy, and punish those

* Celsus means that Christ should have given indubitable
evidence, by his sayings, his deeds, and by all that
happened to him, that he was the son of God.

{12}

who had insulted both him and his father? What kind of ichör also or
blood dropped from his crucified body? was it,. . . . . such as from the
blest immortals flows? "*

The Jew in Celsus further adds: "Do you reproach us with this, O most
faithful men, that we do not conceive Christ to be God, and that we do
not accord with you in believing that he suffered these things for the
benefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment?
Neither did he persuade any one while he lived, not even his own
disciples, that he should be punished, and suffer as he did: nor did he
exhibit himself [though a God] as one liberated from all evils.

"Certainly you Christians will not say, that Christ, when he found
that he could not induce the inhabitants on the surface of the earth to
believe in his doctrines, descended to the infernal regions, in order
that he might persuade those that dwelt there. But if inventing absurd
apologies by which you are ridiculously deceived, what should hinder
others also, who have perished miserably, from being ranked among angels
of a more divine order? "

* See Iliad, V, ver. S40.

{13}

The Jew in Celsus further observes, on comparing Christ with robbers,
"Some might in a similar manner unblushingly say of a robber and a
homicide, who was punished for his crimes, that he was not a robber but
a God; for he predicted to his associates that he should suffer what he
did suffer.

"The disciples of Jesus, living with him, hearing his voice, and
embracing his doctrines, when they saw that he was punished and put to
death, neither died with nor for him, nor could be persuaded to despise
punishment; but denied that they were his disciples. Why, therefore, do
not you Christians [voluntarily] die with your master?
"

The Jew in Celsus also says, that "Jesus made converts of ten sailors,
and most abandoned publicans; but did not even persuade all these to
embrace his doctrines.

"Is it not also absurd in the extreme, that so many should believe
in the doctrines of Christ now he is dead, though he was not able to
persuade any one [genuinely] while he was living?

"But the Christians will say, We believe Jesus to be the son of God,
because he cured the lame and the blind, and, as you assert, raised the
dead.

{14}

"O light and truth, which clearly proclaims in its own words, as you
write, that other men, and these depraved and enchanters, will come
among you, possessing similar miraculous powers! Christ also feigns that
a certain being, whom he denominates Satan, will be the source of these
nefarious characters: so that Christ himself does not deny that these
arts possess nothing divine, and acknowledges that they are the works
of depraved men. At the same time likewise, being compelled by truth, he
discloses both the arts of others and his own. Is it not, therefore, a
miserable thing, to consider, from the performance of the same deeds,
this man to be a God, but others to be nothing more than enchanters? For
why, employing his testimony, should we rather think those other workers
of miracles to be more depraved than himself? Indeed Christ confesses
that these arts are not indications of a divine nature, but of certain
impostors, and perfectly wicked characters. "

After this, the Jew in Celsus says to his fellow-citizens who believed
in Jesus, as follows: "Let us grant you that Jesus predicted his
resurrection: but how many others have employed such-like prodigies,
in order by a fabulous narration to effect what they wished; persuading
stupid auditors to believe in these miracles? Zamolxis among the

{15}

Scythians, who was a slave of Pythagoras, used this artifice; Pythagoras
also himself, in Italy; and in Egypt, Rhampsinitus. For it is related
of the latter that he played at dice with Ceres in Hades, and that
he brought back with him as a gift from her a golden towel. Similar
artifices were likewise employed by Orpheus among the Odryssians;
by Protesilaus among the Thessalians; and by Hercules and Theseus in
Tænarus. This, however, is to be considered,--whether any one who in
reality died, ever rose again in the same body: unless you think that
the narrations of others are fables,but that your catastrophe of the
drama will be found to be either elegant or probable, respecting what
was said by him who expired on the cross, and the earthquake, and the
darkness, which then according to you ensued. To which may be added,
that he who when living could not help himself, arose, as you say, after
he was dead, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and his hands
which had been perforated on the cross. But who was it that saw this?
A furious woman, as you acknowledge, or some other of the same magical
sect; or one who was under the delusion of dreams, and who voluntarily
subjected himself to fallacious phantasms,--a thing which happens
to myriads of the human race. Or, which is more probable, those who
pretended to see this were such as wished to astonish others by

{16}

this prodigy, and, through a false narration of this kind, to give
assistance to the frauds of other impostors.

