it is not for us that what is in you should be accomplished, but that in some way or other it may be accomplished. And would that it might be accomplished through things more divine and prudent, and exceeding all human nature, the words and wisdom of God!
ADMONITION ON THE EIGHT BOOKS AGAINST CELSUS BY ORIGEN
A It is not unknown to anyone even moderately learned in history that there lived many men of the same name under the emperors Trajan and Hadrian. Spartianus makes mention of Celsus the jurist, whom the emperor had as an assessor among others, in his Life of Hadrian: “When he sat in judgment,” he says, “he had in his council not only his own friends or companions, but also jurists, and especially Julius Celsus.” The aforementioned author informs us that another Celsus, a man of consular rank, lived in that same period: “Palma and Celsus, always his enemies, came into the bond of adoption.” The same author, in the same place. And elsewhere: “Wherefore Palma at Terracina, Celsus at Baiae, Nigrinus at Faventia, and Aelianus on the road were put to death by order of the senate, against the will of Hadrian, B as he himself says in his Life.” We have received the memory of a third and a fourth from Origen, who in the first book Against Celsus, number 8, provides us with some knowledge of both: “We have received that there were two Epicurean Celsi, the one earlier, in the time of Nero, and the latter one under Hadrian and later.” The most illustrious Baronius is of the opinion that Lucian, one most addicted to the Epicurean sect if anyone ever was, dedicated his Alexander, or False Prophet, to this man (for he wrote it at his urging). No one will doubt this who has read that little book carefully or examined it with eyes not clouded, since in it Lucian has briefly encompassed the life, crimes, ravings, and deceptions of Alexander of Abonoteichos, a most notorious impostor. I believe Celsus was greatly delighted by this C discourse, since all Epicureans are accustomed to dispel and scatter the frauds and impostures of such scoundrels with laughter and hisses. You might object: How can these things be? Since Celsus makes mention of Marcellina (lib. v, num. 62), who was a follower of the Gnostics and, having found an opportunity during the most severe persecution under Anicetus—that is, if I am not mistaken, shortly before the times of Antoninus Philosophus—betook herself to Rome and corrupted many orthodox persons, as Irenaeus testifies (lib. 1, cap. 24), and likewise Epiphanius (hæres. xxvii); yet Lucian flourished while Trajan was emperor: “He is said to have lived in the time of Emperor Trajan, and beyond.” There are many authors of no small repute who hold this view. The most illustrious Vossius replies in lib. II, cap. 15, De hist. Græc.: “It seems otherwise to me; nor is it for a slight reason: for Lucian makes mention of Marcus Caesar and the Marcomannic war waged by him.” D The passage is in his *Alexander*, or *False Prophet*. “He sends forth an oracle when the war in Germany was at its height, when the god Marcus was already engaged with the Marcomanni and Quadi.” You see how he not only mentions the war waged against the Marcomanni and Quadi, but calls Marcus *theos*, that is, divine, which indicates that he had succumbed to nature and had already been placed in heaven. Wherefore it must be posited beyond controversy that Lucian lived at the time of Marcus Antoninus Philosophus, since he relates the dialogues he himself had with Alexander the false prophet, and also under Commodus, the son of Antoninus Philosophus, since he calls Marcus divine. The same judgment must be formed concerning the age of Celsus. Moreover, the most illustrious Baronius, when he had cited this same passage of Lucian concerning the war waged against the Marcomanni and Quadi in the year of Christ 171, infers: “But as concerns Lucian, who wrote these things, although all affirm that he flourished in the times of the Emperor Trajan, yet from the same writings it is clearly evident that he lived on to these times, and even outlived them.” Rightly indeed, Baronius; but I am less pleased with what you have for the year 145: “Furthermore, that the origin of these (that is, the Ophites) was so ancient that they were not later than Valentinus can be easily known from the fact that Celsus, who lived in the times of Hadrian (as Origen himself testifies), and without doubt of Antoninus [as well], being well-versed in their dogmas, was accustomed to cast them up to the Catholics for the sake of reproach, as if they were contrary to all Christians.” Etenim it is by no means credible that either Celsus or Lucian flourished in the times of Hadrian, since the latter mentions the war undertaken with the Marcomanni, and dedicated the aforementioned book to Celsus; between which times, namely the reign of Hadrian and the Marcomannic war, a space of about fifty years intervened. Origen therefore cautiously added “and later.” But you will say, Whence is it certain to you that this intimacy was contracted with this Celsus? I reply: First, the most illustrious men agree with me, Caesar Baronius in *Annal. Eccl.*, for the year of Christ 132, and Gerardus Vossius in his book *On the Sects of the Philosophers*. Second, it is evident from Origen and Lucian that a certain man so named wrote against magic. Third, he is heard of as an Epicurean by both. Fourth, they agree in time. And so much for his age.
