{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52032/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52032","id":"gutenberg_52032","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52032","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180","Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180. Alethes logos","Christianity","Origen. Contra Celsum"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1812 J. Smith edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                              HULSEAN ESSAY\n                               _For_ 1811.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    A\n                               DISSERTATION\n                                  ON THE\n                   BOOKS _of_ ORIGEN _against_ CELSUS,\n                               WITH A VIEW\n                        TO ILLUSTRATE THE ARGUMENT\n                                   AND\n                    POINT OUT THE EVIDENCE THEY AFFORD\n                                  TO THE\n                          TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n_Published in pursuance of the Will of the Rev._ J. HULSE, _as having\ngained the_ ANNUAL PRIZE, _instituted by him in the University of\nCambridge_.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                           FRANCIS CUNNINGHAM,\n                           OF QUEEN\u2019S COLLEGE.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    \u201cQuippe in his (_nimirum Origenis contra Celsum libris_) communem\n    Christianorum doctrinam, adversus instructissimum Religionis nostr\u00e6\n    hostem propugnat: hi summo Auctoris studio maxima eruditione,\n    elucubrati fuere.\u201d  _Bull._ _Def._ _Fid._ _Nic._ Cap. ix. Sec. 2.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                CAMBRIDGE:\n           PRINTED _by_ J. SMITH, PRINTER _to the_ UNIVERSITY;\n       _AND SOLD BY DEIGHTON_, _CAMBRIDGE_; _AND RIVINGTONS_, _AND_\n                          _HATCHARD_, _LONDON_.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  1812.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  TO THE\n                   _Very Rev. the_ DEAN _of_ CARLISLE,\n                        PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS,\n                              THE PRESIDENT,\n                                   AND\n                      _To the Reverend and Learned_\n                               THE FELLOWS\n                          _OF QUEEN\u2019S COLLEGE_,\n                                THIS ESSAY\n                               IS DEDICATED\n                 AS A TRIBUTE OF RESPECT AND GRATITUDE BY\n                               THE AUTHOR.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n                                        Page\nIntroduction                               1\n                  CHAP. I.\nHistory and Writings of the Jews           5\n                 CHAP. II.\nThe Scriptures                            12\n                 CHAP. III.\nHistory of Christ                         19\n                 CHAP. IV.\nMiracles                                  24\n                  CHAP. V.\nCharacter of the early Christians         33\n                 CHAP. VI.\nDoctrines of the early Christians         39\n                 CHAP. VII.\nConclusion                                49\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nTHE Book of Celsus, {1a} entitled \u201cThe True Discourse,\u201d {1b} is supposed\nto have been written during the fifth persecution, {1c} in the reign of\nMarcus Antoninus, and in the one hundred and seventieth year of the\nChristian era.  Of his history nothing is known, but that he was an\nepicurean philosopher, {1d} and a friend of Lucian, who inscribed a book\n{1e} to him.  The object of his work was an attack upon Christianity, and\nas such, it is one of the most malignant and unreserved upon record.  He\nis indebted to his opponents for bringing down any account of his\nwritings to posterity, for they have otherwise perished.\n\nOrigen died in the year of our Lord {2a} two hundred and fifty-four.  He\nundertook, at the request of Ambrose, {2b} to answer the work of Celsus,\nand \u201cto leave no part without examination.\u201d  His Treatise is divided into\neight books; but this division seems rather to be founded upon caprice,\n{2c} than upon any design of methodically discussing the argument.  The\nreasonings of Celsus are discussed in the order in which they occur,\nwhich is without method, or connection.  The extracts which are made by\nOrigen from the works of his adversary are very copious, so much so,\nthat, considering his object, of fully discussing every part of the\noriginal work, it is probable nothing of importance is omitted.  The\naccuracy of the quotations of Origin is guaranteed both by his\nacknowledged veracity, {3a} and by the risk of refutation to which he\nwould otherwise have exposed himself, from opponents who had the original\nwriting in their hands.  The work of Origen has been considered both by\nancients and moderns, as a master-piece of eloquence and argument.\nEusebius {3b} and Jerome {3c} have given it their highest approbation.\nMany of our own writers, {3d} and many more of the French, {3e} both\nCatholic and Protestant, have pronounced it to be the completest, and\nbest written apology for the Christian Religion which has been bequeathed\nto us by the ancients.\n\nThe want of order, both in the attack of Celsus, and the reply of Origen,\nrenders it impracticable to follow, precisely in their steps.  Time will\nbe gained, and perspicuity promoted, by endeavouring to bring their\nperplexed argument into a more regular form.  We shall therefore single\nout the main topics discussed by each, and by stating the objections of\nthe one, and the replies of the other, strive to collect the evidence\nwhich each furnishes to the truth of Christianity.  Taking the more\nprominent topics therefore, we shall consider in order; the History and\nWritings of the Jews\u2014the Scriptures\u2014the History of Christ\u2014the Conduct and\nthe Principles of the early Christians.  After which it will be useful to\nsum up the evidence to Christianity, supplied by the whole argument.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\nHISTORY _and_ WRITINGS _of the_ JEWS.\n\n\nTHE evidence in favour of Christianity, to be deduced from the history\nand writings of the Jews, is so important, that it was a primary object\nwith Celsus, to render it nugatory.  This he endeavours to effect, first,\nby disputing the antiquity of Moses; and secondly, by condemning his\nnarration.  We shall examine his statement on these points, and some\nimportant acknowledgments he makes, of the existence of the prophetic\nwritings.\n\nHe says that \u201cthe Jews, {5a} who were originally fugitive slaves from\nEgypt, pretended, on the authority of the Books of Moses, to a very\nancient genealogy; {5b} that they lived together in a corner of\nPalestine, in profound ignorance; {5c} not having heard of the things\nlong before celebrated by Hesiod, and many other men divinely inspired.