Front Page Titles (by Subject) ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. - Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 4: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Part First and Second
Return to Title Page for Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 4: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Part First and Second
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS. ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. - A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 4: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Part First and Second 
Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 4: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Part First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and Chronologically arranged with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
[ad 210.] Though Tertullian is the founder of Latin Christianity, his contemporary Minucius Felix gives to Christian thought its earliest clothing in Latinity. The harshness and provincialism, with the Græcisms, if not the mere Tertullianism, of Tertullian, deprive him of high claims to be classed among Latin writers, as such; but in Minucius we find, at the very fountain-head of Christian Latinity, a disciple of Cicero and a precursor of Lactantius in the graces of style. The question of his originality is earnestly debated among moderns, as it was in some degree with the ancients. It turns upon the doubt as to his place with respect to Tertullian, whose Apology he seems to quote, or rather to abridge. But to me it seems evident that his argument reflects so strikingly that of Tertullian’s Testimony of the Soul, coincident though it be with portions of the Apology, that we must make the date of the Testimony the pivot of our inquiry concerning Minucius. Now, Tertullian’s Apology preceded the Testimony, and the latter preceded the essay on the Flesh of Christ. If the Testimony was quoted or employed by Minucius, therefore, he could not have written before1ad 205; and the statement of Jerome is confirmed, which makes our author, and not Tertullian, the copyist. The modern discussion of the matter is an interesting literary controversy; not yet settled, perhaps, though the dip of the balance just now sustains my own impressions.2 But it is a very unimportant matter in itself, the primary place in Latin Christianity being necessarily adjudged to the commanding genius and fertile mind of Tertullian, while it is no discredit to assign to Minucius his proper but secondary credit, of showing, at the very outset of the literature of Western Christianity, that believers were not all illiterate men, nor destitute of polite erudition, and that the language of the Tusculan philosopher was not degraded by its new destination to the higher and holier service of the faith.
It is not unimportant to note that we are still dealing with “the North-African school,” and that Rome has nothing to do with the birth of Latin Christianity, as such. We have entered upon the third Christian century, and as yet the venerable apostolic see of the West has made no movement whatever towards the creation of a Latin literature among Christians. So far from being “the mother and mistress” of the churches, she is yet voiceless in Christendom; while Africa holds the mastery of Christian thought alike in her schools of Alexandria and Carthage. This, although it is our fourth volume, contains nothing to modify this fact; and yet the whole literature of early Christianity is contained in our series. Well said Æneas Sylvius, who afterwards became Pope Pius the Second, “Verily, before the Council of Nice, some regard there was unto the Bishops of Rome, although but small.” Holy men as most of them were, they are invisible and unfelt in the formation of Christian theology.1
In our author’s style and thought there is a charm and a fragrance which associate him, in my mind, with the pure spirit of “Mathetes,” with whose Epistle to Diognetus, written nearly a hundred years before, it may be profitably compared. See also my prefatory remarks to Mathetes, and the reference to Bunsen which I have suffixed to the Notice of the Edinburgh editors.2
Minucius Felix is said by Jerome3 to have been an advocate at Rome prior to his conversion to Christianity.4 Very little else is known, however, of his history; and of his writings nothing with any certainty, except the following dialogue; although Jerome speaks of another tract as having, probably without reason, been ascribed to him.
Of the literary character of the dialogue, it is sufficient to quote the testimony of the late Dean Milman: “Perhaps no late work, either Pagan or Christian, reminds us of the golden days of Latin prose so much as the Octavius of Minucius Felix.”5
There are very many editions of the Octavius. Among the earlier, those of Gronovius (1709) and Davies (1712) are valuable. Among the later, Lindner (1760), Eduard de Muralto (1836), and Oehler (1847) may be mentioned. There is a very good English edition by the Rev. H. A. Holden, M.A., Cambridge, 1853. The most recent edition is that of Carl Halm, published under the auspices of the Imperial Academy of Letters in Vienna; Vindobonæ, 1867. Both Holden and Halm give new recensions of the Codex Regius.1
[ad 240.] Our author seems to have been a North-African bishop, of whom little is known save what we learn from his own writings. He has been supposed to incline to some ideas of Praxeas, and also to the Millenarians, but perhaps on insufficient grounds. His Millenarianism reflects the views of a very primitive age, and that without the corrupt Chiliasm of a later period, which brought about a practical repudiation of the whole system.1 Of his writings, two poems only remain, and of these the second, a very recent discovery, has no place in the Edinburgh series. I greatly regret that it cannot be included in ours.
[ad 185-230-254.] The reader will remember the rise and rapid development of the great Alexandrian school, and the predominance which was imparted to it by the genius of the illustrious Clement.1 But in Origen, his pupil, who succeeded him at the surprising age of eighteen, a new sun was to rise upon its noontide. Truly was Alexandria “the mother and mistress of churches” in the benign sense of a nurse and instructress of Christendom, not its arrogant and usurping imperatrix.
The full details of Origen’s troubled but glorious career are given by Dr. Crombie, who in my opinion deserves thanks for the kind and apologetic temper of his estimate of the man and the sublime doctor, as well as of the period of his life. Upon the fervid spirit of a confessor in an age of cruelty, lust, and heathenism, what right have we to sit in judgment? Of one whose very errors were virtues at their source, how can a Christian of our self-indulgent times presume to speak in censure? Well might the Psalmist exclaim,2 “Let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for His mercies are great: let me not fall into the hand of man.”
Origen, surnamed Adamantinus, was born in all probability at Alexandria, about the year 185 ad1 Notwithstanding that his name is derived from that of an Egyptian deity,2 there seems no reason to doubt that his parents were Christian at the time of his birth. His father Leonides was probably, as has been conjectured,3 one of the many teachers of rhetoric or grammar who abounded in that city of Grecian culture, and appears to have been a man of decided piety. Under his superintendence, the youthful Origen was not only educated in the various branches of Grecian learning, but was also required daily to commit to memory and to repeat portions of Scripture prescribed him by his father; and while under this training, the spirit of inquiry into the meaning of Scripture, which afterwards formed so striking a feature in the literary character of the great Alexandrine, began to display itself. Eusebius4 relates that he was not satisfied with the plain and obvious meaning of the text, but sought to penetrate into its deeper signification, and caused his father trouble by the questions which he put to him regarding the sense of particular passages of Holy Writ. Leonides, like many parents, assumed the appearance of rebuking the curiosity of the boy for inquiring into things which were beyond his youthful capacity, and recommended him to be satisfied with the simple and apparent meaning of Scripture, while he is described as inwardly rejoicing at the signs of genius exhibited by his son, and as giving thanks to God for having made him the parent of such a child.1 But this state of things was not to last; for in the year 202, when Origen was about seventeen years of age, the great persecution of the Christians under Septimius Severus broke out, and among the victims was his father Leonides, who was apprehended and put in prison. Origen wished to share the fate of his father, but was prevented from quitting his home by the artifice of his mother, who was obliged to conceal his clothes to prevent him from carrying out his purpose. He wrote to his father, however, a letter, exhorting him to constancy under his trials, and entreating him not to change his convictions for the sake of his family.2 By the death of his father, whose property was confiscated to the imperial treasury, Origen was left, with his mother and six younger brothers dependent upon him for support. At this juncture, a wealthy and benevolent lady of Alexandria opened to him her house, of which he became an inmate for a short time. The society, however, which he found there was far from agreeable to the feelings of the youth. The lady had adopted as her son one Paul of Antioch, whom Eusebius terms an “advocate of the heretics then existing at Alexandria.” The eloquence of the man drew crowds to hear him, although Origen could never be induced to regard him with any favour, nor even to join with him in any act of worship, giving then, as Eusebius remarks, “unmistakeable specimens of the orthodoxy of his faith.”3
The diligence and ability with which Origen prosecuted his profession speedily attracted attention and brought him many pupils. Among others who sought to avail themselves of his instructions in the principles of the Christian religion, were two young men, who afterwards became distinguished in the history of the Church,—Plutarch, who died the death of martyrdom, and Heraclas, who afterwards became bishop of Alexandria. It was not, however, merely by his success as a teacher that Origen gained a reputation. The brotherly kindness and unwearied affection which he displayed to all the victims of the persecution, which at that time was raging with peculiar severity at Alexandria under the prefect Aquila, and in which many of his old pupils and friends were martyred, are described as being so marked and conspicuous, as to draw down upon him the fury of the mob, so that he was obliged on several occasions to flee from house to house to escape instant death. It is easy to understand that services of this kind could not fail to attract the attention of the heads of the Christian community at Alexandria; and partly, no doubt, because of these, but chiefly on account of his high literary reputation, Bishop Demetrius appointed him to the office of master in the Catechetical School, which was at that time vacant (by the departure of Clement, who had quitted the city on the outbreak of the persecution), although he was still a layman, and had not passed his eighteenth year. The choice of Demetrius was amply justified by the result. Origen discontinued his instructions in literature, in order to devote himself exclusively to the work of teaching in the Catechetical School. For his labours he refused all remuneration. He sold the books which he possessed,—many of them manuscripts which he himself had copied,—on condition of receiving from the purchaser four obols4 a day; and on this scanty pittance he subsisted, leading for many years a life of the greatest asceticism and devotion to study. After a day of labour in the school, he used to devote the greater part of the night to the investigation of Scripture, sleeping on the bare ground, and keeping frequent fasts. He carried out literally the command of the Saviour, not to possess two coats, nor wear shoes. He consummated his work of mortification of the flesh by an act of self-mutilation, springing from a perverted interpretation of our Lord’s words in Matt. xix. 12, and the desire to place himself beyond the reach of temptation in the intercourse which he necessarily had to hold with youthful female catechumens.1 This act was destined to exercise a baneful influence upon his subsequent career in the Church.
