CHAPTER XIX

ORIGEN AND CELSUS Celsus’ charges of magic against Christianity—Hebrew magic as depicted by Celsus—Various recriminations of magic—Origen’s distinction between miracles and magic—Origen frees Jews as well as Christians from the charge of magic—Celsus’ sceptical description of magic—Celsus suggests a connection between magic and occult virtues in nature—Celsus on magicians and demons—Origen ascribes magic to demons—Magic is an elaborate art—The Magi of Scripture were not different from other magicians—Origen’s Biblical commentaries—Balaam and the power of words—Limitations to the power of Pharaoh’s magicians—Was Balaam a prophet of God or a magician?—Balaam’s magic experiments—Limitations to his magic power—Divine prophecy distinct from magic and divination—The ventriloquist really invoked Samuel for Saul—Christians less affected by magic than philosophers are—Their superstitious methods against magic—Incantations—The power of words—Origen admits a connection between the power of words and magic—Jewish and Christian employment of powerful names is really magic—Celsus’ theory of demons—Origen calls demons wicked—But believes in presiding angels—A law of spiritual gravitation—Attitude of Celsus toward astrology—Attitude of Origen toward astrology—Further discussion in his _Commentary on Genesis_—Problems of the waters above the firmament and of one or more heavens—Augury, dreams, and prophecy—Animals and gems—Origen later accused of countenancing magic. [Sidenote: Celsus’ charges of magic against Christianity.] In the celebrated work of Origen _Against Celsus_,[1873] written in the first half of the third century, the subject of magic is often touched upon, largely because Celsus in his _True Discourse_ had so frequently brought charges of magic against Jesus, His Christian followers, and the Jewish people from whom they had sprung. Celsus had called Jesus “a wicked and God-hated sorcerer”;[1874] had contended that His miracles were wrought by magic, not by divine power;[1875] and had compared them unfavorably, as less wonderful, to the tricks performed by jugglers and Egyptians in the middle of market-places.[1876] It was the opinion of Celsus that Jesus in warning His disciples that “there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders,” had tacitly convicted Himself of the same magical practices.[1877] Celsus, for his part, warned the Christians that they “must shun all deceivers and jugglers who will introduce you to phantoms”;[1878] he accused them of employing incantations and the names of certain demons;[1879] he asserted that he had seen in the hands of Christian presbyters “barbarous books containing the names and marvelous operations of demons,” and that these presbyters “professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to injure human beings.”[1880] [Sidenote: Hebrew magic as depicted by Celsus] Celsus regarded Moses equally with Jesus as a wizard,[1881] and he evidently, like Juvenal and other classical writers, considered the Jews and Syrians as a race of charlatans, especially given to superstition, sorcery, incantations, ambiguous oracles and conjuration of spirits. “They worship angels,” he declared, “and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor.”[1882] He stated that the Jews traced back their origin to “the first generation of lying wizards,” by which phrase Origen thinks he referred to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whose names Origen admits are much employed in the magic arts.[1883] Celsus further characterized the Jews as “blinded by some crooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through the influence of shadowy specters,”[1884] and as “induced to bow down to the angels in heaven by the incantations employed by jugglery and sorcery, in consequence of which certain phantoms appear in obedience to the spells employed by the magicians.”[1885] Celsus, also, in describing the many self-styled prophets, Redeemers, and Sons of God in the Phoenicia and Palestine of his own time, states that they make use of “strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find any meaning,”[1886] and that those prophets whom he himself had heard had afterwards confessed to him that these words “really meant nothing.”[1887] Yet even the Christians—Celsus complains—who condemn all other oracles, regard as marvelous and accept unquestioningly “those sayings which were uttered or were not uttered in Judea after the manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered among the peoples of Phoenicia and Palestine.”[1888] [Sidenote: Various recriminations of magic.] To these accusations of Celsus Origen himself adds that the Jews affirm that Jesus passed Himself off as Christ by means of sorcery,[1889] while the Egyptians charge Moses and the Hebrews with the practice of sorcery during their stay in Egypt.[1890] Origen, on the other hand, speaks of “the magical arts and rites of the Egyptians” and holds that it was by divine aid and not by superior magic that Moses prevailed over Pharaoh’s magicians.[1891] Celsus for his part had accused Jesus during His residence in Egypt of “having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves.”[1892] [Sidenote: Origen’s distinction between miracles and magic.] Origen repudiates the charges of magic made against Christ and His followers as slanders. He asserts that Christianity on the contrary strictly forbids the practice of magic arts,[1893] and that these lost much of their force at the birth of Christ.[1894] He contends that no magician would teach such noble doctrines as those of Christianity.