\u201d\nHe then particularizes much of the history of Genesis, which he calls \u201can\nold woman\u2019s story, full of impiety;\u201d {6a} and asserts that \u201cmany of its\nfacts are taken from the heathens.\u201d  To this Origen {6b} replies by\nreferring to Josephus {6c} and Tatian {6d} for external proof of the\nhistory of the Jews: He affirms that they have all the evidence of their\nexistence which other nations have, {6e} that they have records which\nothers have not; {6f} that other nations are allowed to have existed who\nbear testimony to the Jews; {6g} that it would have been impossible for\nso small a band, to have opposed itself to the whole power of Egypt; that\nit must have changed its language; and that, in changing, it has not\nassumed one resembling the neighbouring nations.  He then urges the\nwisdom of the Jewish Institutions; infers from their perfect\npreservation, the esteem in which they were held; and challenges a\ncomparison, {7a} as to sublimity of doctrine, and purity of morals, with\nany other system, proposed to mankind.\n\nCelsus then notices many of the Old Testament characters: He ridicules\nthe relation of \u201cthe Fall, {7b} the Deluge, Children born of old Persons,\nBrothers who kill each other, Mothers who deceive, the Sin of Lot, the\nAnimosity of Esau, the Deceit of the Sons of Jacob, the History of\nJoseph,\u201d &c.  Origen replies that such facts alone are selected by Celsus\nfrom the writings of Moses, as supply a ground of attack; that the\nsimplicity of his narration proves the integrity of its author; and he\nthen apologizes for these causes of offence by the necessity of the case,\nhe contrasts with them the greater profligacy of the heathen, or\nfancifully explains them upon the scheme of allegory.\n\nNo direct admission of Celsus, relating to Jewish prophecy, is to be\nfound.  There are however many observations, which prove the coming of\nChrist to have been expected by the Jews, and this expectation must have\nbeen the result of prophecy.  The remarks of Celsus, with regard to this\ntopic, are of this kind.  That the \u201cJews {8a} and Christians believe,\nthat the Spirit of God had promised there would come a Saviour; but they\ncould not agree, whether or no, he had already come;\u201d {8b} that \u201cthe\nprophecies which the Christians apply to Christ refer equally to other\npersons;\u201d {8c} that \u201cothers had lived who had applied the prophecies of\nChrist to themselves,\u201d &c. &c.  Thus he plainly admits prophecies to have\nexisted of some great person, who was to come; and that Jews and\nChristians believed in them, but that it was uncertain whether they were\naccomplished.\n\nThe inferences to be collected from the preceding observations, are as\nfollows.\n\nFirst, The Jewish Scriptures are of older date, than the birth of Christ.\nFor if these writings had been compiled since that time, some rumours of\nsuch an event must have reached Celsus; and this fact which would have\nruined all the pretensions of Jewish antiquity, would have been urged by\nthe heathens as a primary objection to their claims.  The Jews themselves\nmoreover could not have been deceived, if this had been a cunningly\ndevised fable; for they were a widely extended people, and in so short a\nspace of time, it would have been impossible to make them the dupes of\nsuch an imposture.  Secondly, It may be inferred from the admission of\nCelsus, that the prophecies were found in the Jewish Scriptures _in his\ntime_; and _since_ then no alteration has been made in them by the Jews.\nBut if so, this is the strongest presumption, that the Jews had never\naltered them _before_.  For, if, when by the fulfilment of the\nprophecies, in the person of Christ, they were most tempted to erase\npredictions, so hostile to their own creed, they made no change, much\nless, would they do it, when the temptation was diminished.  Thirdly, If\nlittle is to be collected from the writings of Celsus, in favour of those\nprophecies which he has attacked, something may be inferred in favour of\nthose which he has failed to attack.  Their existence is admitted, and\nhis spirit of hostility is such, that we must attribute his silence not\nto his forbearance, but to his disingenuousness.  Fourthly, The admission\nthat some important character was expected, not only by the Jews, but by\nthe heathens, at the era of Christ\u2019s advent, is very important to\nreligion.  Where could the expectation originate, except in the Jewish\nScriptures?  The sages, poets, and historians of antiquity, appear to\nhave drunk at this sacred source.  The Arabians {10a} came from a far\ncountry to greet it; Herod destroyed {10b} the Jewish genealogies that\nthe family of David might not be known, {10c} undertook the building of\nthe temple, a work it was thought the Messias was to perform, and\nmurdered {11a} his own son in fear that the promised King should dethrone\nhim.  Virgil, building upon the popular persuasion, applied it on two\noccasions to Augustus. {11b}  This expectation is also mentioned by\nCicero, {11c} Sallust, {11d} Suetonius, {11e} and Tacitus. {11f}  If the\norigin of this expectation was with the Jews, where else can we look for\nthe accomplishment.  Who has fulfilled their wide-spread expectations?\nWhere is this hope of all nations to be sought, if not in the person of\nChrist?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\nTHE SCRIPTURES.\n\n\nCELSUS in his general mode of argument against the Christians, renders a\nvery important testimony to the truth of their Scriptures: for his\ncharges are not grounded on facts or doctrines, not there recorded; but\nalmost every one of them may be directly traced, to some important and\nobvious passage of the Bible.\n\nHe seemed therefore to consider, that he could most effectually destroy\nChristianity, by overturning the authority of the writings which the\nChristians believed to have been delivered to them by inspiration, and\nwhich they considered the authority, the guide and the security of their\nreligion.\n\nHe acknowledges {13a} that there were \u201cwritings concerning the affairs of\nChrist made by his disciples;\u201d using the word _disciple_ distinctly from\nthe _follower_ of Christ, and plainly in the sense of the immediate\nattendant upon his person.  Whence may be inferred the general belief, in\nhis time, that the Gospels proceeded from their accredited authors.\n\nHe states the Christians to have \u201cpreached their doctrines to the poor\nand wicked, without partiality or respect of persons;\u201d {13b} a statement\nadmitted by Origen, to be conformable to the genius of the Gospel, and\nfulfilling its own declarations, \u201cthat to the poor the Gospel is\npreached;\u201d {13c} and that \u201cChrist came not to call the righteous, but\nsinners to repentance.\u201d {13d}  This statement also proves the Gospel to\nhave been publicly promulged.\n\nHe charges the Christians with so \u201cmutilating the Scriptures, that if one\nexpression was attacked they might take refuge in another;\u201d {14a} but the\ncharge rests alone upon his assertion.  