During the episcopate of Zephyrinus (201-218) Origen visited Rome,2 and on his return again resumed his duties in the Catechetical School, transferring the care of the younger catechumens to his friend and former pupil Heraclas, that he might devote himself with less distraction to the instruction of the more advanced, and to the more thorough investigation and exposition of Scripture. With a view to accomplish this more successfully, it is probable that about this time he set himself to acquire a knowledge of the Hebrew language, the fruit of which may be seen in the fragments which remain to us of his magnum opus, the Hexapla, and as many among the more cultured heathens, attracted by his reputation, seem to have attended his lectures, he felt it necessary to make himself more extensively acquainted with the doctrines of the Grecian schools, that he might meet his opponents upon their own ground, and for this purpose he attended the prelections of Ammonius Saccas, at that time in high repute at Alexandria as an expounder of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, of which school he has generally been considered the founder. The influence which the study of philosophical speculations exerted upon the mind of Origen may be traced in the whole course of his after development, and proved the fruitful source of many of those errors which were afterwards laid to his charge, and the controversies arising out of which disturbed the peace of the Church during the two following centuries. As was to be expected, the fame of the great Alexandrine teacher was not confined to his native city, but spread far and wide; and an evidence of this was the request made by the Roman governor of the province of Arabia to Demetrius and to the prefect of Egypt, that they would send Origen to him that he might hold an interview with one whose reputation was so great. We have no details of this visit, for all that Eusebius relates is that, “having accomplished the objects of his journey, he again returned to Alexandria.”3 It was in the year 216 that the Emperor Caracalla visited Alexandria, and directed a bloody persecution against its inhabitants, especially the literary members of the community, in revenge for the sarcastic verses which had been composed against him for the murder of his brother Geta, a crime which he had perpetrated under circumstances of the basest treachery and cruelty.
Origen occupied too prominent a position in the literary society of the city to be able to remain with safety, and therefore withdrew to Palestine to his friend Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, and afterwards to Cæsarea, where he received an honourable welcome from Bishop Theoctistus. This step proved the beginning of his after troubles. These two men, filled with becoming admiration for the most learned teacher in the Church, requested him to expound the Scriptures in their presence in a public assembly of the Christians. Origen, although still a layman, and without any sacerdotal dignity in the Church, complied with the request. When this proceeding reached the ears of Demetrius, he was filled with the utmost indignation. “Such an act was never either heard or done before, that laymen should deliver discourses in the presence of the bishops,”4 was his indignant remonstrance to the two offending bishops, and Origen received a command to return immediately to Alexandria. He obeyed, and for some years appears to have devoted himself solely to his studies in his usual spirit of self-abnegation.
It was probably during this period that the commencement of his friendship with Ambrosius is to be dated. Little is known of this individual. Eusebius5 states that he had formerly been an adherent of the Valentinian heresy, but had been converted by the arguments and eloquence of Origen to the orthodox faith of the Church. They became intimate friends; and as Ambrose seems to have been possessed of large means, and entertained an unbounded admiration of the learning and abilities of his friend, it was his delight to bear the expenses attending the transcription and publication of the many works which he persuaded him to give to the world. He furnished him “with more than seven amanuenses, who relieved each other at stated times, and with an equal number of transcribers, along with young girls who had been practised in calligraphy,”1 to make fair copies for publication of the works dictated by Origen. The literary activity of these years must have been prodigious, and probably they were among the happiest which Origen ever enjoyed. Engaged in his favourite studies, surrounded by many friends, adding yearly to his own stores of learning, and enriching the literature of the Church with treatises of the highest value in the department of sacred criticism and exegesis, it is difficult to conceive a condition of things more congenial to the mind of a true scholar. Only one incident of any importance seems to have taken place during these peaceful years,—his visit to Julia Mammæa, the pious mother of Alexander Severus. This noble lady had heard of the fame of Origen, and invited him to visit her at Antioch, sending a military escort to conduct him from Alexandria to the Syrian capital. He remained with her some time, “exhibiting innumerable illustrations of the glory of the Lord, and of the excellence of divine instruction, and then hastened back to his accustomed studies.”2
These happy years, however, were soon to end. Origen was called to Greece, probably about the year 228,3 upon what Eusebius vaguely calls “the pressing need of ecclesiastical affairs.”4 But, this has generally been understood5 to refer to the prevalence of heretical views in the Church there, for the eradication of which the assistance of Origen was invoked. Before entering on this journey, he obtained letters of recommendation from his bishop.6 He passed through Palestine on his way to Greece, and at Cæsarea received at the hands of his friends Alexander and Theoctistus ordination to the office of presbyter,—an honour which proved to him afterwards the source of much persecution and annoyance. No doubt the motives of his friends were of the highest kind, and among them may have been the desire to take away the ground of objection formerly raised by Demetrius against the public preaching of a mere layman in the presence of a bishop. But they little dreamed of the storm which this act of theirs was to raise, and of the consequences which it was to bring upon the head of him whom they had sought to honour. After completing his journey through Greece, Origen returned to Alexandria about the year 230. He there found his bishop greatly incensed against him for what had taken place at Cæsarea. Nor did his anger expend itself in mere objurgations and rebukes. In the year 231 a synod was summoned by Demetrius, composed of Egyptian bishops and Alexandrian presbyters, who declared Origen unworthy to hold the office of teacher, and excommunicated him from the fellowship of the Church of Alexandria. Even this did not satisfy the vindictive feeling of Demetrius. He summoned a second synod, in which the bishops alone were permitted to vote, and by their suffrages Origen was degraded from the office of presbyter, and intimation of this sentence was ordered to be made by encyclical letter to the various Churches. The validity of the sentence was recognised by all of them, with the exception of those in Palestine, Phœnicia, Arabia, and Achaia; a remarkable proof of the position of influence which was at that time held by the Church of Alexandria. Origen appears to have quitted the city before the bursting of the storm, and betook himself to Cæsarea, which henceforth became his home, and the seat of his labours for a period of nearly a quarter of a century. The motives which impelled Demetrius to this treatment of Origen have been variously stated and variously criticised. Eusebius1 refers his readers for a full account of all the matters involved to the treatise which he and Pamphilus composed in his defence; but this work has not come down to us,2 although we possess a brief notice of it in the Bibliotheca of Photius,3 from which we derive our knowledge of the proceedings of the two synods. There seems little reason to doubt that jealousy of interference on the part of the bishops of another diocese was one main cause of the resentment displayed by Demetrius; while it is also possible that another alleged cause, the heterodox character of some of Origen’s opinions, as made known in his already published works, among which were his Stromata and De Principiis,4 may have produced some effect upon the minds of the hostile bishops. Hefele5 asserts that the act of the Palestinian bishops was contrary to the Church law of the time, and that Demetrius was justified on that ground for his procedure against him. But it may well be doubted whether there was any generally understood law or practice existing at so early a period of the Church’s history. If so, it is difficult to understand how it should have been unknown to the Palestinian bishops; or, on the supposition of any such existing law or usage, it is equally difficult to conceive that either they themselves or Origen should have agreed to disregard it, knowing as they did the jealous temper of Demetrius, displayed on the occasion of Origen’s preaching at Cæsarea already referred to. This had drawn from the Alexandrine bishop an indignant remonstrance, in which he had asserted that such an act was “quite unheard of before;”6 but, to this statement the Cæsarean bishops replied in a letter, in which they enumerated several instances of laymen who had addressed the congregation.7 The probabilities, therefore, are in favour of there being no generally understood law or practice on the subject, and that the procedure, therefore, was dictated by hierarchical jealousy on the part of Demetrius. According to Eusebius,8 indeed, the act of mutilation already referred to was made a ground of accusation against Origen; and there seems no doubt that there existed an old canon of the Church,9 based upon the words in Deut. xxiii. 1, which rendered one who had committed such an act ineligible for office in the Church. But there is no trace of this act, as disqualifying Origen for the office of presbyter, having been urged by Demetrius, so far as can be discovered from the notices of the two synods which have been preserved by Rufinus and Photius. And it seems extremely probable, as Redepenning remarks,10 that if Demetrius were acquainted with this act of Origen, as Eusebius says he was,11 he made no public mention of it, far less that he made it a pretence for his deposition.
Origen was a very voluminous author. Jerome says that he wrote more than any individual could read; and Epiphanius1 relates that his writings amounted to 6,000 volumes, by which statement we are probably to understand that every individual treatise, large or small, including each of the numerous homilies, was counted as a separate volume. The admiration entertained for him by his friend Ambrosius, and the readiness with which the latter bore all the expenses of transcription and publication, led Origen to give to the world much which otherwise would never have seen the light.