[1895] Origen goes so far as to deny that even the “false Christs and false prophets,” who “shall show great signs and wonders,” will be sorcerers, and he states that no sorcerer has ever claimed to be Christ[1896]—an amazing assertion in view of his own allusions to Simon Magus. Works of magic and miracles, Origen affirms, are no more alike than are a wolf and a dog or a wood-pigeon and a dove. They are, however, so closely related that if one admits the reality of magic he must also believe in divine miracles, just as the existence of sophistry proves that there is such a thing as sound argument and an art of dialectic.[1897] Moreover, in one passage Origen admits that “there would indeed be a resemblance” between miracles and magic, “if Jesus, like the dealers in magic arts, had performed His works only for show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains those to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries to persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified by God.”[1898] On the contrary, Origen asserts that the magicians’ “own lives are full of the grossest and most notorious sins.” [Sidenote: Origen frees Jews as well as Christians from the charge of magic.] Since it is one of Origen’s chief concerns to uphold Hebrew prophecy as a proof of Christ’s divinity, although Celsus subjects the argument from prophecy to ridicule; to defend the Old Testament against Celsus’ attacks as an inspired record of greater antiquity than Greek philosophy, history, and literature, which he asserts have stolen truths from it; and to maintain that “there is no discrepancy between the God of the Gospel and the God of the Law”:[1899]—since this is so, it is incumbent upon him to rebut also the accusations of magic laid by Celsus at the door of the Jews. Origen therefore asserts that the Jews “despised all kinds of divination as that which bewitches men to no purpose,” and cites the prohibition of _Leviticus_ (xix, 31) against wizards and familiar spirits.[1900] [Sidenote: Celsus’ sceptical description of magic.] The _Reply to Celsus_ is of especial interest to us because it presents as it were in parallel columns for our inspection the classical and the Christian conceptions of and attitudes towards magic. Before proceeding, therefore, to inquire how far justified Origen seems to be in thus acquitting, or Celsus, on the other hand, in condemning Christians and Jews on the charge of magic, it is essential to note what magic means for either author. Both evidently regard it as a term of reproach and as usually evil in character.[1901] Celsus lists as feats of magic the expelling of demons and diseases from men, or the sudden production of tables, dishes, and food as for an expensive banquet, or of animals who move about as if alive. Celsus, however, seems to speak with a sneer of “their most venerated arts” and describes the banquet dishes as “dainties having no real existence” and the animals as “not really living but having only the appearance of life.” Therefore the ensuing comment of Origen seems unusually stupid or unfair, when he tries to convict Celsus of inconsistency on the ground that “by these expressions he allows as it were the existence of magic,” whereas Origen hints that it was he “who wrote several books against it.” “These expressions” are, on the contrary, precisely those which a man who had attacked magic as deceptive would use. Celsus further stated that an Egyptian named Dionysius had told him that magic arts had power “only over the uneducated and men of corrupt morals,” but had no effect upon philosophers, “because they were careful to observe a healthy manner of life.”[1902] Celsus himself observed that “those who in market-places perform most disreputable tricks and collect crowds around them ... would never approach an assembly of wise men.”[1903] It was at the request of a Celsus, moreover, that the second century satirist Lucian wrote his _Alexander_ or _Pseudomantis_[1904] in which some of the tricks of a magician-impostor and oracle-monger are exposed, and in which allusion is made to the “excellent treatises against the magicians” written by Celsus himself. It seems reasonably certain that the Celsus of Lucian and the Celsus of Origen are identical, as there are no chronological difficulties and the same point of view is ascribed in either case to Celsus, whom both Lucian and Origen regard as an Epicurean or at least in sympathy with the Epicureans. Galen, in a treatise in which he lists his own writings, mentions an “Epistle to Celsus the Epicurean.”[1905] This, too, might be the same man. [Sidenote: Celsus suggests a connection between magic and occult virtues in nature.] Another passage in which Celsus, according to Origen at least, “mixed up together matters which belong to magic and sorcery” runs as follows: “What need to number up all those who have taught methods of purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or images, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of antidotes against poison in clothing, or in numbers, or stones, or plants, or roots, or generally in all kinds of things?”[1906] In another passage Celsus again closely connected sorcery with the knowledge of occult virtues in nature, arguing that men need not pride themselves upon their power of sorcery when serpents and eagles know of antidotes to poisons and amulets and the virtues of certain stones which help to preserve their young.