Origen confidently challenges any\nproof of it; imputes the mutilations of Scripture, exclusively, to\nMarcion and Valentinus; but denies their claim to the title of\nChristians.\n\nThe quotations of Celsus from the New Testament are so numerous, {14b}\nthat from them a great part of the History of Christ, a statement of his\ndoctrines, his character, and that of his disciples, might be gathered.\nThese quotations are taken from the Gospels, in general, but more\nparticularly from Saint Matthew, from the Acts of the Apostles, from the\nvarious Epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John.  They are so\nfaithful a transcript of our New Testament, as to leave no doubt, that he\nhad it before him.  Now and then, however, he mutilates passages, as if\nto show the contempt in which he held the whole relation.  Thus in\nmentioning the disciples of Christ, he says, \u201cthat he took ten or eleven\nabjects, vile publicans and sailors.\u201d {15}  This error is plainly one,\nrather of contempt, than of ignorance.\n\nIt is also worthy of notice, that Celsus has taken very few stories from\nthe heretical writings, which assumed to themselves equal authority with\nthe Gospels, and which abounded in his days.  These stories, wherever\nthey occur, are disallowed by Origen, and their authors, at once, given\nup as uninspired.  The concessions of Celsus may be taken in evidence,\nthat the canon of Scripture was already so well established, that it\nwould have been in vain for him to mis-state it.\n\nThe general testimony furnished by Origen to the Scriptures, may be\nviewed in some degree distinctly from that of Celsus.  It must be\nconsidered as coming about fifty years after. {16a}  In this work he\nquotes from twenty-nine books of the Old Testament, {16b} from all but\nthree in the New, {16c} and from five books of the Apocrypha. {16d}  His\nquotations agree very accurately with our Text, and many passages, which\nsince have been disputed, {16e} are held by him as authentic.  He allows\nno objection to lie against the plenary inspiration of Scripture; he\nindeed admits {16f} some differences to have existed, as to the\ninterpretation of passages, but adverts to none respecting their\nauthority.\n\nOrigen frankly avows the _difficulties_ of Scripture; and it is to cut\nhis way through these, that he is tempted to employ the weapon of\nallegorical interpretation; a weapon, which never fails to wound the hand\nof the employer, and to injure the cause it is designed to serve.  His\nrashness in this method of interpretation may be estimated by the\nfollowing specimen. {17a}  \u201cO daughter of Babylon, who art to be\ndestroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.\nHappy shall he be, who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the\nstones.\u201d {17b}  \u201cThe little ones, the children of Babylon,\u201d he says, \u201care\nto be interpreted vexatious thoughts, the offspring of confusion, which\nvice has produced; and he who is happy in dashing them against the\nstones, is he, who crushes these thoughts against the solidity of\nreason.\u201d  Such excesses, whilst they betray the unsoundness of an\nexpositor of Scripture, evince his faith in its authority: and it is\nrather the authority of the text, than the universal sobriety of its\ninterpreters, which we are anxious to defend.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\nHISTORY OF CHRIST.\n\n\nTHE attack of Celsus, upon the History of Christ, maybe arranged under\nthe three divisions, of his birth; his life; his death.\n\nIn adverting to the birth of Christ, Celsus introduces a Jew, charging\nChrist with being privately born {19a} in a little village of Judea, his\nmother being driven out by the Carpenter, to whom she was betrothed,\nbecause convicted of adultery {19b} with a soldier named Panther.  He\nimputes to him that he was privately educated, and went to earn his\nlivelihood in Egypt.\n\nIt is enough to say of all this, that it is mere assertion; that no proof\nof it is either established or offered.  Origen, however, justly asks, if\nit be probable, that a person, the purity of whose life and doctrine is\nso remarkably opposite to the imputation laid against his birth, {20a}\nshould have been born and educated by a profligate parent.  Perhaps, even\nthe idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary, in the Church of Rome, of\nwhich the first elements are discernible at a very early period, may in a\nmeasure serve, (the only good purpose it ever served) to vindicate her\nmoral character. {20b}\n\nAgainst the Life of Christ, no charge is brought by Celsus; {20c} except\nthat he did not answer to _his_ conception {20d} of the appearance of a\nDeity on earth.  It is obvious that this objection is founded on a\nmisconception of the object of his advent.  Celsus believed that other\ngods had descended {20e} from heaven to earth, and framed his notion of\nthe appearance of deity, upon the model with which the fictions of\nheathen poetry and history supplied him.  To satisfy his perverted\nimagination, {21a} God must descend in showers of gold, {21b} or armed\nwith celestial thunders.  And indeed had Jesus Christ appeared, like the\ngods of heathenism, to gratify lust, or decide the fate of empires; the\nensigns of pomp and power would have been adapted to his commission.  But\nwhen it is remembered, that he came to establish a spiritual religion,\n{21c} to wean men from the world, {21d} to live with the poor, {21e} and\nabove all to die for the guilty; {21f} then it is evident, that the\ncharacter which became him, was that of a \u201cMan of Sorrows.\u201d {21g}  Moral\ngrandeur was the only grandeur with which he could invest himself,\nrighteousness his sceptre, {21h} and his throne a cross.  Had Celsus\nindeed been disposed to examine, or enabled to appreciate, the moral\ndignity of his character, he would have shrunk with disgust from the\nfabled descents of Jupiter.  He would have seen that this Pillar of Cloud\n{22a} had a bright side; that if he was a man in suffering, in the\ngrandeur with which he suffered he was truly God.\n\nCelsus states, even to minuteness, the facts recorded by the Sacred\nHistorians, as to the Death of Christ.  He says, that he was \u201cbetrayed,\u201d\n{22b} \u201cbound,\u201d \u201cscourged,\u201d \u201cstretched upon the Cross;\u201d {22c} that he\n\u201cdrank vinegar;\u201d {22d} that after his death, he was \u201csaid to have\nappeared twice,\u201d {22e} but that \u201che did not appear to his enemies.\u201d {22f}\nTo the objection conveyed in the last clause it is an obvious reply, that\nhis appearance to his enemies cannot be claimed, except by those who\ncontend that God is bound to increase evidence to the persons who shut\ntheir eyes against it.  Those who, after the evidence of the miracles of\nJesus Christ, could continue to doubt, would not have believed, though he\n\u201chad risen from the dead\u201d {23} in their view.