These comprise Σχόλια, brief notes on Scripture, of which only fragments remain: Τόμοι, Commentaries, lengthened expositions, of which we possess considerable portions, including those on Matthew, John, and Epistle to the Romans; and about 200 Homilies, upon the principal books of the Old and New Testaments, a full list of which may be seen in Migne’s edition. In these works his peculiar system of interpretation found ample scope for exercise; and although he carried out his principle of allegorizing many things, which in their historical and literal signification offended his exegetical sense, he nevertheless maintains that “the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning.”1 The student will find much that is striking and suggestive in his remarks upon the various passages which he brings under review. For an account of his method of interpreting Scripture, and the grounds on which he based it, the reader may consult the fourth book of the treatise On the Principles.
His great apologetical work was the treatise undertaken at the special request of his friend Ambrosius, in answer to the attack of the heathen philosopher Celsus on the Christian religion, in a work which he entitled Λόγος ἀληθής, or A True Discourse. Origen states that he had heard that there were two individuals of this name, both of them Epicureans, the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, and the other in the time of Adrian, or later.1 Redepenning is of opinion that Celsus must have composed his work in the time of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 ad), on account of his supposed mention of the Marcionites (whose leader did not make his appearance at Rome before 142 ad), and of the Marcellians (followers of the Carpocratian Marcellina), a sect which was founded after the year 155 ad under Bishop Anicetus.2 Origen believed his opponent to be an Epicurean, but to have adopted other doctrines than those of Epicurus, because he thought that by so doing he could assail Christianity to greater advantage.3 The work which Origen composed in answer to the so-styled True Discourse consists of eight books, and belongs to the latest years of his life. It has always been regarded as the great apologetic work of antiquity; and no one can peruse it without being struck by the multifarious reading, wonderful acuteness, and rare subtlety of mind which it displays. But the rule which Origen prescribed to himself, of not allowing a single objection of his opponent to remain unanswered, leads him into a minuteness of detail, and into numerous repetitions, which fatigue the reader, and detract from the interest and unity of the work. He himself confesses that he began it on one plan, and carried it out on another.4 No doubt, had he lived to re-write and condense it, it would have been more worthy of his reputation. But with all its defects, it is a great work, and well deserves the notice of the students of Apologetics. The table of contents subjoined to the translation will convey a better idea of its nature than any description which our limits would permit us to give.
These include the Στρωματει̑ς, a work composed in imitation of the treatise of Clement of the same name, and consisting originally of ten books, of which only three fragments exist in a Latin version by Jerome;5 a treatise on the Resurrection, of which four fragments remain;6 and the treatise Περὶ Ἀρχω̑ν, De Principiis, which contains Origen’s views on various questions of systematic theology. The work has come down to us in the Latin translation of his admirer Rufinus; but, from a comparison of the few fragments of the original Greek which have been preserved, we see that Rufinus was justly chargeable with altering many of Origen’s expressions, in order to bring his doctrine on certain points more into harmony with the orthodox views of the time. The De Principiis consists of four books, and is the first of the works of Origen in this series, to which we refer the reader.
Under this head we place the little treatise Περὶ Εὐχη̑ς, On Prayer, written at the instance of his friend Ambrose, and which contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer; the Λόγος προτρεπτικὸς εἰς μαρτύριον, Exhortation to Martyrdom, composed at the outbreak of the persecution by Maximian, when his friends Ambrose and Protoctetus were imprisoned. Of his numerous letters only two have come down entire, viz., that which was addressed to Julius Africanus, who had questioned the genuineness of the history of Susanna in the apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel, and that to Gregory Thaumaturgus on the use of Greek philosophy in the explanation of Scripture, although, from the brevity of the latter, it is questionable whether it is more than a fragment of the original.1 The Φιλοκαλία, Philocalia, was a compilation from the writings of Origen, intended to explain the difficult passages of Scripture, and executed by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzum; large extracts of which have been preserved, especially of that part which was taken from the treatise against Celsus. The remains were first printed at Paris in 1618, and again at Cambridge in 1676, in the reprint of Spencer’s edition of the Contra Celsum. In the Benedictine edition, and in Migne’s reprint, the various portions are quoted in foot-notes under the respective passages of Origen’s writings.
EDITIONS OF ORIGEN.2
For further information upon the life and opinions of Origen, the reader may consult Redepenning’s Origenes, 2 vols., Bonn, 1841, 1846; the articles in Herzog’s Encyclopädie and Wetzer’s and Wette’s Kirchen-Lexikon, by Kling and Hefele respectively; the brilliant sketch by Pressensé in his Martyrs and Apologists;3 and the learned compilation of Huet, entitled Origeniana, to be found in the ninth volume of Migne’s edition.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.
BOOK I. . . . . . . . pp. 395-428
Preface.—Origen undertakes this treatise at the desire of Ambrose, but thinks it unnecessary, as the facts and doctrines of Christianity form its best defence; work begun on one plan and carried on on another.
First objection of Celsus is, that Christians enter into secret associations, some of which are illegal,—his object being to discredit the “love-feasts” of the Christians: Answer of Origen, c. i. Second objection of Celsus, that Judaism, on which Christianity depends, had a barbarous origin: Answer, c. ii. Celsus objects that Christians practise their doctrines in secret to avoid the penalty of death: Answer, c. iii. Morality of Christianity neither venerable nor new: Answer, c. iv. Celsus approves of the views of Christians respecting idolatry, but asserts that these views are prior to Christianity: Answer, c. v. Asserts that the miracles of Christianity were performed by means of the invocation of demons: Answer, c. vi. That Christianity is a secret system of belief: Answer, c. vii. Maintains that a man should die for his belief; inconsistency of this with his profession as an Epicurean, c. viii. Maintains that reason ought to be the guide of men in adopting opinions, and charges Christians with inculcating a blind belief: Answer, cc. ix.-xi. Boast of Celsus, that he is acquainted with all the opinions of the Christians, shown to be unfounded, c. xii. Misrepresentation by Celsus of the statement in 1 Cor. iii. 18, 19: Correction and explanation, c. xiii. Inconsistency of Celsus in accepting the accounts of Greeks and Barbarians as to their antiquity, while rejecting the histories of the Jews, cc. xiv.-xvi. Celsus objects to giving an allegorical signification to the Jewish history; inconsistency of this, c. xvii. Challenges a comparison between the writings of Linus, Musæus, etc., and the laws of Moses: Answer, c. xviii. Celsus holds that the world was uncreated, and yet is led to admit that it is comparatively modern, cc. xix., xx. Celsus asserts that Moses borrowed his doctrines from wise nations and eloquent men, and thus obtained the reputation of divinity: Answer, c. xxi. Circumcision, according to Celsus, first practised by the Egyptians: Answer, c. xxii. The followers of Moses, shepherds and herdsmen, were led to believe in the unity of God through delusion and vulgar conceit: Answer, c. xxiii. Various names given to the one God by the followers of Moses, all evincing their ignorance of His nature: Discussion regarding the significance of the divine names in various languages, cc. xxiv., xxv. Celsus charges the Jews with worshipping angels and practising sorcery: Answer, cc. xxvi., xxvii. Inconsistency of Celsus in introducing a Jew, as an opponent of Jesus, who does not maintain the character of a Jew throughout the discussion: This Jew represented as accusing Jesus of having “invented his birth from a virgin,” and upbraiding Him with “being born in a certain Jewish village of a poor woman of the country who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; and after being driven away by her husband and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who, having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by help of them proclaimed himself a god,” c. xxviii. Preliminary remarks to a full answer to these charges, cc. xxix.-xxxii. Proof that the birth of Christ from a virgin was predicted by the prophets, cc. xxxiii.-xxxv. Proof that prophets existed among the Jews, c. xxxvi. Possibility of the miraculous birth of Christ, c. xxxvii. Answer to the assertion that Jesus wrought His miracles by magic, and not by divine power, c. xxxviii. Scoffs of Celsus regarding the mother of Jesus not deserving of answer, c. xxxix. Celsus charges the narrative in Matthew regarding the dove which alighted upon the Saviour at His baptism with being fictitious; shows great want of method and order in the manner in which he brings his charges, c. xl. Answer, cc. xli.-xlviii. Celsus sets aside the fact that the coming of Jesus was predicted by the Jewish prophets, perhaps because he was not acquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ: Inconsistency of representing the Jew as saying, “My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the Son of God will come as the judge of the righteous and the punisher of the wicked,” cc. xlix., l. Detailed evidence from prophecy respecting the birth of Christ, cc. li.-liii. Answer to objection of Celsus regarding the sufferings of Christ, cc. liv.-lvi. Celsus asserts that every man, born according to the decree of Divine Providence, is a son of God: Answer, c. lvii. The Jew of Celsus goes on to misrepresent the Gospel account of the visit of the Magi, and of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod: Answer, cc. lviii.-lxi. Calumnies of Celsus regarding the number and character and conduct of the disciples of Jesus: Answer, cc. lxii.-lxv. The absurdity of the story of our Lord’s removal when an infant, is, according to Celsus, a proof that He was not divine: Answer, c. lxvi. Celsus denies that the works of Jesus were at all remarkable as compared with those attributed to Perseus and Amphion, and other mythological personages, but admits afterwards that some of them were remarkable,—such as His cures, and His resurrection, and the feeding of the multitude,—although he immediately afterwards compares them to the tricks of jugglers, and denies that they can furnish any proof of His being “Son of God:” Answer, cc. lxvii, lxviii. Objection of Celsus that the body of Jesus could not have been that of a god, nor could be nourished with such food as Jesus partook of: Answer, cc. lxix., lxx. Declares that opinions of Jesus were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer: Answer, c. lxxi.