"Is it to be believed that Christ, when he was alive, openly announced
to all men what he was; but when it became requisite that he should
procure a strong belief of his resurrection from the dead, he should
only show himself secretly to one woman and to his associates?

"If also Christ wished to be concealed, why was a voice heard from
heaven, proclaiming him to be the son of God? Or, if he did not wish
to be concealed, why did he suffer punishment, and why did, he
[ignominiously] die? "

The Jew in Celsus likewise adds, "These things therefore we have adduced
to you from your own writings, than which we have employed no other
testimony, for you yourselves are by them confuted. Besides, what God
that ever appeared to men, did not procure belief that he was a God,
particularly when he appeared to those who expected his advent? Or why
was he not acknowledged by those, by whom he had been for a long time
expected? We certainly hope for a resurrection in the body, and that we
shall have eternal life. We

{17}

also believe that the paradigm and primary leader of this, will be he
who is to be sent to us; and who will show that it is not impossible for
God to raise _any one_ with his body that he pleases. "

After this, Celsus in his own person says, "The Christians and Jews most
stupidly contend with each other, and this controversy of theirs about
Christ differs in nothing from the proverb about the contention for the
shadow of an ass*. There is also nothing venerable in the investigation
of the Jews and Christians with each other; both of them believing that
there was a certain prophecy from a divine spirit, that a saviour of the
human race would appear on the earth, but disagreeing in their opinion
whether he who was predicted had appeared or not.

"The Jews originating from the Egyptians deserted Egypt through
sedition, at the same time despising the religion of the Egyptians.
Hence the

* This proverb is mentioned by Apuleius at the end of the
Ninth Book of his Metamorphosis. There is also another Greek
proverb mentioned by Menander, Plato, and many others,
[--------], concerning the shadow of an ass, which is said of
those who are anxious to know things futile, frivolous, and
entirely useless. These two proverbs Apuleius has merged
into one.

{18}

same thing happened to the Christians afterwards, who abandoned the
religion of the Jews, as to the Jews who revolted from the Egyptians;
for the cause to both of their innovation was a seditious opposition to
the common* and established rites of their country.

"The Christians at first, when they were few, had but one opinion; but
when they became scattered through their multitude, they were again and
again divided into sects, and each sect wished to have an establishment
of its own. For this was what they desired to effect from the beginning.

"But after they were widely dispersed one sect opposed the other, nor
did any thing remain common

to them except the name of Christians; and even this they were at the
same time ashamed to leave as a common appellation: but as to other
things, they were the ordinances of men of a different persuasion.

"What however is still more wonderful is this, that their doctrine may
be [easily] confuted, as consisting of no hypothesis worthy of belief.
But their

* In the original [--------], but it is necessary to read,
conformably to the above translation, [--------]

{19}

dissension among themselves, the advantage they derive from it, and
their dread of those who are not of their belief, give stability to
their faith.

"The Christians ridicule the Egyptians, though they indicated many and
by no means contemptible things through enigmas, when they taught that
honours should be paid to _eternal_ ideas, and not, as it appears to the
vulgar, to diurnal animals*. " Celsus adds, that "The Christians
stupidly introduce nothing more venerable than the goats and dogs of the
Egyptians in their narrations respecting Jesus.

"What is said by a few who are considered as Christians, concerning the
doctrine of Jesus and the precepts of Christianity, is not designed for
the wiser, but for the more unlearned and ignorant part of mankind. For
the following are their precepts: 'Let no one who is erudite accede
to us, no one who is wise, no one who is prudent (for these things are
thought by us to be evil); but let any one who is unlearned, who is
stupid, who is an infant in understanding boldly come to us. ' For the
Christians openly acknowledge that such as these are worthy

* See on this subject the Treatise of Plutarch respecting
Isis and Osiris.

{20}

to be noticed by their God; manifesting by this, that they alone wish
and are able to persuade the ignoble, the insensate, slaves, stupid
women, and little children and fools.

"We may see in the forum infamous characters and jugglers* collected
together, who dare not show their tricks to intelligent men; but
when they perceive a lad, and a crowd of slaves and stupid men, they
endeavour to ingratiate themselves with such characters as these.

"We also may see in their own houses, wool-weavers, shoemakers,
fullers, and the most illiterate and rustic men, who dare not say any
thing in the presence of more elderly and wiser fathers of families;
but when they meet with children apart from their parents, and certain
stupid women with them, then they discuss something of a wonderful
nature; such as that it is not proper to pay attention to parents and
preceptors, but that they should be persuaded by them. For, say they,
your parents and preceptors are delirious and stupid, and neither know
what is truly good, nor are able to effect it, being prepossessed with
trifles of an unusual nature. They

* Celsus, as we are informed by Origen, compares the
Christians with men of this description.