\n\nThe objections of Celsus to the character of Christ being thus dismissed,\nand they are really unworthy even of the scanty space here bestowed upon\nthem, it is plain that all the _facts_ admitted by him are so much to be\nadded to the scale of evidence.  It is thus proved, that, either\ninfluenced by universal persuasion, or borne down by overwhelming\ntestimony, men, who desired to be infidels, were compelled to admit the\nfacts of Christianity.  It is also proved, that nothing can be charged\nagainst the life of Christ, except that he most accurately maintained the\ncharacter in which he condescended to appear.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\nMIRACLES.\n\n\nTHE strongest evidence in favour of Christianity is supplied by the\nMiracles, which accompanied its promulgation.  We shall proceed to\nconsider the light cast by the work before us, on this important topic;\nand examine, first, the testimony of Origen and Celsus to the miraculous\neffects that were produced; secondly, the pretensions which these works\nhad to a Divine original.\n\nCelsus lived in an age when by the testimony of all history, the Miracles\nof Christ were objects of notoriety.  The disciples had yet the power of\nworking them, {24a} and they propounded {24b} them as the\nincontrovertible proof of the truth of their religion.  It was impossible\ntherefore, in a general work against Christianity, that Celsus should not\nrefer to the subject of Miracles, or that he should, in the face of their\npublic performance, flatly deny their existence.  He has then taken the\nonly method by which he could obviate this difficulty.  He makes a\n\u201c_supposition_ {25a} that Christ did perform many marvellous works;\u201d\nthese however he imputes to \u201cthe same magical power that is made use of\nin the market-places of Egypt.\u201d  We shall first examine how far this\nconcession on the part of Celsus may stand as an admission that Miracles\nwere really performed.  Writers have differed about the meaning to be\nattached to these words; but the greater part of those, whose opinion is\nof highest authority, {25b} have considered them as an acknowledgment\nthat these wonderful works could not be denied by him.  Considering the\npeculiarly difficult circumstances in which Celsus was placed, he could,\nby a supposition of this kind alone, escape from the dilemma; and as he\ndid not dare on such a subject to assert a falsehood, he endeavoured at\nleast to excite a doubt.  This opinion is moreover strengthened by the\nline of argument he pursues, \u201cthat if the by-standers had really thought\nthese works to be Miracles, they could not but have believed;\u201d then he\nproceeds to undervalue the worth of these performances, by comparing them\nwith those of \u00c6sculapius. {26a}\n\nAfter reading the passage, in which our Lord foretells that \u201cmany should\ncome in his name, doing many wondrous things;\u201d {26b} he exclaims, \u201chow\ngreat is the force of truth!\u2014Christ carries with him his own refutation,\nfor he acknowledges a certain Satan, should work the same miracles that\nhe did.\u201d  Of this objection it may be observed, that it cuts two ways.\nIf it invalidates the Miracles of Christ, yet the event corresponding\nwith the prediction establishes his prophetical character, and thus\nauthenticates his religion.\n\nOrigen continually proclaims, {27a} in bold and eloquent language, in the\nname of himself, and his fellow Christians, their faith in Christianity\nto be founded upon miracles, wrought in the name of Christ; of which\n{27b} they themselves had been eye-witnesses.\n\nIt may be asked whether modern infidels who have ventured to contradict\nthe Miracles of Christ, a weapon Celsus was afraid to take up, have\nestimated the rashness of their enterprize.  Are they competent to deny\nwhat a spectator no less malevolent than themselves was compelled to\nadmit.  Has the lapse of eighteen hundred years enabled them to ascertain\na fact of daily occurrence with more accuracy than a by-stander?  Are\nobjects best seen at the greatest distance?\n\nHaving then stated the admission of the occurrence of certain\nsupernatural events, both by the friend, and enemy of Christianity; we\nshall say a few words upon the _source_, to which they are ascribed by\nCelsus.\n\nOrigen, in considering this topic, admits {28a} the faculty of healing to\nbe not necessarily divine; but says, that the nature of the power by\nwhich wonders of this kind were performed, must be ascertained, first, by\nthe character of the agent, and secondly, by the nature of the fact.  He\nthen shews that the Miracles of Christ {28b} were not wrought like those\nof the Egyptians, for vain exhibition; that their object was to heal\ndisease, or to assuage grief; and that those miracles, more peculiarly\ncharacteristic of their ministry, namely, the conversion of the heart\nfrom sin to God, {28c} were such as the magicians neither felt the\ndisposition nor professed the power to perform.\n\nThe question however may be differently argued.  All miracles, and\ntherefore those of Egypt, must be allowed to originate in the permission\nof God.  For as the strongest proof of the existence of the Deity is the\ncreation and regular course of nature, so, that this proof may remain,\nthe suspension of the power of nature must also be attributed to him.\nThere is the same proof, that miracles were performed by the power of\nGod, as that the world was made, and is regulated by him.\n\nIf, however, it is admitted, that the Divine Being has, under certain\ncircumstances, permitted the influence of Satanic agency: it will still\nbe evident that the miracles of Christianity were not works of this\nclass.  To suppose that they were, would involve a variety of\nconclusions, unsupported by reason or analogy.\n\nFor, if they were, then God, contrary to the whole course of his\ndispensations, has suffered his laws to be suspended, in order to betray\nmillions of his creatures, for a succession of ages, into a false\ntheology.\u2014If they were; then, contrary also to all precedent, he has\nsuffered the interpositions of devils to outstrip his own.  Even the\nmagicians of Egypt, {30a} were compelled to recognise the supremacy of\nGod.\u2014If they were; then, contrary to all experience, a large body of men,\nthrough a long period of time, have been found willing to incur reproach,\n{30b} to endure pain, and even to suffer death, in the support of\nmiracles which they knew to be the grossest frauds.\u2014If they were; then\nthe kingdom of Satan {30c} must, in the most signal manner, have been\n\u201cdivided against itself;\u201d since, upon this hypothesis, miracles which\nwere wrought by devils, were employed to dispossess them, and finally\naccomplished the subversion of the Pagan Mythology, the most formidable\nsystem of machinery, by which Satan ever perpetrated his designs upon\nmankind.\n\nThe evidence then furnished by this Work, on the subject of Miracles, is\nconsiderable.  Celsus admits their existence; Origen appeals to them, as\nwhat he, and many others had seen.  