scientific opponents of Christianity in the present day. The
True Discourse is divided into two parts. In the first he
does not speak in his own person, but introduces a Jew
who discusses from the Jewish point of view the credibility
of the statements made by Christians in reference to the
life of Jesus. There was considerable advantage in this
mode of procedure. Celsus himself did not believe in the
supernatural. The only possibility of the existence of such
a person as the Christian Jesus that he could conceive
depended upon his being daemonic, but Jesus showed
nothing of that majesty, that grandeur, that energy of will
in worldly affairs which he deemed essential to the daemon.
He therefore rejected his pretensions entirely as inconsistent
with his philosophy ; but he believed that even on the
basis of a philosophy which permitted the supernatural the
claims of Jesus must be rejected. And so his arguments
are made to come from a Jew. The Jew rejects the
miraculous birth of Jesus. Mary was divorced from her
husband, and wandering about fell in with a Ixoman soldier,
Panthera, who was the father of Jesus. Jesus being needy
went down to Egypt and there learned all the tricks by
which he could work apparent miracles, and on the strength
of this knowledge he claimed to be God when he returned
to Judea. But who could believe the statements made in
regard to him, who heard the voice at his baptism?
None but himself and a companion who shared his dream
or rather his imposture. The miracles ascribed to him are
absurd. Any one could see such miracles by paying a few
obols to an Egyptian juggler. If Jesus was God, would he
have chosen such wicked and worthless men as his apostles?
If he knew that Judas would betray him, why did he make
him his companion] But the story of the resurrection
especially seemed absurd. He was condemned publicly
before the eyes of all. No one could doubt this. If he
rose again, why did he not make his justification as public ?
Would he not have confronted his judge, his accusers, the
general public, and given indubitable evidence that he was
not a malefactor 1 And who saw him after he rose again ?
A half insane woman and one or two followers who were in
the very humour to trust to dreams or to an excited fancy.
In this way the Jew discusses many of the statements made
in the gospels, and comes to the conclusion that Jesus was
an ordinary man.
In the second part Celsus tests the beliefs of the
Christians by his philosphical principles. He then shows
that the Greeks had all that was true in Christianity, but
in a nobler and better form, and he ends with a practical
application, urging Christians to give up their separatist
tendency, to worship the daemons, and to join in all civil
and military duties imposed on citizens by the state.
Before dealing with the principles of the Christians he
draws attention to the false position which they occupy.
They are, he thinks, essentially rebellious. They wish to
separate themselves from the rest of mankind. The Jews
show this tendency, but they are so far to be excused in
that they adhere to their national beliefs. These beliefs
indeed are often silly and puerile, and perversions of what
is wiser and better in Greek poets and philosophers. But
the Christians belong to no nationality, and separate
themselves from the ordinary beliefs without any good
cause. They object to the divinity of the Dioscuri,
Hercules, and others, in regard to whom the Greeks
believe that they became gods from being men. And yet
they worship a man who was a prisoner and died. This
worship is on a level with that of Zamolxis by the Getae,
of Mopsus by the Cilicians, and of others whom he names.
It is unreasonable. Accordingly the Christians do not
invite the wise or the good. It is ignorant slaves, women,
and children whom they try to influence, not publicly but
in corners and private places. And their divisive tend
encies are shown in the number of the sects which exist
among them.
After this introduction Celsus proceeds with his philoso
phical argument. God is good and beautiful and blessed.
He therefore cannot change. For if he were to change, it
could only be for the worse. Therefore God cannot come
down to men. He cannot assume a mortal body. He
cannot do it in reality, for that would be contrary to
his nature ; he cannot do it in appearance, for that would
be to deceive, and God cannot deceive. Indeed the idea
is absurd. What advantage could be gained by his
coming 2 Does he not know all things ] Has he not
power to do all things without assuming a body? Is he
not able as God to do everything that he could do as
incarnated God 1 And no real advantage is got for men;
for they do not know God better by seeing him in bodily
form. God must be seen by the soul, and men are
deceived if they imagine they know Him better by seeing
Him in a corruptible body than when they see Him with
the pure eye of the soul. Indeed Christianity is in this
respect marked by a gross anthropomorphism. Nor can
the purpose which Christians assign for this incarnation be
regarded as true. The nature of the whole is always one
and the same. There is always the same amount of evil
in the world. There is nothing evil in God. The evil is
in matter. But God is continually making the evil serve
for the good of the whole. If this is the case, then, it is
absurd to suppose that God would be especially interested
in a few of the human race. He works always for the
whole. And the Christian notion is peculiarly absurd.
Did God at that particular time waken from sleep and
resolve to rescue a few from sin 1 Was He indifferent
to all mankind before, to all the nations of the earth?
And is He to continue to show the same special favour
only for a select number 1 Not only are the Christians
wrong in this, but they are wrong in supposing that tho
world was made for man. Again it is the whole that is
cared for. And we can see signs in nature that animals
are equal if not superior to man in many points. If he
hunts the deer, the Lion hunts him and feeds on him.
Bees have cities and rulers. Some animals speak to each
other. Some can foretell the future. Some are religious.
In fact neither for animals nor man was the universe made,
but that the world as God s work might be perfect in every
part. In these arguments we have a remarkable anticipa
tion of many of the points which come out in our present
Darwinian discussions (see Tdeologie und Naturalismus
in der altckristlichen Zait : Der Kampf des Origenes gegen
Ctlsus iim die Stdhmg des Menschtn in der A attir,
dargestellt von Dr Phil. Aug. Kind: Jena, 1875).
In exhibiting the superiority of the Greek doctrines
over the Christian, Celsus points to the circumstance that
the Greeks appeal to reason, the Christians cry out,
" Believe, believe." The doctrine of the Son of God, he
thinks, was borrowed from Plato. The Devil owed his
origin to a distortion of a Greek opinion. He compares
the prophecies of the Greeks with those of the Christians,
and he contrasts Greek and Christian doctrines of a future
state, and speaks of the resurrection as a ridiculous belief.
In the practical application he maintains that the
daemons are subordinate ministers of God, and that there
fore any worship paid to them is worship also of the
Supreme God himself. Especially the Christians Lave no
good reason for objecting to such worship since they
already worship a dead man.
Our abstract of this work is necessarily very imperfect,
and many important points we have been compelled to
omit entirely. From what has been given, it will be seen
that Celsus was a Platonist. He believed in a Supreme
Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/308
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
C E L S U S
296