BOOK II. . . . . . . pp. 429-464
This book contains Origen’s answers to the charges which Celsus, in the person of a Jew, brings against the converts from Judaism to Christianity. Main charge is, that “they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived; and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Answer to these charges, c. i. Digression upon certain declarations of Jesus in the Gospels, c. ii. Ignorance of Celsus evinced by the manner in which he represents the Jew as addressing the Israelitish converts, c. iii. Objection of Jew, that Christianity takes its origin from Judaism, and that after a certain point it discards Judaism: Answer, c. iv. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus was punished by the Jews for His crimes, already answered, c. v. Observance by Jesus of Jewish usages and sacrificial observances, no argument against His recognition as the Son of God, c. vi. Language of Jesus furnishes not the slightest evidence, but the reverse, of arrogance: Quotations, c. vii. Allegation, that when men are willing to be deceived, many persons like Jesus would find a friendly reception; inconsistency of this; various other charges disposed of, c. viii. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus could not be deemed a god because He was currently reported to have performed none of His promises, and, after conviction and sentence, was found attempting to conceal Himself and endeavouring to escape, and was then betrayed by His disciples; impossibility of such things, according to Celsus, happening to a god: Answer to these calumnies and objections, cc. ix.-xi. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus was inferior to a brigand chief, because He was betrayed by His disciples: Answer, c. xii. Celsus asserts that he omits mention of many things in the life of Christ which he could state to His disadvantage; challenged to produce such: Several predictions of Jesus quoted and commented on, c. xiii. Celsus makes light of the admission that future events were predicted by Jesus: Remarks of Origen in answer, c. xiv. Assertion of Celsus, that the disciples of Jesus devised the fiction that He foreknew everything before it happened: Answer, c. xv. Asserts that the disciples wrote the accounts they have given by way of extenuating the charges against Him: Answer, c. xvi. Celsus alleges that a prudent man—much more a god or spirit—would have tried to escape dangers that were foreseen, whereas Jesus did the reverse: Answer, c. xvii. Objection of Celsus, that the announcements which Jesus made regarding those disciples who were to betray and deny Him had not the effect of deterring them from their treason and perjury, shown to be self-contradictory, c. xviii. Further statement of Celsus, that in such cases intending criminals abandon their intentions, shown to be untrue, c. xix. Objection, that if Jesus had been a god, His predictions must infallibly have come to pass; and assertion, that He plotted against the members of His own table: Refuted, cc. xx.-xxii. Assertion, that the things which He suffered could have been neither painful nor distressing, because He submitted to them voluntarily and as a god, c. xxiii. Misrepresentation of Celsus as to the language employed by Jesus during His sufferings, cc. xxiv., xxv. Celsus charges the disciples with having invented statements: Answer, c. xxvi. Alleges that Christian believers have corrupted the Gospel in order to be able to reply to objections: Answer, c. xxvii. The Jew of Celsus reproaches Christians with making use of the prophets: Answer, c. xxviii. Assertion of Celsus, that from such signs and misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove Jesus to be god and the Son of God: Answer, c. xxx. Charges Christians with sophistical reasoning in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself: Refutation, c. xxxi. Objection of Celsus to our Lord’s genealogy: Refutation, c. xxxii. Celsus ridicules the actions of Jesus as unworthy of a god: Refutation, c. xxxiii. Inconsistency of Celsus in representing the Jew as conversant with Greek literature; various remarks of Celsus answered, c. xxxiv. Question of Celsus, why Jesus does not give some manifestation of His divinity by taking vengeance upon those who insult Him and His Father: Answered, c. xxxv. Celsus scoffingly inquires, What was the nature of the ichor in the body of Jesus? and asserts that Jesus rushed with open mouth to drink of the vinegar and gall: Answer, cc. xxxvi., xxxvii. Sneer of the Jew, that Christians find fault with Jews for not recognising Jesus as God: Answer, c. xxxviii. Falsehood of the assertion of this Jew of Celsus, that Jesus gained over to His cause no one during His life, not even His own disciples, c. xxxix. Jew goes on to assert that Jesus did not show Himself to be pure from all evil: Answer, cc. xli., xlii. Falsity of the statement, that Jesus, after failing to gain over those who were in this world, went to Hades to gain over those who were there, c. xliii. Celsus asserts further, that other individuals who have been condemned and died miserable deaths ought to be regarded as greater and more divine messengers of heaven than Jesus: Answer, c. xliv. Argument of Celsus against the truth of Christianity, from the different behaviour of the actual followers of Jesus during His life and that of Christians at the present day: Answer, c. xlv. Falsehood of the assertion, that Jesus when on earth gained over to Himself only sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, c. xlvi. Answer to the question, By what train of argument were Christians led to regard Jesus as the Son of God? c. xlvii. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus is deemed by Christians to be the Son of God because He healed the lame and the blind and is asserted to have raised the dead: Answer, c. xlviii. Statement of Celsus, that Jesus convicted Himself of being a sorcerer: Refuted by His predictions regarding false prophets, etc., cc. xlix., l. No resemblance between the works of Jesus and those of a sorcerer, c. li. Inconsistency of the Jew in raising the objections which he does, seeing that the same objections might be raised against the divinity of Mosaism, cc. lii.-liv. Jew objects further, that the predictions, although actually uttered, prove nothing, because many have been deceived by juggling tricks; asserts also, that there is no satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, the report of which can be explained in other ways: Answer, cc. lv.-lxii. Celsus proceeds to bring, as a serious charge against Jesus, that He did not appear after His resurrection to those who had ill-treated Him and condemned Him, and to men in general: Answer, cc. lxiii.-lxvii. Celsus asserts, that it would have helped to manifest His divinity if He had at once disappeared from the cross: Answer, cc. lxviii., lxix. Inconsistency of Celsus’ statement that Jesus concealed Himself, with the facts of the case, pointed out, c. lxx. Certain declarations of Jesus regarding Himself, noticed, c. lxxi. Celsus asks why, if Jesus wished to remain hid, a voice was heard from heaven proclaiming Him to be the Son of God? or, if He did not seek concealment, why was He punished? or, why did He die? Answer, c. lxxii. Celsus asserts, that no witness is needed to refute the statements of the Christians, because these are taken from their own books, which are self-contradictory: Answer, c. lxxiv. Impossibility, according to Celsus, that a god, who was expected to appear among men, should be received with incredulity on his coming, or should fail to be recognised by those who have been looking for him: Answer, c. lxxv. All objections brought by the Jew against Christianity might be retorted on himself: Illustrations, c. lxxvi. Jew professes his belief in a bodily resurrection and in eternal life, c. lxxvii. Asks if Jesus came into the world to produce unbelief in the minds of men: Answer, c. lxxviii. Conclusion of the Jew is that everything proves Jesus to have been a man: General refutation, c. lxxix.
BOOK III. . . . . . . pp. 465-496
Object of Book Third to refute the charges which Celsus makes against Christianity in his own person. Assertion of Celsus that the controversy between Jews and Christians is most foolish; that there is nothing of importance in the investigations of Jews and Christians; because, although both believe that a Saviour was predicted, yet they do not agree on the point whether He has actually come or not. Refutation of these statements generally, cc. i.-iv. Celsus alleges that both Judaism and Christianity originated in rebellion against the state; impossibility of this, cc. v.-vii. Jews shown from their language not to be Egyptians, c. viii. Falsehood of the assertion that Christians do not desire to convert all men, even if they could, c. ix. Proof of Celsus in support of his assertion: Answer, cc. x.-xiii. Union of Christians alleged to rest upon no substantial reason, save on rebellion and fear of external enemies: Answer, cc. xiv., xv. Falsity of the charge that Christians invent terrors, c. xvi. Comparison of the articles of the Christian faith to Egyptian temples, where, after passing through imposing avenues, nothing is found as an object of worship save a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog: Refutation of this, cc. xvii.-xxi. Celsus asserts that the Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, are believed by the Greeks to have become gods after being men; but that we refuse to recognise them as such, although they manifested many noble qualities, displayed for the benefit of mankind: General answer, c. xxii. Comparison of our Lord’s character with that of individuals referred to, c. xxiii. Unfairness of Celsus in requiring Christians to believe the stories regarding such beings, and yet refusing his assent to the credibility of the Gospel narratives regarding Jesus, c. xxiv. Examination of the case of Æsculapius, cc. xxv., xxvi.; of Aristeas of Proconnesus, cc. xxvi.-xxix. Superiority of the churches of God over the public assemblies, cc. xxix., xxx. Comparison of the cases of Abaris the Hyperborean and of the Clazomenian with Jesus, cc. xxxi., xxxii. Examination of the story of Cleomedes of Astypalea, c. xxxiii. Celsus alleges that there are many other similar instances: This statement, even if true, shown to be inapplicable, c. xxxiv. Celsus challenged to say whether he believes such beings really to be demons, or heroes, or gods: Consequences which will follow, c. xxxv. Comparison of case of Antinous, the favourite of Hadrian, shown to be absurd, cc. xxxvi.-xxxviii. Allegation of Celsus that faith alone leads Christians to give their assent to the doctrines of Jesus: Examination of this statement, cc. xxxix.-xli. Comparison of mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, silver, or stone, shown to be inept, c. xlii. Celsus asserts, that in ridiculing the worshippers of Jupiter, who was buried in Crete, while worshipping Jesus, who rose from the grave, we are guilty of inconsistency: Answer, c. xliii. Various objections against Christianity, gathered from the more unintelligent Christians, adduced by Celsus; enumeration of these: Answers, cc. xliv., xlv. Christians do desire that there should be wise men among them, cc. xlv.-xlviii. Allegation that only the low, and the vile, and the ignorant, with women and children, are desired as converts, shown to be false in the sense in which it is advanced by Celsus, cc. xlix.-liv. Charge brought against teachers of Christianity of surreptitiously inculcating their doctrines upon children without the knowledge of their parents, c. lv. Examination of this charge, cc. lvi.-lviii. Answer to charge of Celsus, that Christians invite the wicked alone to participation in their sacred rites, cc. lix.-lxii. Refutation of the charge that God does not decide in accordance with truth, but with flattery, c. lxiii. Answer to question of Celsus, why sinners are preferred over others, c. lxiv. Falsehood of the assertion that Christians are able to gain over none but sinners, c. lxv. Error of Celsus in denying the possibility of a complete transformation of character, c. lxvi. His meaning probably was, that such transformation could not be effected by punishment; this shown to be false, c. lxvii. Transformation of character, in certain cases, by means of philosophical discourses, not a matter to excite surprise: character of Christian preaching, c. lxviii. Examination of Celsus’ statement, that to change a nature entirely is exceedingly difficult, c. lxix. God can do all that it is possible for Him to do without ceasing to be God, c. lxx. Falsity of statement that God alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity for their wailings, but casts off the good, c. lxxi. No truly wise man could be misled by any statements of an unintelligent Christian, c. lxxii. Falsity of statements, that the ambassador of Christianity relates only ridiculous things, c. lxxiii. That he seeks after the unintelligent alone, c. lxxiv. That he acts like a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but who prevents them from consulting skilled physicians, who would expose his ignorance, c. lxxv. That the Christian teacher acts like a drunken man, who should enter a company of drunkards, and accuse those who were sober of being drunk, c. lxxvi. That he is like one suffering from ophthalmia, who should accuse the clear-sighted of blindness. Assertion of Celsus that Christians lead on men by empty hopes: Answer, c. lxxvii. Character of those who become converts, c. lxxviii. Christianity the best system which men were capable of receiving, cc. lxxix.-lxxxi.