There is indeed incontrovertible\nevidence for their existence, till the conversion of the Roman Empire\ninvested Christianity with temporal power, and raised her to universal\ndominion.  With the necessity, the possession of the miraculous powers\nceased.  From this period the Gospel was left to the ordinary grace of\nGod, to its own resources, and to the human powers of its followers.\nWhen a body of illiterate fishermen were commissioned to publish it to\nall nations, then God supplied the powers by which all men \u201cheard them\nspeak in their own language.\u201d {31}  Now that learning and wealth are the\nhandmaids of religion, they are left in a great measure to do the work of\nmiracles.  All our faculties should be therefore bent to this sacred\ncause, and all our spoils be offered at the foot of the cross.  Nor is\nthe evidence furnished even now to Christianity through the channel of\nmiracles by any means small.  Although miracles of one class have ceased,\nmen may see in the true Christian, the greatest of all miracles; a man by\nnature, cold, corrupt, indolent, selfish, transformed under the creative\nhand of the Gospel, into the bold, generous, active, disinterested,\nenterprizing, apostle of truth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\nCHARACTER _of the_ EARLY CHRISTIANS.\n\n\nALTHOUGH the character of an individual, professing a particular faith,\nis not sufficient of itself either to establish, or condemn his creed,\nthe character of a whole body, professedly living under the influence of\nthe same principles, bears the most convincing testimony, either for, or\nagainst them.  Accordingly the mixed indolence, sensuality, and ferocity\nof the Mahometan character, have always been deemed a sufficient\nobjection, to the principles of the Koran.  And the ancient Christian\nwriters tell us, that the arm of their tormentors, was sometimes\nsuspended, by the purity of the Christian victim: and that they heard\nwith astonishment men supplicating blessings on the heads of their\npersecutors.  Now it may be of importance to enquire, what testimony is\nsupplied by the work of Origen, to the character of the early Christians,\nand, through them, to religion itself.\n\nCelsus objects to the Christians, that they invited every person, {34a}\nhowever ignorant, or simple, or wretched, or wicked, to their mysteries;\nand thereby made such a society, as was fit only for a company of\nthieves.\n\nTo this Origen replies by admitting their willingness to receive every\nbody into their society.  He glories in their desire, to give knowledge\nto the ignorant, wisdom to the simple, peace to the wretched, and\nreformation to the wicked.  He says that \u201call are cordially received; and\nfood administered, according to their different wants.\u201d  But he adds,\nthat, as the great object of Christianity was conversion from sin, {34b}\nso, before any were allowed to partake of the mysteries of religion, they\nwere subjected to considerable trial; that the very acceptance of\nChristianity implied a conversion from these sins, and that if the\nconverts of the Christians {35a} were examined, they would be found far\nbetter than the rest of men.\n\nSome of the other objections serve, in a striking manner, to shew the\nsuperiority both of Christianity and its followers, to the prevailing\nsystem and current characters of the day.  \u201cNow a days,\u201d {35b} says he,\n\u201cyou die with Christ;\u201d you teach {35c} such precepts as \u201cresist not\ninjuries.\u201d  This charge Origen is naturally unwilling to refute.  He\nadmits that such is the genius of his religion, that many Christians\ndevote themselves to perpetual celibacy; \u201cWe renounce luxury {35d} to\ndevote ourselves to God; we expose our body {35e} to all manner of\nsufferings; and are strangled like sheep without daring to resist.\u201d\n\nIn order to repel some charges of Celsus, against the Christians, as\nsubjects, and citizens, Origen appeals to the evidence of facts;\ninstitutes a comparison between the Christians and the heathens, {36a}\nunder the same government, at Athens, Corinth, and other cities.  \u201cTheir\nreligion,\u201d says he, \u201cteaches, that union with God, and each other, is\nsupreme happiness.\u201d\n\nCelsus charges them with holding secret assemblies. {36b} His opponent,\nwhilst he invites enquiry into the nature and conduct of these meetings,\nasks if their actual circumstances did not debar them from meeting in any\nother manner.\n\nHe objects to them also, that they have no temples of worship; {36c} but\nis at once refuted, by a statement of the impossibility of erecting them.\nThe error also is stated, of imagining that God can dwell in temples made\nwith hands; and the sublime article {37a} of our creed avowed, that the\n\u201cheaven of heavens cannot contain him!\u201d {37b}\n\nWhile therefore, the paucity and weakness of the charges alleged by the\nenemies of Christianity, against its followers, is established by this\nwork, much is incidentally advanced, which substantiates the superiority\nof the character of Christians.  They had indeed degenerated even in the\ndays of Celsus.  The stream had not flowed even thus far, without being\ntinged with many impurities.  But enough virtue was left to vindicate the\nreligion; enough to enable her champions to demonstrate the superior\nefficacy of the faith, because it made the best citizens and the most\nuseful men.\n\nThe allegations of Celsus, and the defence of Origen, alike prove the\nextent of the sufferings to which the Christians were subjected.  And it\nmay be truly said, that the best defence of Christianity is written with\nthe blood of its persecuted followers.  It is not credible, that those\nshould either be deceived, or conspire to deceive others, whose lives\nwere almost necessarily to pay the forfeit of their mistake, or of their\nstratagem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\nDOCTRINES _of the_ EARLY CHRISTIANS.\n\n\nIT would be a material defect in an Essay purporting to state the\ncontents of the reply of Origen to Celsus, and the evidence supplied by\nit in favour of Christianity, not to notice the doctrines of the early\nChristians, as they may be collected from the work before us.\n\nIn the first place then it appears, both from the objections of the one,\nand the direct assertion of the other, that the Christians of that age\nadmitted in the fullest sense the Divinity of Christ.  \u201cLet them,\u201d says\nCelsus, \u201caccount him an angel, but is he the first and only one that is\ncome?\u201d {39}  Hence it is plain, that however Celsus might confound angels\nand Christ, the Christians did not.\n\nThe assertions of Origen however are unequivocal, and decisive.  Three\ndistinct propositions form a prominent part {40a} in his writings.\nFirst, That Christ was (\u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) uncreated.  Secondly, That the Maker of\nthe World is to be worshipped.  Thirdly, That Christ is the Maker of the\nWorld.  