As regards his writings, since they seem to breathe forth impiety and erudition in equal measure, if I were to judge whether he is worthy of blame or praise, who (unless you except Lucian, his very good friend) would endure it? And we have the testimony of this thing at hand: the *True Word*, a book divided into two volumes, and most delightful to read; whether you desire to know the disputes of the most ancient philosophers and Christians; or to test your own strength; or if you wish to honor Origen with your praises as he energetically refutes him. Besides this book of Celsus which I have already mentioned, whose title is *The True Word*, he wrote another most erudite work against the much-vaunted arts of the Magi; hear Lucian on this in his *False Prophet*: “And there are many other things devised for this purpose, of which it is not necessary to remember all, lest we seem to be untutored, and especially in those which you have written against the Magi, most excellent and most useful writings, able to bring those who read them to sound-mindedness, of which you have provided enough and many more than these are.” Others besides these many were devised by him for this purpose, of which it is not necessary to remember all, lest I appear foolish, especially since in those commentaries which you wrote on the arts of the Magi, both most beautiful and most useful, and which can make readers modest, you have related abundantly many things, and these...
A many things which are more abundant. Our Origen agrees with this, who in book 1 against Celsus, no. 68, trusting much in his own conjectures, does not hesitate to attribute to him a certain book written against Magic: ‘You see how by these things he supposedly admits that magic exists, I do not know if he is the same person as the one who wrote many books against magic.’ B You see that he is not entirely averse to admitting magic. I do not know, however, if he himself is the one who wrote many books against magic. In book IV, no. 36, he doubts whether he was also the author of the two books which he says were written against the Christians. ‘But the Epicurean Celsus is more able to judge Plato (if indeed this is the same one who also composed two other books against the Christians), perhaps contending with us, he called them divinely inspired, whom he did not think were inspired.’ But that Epicurean Celsus (if indeed he is the one who composed two other books against the Christians), although he could have judged them more soundly than Plato, perhaps he even said they were divinely inspired, whom he considered not at all inspired, so that he might contradict us. C Besides those already mentioned, he promised to give another work On the precepts of living well: whether he himself finished it, or whether it perished after it was finished, I simply do not know. At the end of this work you have Origen as a witness in book VI, no. 76: ‘Know, however, that Celsus promised that after this he would compose another treatise, in which he promised to teach how those who wished and were able to be persuaded by him ought to live.’ Know that another work was promised by Celsus, in which he promised to teach how those who wished and were able to have faith in him ought to live.
To which sect he actually adhered, we understand more certainly and fully from Origen and Lucian: the former of whom objects to him here and there the dogmas and errors of Epicurus, lib. I, no. 8, 10, 21; lib. II, no. 60; lib. III, no. 54, 48, 79; lib. IV, no. 54, 75; lib. V, no. 3. Lucian, however, professes that he wrote his *Pseudomantis* for the reason that he might leave his gratitude towards Celsus attested, and vindicate Epicurus, who was most dear to him: ‘These things, my friend, I thought worth writing for the sake of an example from many things, and both to favor you, as a companion and friend, and one whom I admire most of all for wisdom, and for the love of truth, and for the gentleness of character, and kindness, and the tranquility of life, and for the dexterity toward those who are with him; but the greater part, which is also more pleasing to you, by avenging Epicurus, a man who is truly holy and divine in his nature.’ These things, O friend, I thought I should write, out of many things, for the sake of example, so that I might gratify you, a familiar man and friend, and whom I respect most of all men, both on account of his wisdom, and his pursuit of truth, and the gentleness and moderation of his character, and on account of your tranquility of life, and your kindness toward those familiar to you. Then also, because it was more pleasing to you, that I might avenge Epicurus, a man truly holy and of divine genius. For Alexander was so hostile to Epicurus and those of his sect, that to one inquiring what Epicurus was doing in the underworld: ‘He sits,’ he said, ‘in filth with leaden shackles.’ He burned his books in the forum; he also warned the people of Pontus to drive out the Christians and Epicureans with stones, and he never gave an oracle to an Amastrian, because very many Epicureans lived in that city: ‘For to whom else,’ says Lucian in the same place, ‘would a man who is a conjurer and a lover of wonders, and most hostile to truth, more justly wage war than against Epicurus, a man who has observed the nature of things, and alone knows the truth in them? For the one about Plato, and Chrysippus, and Pythagoras was a friend, and there was deep peace toward them; but the intractable Epicurus (for so he named him) was justly most hostile, ridiculing and mocking all these things.’ For with whom indeed would a man who is a conjurer, a lover of portents, and most hostile to the truth more justly wage war than with Epicurus who perceived the nature of things, and who alone knows what of truth lies in them, most perfectly? But he was a friend of Plato, Chrysippus, and Pythagoras, and cultivated a long peace with them. But that intractable Epicurus (for so he named him) was most odious to him, and not without reason, since he considered all these things ridiculous and ludic. D Finally, Eusebius calls our Celsus an Epicurean, *Hist. Eccles.* lib. VI, cap. 56. I cited all these things for this reason, that I might rouse Hornius from the very deep slumber in which he is held, who, having neglected the credibility of histories, reckoned Celsus among the Stoics. For thus he says in *Hist. Philos.* lib. V, cap. 4: ‘But Origen, who wrote against that sacred head, the Stoic Celsus, having carefully examined all sects, was a most learned philosopher.’