{21}

add, that they alone know how it is proper to live, and that if children
are persuaded by them, they will be blessed, and also the family to
which they belong. At the same time likewise that they say this, if
they see any one of the wiser teachers of erudition approaching, or the
father of the child to whom they are speaking, such of them as are more
cautious defer their discussion to another time; but those that are
more audacious, urge the children to shake off the reins of parental
authority, whispering to them, that when their fathers and preceptors
are present, they neither wish nor are able to unfold to children what
is good, as they are deterred by the folly and rusticity of these men,
who are entirely corrupted, are excessively depraved, and would punish
them [their true admonishers]. They further add, that if they wish
to be instructed by them, it is requisite that they should leave their
parents and preceptors, and go with women and little children, who are
their playfellows, to the conclave of women, or to the shoemaker's
or fuller's shop, that they may obtain perfection [by embracing their
doctrines].

"That I do not however accuse the Christians more bitterly than truth
compels, may be conjectured from hence, that the criers who call men to
other mysteries proclaim as follows: 'Let him approach,

{22}

whose hands are pure, and whose words are wise. ' And again, others
proclaim: 'Let him approach, who is pure from all wickedness, whose soul
is not conscious of any evil, and who leads a just and upright life. '
And these things are proclaimed by those who promise a purification from
error. Let us now hear who those are that are called to the Christian
mysteries. '_Whoever is a sinner, whoever is unwise, whoever is a
fool, and whoever, in short, is miserable, him the kingdom of God will
receive_. ' Do you not therefore call a sinner, an unjust man, a thief,
a housebreaker, a wizard, one who is sacrilegious, and a robber of
sepulchres? What other persons would the crier nominate, who should call
robbers together?

"God, according to the Christians, descended to men; and, as consequent
to this, it was fancied that he had left his own proper abode.

"God, however, being unknown among men [as the Christians say], and in
consequence of this appearing to be in a condition inferior to that of
a divine being, was not willing to be known, and therefore made trial of
those who believed and of those who did not believe in him; just as
men who have become recently rich, call on God as a witness of their
abundant and entirely mortal ambition.

{23}

"The Christians have asserted nothing paradoxical or new concerning a
deluge or a conflagration, but have perverted the doctrine of the
Greeks and barbarians, that in long periods of time, and recursions and
concursions of the stars, conflagrations and deluges take place; and
also that after the last deluge, which was that of Deucalion, the period
required, conformably to the mutation of wholes, a conflagration*.
This the Christians, however, have perverted by representing God as
descending with fire as a spy.

"Again, we will repeat and confirm by many arguments, an assertion which
has nothing in it novel, but was formerly universally acknowledged. God
is good, is beautiful and blessed, and his very nature consists in that
which is most beautiful and the best. If therefore he descended to men,
his nature must necessarily be changed. But the change must be from good
to evil, and from the beautiful to the base, from felicity to
infelicity, and from that which is most excellent to that which is most
worthless. Who, however, would choose to be thus changed? Besides, to be
changed and transformed pertains to that which is naturally mortal; but
an invariable

* See Taylor's translation of Proclus on the Timæus of
Plato, Book I.

{24}

sameness of subsistence is the prerogative of an immortal nature. Hence
God could never receive a mutation of this kind*.

"Either God is in reality changed, as the Christians say, into a mortal
body,--and we have before shown that this is impossible; or he himself
is not changed, but he causes those who behold him to think that he is,
and thus falsifies himself, and involves others in error. Deception,
however, and falsehood are indeed otherwise evil, and can only be
[properly] employed by any one as a medicine, either in curing friends
that are diseased or have some vicious propensity, or those that are
insane, or for the purpose of avoiding danger from enemies. But no one
who has vicious propensities, or is insane, is dear to Divinity.
Nor does God fear any one, in order that by wandering he may escape
danger**.

* See a most admirable defence of the immutability of
Divinity, by Proclus, in Taylor's Introduction to the Second
and Third Books of Plato's Republic, in vol. i. of his
translation of Plato's Works. See also Taylor's note at the
end of vol. iii. of his translation of Pausanias, p. 235.