As to the first point it is sufficient to refer to a passage\nwhere Jesus Christ is expressly called the \u201cuncreated Son of God.\u201d {40b}\nHe preserves a precise distinction between creatures, (\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1) and\ntheir Creator; and he brings {40c} them together into comparison as to\nthe respect that is due to them.  In the next place he says that we ought\nto worship {40d} no creatures (\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1), but the Creator; {40e}\nthat we can only lift up our eyes {40f} to the Creator of all the\nmagnificence of Nature, to see whom we ought to admire, serve, and adore.\nThen he proclaims Jesus Christ {41a} as the Creator of the Universe; that\nGod working with him said at the creation, \u201cLet there be Light, let _us_\nmake Man.\u201d {41b}  But Origen is yet more distinct in the statement of his\nopinions.  He says that the Father is indeed eminently God; {41c} but\nthat the worship of the Son {41d} is not an inferior but a Divine\nworship; he applies the same expression to the adoration of Jesus Christ\n{41e} by the Magi that he does to the worship of God; he speaks of the\nFather {41f} and the Son being jointly worshipped as one God; he admits\n{41g} the worship of the Son in his distinct individual character; he\nattributes to him immutability, {41h} omnipresence, {41i} and other\nqualities {41j} which are characteristic only of the Most High. {41k}\n\nThe personality of the Holy Ghost is distinctly admitted by Origen; {42}\nand his descent upon earth at the day of Pentecost.  He also frequently\nasserts, that miracles were performed upon earth by the agency {43a} of\nthe Holy Spirit.\n\nTo the doctrine of the Atonement continual references are made.\n\nThe recognition is not less distinct, both by Celsus, and Origen, of the\ndoctrine of Justification by Faith, as the opinion of the early\nChristians.  \u201cYou tell sinners,\u201d says Celsus, \u201cnot to examine, but\nbelieve; and their faith will save them.\u201d {43b}  This is precisely the\nlanguage in which an uncandid opponent might be expected to state that\ndoctrine.  A more patient examination of the system would have taught\nhim, that \u201cexamine yourselves,\u201d {43c} and \u201csearch the Scriptures,\u201d {43d}\nwere lessons taught by the same Master who insisted upon the efficacy of\na true and living faith.\n\nThere are two doctrines, original sin, and the eternity of punishment, as\nto one of which the language of Origen is contradictory, and as to the\nother it is heterodox.\n\nOn the doctrine of original sin, he asserts, in one place, \u201cthat no soul\ncame vicious from the hands of God, {44a} but that many persons so\ncorrupt themselves by bad education, or example, or advice, that sin\nbecomes as it were natural; but that it is not very difficult, much less\nimpossible to conquer this, corruption by the word of God.\u201d  In the\nlatter clause he supposes the assistance of the Spirit of God, because he\nelsewhere says, \u201cWe cannot give ourselves a pure heart, without the help\nof the Holy Spirit: {44b} we must therefore pray, Create in me a new\nheart, O God.\u201d {44c}  He acknowledges in another place that Adam sinned,\nand that we, in our bodies, {44d} are naturally prone to sin by our\ndescent from him.  Celsus states the doctrine after the manner of the\nFatalists; asserting an original bias to evil, and accounting that bias\nto be insurmountable.\n\nThe language of Origen as to the doctrine of future punishments is so\nobscure, as to make it difficult to determine what were his opinions.  He\nseems however, in general to speak the language {45} of Plato, upon a\nstate of future existence, rather than that of Christ; and to furnish a\nconvenient basis for the doctrine of purgatory, which the Church of Rome\nafterwards introduced among the credenda of Christianity.  Although he\ndistinctly states his own opinion upon this subject, yet he treats it\nwith a caution almost amounting to suspicion, as to its practical\nconsequences.  This proves to us two things.  First, That a belief of the\neternity of future punishment was generally held by the Christians, or he\nwould have stated his own opinion without reserve.  Secondly, That Origen\nin some measure apprehended that the doctrine on this subject which he\nheld, was not consistent in its operation with that gospel, which teaches\nthat, \u201cdenying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,\nrighteously, and godly, in this present life.\u201d {46a}  Could he fear this\nand yet be firmly convinced of the truth of his own doctrines?  Could he\nbelieve that the different parts of Christianity had an opposite\ntendency\u2014that its Almighty framer would pull down with one arm what he\nerected with the other.  It is remarkable that we learn from Celsus, what\nOrigen as to this point might not have taught us; that the eternity of\npunishments was the common faith of the Christian Church.  His words are,\n\u201cThey (the Christians) persuade themselves that the good, {46b} after\nthis life, shall be happy, the wicked shall be plunged into everlasting\nwretchedness: from which opinion, neither let them, nor any other mortal\ndepart.\u201d\n\nSuch is a slight sketch of the doctrines of Christianity, as held by the\nChurch at the period when this work was written.\n\nThat the faith of those times is the faith of the purest Churches in our\nown days, that the creed of one century is the creed of many ages, in\nitself, affords very convincing testimony to our religion.\n\nThe sameness of the faith, proves in the first place, the integrity of\nthe Scriptures from which it is drawn.  It proves also, that it is, by\none and the same Divine Spirit, that all true Christians, in all\nsuccessive periods, are taught and influenced.\u2014It proves that Christians,\ninstead of yielding themselves like the heathens, disciples to every\nsucceeding philosopher, and \u201ccalling many men master,\u201d have called only\none their \u201cteacher,\u201d their \u201cguide,\u201d their \u201cmaster,\u201d which is God.  It\nproves the superiority of Christianity to time and place; that it is a\nreligion suited to all men, in all ages, and in all circumstances, and\nthat it therefore bears the impress of a religion sent from God, and\ndesigned to be the faith of the universe.  It enables us lastly, to\nconsider our Creed, not as the conception of a solitary enthusiast, not a\ncunningly devised fable, or the scheme of an ambitious innovator; but to\ncast ourselves back, as it were, upon the faith of nations, and lay hold\nconfidently of that Tree of Life which was planted by Christ, and whose\nfruit has been gathered by the hand, and whose root has been fed by the\nblood of saints in all ages.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nHAVING thus noticed, in succession, the several topics which are chiefly\ninsisted on in the Work before us; and having endeavoured to deduce from\neach, the distinct evidence in favour of Christianity, which it seemed to\nafford, it remains only to sum up the general testimony thus borne to our\nreligion.