BOOK IV. . . . . . . pp. 497-542
Subject of Fourth Book mainly to show that the prophecies regarding Christ are true predictions, c. i. The position maintained by certain Christians, that there has already descended upon the earth a certain god, or Son of a god, who will make the inhabitants of the earth righteous, and by the Jews, that the advent of this being is still future, asserted by Celsus to be false: Answer, c. ii. Question of Celsus as to the meaning of such a descent: Answered, c. iii. Argument of Celsus turned against himself, c. iv. Celsus misrepresents Christians as saying that God Himself will come down to men, and that it follows that He has left His own abode, c. v. Celsus represents the object of God’s descent to be a desire to make Himself known, and to make trial of men; and this, he alleges, testifies to an excessive and mortal ambition on the part of God: Answer, cc. vi.-ix. Celsus asserts, that Christians talk of God in a way that is neither holy nor reverential, and likens them to those who in the Bacchic mysteries introduce phantoms and objects of terror: Answer, c. x. Celsus endeavours to prove that the statements in the Christian records regarding floods and conflagrations are neither new nor wonderful, but may be paralleled and explained from the accounts of the Greeks: Answer, cc. xi.-xiii. Celsus returns to the subject of the descent of God, alleging that if He came down among men, He must have undergone a change from better to worse, which is impossible in the case of an immortal being: Answer, cc. xiv.-xvi. Superiority of the scriptural accounts of these matters over those of the Greek mythology, c. xvii. Celsus repeats his objections: Answer, cc. xviii., xix. Celsus’ representation of the manner in which the Jews maintain that the advent of Jesus is still future, c. xx. Absurdity of the statement of Celsus that the overturning of the tower of Babel had the same object as the Deluge, viz., the purification of the earth, c. xxi. Proof that Jews brought on themselves the divine wrath, because of their treatment of Jesus, c. xxii. Celsus insolently compares Jews and Christians to bats, and ants, and frogs, and worms, etc., c. xxiii. Answer, cc. xxiv., xxv. Superiority of Christians in their opinions and practice to idolaters, cc. xxvi., xxvii. Celsus misrepresents the language of Christians as to God’s descent among men, and His intercourse with them, cc. xxviii., xxix. Celsus, not understanding the words, “Let Us make man in Our image and likeness,” has represented Christians as saying that they resemble God because created by Him: Answer, c. xxx. Celsus again asserts that the Jews were fugitives from Egypt, who never performed anything of note, and were never held in any account: Answer, cc. xxxi., xxxii. Celsus, in very ambiguous language, asserts that the Jews endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers and deceivers, and appealed to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words: Answer, cc. xxxiii.-xxxv. Celsus adduces instances of alleged great antiquity put forth by other nations, and asserts that the Jews wove together some most incredible and stupid stories, regarding the creation of man, the formation of the woman, the issuing of certain commands by God, the opposition of the serpent, and the defeat of God, who is thus shown to have been weak at the very beginning of things, and unable to persuade a single individual to obey His will: Detailed answers to these misrepresentations, cc. xxxvi.-xl. Celsus next ridicules the accounts of the Deluge and the Ark: Answers, cc. xli., xlii. Goes on to carp at the histories of Abraham and Sarah, of Cain and Abel, of Esau and Jacob, of Laban and Jacob, c. xliii. Explanation of the statement that “God gave wells to the righteous;” other matters, also, to be allegorically understood, c. xliv. Celsus does not recognise the love of truth which characterizes the writers of Scripture; figurative signification of Sodom, and of Lot and his daughters; discussion on the nature of actions, c. xlv. Spirit of hostility which characterizes Celsus, in selecting from the narratives of Scripture whatever may serve as ground of accusation against Christians, while passing without notice whatever may redound to their credit: Instances, c. xlvi. Celsus refers vaguely to the dreams of the butler and baker in the history of Joseph, and endeavours to find ground of objection in the history of Joseph’s conduct towards his brethren, c. xlvii. Asserts that the more modest among Jews and Christians endeavour to give these things an allegorical meaning, because they are ashamed of them: Answer, c. xlviii. Falsity of his assertion that the scriptural writings are incapable of receiving an allegorical meaning, cc. xlix., l. The treatises which give allegorical explanations of the law of Moses evidently unknown to Celsus, otherwise he could not have said that these allegorical explanations were more shameful than the fables themselves: Illustrations, c. li. Celsus refers to the work entitled “Controversy between Papiscus and Jason,” in support of his assertions, cc. lii., liii. Celsus conceals his real opinions, although he ought to have avowed them, when quoting from the Timæus of Plato to the effect that God made immortal things alone, while mortal things are the work of others; that the soul is the work of God, while the body is different; that there is no difference between the body of a man and that of a bat: Examination of these statements, cc. liv.-lix. Asserts that a common nature pervades all bodies, and that no product of matter is immortal: Answers, cc. lx., lxi. Maintains that the amount of evil is a fixed quantity, which has never varied: Answers, cc. lxii.-lxiv. That it is difficult for any but a philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils, but that it is sufficient for the multitude to say that they do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter; and that, as the cause of mortal events never varies, the same things must always return, according to the appoinied cycles: Answers, cc. lxv.-lxix. Assertion of Celsus that a thing which seems to be evil may not necessarily be so: Examined, c. lxx. Celsus misunderstands the anthropopathic language of Scripture: Explanation, cc. lxxi.-lxxiii. Celsus finds fault with Christians for asserting that God made all things for the sake of man, whereas they were made as much for the sake of the irrational animals: Answer, c. lxxiv. Celsus holds that thunders, and lightnings, and rains are not the works of God; that even if they were, they were brought into existence as much for the sake of plants, and trees, and herbs, as for that of human beings: Answer, cc. lxxv., lxxvi. Celsus maintains that the verse of Euripides, “The sun and night are to mortals slaves,” is untrue, as these luminaries may be said to be created for the use of ants and flies as much as of man: Answer, c. lxxvii. Asserts that we may be said to be created as much on account of irrational animals as they on our account: Answer, cc. lxxviii.-lxxx. Celsus maintains that the superiority of man over irrational animals in building cities and founding political communities is only apparent: Examination of this assertion, cc. lxxxi.-lxxxiv. No great difference, according to Celsus, between the actions of men and those of ants and bees, c. lxxxv. Certain irrational animals, according to Celsus, possess the power of sorcery; instances: Examination of these, cc. lxxxvi., lxxxvii. Assertion that the thoughts entertained of God by irrational animals are not inferior to those of men; illustrations: Answer, cc. lxxxviii., lxxxix. Degrading views of Celsus, cc. xc.-xcix.