Although indeed Origen frequently thinks that Celsus, the author of the *True Word*, might be that same one who published very many writings against magic, who likewise composed two other books different from the *True Word* against the Christian religion, and was most addicted to the Epicurean sect; yet sometimes he fears to assert that it is altogether one and the same man, because, forsooth, the author of the *True Word* sometimes appears to follow Plato and to admit magic. See book I against Celsus, no. 68, and book IV, no. 36. Nevertheless, in book I, no. 8, he thinks that Celsus is not ignorant that he cannot confess himself an Epicurean without detracting from the faith of the things which he was about to say, and for this reason, he covers up the dogmas of Epicurus, and pretends that he sometimes follows Plato, and that the calumnies which he creates against the Christians might appear more plausible. However it may be, Celsus whom Origen refutes could not have written his *True Word* before the reign of Marcus Aurelius, since, as Origen testifies in lib. V, no. 62, he not only made mention in that work of the Marcionites, who arose only around the year of Christ 142, but also of the Marcellians, who took their name from a certain Marcellina, a woman of the sect of the Carpocratians, who, as Irenaeus testifies in lib. I, cap. 24, came to Rome under Anicetus, after the year of Christ 157. But it is very likely that he composed this work while the persecution of Marcus Aurelius against the Christians was burning, if indeed, as Origen testifies in lib. VII, no. 69, he asserts that the Christians hide everywhere, so that they might escape the danger of death to which they were being sought. This is without doubt the Celsus of whom Chrysostom, *Homil. 6 in Epist. ad Corinthios*, says these things: ‘But those who have spoken against us are also sufficient to bear witness to the antiquity of the books, those who are about Celsus and the Bataneote who was after him. For they did not speak against those things which were composed after them.’ But those who wrote against us are sufficient for attesting the antiquity of our books, namely Celsus and the Bataneote who was after him. For they did not speak against those things which had been composed after them. Augustine, in book *De hæresibus*, tom. VIII, p. 5, commemorates a certain Celsus who had completed the opinions of all philosophers up to his own times in six not insignificant volumes. But by no argument can it be proven that he is the same one whom our Origen refutes.
2. As far as the eight books of Origen against Celsus are concerned, it is clear from book III, no. 14, that they were written at the time when the Church was enjoying profound peace for many years, although there was then the greatest disturbance of affairs in the empire. ‘But that not even the fear from without keeps hold of our covenant, is clear from this also, since it has pleased God that it should have ceased already for a longer time. And it is likely that it will cease, the fear having vanished which had been present to those believing regarding this life; whenever again those who in every way slander the Word think that the cause of the commotion to such an extent now in the multitude of believers is because they are not being fought against by the leaders as in the old times.’ Nor does the fear of outsiders confirm our institution, as is evident from this, that it is already a long time since that fear was removed. Nevertheless, I would have believed that that tranquility, as far as it pertains to this life being led by the faithful, was not to last long. For those who slander our doctrine in every way think the cause of the disturbance of affairs that is occurring now is that the number of the faithful has increased, nor do the governors care to have them defeated, as was done in earlier times. Baronius, at the year of Christ 243, thinks it could have happened very well, that so famous, laborious, and of many