[1907] Origen objects that it is not customary to use the word sorcery (γοητεία) for such things, and suggests that Celsus is such an “Epicurean,” i. e., so sceptical, that he wishes to discredit all those other beliefs and practices “as resting only on the professions of sorcerers.” But we have already had proof enough in other chapters that Celsus was not unjustified in connecting the occult virtue of natural objects with magic, if not with sorcery. [Sidenote: Celsus on magicians and demons.] Celsus, as we shall see, believed in the existence of demons whom, however, he did not regard as necessarily evil spirits, and whom he probably regarded as above any connection with magic. Origen once says that if Celsus “had been acquainted with the nature of demons” and their operations in the magic arts, he would not have blamed Christians for not worshiping them.[1908] The natural inference from this statement is that Celsus did not associate demons with magic. Origen, however, depicts him as “speaking of those who employ the arts of magic and sorcery and who invoke the barbarous names of demons,”[1909] and we have already heard him censure certain Christian presbyters for their “barbarous books containing the names and marvelous doings of demons.”[1910] It therefore becomes evident that magicians attempt to avail themselves of the aid of demons, whether Celsus believes that they succeed in their attempt or not. [Sidenote: Origen ascribes magic to demons.] Origen at any rate believes that magicians are aided by evil spirits, and for him demons became the paramount factor in magic, just as it is they who are worshiped in pagan temples as gods and who inspire the pagan oracles.[1911] Indeed, just as Celsus has kept calling the Christians sorcerers, so Origen is inclined to label all heathen religions, rites, and ceremonies as magic. He quotes the Psalmist as saying that “all the gods of the heathen are demons.”[1912] He states that the dedication of pagan temples, statues, and the like are accompanied by “curious magical incantations ... performed by those who zealously serve the demons with magic arts.”[1913] Divination in general, he believes, “proceeds rather from wicked demons than from anything of a better nature.”[1914] He does not think of magic as a deception, he does not endeavor to expose its frauds, he accepts its marvels as facts, but declares that “magic and sorcery are produced by wicked spirits, held spellbound by elaborate incantations and yielding themselves to sorcerers.”[1915] Origen seems in doubt whether the demons are coerced by the spells and charms of magic or yield themselves willingly.[1916] [Sidenote: Magic is an elaborate art.] As we shall see, Origen is at least ready to attribute great power to incantations, and he does not deny that magic is an elaborate art. With such various arts of magic he contrasts the simplicity of Christian prayers and adjurations “which the plainest person can use,” or the Christian casting out of demons which is performed for the most part by “unlettered persons.”[1917] Origen also suggests that the natural properties of plants and animals are a factor in magic, when he cites Numenius the Pythagorean’s description of the Egyptian deity Serapis. “He partakes of the essence of all the animals and plants that are under the control of nature, that he may appear to have been fashioned into a god, not only by the image-makers with the aid of profane mysteries and juggling tricks employed to invoke demons, but also by magicians and sorcerers (μάγων καὶ φαρμακῶν) and those demons who are bewitched by their incantations.”[1918] Another passage pointing in the same direction is Origen’s description of “the man who is curiously inquisitive about the names of demons, their powers and agency, the incantations, the herbs proper to them, and the stones with the inscriptions graven on them, corresponding symbolically or otherwise to their traditional shapes.”[1919] Thus although Origen lays the emphasis upon demons, we see that he admits most of the other customary elements in magic. [Sidenote: The Magi of Scripture were not different from other magicians.] Origen does not, like Philo Judaeus, Apuleius and some Christian writers, distinguish two uses of the word magic, one good and one evil. He does not differentiate between vulgar magic and malignant sorcery on the one hand and the lore of learned Magi of the east on the other hand. He simply says that the art of magic gets its name from the Magi and that from them its evil influence has been transmitted to other nations.[1920] Celsus had ranked the Magi among divinely inspired nations but Origen objects to this. Yet he recognizes that the wise men of the east who followed the star of Bethlehem and came to worship the infant Christ were Magi.[1921] But he seems to regard them as ordinary magicians, who were accustomed to invoke evil spirits.[1922] He thinks that the coming of Christ dispelled the demons and hindered the Magi’s spells and charms from working as usual. Trying to find the reason for this, they would note the new star in the sky. Origen will not admit that they could do all this by means of astrology, nor even that they were astrologers at all; he accuses Celsus of blundering in calling them Chaldeans or astrologers.[1923] Rather he thinks that they could find an explanation of the star in the prophecies of Balaam[1924] which they possessed and which predicted, as Moses too records,[1925] “There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man (or, as in the King James’ version, a scepter) shall rise up out of Israel.”[1926] In another treatise than the _Reply to Celsus_ Origen further explains that the Magi were descended from Balaam and so owned his written prophecies.[1927] Balaam was perhaps alluding to these very Magi descended from him who came to adore Jesus when he prophesied that his seed should be as the seed of the just.[1928] Origen seems to have been the first of the church fathers to state the number of these Magi as three, which he does in one of his homilies on the Book of Genesis.