BOOK V. . . . . . . . pp. 543-572
Continuation of the subject, c. i. Celsus repeats his denial that no God, or son of God, has either come, or will come, to earth; that if certain angels did come, by what name are they to be called? whether by that of gods or some other race of beings? in all probability such angels were demons: Refutation, cc. ii.-v. Celsus proceeds to express surprise that the Jews should worship heaven and angels, and yet pass by the heavenly bodies, as the sun and moon; which procedure is, according to his view, most unreasonable: Refutation, cc. vi.-x. Defence of Christians against the same charge, cc. x.-xiii. Celsus declares the Christian belief in the future conflagration of the world, in the salvation of the righteous, in the resurrection of the body, most foolish and irrational, alleging that this belief is not held by some of the Christian believers, and adducing certain considerations regarding the character of God and the nature of bodies which render such things impossible, c. xiv. Refutation in detail of these objections, cc. xv.-xxiv. Examination of Celsus’ statement that the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and that in this way the administration of the world is carried on, cc. xxv.-xxviii. Considerations of a profounder kind may be stated regarding the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different superintending spirits, which considerations may be shown to be free from the absurd consequences which would follow from the views of Celsus; enumeration of these, cc. xxix.-xxxiii. Statement of Celsus regarding the request of the people of Marea and Apis to the oracle of Ammon, as related by Herodotus, and the inference which he seems to draw from it and other similar instances adduced by him, examined and refuted, cc. xxxiv.-xxxix. Examination of Celsus’ quotation from Pindar, that “Law is king of all things,” c. xl. Celsus goes on to state objections which apply to Jews much more than to Christians, viz., that the Jewish doctrine regarding heaven is not peculiar to them, but has long ago been received by the Persians; and proceeds to observe that it makes no difference by what name the Supreme Being is called; nor are the Jews to be deemed holier than other nations because abstaining from swine’s flesh, etc. Detailed examination and refutation of these statements, cc. xli.-xlix. Celsus denies that the Jews were regarded by God with greater favour than other nations: Answer, c. l. Statement of Celsus that, admitting Jesus to have been an angel, He was not the first who came to visit men, for the histories relate that there have been many instances, several of which he enumerates, c. lii. Refutation, cc. liii.-lviii. Conclusion of Celsus that Jews and Christians have the same God, and that the latter adopt the Jewish accounts regarding the six days; other points of agreement mentioned: Examination of these statements, as well as of his admission that certain Christians will admit the identity, while others will deny it, cc. lix.-lxii. Argument of Celsus against Christianity, founded upon the existence of those who have worshipped demons as their teacher, and of sects that have hated each other, examined and refuted, c. lxiii. Celsus has misunderstood the prediction of the apostle that deceivers will come in the last times, c. lxiv. Falsity of Celsus’ statement that all who differ so widely may be heard saying, “The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,” c. lxv.
BOOK VI. . . . . . . pp. 573-610
Object of Sixth Book specially to refute those objections which Celsus brings against Christians, and not those derived from writers on philosophy, c. i. Explanation of the reasons which led the writers of Scripture to adopt a simple style of address, c. ii. Quotation from Plato regarding the “chief good,” and remarks upon it, c. iii. Inconsistent conduct of those who can so express themselves pointed out, c. iv. Comparison of the Platonic phraseology, regarding the kindling of a light in the soul, with the language of Scripture, c. v. Examination of the question whether Plato was acquainted with doctrines more profound than those which are contained in his writings, and demonstration of the fact that the prophets did know of greater things than any in Scripture, but did not commit them to writing, cc. vi.-x. Celsus inquires whether, amid the perplexity arising from the existence of different Christs, men are to cast the dice to divine which of them they ought to follow? Answer, c. xi. Perversion of the language of Paul regarding wisdom corrected, cc. xii., xiii. Examination of Celsus’ charge that Christians are uninstructed, servile, and ignorant, c. xiv. Sneer of Celsus at the humility of Christians answered, c. xv. Celsus charges Jesus with having perverted the language of Plato in His saying regarding the impossibility of a rich man’s entering the kingdom of heaven: Answer, c. xvi. Comparison of some points of Scripture doctrine with statements of Plato, cc. xvii., xviii. Charge of Celsus that Christians have misunderstood language of Plato, in boasting of a “super-celestial” God: Answer, c. xix. Explanation of certain terms referring to heaven, cc. xx., xxi. Assertion of Celsus, that the Persian mysteries of Mithras contain many obscure allusions to those heavenly things mentioned in the Christian writings; absurdity of his statements, cc. xxii., xxiii. Celsus refers to a certain diagram, the statements regarding which he appears to have borrowed from the sect of the Ophites; which statements, however, are of no credibility, c. xxiv. Description of said diagram, and explanation of the names inscribed in it, cc. xxv., xxvi. Certain statements of Celsus regarding the “seal” examined, c. xxvii. Celsus asserts that Christians term the Creator an “accursed” divinity, and asks what could be more foolish or insane than such senseless wisdom? Examination of these statements, cc. xxviii., xxix. Celsus returns to the subject of the seven ruling demons, and makes reference to the diagram, c. xxx. Quotations illustrating the manner of invoking said demons, c. xxxi. Remarks on the procedure of Celsus, c. xxxii. Further statements of Celsus, c. xxxiii. Continuation of statements of Celsus, to the effect that Christians heap together one thing after another,—discourses of prophets, circles upon circles, effluents from an earthly church, and from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, etc., etc., c. xxxiv. Detailed examination and answer to these statements, cc. xxxv.-xxxvii. Celsus introduces other charges, stating that there are inscriptions in the diagram containing two words, “a greater and a less,” which are referred to Father and Son: Answer, c. xxxviii. Statement of Celsus, that names of demons among the Greeks are different from what they are among the Scythians; gives illustrations: Answer, c. xxxix. Statement of Celsus, on the authority of Dionysius, an Egyptian magician, that magic arts have no power over philosophers, but only over uneducated men and persons of corrupt morals: Falsity of this shown, c. xli. Allegation of Celsus, that Christians have invented the fiction of the devil or Satan, as an adversary to God, who counterworks His plans and defeats them; that the Son of God, even, has been vanquished by the devil; and that the devil will exhibit great and marvellous works, and claim for himself the glory of God: Examination and refutation of these statements, cc. xlii.-xliv. Celsus has misunderstood the statements of Scripture regarding Antichrist: Explanation of these, cc. xlv., xlvi. Celsus perverts the language of Christians regarding the “Son of God:” Answer, c. xlvii. Mystical meaning of “Son of God” explained, c. xlviii. Celsus characterizes the Mosaic cosmogony as extremely silly, and alleges that Moses and the prophets, from ignorance, have woven together a web of sheer nonsense. Answers, cc. xlix.-li. Celsus will not decide whether the world was uncreated and indestructible, or created but not destructible, c. lii. Brings forward objections that were raised against Marcion, and after several disparaging observations on the manner of the divine procedure towards men, asks how it is that God created evil, etc., c. liii. Answer to the foregoing, cc. liv.-lix. Celsus repeats charges formerly made regarding the days of creation, cc. lx., lxi. Comments on the expression, “The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it:” Answer, c. lxii. Asserts that “the first-born of every creature” is the image of God, and that God did not make man in His image, because he is unlike to any other species of being; explanation of the expression, “Man is made after the image of God,” c. lxiii. God partakes neither of form nor colour, nor can motion be predicated of Him; explanation of passages that seem to imply the reverse, c. lxiv. Inconsistency of Celsus with his declared opinions, in saying that God is the source of all things; asserts that He cannot be reached by word: Explanation and distinction, c. lxv. Celsus asks, in the person of another, how it is possible to know God, or to learn the way that leads to Him, because darkness is thrown before the eyes, and nothing distinctly seen: Answer to this query, and remark of Celsus retorted upon himself, cc. lxvi.-lxviii. Celsus represents our answer as being this: “Since God is great and difficult to see, He put His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him, and become acquainted with Him:” Examination of this statement, cc. lxix., lxx. According to Celsus, our doctrine regarding the spirit is the same as that of the Stoics, who maintain that “God is a spirit, diffused through all things, and containing all things within Himself:” Answer, c. lxxi. Assertion that the Son of God would not be immortal, because He was a spirit existing in a human body: Answer, c. lxxii. Criticises, in scoffing language, the Incarnation; exposure of his errors, c. lxxiii. Returns to the subject of Marcion’s opinions; introduces “two sons of God,” and speaks scoffingly of the supposed controversies between them, c. lxxiv. Maintains that the body of Jesus must have been different from that of other beings, in virtue of His divine qualities. Consideration of the prophecies regarding Jesus: Answers to his statements, cc. lxxv.-lxxvii. Celsus ridicules the sending of God’s Spirit into one corner of the world alone, and compares God to Jupiter in the comedy, who sent Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedæmonians: Answer, cc. lxxviii., lxxix. Celsus terms the Chaldeans a divinely inspired nation; speaks of the Egyptian people as also inspired, although he condemned them formerly, and refuses this title to the Jews; inconsistency of all this, c. lxxx. Pretends not to understand how God could send His Son amongst wicked men, who were to inflict punishment upon Him: Answer, c. lxxxi.