\n\nLet the evidence be first considered, which arises from the concessions\nand objections of Celsus.  In the first place then he proves the\nexistence of the Scriptures in his own times, he relates some facts\nextracted from them, and he corroborates many others, which would\notherwise stand upon their unsupported authority; and thus he\nauthenticates both the religion, and the Bible.\n\nIn the next place, as Celsus is usually considered the most subtle and\nmalignant of the assailants of Christianity, the weakness of his assault\ndiscovers the difficulty of the attack, or, in other words, the strength\nof the religion.\n\nIn the third place, his admission of many facts, which he would have\nrejoiced to deny, is a strong testimony to the general belief of the\nfacts, at the period at which he wrote.\n\nFourthly, His wary suppression of some circumstances incontrovertibly\nestablished by the authority of other persons, of much evidence which\nstrengthened, and many writers who had served the Christian cause, {50}\nbetrays his conviction that such facts could not be promulgated with\nsafety to his argument.\n\nLet us turn next to the reasonings and the reply of Origen, and to the\nevidence for Christianity supplied by them.\n\nIn the first place, as the infidel may find in the objections, all the\nweapons by which he is now accustomed to assault religion, so the\nbeliever may find in the answers of Origen, the shield which has\nrepelled, and is sufficient to repel them for ever.\n\nThe confidence with which Origen appeals to the Scriptures, evinces the\nreverence in which they were held at an age when their spuriousness, if\nthey had not been genuine, could so readily have been detected.\n\nThe exact correspondence of the Scriptural passages extracted by him,\nwith our own copies, establishes the integrity of the sacred canon.\n\nThe confidence with which he challenges an investigation of the miracles,\nand the miraculous powers of the Church, for some ages, leaves us no room\nto doubt of their existence.\n\nThe firm faith of such a man as Origen, at a period when the evidence of\nChristianity lay most open to a scrutiny, is no small testimony of the\ntruth of the religion.\n\nThe very rashness which is charged, and justly charged upon Origen, is so\nfar satisfactory, that it assures us, the friends of Christianity,\nhowever injudicious, could open no avenues of attack through which the\nmost dextrous adversaries could successfully assault the citadel of our\nfaith.\n\nFinally, The effect wrought upon the character of Origen, and his\ncontemporaries, to which he continually refers, at once gives weight to\ntheir testimony, and vindicates the claim set up by Christianity, to a\nDivine efficacy accompanying its doctrines.  Let Origen himself be\nexamined.  Such was his superiority to worldly attraction, that he {52}\nwas content to live and die, a humble catechist at Alexandria.  Such was\nhis devotion to the sacred cause, that he sold {53a} his possessions for\na daily allowance that would enable him to pursue the duties of piety and\nusefulness, without distraction.  Such was his zeal, that he is said to\nhave bequeathed to his fellow-creatures six thousand volumes, {53b} the\nfruits of his own labour.  Nor is his character a solitary instance, upon\nthe annals of Christianity.  The great mass of individuals who drank at\nor near the fountain-head of the religion, were evidently \u201cmade whole.\u201d\n{53c}  They were animated by another spirit, and quickened into another\nlife.  \u201cOld things passed away, and all things became new.\u201d {53d}  It was\nmoreover in the power of these men to examine the sources of objection\nwhich were opened to them by Celsus; this they had certainly done, but\ntheir belief gathered strength by enquiry, and they sealed their\ntestimony by their blood.  We have in their conduct a proof of the\nimpression which the arguments of Celsus made on their minds.\n\nPaganism began to tremble, when she saw that the new religion was not\nonly a new creed, but _a new power_; she anticipated her own downfall\nwhen she exclaimed, \u201cSee how these Christians love one another.\u201d  This\nevidence is peculiar to the Gospel.  By this, under the Divine aid, it\nascended the throne, and grasped the sceptre of the world.  By this it\nwill continue to conquer, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against\nit.\n\nUpon the whole, the reply of Origen to Celsus may be considered as one of\nthe most valuable legacies of antiquity.  The importance of the subject,\nthe talents of the contending authors, the ample evidence it affords to\nour faith, claim for it our earnest consideration; the errors of Origen\nare such as a little sagacity may correct, his merit will ever be\nconfessed, while religion shall need an apology, or talent and piety have\nany claim to admiration.  It is true that the revolution of ages has\nafforded, as might be expected, to truth additional evidence, and to\nerror fresh refutation.  So much however was effected, in their distinct\nenterprizes by the early enemies and friends of Christianity, that the\nvanity of unbelievers should be subdued, by discovering most of their\nobjections to have been before advanced, and the faith of Christians\nshould be confirmed, by knowing them to have been long since refuted.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 THE END.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{1a}  The references made to the original work are to the edition of\nGuliel.  Spencer, Cantabrigiensis, Collegii SS. Trinitatis Socius.  1658.\n\n{1b}  \u201c\u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f74\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d  Con. Cels.  P. lvi. 14.\n\n{1c}  Lardner, vol. VIII. 6.\n\n{1d}  Con. Cels.  P. viii. 186.\n\n{1e}  Lucian, vol. I. p. 746.\n\n{2a}  Euseb. B. vii. c. 19.\n\n{2b}  Con. Cels. 231, &c.\n\n{2c}  Con. Cels. 56.\n\n{3a}  Milner, _Ec. Hist._ vol. I. 489.  \u201cGreat honesty of mind was, if I\nmistake not, a ruling feature of Origen\u2019s character.\u201d  Paley, vol. I.\n292.\n\n{3b}  Eus. con. Hieroc. 511.  Ed. _Paris_.\n\n{3c}  Hieron. Ep. 83.  Op. Tom. IV. 655.  Ed. _Paris_.\n\n{3d}  Cave, _Life of Origen_, Bull. def. Fid. Nic.\n\n{3e}  Huet. Ev. d\u2019Avi\u00e2nches.  M. de la Motte.  Dupin.\n\n{5a}  Con. Cels. 181.\n\n{5b}  Ib. 183.\n\n{5c}  Ib. 186.\n\n{6a}  Con. Cels. 186.\n\n{6b}  Con. Cels. xiv. 167.\n\n{6c}  Jos. de _Jud. Antiq._\n\n{6d}  Tatian ad Gr\u00e6. Orat.\n\n{6e}  Con. Cels. 13.\n\n{6f}  Con. Cels. 167.\n\n{6g}  Ib. 115.\n\n{7a}  Con. Cels. 14. 260.\n\n{7b}  Ib. 189. et seq.\n\n{8a}  Con. Cels. 112.\n\n{8b}  Ib. 39.\n\n{8c}  Ib. 44.\n\n{10a}  Matt. ch. ii.\n\n{10b}  Afric. in Eus.\n\n{10c}  Hospini de Orig. Tempi. c. iii.\n\n{11a}  \u201cCum audisset (Augustus) inter pueros, quos in Syri\u00e2 Herodes rex\nJud\u00e6oram intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait,\nMelius esse Herodis Porcum esse quam Filium.\u201d  _Macrob. Sat._ ii. 4.\n\n{11b}  Eclogue 4th.  