** The original of this sentence is, [--------] the latter
part of which, [--------], is thus, erroneously translated
by Spencer, "ut imposture opus habeat ad evadendum
periculum. "

{25}

"The Christians, adding to the assertions of the Jews, say that the
son of God came on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews,
punishing Jesus and causing him to drink _gall_, raised the _bile_ of
God against them. "

Celsus after this, in his usual way deriding both Jews and Christians,
compares all of them to a multitude of bats, or to ants coming out of
their holes, or to frogs seated about a marsh, or to earthworms that
assemble in a corner of some muddy place, and contend with each other
which of them are most noxious. He likewise represents them as saying,
"God has manifested and predicted all things to us; and deserting
the whole world and the celestial circulation, and likewise paying no
attention to the widely-extended earth, he regards our concerns alone,
to us alone sends messengers, and he will never cease to explore by what
means we may always associate with him. " He likewise resembles us
to earthworms acknowledging that God exists; and he says that we
earthworms, i. e. the Jews and Christians, being produced by God after
him, are entirely similar to him. All things too are subject to
us, earth and water, the air and the stars, and are ordained to be
subservient to us*. Afterwards

* This reminds me of the following beautiful lines in. . .

{26}

these earthworms add: "Now because some of us have sinned, God will
come, or he will send his son, in order that he may burn the unjust,
and that those who are not so may live eternally with him. " And Celsus
concludes with observing that "such assertions would be more tolerable
if they were made by earthworms or frogs, than by Jews or Christians
contending with each other. "

Celsus, after having adduced, from the writings of the heathens,
instances of those who contended for the antiquity of their race, such
as the Athenians, Egyptians, Arcadians, and Phrygians, and also of those
who have asserted that some among them were aborigines, says, that
"the Jews being concealed in a corner of Palestine, men perfectly
in-erudite, and who never had previously heard the same things
celebrated by Hesiod and innumerable

. . . Epistle I. of Pope's Essay on Man, in which Pride is
represented as saying:

"For me kind nature wakes her genial power,
Suckles each herb, and spreads out every flower;
Annual for me the grape, the rose, renew
The juice nectarious and the balmy dew.
For me the mine a thousand treasures brings:
For me health gushes from a thousand springs;
Seas roll to waft me, suns to light me rise,
My footstool earth, my canopy the skies. "

{27}

other divine men, composed a most incredible and inelegant narration,
that a certain man was fashioned by the hands of God, and inspired by
him with the breath of life; that a woman was taken from the side of
the man; that precepts were given to them by God; and that a serpent was
adverse to these precepts. Lastly, they make the serpent to frustrate
the commands of God: in all this, narrating a certain fable worthy only
of being told by old women, and which most impiously makes God to be
from the first imbecile, and incapable of persuading one man fashioned
by himself to act in a way conformable to his will.

"The Christians are most impiously deceived and involved in error,
through the greatest ignorance of the meaning of divine enigmas. For
they make a certain being whom they call the Devil, and who in the
Hebrew tongue is denominated Satan, hostile to God. It is therefore
perfectly stupid and unholy to assert that the greatest God, wishing to
benefit mankind, was incapable of accomplishing what he wished, through
having one that opposed him, and acted contrary to his will. The son of
God, therefore, was vanquished by the devil; and being punished by him,
teaches us also to despise the punishments inflicted by him; Christ at
the same time predicting that Satan would appear on

{28}

the earth, and, like himself, would exhibit great and admirable works,
usurping to himself the glory of God. The son of God also adds, that it
is not fit to pay attention to Satan, because he is a seducer, but
that himself alone is worthy of belief. This, however, is evidently the
language of a man who is an impostor earnestly endeavouring to prevent,
and previously guarding himself against, the attempts of those who think
differently from and oppose him. But, according to the Christians, the
son of God is punished by the devil, who also punishes us in order
that through this we may be exercised in endurance. These assertions,
however, are perfectly ridiculous. For it is fit, I think, that the
devil should be punished, and not that men should be threatened with
punishment who are calumniated by him.

"Further still: If God, like Jupiter in the comedy, being roused from
a long sleep, wished to liberate the human race from evils, why did
he send only into a corner of the earth this spirit of whom you boast?
though he ought in a similar manner to have animated many other bodies,
and to have sent them to every part of the habitable globe. The comic
poet indeed, in order to excite the laughter of the audience in the
theatre, says that Jupiter, after he was roused from his sleep, sent
Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedæmonsians:--but do not

{29}

you think that it is a much more ridiculous fiction to assert that God
sent his son to the Jews?

