Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/307

Rh in 1744, leaving several works on astronomical subjects, including Observations on the Measurement of the Earth (1738), A new method of Measuring the Distance of the Sun from the Earth (1730), and a paper in which he tried to show that the waters of the ocean are decreasing in volume.  CELSUS is the first writer against Christianity of whose objections we have any record. His history is involved in complete uncertainty. Our knowledge of his treatise is derived from Origen s work written against it. We should have expected some information from the Alexandrian in regard to the writer whose book he refutes. But when we examine Origen s statements carefully, we are led to the conclusion that Origen knew nothing about him. Celsus s treatise had been sent to him by Ambrosius with the request that he should grapple with its arguments. Origen had not heard before of the work or of the author. He thought that Christianity did not require a defence, but to please his friend, and with the hope of benefiting those who were not Christians, he set about the task assigned. In the performance of this task he could not help making conjectures in regard to the author. He speaks of him in the preface &quot; as long ago dead (c. iv.). &quot; We have heard,&quot; he says in another passage (i. 8), &quot; that there were two Epicurean Celsi, one in the time of Nero and this one [the author] in the time of Hadrian and after wards.&quot; But he could not make up his mind definitely that the Celsus, the author of the treatise, was an Epicurean. He says that he is proved to be an Epicurean from other writings (L 8), He again and again calls him an Epicurean (i. 10, 21. ; ii. 60). He allows that Celsus did not state in the treatise that he was an Epicurean (v. 3). He lays before his readers three suppositions in regard to him, either that he concealed his Epicurean opinions, or that he had changed to a better state of mind, or that he had merely the same name as the Epicurean (iv. 54). And he expresses his doubt quit3 distinctly, &quot; The Epicurean Celsus, if indeed he is the person that composed the other two books against the Christians&quot; (iv. 30) The &quot;other two books &quot; here mentioned are in all probability, as Neander and Baur have shown, two parts of the book which Origen tries to refute, or that book and another which is mentioned as having been promised by Celsus. Origen expresses a similar doubt as to the authorship of a work ascribed to the Epicurean Celsus. You see how in these expressions he as it were accepts the reality of magic. I do not know if he is the same as the person who wrote several books against magic &quot; (i. 68). {{ti|1em|From these passages the inference may be drawn that Origen was very much in the dark as to who Celsus was and when he lived. The indications in the work itself are not much more satisfactory. But there is at least a clear indication of a period before which it could not have been written. Celsus makes mention of Marcellina (v. 62), who, according to Trenagus (i. 20, 4), came to Rome in the time of Anicetus (154 or 155 to 166 A.D.) In the same passage he mentions Marcion and his followers, and whatever may be the date of Marcion s first arrival in Rome, we may again accept the statement of Irenseus (iii. 4, 3) that he flourished in the time of Anicetus. As the followers of Marcellina and Marcion are spoken of, we may infer that both Marcellina and Marcion had had con siderable success in propagating their opinions at the time Celsus wrote. A third clue to the date might be found in the mention of Dionysius, an Egyptian musician with whom Celsus had associated (vi. 41). In all probability this Dionysius was the younger Dionysius of Halicarnassus who was termed /U.OVCTIKOS, and who discussed in his books just such points as those to which Celsus alludes. If this were the case, Celsus must have lived ia the time of Hadrian, the period in which Suidas says that Dionysius flourished. But there is no conclusive evidence that this Dionysius lived in Egypt, though the epithet &quot; of Halicarnassus &quot; proves nothing to the contrary, as it merely denotes that he was descended from the rhetorician and historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Some have foum! an indication of a date in the circumstance that oftener than once Celsus speaks of &quot; the king &quot; (viii. 68, 73), whiL 1 in one passage (viii. 71) he speaks of &quot; those who now rule.&quot; They infer from this that there were two emperors associated together in the government, but that one of them was far more prominent than the other, in fact that they were Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus (Keiin, p. 265). But the inference is not warranted. The last expression is a general expression, not applicable to the emperors only but to all rulers of the period, and if the other statements were to be pressed they would rathe i point to a time when only one emperor was on the throne. In this deficiency of evidence it is not wonderful that critics have varied widely as to the date of Celsus, but mcst have assigned a date somewhere between 150 and 180. Peter Faidit maintained that he flourished in the time of Xero, and in recent times Yolkinar has argued for the opinion that Celsus was a contemporary of Origen (see Supernatural Religion, vol. ii. p. 228, /.}.}} Outside of Origen s work we find no clue to the history of Celsus. The name was very common. Upwards of twenty persons of the name are mentioned within the first three centuries of the Christian era (see Keim for the list, p. 276). But there is only one for whom any one has claimed identity with the Celsus of Origen. This is the Celsus to whom Lucian ssnt his treatise Pseudomantis, giving an account of the imposture of Alexander of Abonoteichos, We think that this identification is a mistake. The Celsus of Origen is unquestionably not an Epicurean, The Celsus of Lucian could scarcely be anything else. The tractate of the satirist is full of extravagant praises of Epicurus. The defence of Epicurus as &quot; a man truly holy and divine in his nature, and who alone with truth ascertained what was beautiful,&quot; is said to be specially agreeable to Celsus. The followers of Plato and Chrysippus aud Pythagoras are alluded to con temptuously, an allusion which would have applied pointedly to the Celsus of Origen. If an identity could have been proved, the date of Celsus would have been ascei tained ; for Lucian mentions the war of Marcus AupJius with the Quadi and Marcomanni as a con temporaueous event. It is very likely that the Epicurean Gel jus mentioned by Origen as living in the time of Hadrian is the same as the Celsus of Lucian. Happily we are not left in the same doubt in regard to the treatise of Celsus as we are in regard to his life. In refuting it Origen adopted the plan of going through it ia regular sequence, taking one passage after another in the order in which he found them in the book. He has not adhered to this rule with absolute fidelity, but his devia tions from it are few, and as he generally quotes the exact words, a large portion of the treatise has thus come down to us. The remains of it are so numerous that we c:.u form an accurate notion of the whole work. The treatise was called a &quot;true discourse&quot; (Ao yos dAi^r/?). Origen state.? at the end of his work against it (viii. 76) that Celsus intended to write a sequel to it, in which he was to supply rules of practical life for those who wished to embrace hu opinions. Whether he ever carried out his intention history does not state. In the True Discourse, Celsus shows great philosophical and critical powers. He takes note of almost every objec tion which has been brought against Christianity, and his position is substantially that which is assumed by the- 