In which the expressions relating to the Golden Age,\nof which he prophesied the advent, have the greatest similarity to those\napplied to the Messiah by Isaiah.  See an admirable Essay, entitled,\n\u201cObservations on 4th Eclogue.\u201d  _Miller_, 1810.\n\n    \u201cTibi quem promitti s\u00e6pius audis.\u201d  _\u00c6neid_, lib. vi. 791.\n\n{11c}  Cic. Or. 3 contr. Catilin. lin. 72.\n\n{11d}  Bell. Catilin.\n\n{11e}  \u201cPererebuerat oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in\nfatis, ut eo tempore Jud\u00e6i profecti rerum potirentur.\u201d  _Sueton.\nVespasian_, cap. iv. 8.\n\n{11f}  \u201cPluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri,\neo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Jud\u00e6\u00e2 rerum\npotirentur.\u201d  _Tac. His._ B. V. c. ix. 13.\n\n{13a}  Con. Cels. 67.\n\n{13b}  Con. Cels. 147.\n\n{13c}  Matt. xi. 5.\n\n{13d}  Luke v. 32.\n\n{14a}  Con. Cels. 77.\n\n{14b}  \u201cThere are about eighty quotations from the books of the New\nTestament in Celsus.\u201d  _Doddridge_.\n\n{15}  Con. Cels. 47.\n\n{16a}  The writings of Origen are esteemed of greater value than those of\nany other of the Fathers in proof of the authenticity of Scripture.  Dr.\nMills says, \u201cSi h\u00e6c (op. Orig.) integra superessent, versaretur utique\nnobis ob oculos universus fere textus utriusque Testamenti qualis isto\nseculo ferebatur.\u201d  _Mill. Proleg._ 64.  Ed. _Ox._ 1707.\n\n{16b}  Those omitted in his quotations: Ruth, 2 Chronicles, Ezra,\nNehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk.\n\n{16c}  Philemon, 2 John, Jude.\n\n{16d}  Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.\n\n{16e}  Matt. chap. ii. &c.\n\n{16f}  Con. Cels. 117.\n\n{17a}  Con. Cels. 346.\n\n{17b}  Ps. cxxxvii. 8.\n\n{19a}  Con. Cels. 22.\n\n{19b}  Ib. 25.\n\n{20a}  Con. Cels. 26.\n\n{20b}  The Author is aware, that many very profligate persons have been\nplaced on the Calendar of Popish Saints.  Such cases however apply to a\nlater period in the Christian History than that to which he refers.\n\n{20c}  Con. Cels. 369.\n\n{20d}  Ib. 168.\n\n{20e}  Ib. 164.\n\n{21a}  Con. Cels. 329.\n\n{21b}  Horat. B. iii. Od. 16.  Ovid. Met. 4.\n\n{21c}  John xviii. 36.\n\n{21d}  1 John ii. 15.\n\n{21e}  James ii. 5.\n\n{21f}  Rom. v. 6.\n\n{21g}  Isaiah liii. 3.\n\n{21h}  Heb. i. 8.\n\n{22a}  Exod. xiv. 20.\n\n{22b}  Con. Cels. 72. 282. 79.\n\n{22c}  Ib. 82. 95.\n\n{22d}  Ib. 82. 340.\n\n{22e}  Ib. 94.\n\n{22f}  Ib. 98.\n\n{23}  Luke xvi. 31.\n\n{24a}  Euseb. v. c. 7.  Tert. ad Scap. 4.  Apol. 23.  Theophil.\n\n{24b}  Con. Cels. 87.\n\n{25a}  Con. Cels. 53.\n\n{25b}  Doddridge\u2014Sherlock\u2014Chandler, Def. 429.\n\n{26a}  Con. Cels. 124.\n\n{26b}  Ib. 89.\n\n{27a}  Con. Cels. 34. 53. 124. 127. 337.\n\n{27b}  Ib. 34.\n\n{28a}  Con. Cels. 125.\n\n{28b}  Ib. 91.\n\n{28c}  Ib. 88.\n\n{30a}  Ex. viii. 19.\n\n{30b}  Con. Cels. 87.\n\n{30c}  Matt. xii. 26.\n\n{31}  Acts ii. 6.\n\n{34a}  Con. Cels. 147.\n\n{34b}  Ib. 147.\n\n{35a}  Con. Cels. 150.\n\n{35b}  Ib. 86.\n\n{35c}  Ib. 370.\n\n{35d}  Ib. 365.\n\n{35e}  Ib. 115.\n\n{36a}  Con. Cels. 128.\n\n{36b}  Ib. 4.\n\n{36c}  Ib. 373.\n\n{37a}  Con. Cels. 375.\n\n{37b}  1 Kings viii. 27.\n\n{39}  Con. Cels. 266.\n\n{40a}  Waterland\u2019s Def.\n\n{40b}  Con. Cels. 287.\n\n{40c}  Ib. 375.\n\n{40d}  Ib. 237.\n\n{40e}  Ib. 367.\n\n{40f}  Ib. 158.\n\n{41a}  Con. Cels. 308. 325.\n\n{41b}  Ib. 63.\n\n{41c}  Ib. 233.\n\n{41d}  Ib. 382.\n\n{41e}  Ib. 46. 160.  \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n{41f}  Ib. 386.\n\n{41g}  Ib. 239.\n\n{41h}  Ib. 169.\n\n{41i}  Ib. 164.\n\n{41j}  Ib. 171. 342. 387. 386. &c. &c.\n\n{41k}  It may be observed, that although charges were laid against some\nof Origen\u2019s doctrines after his death, none were made against his\northodoxy on the subject of the Trinity, till after the time of Arius.\nThe Eustathians then opposed him on the ground of some expressions which\nhe had used against the Sabellians, by which he separated the hypostases\nof the Godhead.  His orthodoxy was however maintained by St. Gregory\nNazianzen, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Didymus.  The words\nof St. Athanasius are \u201cVerbum autem ab \u00e6terno esse cum patre, nec\nalterius substanti\u00e6 vel hypostasis, sed ipsius patern\u00e6 substanti\u00e6\nproprium illum esse, quemadmodum dixerunt qui interfuerunt Synodo, liceat\nnobis rursus audire etiam ex laborioso Origine.\u201d\u2014_Op. Athan._ T. 1. p.\n277.\n\nJerome about the year 390 said of Origen, \u201cQuem post Apostolos,\nEcclesiarum Magistrum nemo nisi imperitus negabat.  _Pr\u00e6f. ad nom. Heb._\u201d\nHis celebrated controversy with Ruffinus then began, and as the latter\nwas an admirer and translator of Origen\u2019s writings, the character of\nOrigen was involved in the dispute, and Jerome heaped upon it all the\nabuse he thought due to Ruffinus.  Bishop Bull says of this transaction,\n\u201cHieronymus odi\u00f4 su\u00f4 in Originem seu poti\u00f9s in Origenis interpretem\nRuffinum, nimi\u00f9m indulgens, indeque omnia ejus verba dictaque in pessimum\nsensum trahere amans.\u201d\u2014_Bullii. Op. Om._ p. 121.  And again, \u201cHieronymus\nin hac Origenis accusatione, animum \u00e0 candore alienum atque affectibus\nabreptum ita manifest\u00e8 prodidit, ut in c\u00e6teris criminationibus fidem sibi\nomnem derog\u00e2sse videatur.\u201d\u2014_Bullii. Op. Om._ p. 123.\n\nMilner (_Ecc. Hist._ I. 496) observes that the Arians who had so very\nlittle assistance from precedents, were glad to catch at the shadow of an\nargument drawn from Origen\u2019s illustrious name, and they accordingly\nsought out expressions obscure in themselves, but plainly contradictory\nto the general tenor of his opinions, upon the ground of which they claim\nhim as their supporter.  Milner observes of these men (_Ecc. Hist._ II.\n163) that every thing mean and sordid, cruel and inhuman, ambitious and\nperfidious is on their side, and this is the character of their conduct\ntowards the writings of Origen.\n\nOf modern writers the opinion is decisive.  Bishop Bull says, \u201cIta mecum\nstatuo Origenem in articulo de fillii divinitate adeoque de S. Trinitate\nrevera Catholicum fuisse.\u201d\u2014_Bullii. Op. Om._ p. 127.  Waterland,\nChandler, Fiddes, and Cudworth hold the same sentiment.\n\n{42}  Con. Cels. 35.\n\n{43a}  Con. Cels. 34.\n\n{43b}  Ib. 8.\n\n{43c}  2 Cor. xiii. 5.\n\n{43d}  John v. 39.\n\n{44a}  Con. Cels. 153.\n\n{44b}  Ib. 354.\n\n{44c}  Ps. li. 10.\n\n{44d}  Con. Cels. 190.\n\n{45}  Con. Cels. 242. 292. &c.\n\n{46a}  Titus ii. 12.\n\n{46b}  Con. Cels. 409.\n\n{50}  Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tatian.\n\n{52}  Cave\u2019s _Lives_.\n\n{53a}  Euseb. B. VI. c. 3.\n\n{53b}  Epiph. Epis. Const. contra H\u00e6r. p. 141.  Ed. 1617.\n\nDe Illust. Eccle. Script. 249.  Ed. _Colon._ 1580.\n\nGeor. Cedr. Compen. Hist. 253.  Ed. _Par._ 1647.\n\nMic. Glyc\u00e6. An. 242.  Ed. _Par._ 1660.\n\n{53c}  John v. 4.\n\n{53d}  2 Cor. v. 17.","title":"A Dissertation on the Books of Origen against Celsus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":8765}