"Many--and these, men whose names are not known,--both in temples and
out of temples, and some also assembling in cities or armies, are easily
excited from any casual cause, as if they possessed a prophetic power.
Each of these likewise is readily accustomed to say, 'I am God, or the
son of God, or a divine spirit. But I came because the world will soon
be destroyed, and you, O men! on account of your iniquities will perish.
I wish, however, to save you, and you shall again see me, returning with
a celestial army. Blessed is he who now worships me; but I will cast
all those who do not, into eternal fire, together with the cities and
regions to which they belong. Those men also that do not now know the
punishments which are reserved for them, shall afterwards repent and
lament in vain: but those who believe in me I will for ever save. '
Extending to the multitude these insane and perfectly obscure
assertions, the meaning of which no intelligent man is able to
discover,--for they are unintelligible and a mere nothing,--they afford
an occasion to the stupid and to jugglers of giving to them whatever
interpretation they please.

"Again, they do not consider, if the prophets of

{30}

the God of the Jews had predicted that this would be his son, why did
this God legislatively ordain through Moses, that the Jews should enrich
themselves and acquire power; should fill the earth with their progeny;
and should slay and cut off the whole race of their enemies, which Moses
did, as he says, in the sight of the Jews; and besides this, threatening
that unless they were obedient to these his commands, he should consider
them as his enemies;--why, after these things had been promulgated by
God, did his son, a Nazarean man, exclude from any access to his father,
the rich and powerful, the wise and renowned? For he says that we ought
to pay no more attention than ravens do, to food and the necessaries of
life*, and that we should be less concerned about our clothing than the
lilies of the field. Again, he asserts, that to him who smites us on
one cheek we should likewise turn the other**. Whether, therefore, does
Moses or Jesus lie? Or, was the Father who sent Jesus forgetful of what
he had formerly said to Moses? Or, condemning his own laws, did he alter
his opinion, and send a messenger to mankind with mandates of a contrary
nature?

* Luke xii. 24.

** Luke vi. 29.

{31}

"The Christians again will say, How can God be known unless he can be
apprehended by sense? To this we reply, that such a question is not the
interrogation of man, nor of soul, but of _the flesh_. At the same time,
therefore, let them hear, if they are capable of hearing any thing, _as
being a miserable worthless race, and lovers of body! _ If, closing the
perceptive organs of sense, you look upward with the visive power of
intellect, and, averting the eye of the _flesh,_ you excite the eye
of the soul, you will thus alone behold God*. And if you seek for the
leader of this path, you must avoid impostors and enchanters, and those
who persuade you to pay attention to [real] idols; in order that you may
not be entirely ridiculous, by blaspheming as idols other things which
are manifestly Gods**, and venerating that which is in reality more
worthless than any image, and which is not even an image, but _a dead
body_***; and by investigating a Father similar to it.

* This is most Platonically said by Celsus.

** Such as the sun and moon, and the other heavenly bodies.

*** The Emperor Julian in the fragments of his Arguments
against the Christians, 'preserved by Cyril, says, speaking
to the Christians: "You do not notice whether any thing is
said by the Jews about holiness; but you emulate their rage
and their bitterness, overturning temples and altars, and
cutting the throats not only of those who remain firm in
paternal institutes, but also of. . .

{32}

"There are essence and generation, the intelligible and the visible.
And truth indeed subsists with essence, but error with generation*.
Science, therefore, is conversant with truth, but opinion with
generation. Intelligence also pertains to, or has the intelligible for
its object; but what is visible is the object of sight. And intellect
indeed knows the intelligible; but the eye knows that which is visible.
What the sun therefore is in the visible region,--being neither the eye,
nor sight, but the cause to the eye of seeing, and to the sight of its
visive power, to all sensibles of their being generated, and to
himself of being perceived;--this the supreme God [or _the good_] is
in intelligibles: since he is neither intellect, nor intelligence, nor
science, but is the cause, to intellect, of intellectual perception;

. . . those heretics who are equally erroneous with yourselves,
and who do not lament a dead body in the same manner as you
do. For neither Jesus nor Paul exhorted you to act in this
manner. But the reason is, that they did not expect you
would arrive at the power which you have obtained. For they
were satisfied if they could deceive maid-servants and
slaves, and through these married women, and such men as
Cornelius and Sergius; among whom, if you can mention one
that was at that time an illustrious character, (and these
things were transacted under the reign of Tiberius or
Claudius,) believe that I am a liar in all things. "

* Generation signifies the whole of that which is visible.

