Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/551

 CELSUS

491

CELSUS

thers", allowed themselves to be deceived by one whom their nation had condemned, and changed their name from Hebrew to Christian. Jesus did not fulfil His promises to the Jews; instead of succeeding as they should have expected the Messiaa to succeed, He failed even to keep the confidence and loyalty of His chosen followers. His alleged prediction of His death is an invention of His Disciples, and the fable of His Resurrection is nothing new to those who re- member the similar stories related of Zamolxis, Py- thagoras, and Rhampsinit. If Christ rose from the dead, why did He appear to His Disciples only, and not to His persecutors and to those who mocked Him? In the third portion (cf. Origen, op. cit., Ill) Celsus inaugurates a general attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy. He upbraids both Jews and Christians with their ridiculous disagreement in matters of religion, whereas, in fact, both religions rest on the same principles: the Jews revolted from the Egyptians and the Christians from the Jews; sedition was in both cases the true cause of separation. Next, he upbraids the Christians with lack of unity among themselves; so many sects are there, and so different, that they have nothing in common save the name Christian. Like almost all the pagan oppo- nents of Christianity he finds fault with Christians because they exclude from their fellowship the "wise and good", and consort only with the ignorant and sinful. He misunderstands the Christian teaching regarding the Incarnation, "as if", he says, "God could not by His own power accomplish the work which lie sent Christ on earth to accomplish". With this misunderstanding is connected Celsus's false view of the Christian teaching on the subject of Divine Providence and God's special care of mankind as compared with the plants and animals. The world, he says, was not "made for man's use and benefit", but for the perfection and completion of God's plan of the universe. In the fourth part of his "True Dis- course" (cf. Origen, op. cit., V) Celsus takes up the teachings of the Christians in detail and refutes them from the point of view of the history of philosophy. Whatever is true in the doctrines of the Christians was borrowed, he contends, from the Greeks, the Christians having added nothing except their own perverse misunderstanding of the tenets of Plato, Heraclitus, Socrates, and other Greek thinkers. " The Greeks", he says, "tell us plainly what is wisdom and what is mere appearance, the Christians ask us at the in believe what we do not understand, and invoke the authority of one who was discredited even among his own followers." In like manner the ( Ihristian teaching concerning the Kingdom of God is merely a corruption of Plato's doctrine; when the Christians tell us that God is a spirit, they are merely repeating the Baying of the Stoics that God is "a spirit penetrating all and encompassing all". Final- ly, the Christian idea of a future life is borrowed from tin- < ireek poets and philosophers; the doctrine of the resurrection <>f the body is simply a corruption of the world-old idea of transmigration of souls. In the fifth, ami last, portion of his work (cf. Origen, op. cit., VII, l\ii sqq.; VIII) Celsus invites the Christians to hi their "cult" and join the religion of the majority. He defends the worship of idols, the in- vocation of demons (Sal/tovcs), the celebration of popular feasts, urging among other considerations, that the Christian who enjoys the bounties of nature ought, in common gratitude, to render thanks to the powers of nature. He concludes his treatise by an appeal to Christians to abandon their "vain hope" of establishing the rule of Christianity over all the earth: he invites them to give tip their "life apart", and take their place among those who by word and deed and active service contribute to the welfare of the empire. In an epilogue he promises another work (whether it was ever written we do not know)

in which he is to explain in detail how those who would and could follow his philosophy of life should live.

The aim of Celsus's work is different from that of the other opponents of Christianity in the early cen- turies. He exhibits comparatively little of the bitter- ness which characterized their attacks. He does not descend to the lower level of pagan polemics. For instance, he omits the customary accusation of athe- ism, immorality, "Thyestian leasts and CEdipodean gatherings", accusations which were very commonly urged against the Christians for the purpose of rousing popular indignation. His aim was, perhaps, eirenic. His appeal to his Christian contemporaries to abandon their separatism ami make common cause with the pagan subjects of the empire may have been more than a rhetorical device. It may have been inspired by a sincere wish to "convert." the Christians to an appreciation and adoption of the pagan philosophy of life. Indeed, Origen acknowledges that his op- ponent is not blind to the unfavourable side of pagan religion, especially to the abuses of particular cults and the absurdities of popular mythology. It is only just to Celsus, therefore, to ascribe to him all possible sincerity in his wish to "help all men", and to bring all men to the ideal of "one religion". On the other hand, Celsus's attitude towards the Christian religion was, it hardly need be said, that of a pagan not well informed on all points and devoid of that sympathy which alone would enable him to understand the meaning of the most essential tenets of Christianity. He was remarkably well read in pagan literature, and, besides, was acquainted with the religious ideas of the " barbarous" peoples.

His knowledge of Judaism and Christianity was such as could not have been obtained from books alone. He must have consorted with Jewish and Christian teachers, and with the representatives of the Gnostic sects. Hence arose the danger of con- founding with the official doctrine of Christianity the tenets of a particular school of Gnostic interpreta- tions, a danger which Celsus did not succeed in escaping, as is evident in many passages of his work, and as Origen was very careful to point out. He was acquainted with the Old Testament only in part. He used the "books of the Christians", the Gospels and,

fiossibly, some of the Pauline Epistles, but on the atter point there is room for doubt. Celsus may have obtained his knowledge of St. Paul's teaching by conversation with Christians. There can be no doubt, however, that he used the Gospels, not merely some proto-evangelical documents, but the four nar- ratives substantially as we have them to-day. Celsus took pains to make himself acquainted with the be- liefs of his Christian contemporaries, and he is un- questionably conscious of his knowledge of Chris- tianity. Yet, he has no suspicion of the distinction between the universally accepted teachings of the "great Church" of the Christians and the doctrines peculiar to Ophites, Marcionites, and other heretical sects. Moreover, he is, if indeed well-intentioned, yet a partisan; he adopts the current Roman notion that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Judaism; in regard to the person of Christ he exhibits none of that respect which the later Platonists manifested towards the founder of Christianity: towards the miracles ascribed to Christ he shows a sceptical spirit, at one time describing them as fables invented by the Disciples, at another paralleling them with the wonders wrought by Egyptian sorcerers; he looks upon the Resurrection of Christ as either a silly story invented by the followers of Jesus, or a ghost-appan- t mil inli as is narrated of many of the heroes of anti- quity. Above all. he fails to attain a correct under- standing of the doctrine of Incarnation and atone- ment. When he comes t" speak of the manner of life of his Christian neighbours, he, in common with all his pagan fellow-writers, cannot see the reasonable-