BOOK VII. . . . . . . pp. 611-639
Celsus denies that the Jewish prophets predicted any of the events which occurred in the life of Christ, and asserts that those who believe in the existence of another God, besides that of the Jews, cannot refute his objections; while Christians, who recognise the God of the Jews, rely for their defence on the alleged predictions regarding Christ: Remarks, c. ii. Celsus declares Christians inconsistent in rejecting the ancient Grecian oracles of Delphi, Dodona, Clarus, Branchidæ, Jupiter Ammon, etc., which nevertheless were of high importance, while insisting that the sayings uttered in Judea are marvellous and unchangeably true: Detailed answer to this objection, cc. iii.-viii. Asserts that many individuals assume the attitude of inspiration, and claim to be God, or the Son of God, or the divine Spirit, and to have come down to save a perishing world, and promise rewards to those who do them homage, and threaten vengeance upon others; and, moreover, to these promises add strange and unintelligible words, which may be applied by any impostor to his own purposes, c. ix. Answer to these charges, cc. x.-xii. Falsity of Celsus’ statement that God favours the commission of evil, c. xiii. Celsus objects, that even if the prophets foretold that the great God would become a slave, or die, there was no necessity that He should do so simply because such things had been predicted: Answers, cc. xiv.-xvii. Celsus objects further, that if the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that Jesus was to be the Son of the same God, how could commands have been given through Moses that the Jews should accumulate wealth, extend their dominion, fill the earth, put their enemies to the sword, under threat of being treated by God as His enemies; whilst the man of Nazareth, His Son, delivered commands of a totally opposite kind? Errors of Celsus pointed out in detail, and the nature of the two dispensations explained, cc. xviii.-xxvi. Falsity of assertion that Christians believe the Divine Being to be corporeal in His nature, and to possess a body like a man, c. xxvii. Celsus alleges that the idea of a better land than this, to which Christians hope to go after death, has been borrowed from the divine men of a former age, and quotes from Homer and Plato in support of his assertion: Answers, cc. xxviii.-xxxi. Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, and asserts that we uphold this doctrine in order that we may see and know God: Answer, cc. xxxii.-xxxiv. The oracles of Trophonius, etc., to which Celsus would direct Christians, assuring them that there they would see God distinctly, shown to be demons, c. xxxv. Language of Christians as to the manner in which they see God misrepresented by Celsus, cc. xxxvi.-xxxix. Language of Celsus quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians, and applicable only to those whose doctrines differ widely from theirs, c. xl. Celsus recommends Christians to follow the guidance of divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers, without mentioning their names: Remarks on this, c. xli. Proceeds to name Plato as an effective teacher of theological truth, quoting from the Timæus to the effect that it is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of the universe, and an impossibility to make Him known to all after having found Him; and remarking that Christians cannot follow the example of Plato and others, who proceed by analysis and synthesis, because they are wedded to the flesh: Answers, cc. xlii.-xlv. General remarks upon the tone in which Christians carry on controversy with their opponents, c. xlvi. Actions of those who, although seeming to be wise, did not yield themselves to the divine teaching, c. xlvii. Purity of life exhibited by Christians, c. xlviii. Even by those who are unable to investigate the deeper questions of theology, c. xlix. Explanation of certain scriptural expressions regarding “birth” or “generation,” c. l. Difference between Christians and those who received a portion of the Divine Spirit before the dispensation of Christianity, c. li. Celsus proceeds to say to Christians that they would have done better to have selected as the object of their homage some one who had died a glorious death, whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory, and names Hercules, Æsculapius, Anaxarchus, and Epictetus, as instances, alleging that Jesus never uttered under suffering any words that could be compared to their utterances, c. liii. Answers, cc. liv.-lv. Sneering remark of Celsus that we might better have given the name of Son of God to the Sibyl than to Jesus, c. lvi. Scoffing advice of Celsus, that we had better choose Jonah than Jesus for our God. Answer, c. lvii. Celsus asserts that the Christian precept, “Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” is an ancient saying, admirably expressed long ago, and reported by Christians in a coarser way, and quotes from Plato in support of his statement: Answer, cc. lviii.-lxi. Celsus goes on to say that Christians cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images, and that in this peculiarity they resemble Scythians and other barbarous nations, adducing quotations from Herodotus and Heraclitus in support of his opinion that none, save those who are utterly childish, can take these things for gods, c. lxii. Detailed answer, cc. lxiii.-lxvi. Celsus remarks that Christians will not admit that these images are erected in honour of certain beings who are gods, but maintain that these are demons, and ought not to be worshipped: Remarks in answer, c. lxvii. Asks why demons are not to be worshipped, and asserts that everything, whether the work of angels, demons, or heroes, is part of the providential government of the Most High God. Answers, cc. lxviii.-lxx.
BOOK VIII. . . . . . . pp. 640-669
Celsus, after his question regarding the worship of demons, proceeds to represent us as saying that it is impossible to serve many masters, and remarks that this is the language of sedition, and used only by those who stand aloof from all human society, etc. Consideration of the true language of Scripture upon this and kindred points, in answer to this statement, cc. ii.-viii. Reckless language of Celsus, who would have us believe that we are led by our worship of God to that of other things which belong to God, without injury to ourselves, and who yet adds, “We may honour none except those to whom that right has been given by God:” Remarks, c. ix. Nature of the honour which Christians pay to the Son of God, c. x. Celsus asserts that those who uphold the unity of God are guilty of impiety: Answer, c. xi. That if Christians worshipped one God alone, they would have valid arguments against the worship of others, but they pay excessive reverence to one who is the servant of God: Refutation, cc. xii.-xiv. Celsus quotes from the opinions of some obscure heretical sect, contained in what is called a Heavenly Dialogue, to the effect that we suppose another God, who is above the heavens, to be the father of Him whom we honour, in order that we may honour the Son of Man alone; whom also we assert to be stronger than God, who rules the world and who rules over them: Answers, cc. xv.-xvi. Celsus goes on to say, that our shrinking from raising altars, statues, and temples, has been agreed upon among us as the badge of a secret society: Answer, cc. xvii.-xx. Assertion of Celsus, that those devoted to the service of God may take part in public feasts or idol offerings: Answer, c. xxi. Answer to objection that Christians themselves observe certain days, as the Preparation, the Passover, and Pentecost, cc. xxii., xxiii. Reasons urged by Celsus why Christians may make use of idol offerings and public sacrifices at public feasts; examination of these, cc. xxiv.-xxvii. Celsus proceeds to state that if Christians abstain from idol offerings, they ought, in consistency, to abstain from all animal food, like the Pythagoreans: Answer, cc. xxviii.-xxxii. Celsus alleges that if we come into the world at all, we must give thanks, and first-fruits, and prayers to demons, that they may prove good and kind: Answer, cc. xxxiii., xxxiv. Celsus remarks that the satraps of a Persian or Roman monarch could do great injury to those who despised them, and asks, will the satraps and ministers of air and earth be insulted with impunity? Answer, cc. xxxv., xxxvi. Asserts that if Christians invoke those whom they address by barbarous names they will have power, but not if invoked in Latin and Greek; falsity and absurdity of this statement, c. xxxvii. Misrepresents the language addressed by Christians to the Grecian statues, c. xxxviii. Scoffing language of Celsus to the Christians on the rejection of Jesus, whom he terms a demon, and on His inability to save His followers from being put to death, c. xxxix. Contrast between the Christian and heathen doctrine of punishment, c. xl. Railing address of Celsus, to the effect that although Christians may revile the statues of the gods, they would not have reviled the gods themselves with impunity; that nothing happened to those who crucified Jesus, that no father was ever so inhuman as was the Father of Jesus, etc., etc.: Answers, cc. xli.-xliv. Celsus asserts that it is of no use to collect all the oracular responses that have been delivered, for the world is full of them, and many remarkable events have happened in consequence of them, which establish their reality and divinity; general remark in answer, c. xlv. Contrast between conduct of Pythian priestess, who frequently allowed herself to be bribed, and that of the prophets, who were admired for their downright truthfulness, c. xlvi. Assertion of Greeks, that the Jewish history contains fabulous accounts, refuted, c. xlvii. Endeavour of Celsus to show that the doctrines delivered at the celebration of the pagan mysteries are the same as those of the Christians; absurdity of this, c. xlviii. Celsus reproaches Christians with inconsistency in their treatment of the body: Answer, cc. xlix., l. Celsus approves the Christian doctrine that the righteous shall enjoy everlasting life, and the wicked shall suffer everlasting punishment; inconsistency of this on the part of Celsus, c. li. Anxiety of Origen to bring all men to receive the whole system of Christian truth, c. lii. Doubtful manner in which Celsus speaks of certain weighty matters, and reluctance on his part to set down any of them as false; inconsistency of this with the manner in which he treats the doctrines of Christianity, which he regards with a hostile spirit, cc. liii., liv. Celsus asserts that Christians must make their choice between two alternatives; nature of these. Answer, cc. lv.-lvii. Seeks to degrade the souls of men to the worship of demons, by referring to certain practices and beliefs prevalent among the Egyptians: Answer, cc. lviii.-lix. Admits that there is a dangerous tendency in demon-worship: Remarks, cc. lx.-lxii. Yet adds that the more just opinion is that demons desire and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who discharge towards them offices of piety: Answer, cc. lxiii.-lxv. Celsus admits that no worshipper of God should submit to anything base, but should encounter any torments or death, rather than do anything unworthy of God; and yet to celebrate the sun, or the praises of Minerva, is only to render higher praise to God; inconsistency of this, cc. lxvi., lxvii. Maintains that the Homeric saying must be observed, “Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed,” sense in which this must be understood by Christians, c. lxviii. Inconsistency on the part of Celsus, after what he has said, in asking whether God would fight for the Romans, if they were to become converts to the worship of the Most High, cc. lxix., lxx. Further misrepresentations of Celsus pointed out, c. lxxi. Time will come when the Word will change every soul into His own perfections, c. lxxii. Celsus enjoins us to help the king with all our might, and, if required, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him: Answer, c. lxxiii. Also to take office in the government of the country, if necessary for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion: Answer, c. lxxv. Conclusion, in which Origen mentions that Celsus had announced his intention of writing a second treatise, which Origen requests Ambrose to send him if he should have carried his intentions into execution.