{33}

to intelligence, of its subsistence on account of him; to science, for
its possession of knowledge for his sake, and to all intelligibles for
their existence as such. He is likewise the cause to truth itself and
to essence itself, of their existence, being himself beyond all
intelligibles, by a certain ineffable power*. And these are the
assertions of men who possess intellect. But if you understand any thing
of what is here said, you are indebted to us for it. If, likewise, you
think that a certain spirit descending from God announced to you things
of a divine nature, this will be the spirit which proclaimed what I have
above said, and with which ancient men being replete, have unfolded so
many things of a most beneficial nature. If, therefore, you are unable
to understand these assertions, be silent, and conceal your ignorance,
and do not say that those are blind who see, and that those are lame who
run,

* This sentence in the original is as follows: [--------].
But it is requisite to read, conformably to the above
translation, [--------]. Celsus has derived what he here
says from the Sixth Book of Plato's Republic, and what he
says previous to this from the Timæeus of Plato. --See
Taylor's translation of these Dialogues.

{34}

you at the same time possessing souls that are in every respect lame and
mutilated, and living in body, viz. in that which is dead.

"How much better would it be for you, since you are desirous of
innovation, to direct your attention to some one of the illustrious
dead, and concerning whom a divine fable may be properly admitted! And
if Hercules and Esculapius do not please you, and other renowned men of
great antiquity, you may have Orpheus, a man confessedly inspired by a
sacred spirit, and who suffered a violent death. But he perhaps has been
adopted as a leader formerly by others. Consider Anaxarchus, therefore,
who being thrown into a mortar, and bruised in the cruellest manner,
most courageously despised the punishment, exclaiming, 'Bruise, bruise
the sack of Anaxarchus, for you cannot bruise him. ' This, indeed,
was uttered by a certain truly divine spirit. Him, however, some
physiologists have already vindicated to themselves. In the next place,
consider Epictetus, who when his master twisted his leg violently, said,
smiling gently and without being terrified, 'You will break my leg;' and
when his master had broken his leg, only observed, 'Did I not tell you
that you would break it? What thing of this kind did your God utter when

{35}

he was punished*? The sibyl, likewise, whose verses are used by some of
you, is far more worthy to be regarded by you as the daughter of God.
_But now you have fraudulently and rashly inserted in her verses many
things of a blasphemous nature_**; and Christ, who in his life was most
reprehensible, and in his death most miserable, you reverence as a God.
How much more appropriately might you have bestowed this honour on Jonas
when he was under the gourd, or on Daniel who was saved in the den
of lions, or on others of whom more prodigious things than these are
narrated!

"This is one of the precepts of the Christians: 'Do not revenge yourself
on him who injures you; and if any person strikes you on one cheek,
turn the other to him also. ' And this precept indeed is of very great
antiquity, but is recorded in a more rustic

* Christ when on the cross exclaimed, "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me? " But Socrates in his Apology to his
Judges, as recorded by Plato, most magnanimously said,
"Anytus and Melitus may indeed put me to death, but they
cannot injure me. "

** The collection of the Sibylline Oracles which are now
extant, are acknowledged by all intelligent men among the
learned to be for the most part forgeries. --See the account
of them by Fabricius in vol. i. of his Bibliootheca Græca,

{36}

manner by Christ. For Socrates is made by Plata in the Crito to speak
as follows: 'It is by no means therefore proper to do an injury. By no
means. Hence neither is it proper for him who is injured to revenge the
injury, as the multitude think it is; since it is by no means fit to do
an injury. It does not appear that it is. But what! is it proper or
not, O Crito, to be malific? It certainly is not proper, Socrates. Is it
therefore just or unjust for a man to be malific to him by whom he has
been hurt? for in the opinion of the vulgar it is just. It is by
no means just. For to be hurtful to men does not at all differ from
injuring them. You speak the truth. Neither, therefore, is it proper to
revenge an injury, nor to be hurtful to any man, whatever evil we may
suffer from him. ' These things are asserted by Plato, who also adds:
'Consider, therefore, well, whether you agree, and are of the same
opinion with me in this; and we will begin with admitting, that it is
never right either to do an injury, or revenge an injury on him who has
acted badly towards us. Do you assent to this principle? For formerly it
appeared, and now still appears, to me to be true. ' Such, therefore,
was the opinion of Plato, and which also was the doctrine of divine men
prior to him.