[1 ] Possibly as late as ad 230. Comp. Wordsworth, Hippol., p. 126.
[2 ] A condensed and valuable view of this matter may be seen in Dr. Schaff’s History, etc., vol. iii. pp. 834-841.
[1 ] See Bishop Jewell, Works, vol. i. pp. 386, 441. Cambridge, 1845.
[2 ] Vol. I. of this series, pp. 23, 24. See also Bunsen, Hippol., i. p. 244.
[3 ]De Viris Illustribus, c. 58.
[4 ] [His connection with the Roman courts is inferred from cap. ii. infra.]
[5 ] Milman’s Hist. of Christianity, vol. iii. book iv. ch. iii.
[1 ] [Dr. Wallis, the learned translator of the Octavius, is described in the Edinburgh edition as “Senior Priest-Vicar of Wells Cathedral, and incumbent of Christ Church, Coxley, Somerset.”]
[1 ] He gives us a painful picture of the decline of godliness in his days; of which see Wordsworth’s Hippolytus, p. 140.
[1 ] Vol. ii. p. 105, this series.
[2 ] 2 Sam. xxiv. 14.
[1 ] Cf. Redepenning’s Origenes, vol. i. pp. 417-420 (Erste Beilage: über Origenes Geburtsjahr und den Ort, wo er geboren wurde). [His surname denotes the strength, clearness, and point of his mind and methods. It is generally given Adamantius.]
[2 ] Horus vel Or. Cf. Ibid. (Zweite Beilage: über Namen und Beinamen der Origenes). [But compare Cave, vol. i. p. 322. Lives of the Fathers, Oxford, 1840.]
[3 ]Encyclopaedie der Katholischen Theologie, s.v. Origenes.
[4 ]Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. ii. § 9.
[1 ]Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. ii. §§ 10, 11.
[2 ] Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. ii.: Ἔπεχε, μὴ δι’ ὴμα̑ς ἅλλο τὶ ϕρονήσης.
[3 ] τη̑ς ἐξ ἐκείνου περὶ την πιστιν ὸρθοδοξίας ἐναργη̑ παρείχετο δειγματα.
[4 ] The obol was about three-halfpence of English money.
[1 ] For a full discussion of the doubts which have been thrown upon the credibility of Eusebius in this matter by Schnitzer and Baur, cf. Redepenning, Origenes, vol. i. pp. 444-458, and Hefele, Encyclopaedie der Katholischen Theologie, s.v. Origenes.
[2 ] [Where he met with Hippolytus, and heard him preach, according to St. Jerome.]
[3 ] Euseb., Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 19, § 16.
[4 ]Ibid., b. vi. c. 19.
[5 ]Ibid., b. vi. c. 18.
[1 ] Euseb., Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 23.
[2 ] Euseb., Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 21: παρ’ ᾓ χρόνον διατρίψας, πλει̑στά τε ὃσα εἰς τὴν του̑ Κυριου δόξαν καὶ τη̑ς του̑ θείου διδασκαλείου ἀρετη̑ς ἐπιδειξάμενος, ἐπὶ τὰς συνήθεις ἕσπευδε διατριβάς.
[3 ] Cf. Hefele, Encyclopaedie, etc., s.v. Origenes.
[4 ] Ἐπειγούσης χρειας ἐκκλησιαστικω̑ν ἕνεκα πραγμάτων.
[5 ] Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. p. 406, etc.
[6 ] Cf. ibid.
[1 ]Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 22 and c. 33.
[2 ] With the exception of the first book; cf. Migne, vol. ix. pp. 542-632.
[3 ] Cf. Photii Bibliotheca, ed. Hoeschel, p. 298.
[4 ] Eusebius expressly mentions that both these works, among others, were published before he left Alexandria.—Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 24.
[5 ] s.v. Origenes.
[6 ]Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 19.
[7 ] Ibid.
[8 ]Ibid., b. vi. c. 8.
[9 ] ὁ ἀκρωτηριάσας ἑαυτὸν μὴ γενέσθω κληρικός. Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. pp. 208, 216, 218.
[10 ] Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. p. 409, note 2.
[11 ]Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 8.
[1 ]Hæres., lxiv. 63.
[1 ] [De Princip., B. IV. i. 19. S.]
[1 ] Cf. Contra Celsum, I. c. viii. ad fin.
[2 ] Cf. Redepenning, vol. ii. p. 131, note 2.
[3 ]Contra Celsum, I. ch. viii.
[4 ] Preface, b. i. § 6.
[5 ] Migne, vol. i. pp. 102-107.
[6 ] Migne, vol. i. pp. 91-100.
[1 ] Both of these are translated in the first volume of Origen’s works in this series.
[2 ] Abridged from Redepenning.
[3 ] Harwood’s translation.
[4 ] i.e., Thaumaturgus.
[5 ] [The Messrs. Clark announced, in their original plan, that, of the manifold works of this great Father, only these specimens could be given.]
[10 ] Perversum.
[11 ] Isa. xxvii. 1.
[12 ] Ezek. xxviii. 12 sq.
[13 ] Cf. John xiii. 27.
[14 ] Eph. vi. 13.
[15 ] Eph. vi. 12.
[16 ] Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.
[17 ] Nemo hominum omnino.
[1 ] Ex corporali necessitate descendunt.
[2 ] Quod non simile aliquid pateremur?
[3 ] Propositum.
[4 ] Quæ in usu naturaliter habentur.
[5 ] Sensum eorum penitus possederint.
[6 ] Gal. v. 17.
[7 ] 1 Cor. x. 13.
[1 ] Carnem talem.
[2 ] 1 Cor. x. 13.
[3 ] Pro virtutis suæ quantitate, vel possibilitate.
[4 ] Nec tamen scriptum est, quia faciet in tentatione etiam exitum sustinendi, sed exitum ut sustinere possimus.
[5 ] 1 Cor. x. 13.
[6 ] Ut sustinere possimus.
[7 ] Repugnandi vincendique.
[8 ] Fabulosum.
[9 ] Ps. lxxvi. 10. Such is the reading of the Vulgate and of the Septuagint. The authorized version follows the Masoretic text.
[10 ] Eccles. x. 4. cf. note 8, p. 329.
[1 ] 2 Cor. x. 5.
[2 ] Ps. lxxxiv. 5. The words in the text are: Beatus vir, cujus est susceptio apud te, Domine, adscensus in corde ejus. The Vulgate reads: Beatus vir, cujus est auxilium abs te: ascensiones in corde suo disposuit. The Septuagint the same. The Masoretic text has מְכִלוח (“festival march or procession;” Furst). Probably the Septuagint and Vulgate had מַעַלוח before them, the similarity between Samech and Ayin accounting for the error in transcription.
[3 ] 2 Cor. viii. 16.
[4 ] [See book of Tobit, chaps. v. vi. S.]
[5 ] Zech i. 14. The Vulgate, Septuagint, and Masoretic text all have “in me,” although the Authorized Version reads “with me.”
[6 ]Shepherd of Hermas, Command. vi. 2. See vol. ii. p. 24.
[7 ]Epistle of Barnabas. See vol. i. pp. 148, 149.
[8 ] Matt. xxvii. 63.
[9 ] John xiii. 2.
[10 ] Prov. iv. 23.
[11 ] Heb. ii. 1.
[12 ] Eph. iv. 27.
[13 ] Eph. vi. 12.
[14 ] Sine maxima subversione sui.
[1 ] Acts ix. 15.
[2 ] Sine aliquâ pernicie sui.
[3 ] John xvi. 33.
[4 ] Phil. iv. 13.
[5 ] 1 Cor. xv. 10.
[6 ] Rom. viii. 38, 39. The word “virtus,” δύναμις, occurring in the text, is not found in the text. recept. Tischendorf reads Δυναμεις in loco (edit. 7). So also Codex Sinaiticus.
[7 ] Excelsa et profunda.
[8 ] Ps. xxvii. 1-3.
[9 ] Palæstricæ artis exercitiis.
[1 ] John xix. 11.
[2 ] Tribus ordinibus.
[3 ] Cf. Job i. 10, 11. “Nisi in faciem benedixerit tibi.” The Hebrew verb כָּרַך׃ has the double signification of “blessing” and “cursing.” Cf. Davidson’s Commentary on Job, p. 7. Septuag. εὐλογησει.
[4 ] Matt. x. 29.
[5 ] Cf. Job vii. 1. The Septuagint reads, πότερον οὐχὶ πειρατήριον, etc.; the Vulgate, “militia,” the Masoretic text has צָכָא. Cf. Davidson’s Commentary on Job, in loc.
[6 ] 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.
[7 ] 1 Cor. ii. 7.
[8 ] Matt. xii. 42.
[1 ] Sapientiarum harum.
[2 ] Sapientias illas.
[3 ] De divinitate.
[4 ] De scientiâ excelsi pollicentium.
[5 ] Cf. Dan. x.
[6 ] Cf. Ezek. xxvi.
[7 ] Ps. ii. 2.
[8 ] 1 Cor. ii. 6-8.
[9 ] Istæ sapientiæ.
[10 ] Energiæ.
[11 ] Insania.
[12 ] Vates.