[1929] [Sidenote: Origen’s Biblical commentaries.] At this point indeed, we may well turn for a little while from the _Reply to Celsus_ to those Biblical commentaries of Origen where he discusses such Old Testament passages connected with magic as the stories of Balaam and of the witch of Endor or ventriloquist. The commentary of Origen upon the Book of Numbers is extant only in the Latin translation by Rufinus, who literally snatched it for posterity as a brand from the burning, for he did not refrain from this learned and literary labor, although as he plied his pen in Messina in 410 A. D. he could see the invading barbarians ravaging the fields and burning Reggio just across the narrow strait which separates Sicily from Italy.[1930] [Sidenote: Balaam and the power of words.] In commencing to speak of Balaam and his ass[1931] Origen implies that much has already been written on this thorny theme and that he approaches it with considerable diffidence. He prays God again and again for grace to be able to explain it, not by means of fabulous Jewish narrations—by which expression he perhaps alludes to commentaries of the rabbis such as have reached us in the Talmud—but in a sense that shall be reasonable and worthy of the divine law. To begin with he admits the power of words, and not merely that of holy words or words of God, but of certain words used by men. That such words are in some respects more powerful than bodies is shown by the fact that Balaam’s cursing could accomplish what armies and weapons could not effect. This calls to mind one of the Mohammedan tales concerning Balaam to the effect that by reading the books of Abraham he learned “the name Yahweh by virtue of which he predicted the future, and got from God whatever he wished.”[1932] [Sidenote: Limitations to the power of Pharaoh’s magicians.] The magicians of Egypt, too, who withstood Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh, were able to turn rods into snakes and water into blood, feats which no man could accomplish by mere bodily strength. Indeed, because the king of Egypt knew that his magicians could do such things by a human art of words, he thought, at first at least, that Moses too was doing the same things not by the help of God but by the magic art. There was, however, a very serious limitation to the magicians’ power. By the aid of demons they could turn good into evil but they could not repair the damage which they had done or restore the evil to good. The rod of Moses, on the other hand, not only devoured theirs but turned back from a snake into its original form,[1933] and it was necessary for Moses to pray to God in order to stay the other plagues. [Sidenote: Was Balaam a prophet of God or a magician?] Origen classifies Balaam as a magician, not as a prophet. This seems to have been the prevalent patristic and medieval view, although the Biblical account in Numbers represents Balaam as in close and constant communication with God and the Second Epistle of Peter[1934] calls him a prophet although it condemns his temporary madness in seeking “the wages of unrighteousness.” Josephus too calls him the best prophet of his time but one who yielded to temptation.[1935] A fifteenth century treatise on the translation of the relics of the three kings to Cologne tells us that “concerning this Balaam there is an altercation in the east between the Christians and the Jews”; the Jews holding that he was no prophet but a diviner who predicted by magic and diabolical arts, the Christians asserting that he was the first prophet of the Gentiles.[1936] The problem continued to exercise the ingenuity of Lutherans and theologians of the Reformed Churches, and in 1842 was the main theme of a treatise of 290 pages in which Hebrew words and quotations from Calvin abound.[1937] [Sidenote: Balaam’s magic experiments.] Origen remarks that magicians differ in the amount of power they possess. Balaam was a very famous and expert one, known throughout the whole orient. He had given many experimental proofs (_experimenta_) of his skill and Balak had frequently employed him. The translator Rufinus’s repeated use of the words _experimenta_ and _expertus_ here is an interesting indication of the close connection between magic and experiment.[1938] [Sidenote: Limitation to his magic power.] Great, however, as was Balaam’s fame and power, he could only curse and not bless, an indication that he operated by the agency of demons who also only work evil and not good. It is true that King Balak said to him: “I know that whom you bless will be blessed,” but Origen regards this as false flattery. Magicians employ the services of evil spirits, but cannot invoke such angels as Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, much less God or Christ. Christians alone have the power to do this, and they must cease entirely from the invocation of demons or the Holy Spirit will flee from them. [Sidenote: Divine prophecy distinct from magic and divination.] It is true also that God in the end did speak through the mouth of Balaam and that he blessed instead of cursed Israel. Origen will not admit, however, that Balaam was worthy of this, or that a man can be both a magician and a prophet; if God spake through Balaam, it was only to prevent the demons from coming and helping Balaam to curse Israel. Origen also attempts to solve the difficulties and inconsistencies involved in the repeated appearances and conflicting commands of God and the angel to Balaam. Finally we may note that Origen sees the similarity between the use of cauldron-shaped tripods in human arts of divination and the donning of the ephod by the prophets described in the Old Testament.[1939] But he affirms that divine prophecy and divination are two different things and cites the Biblical prohibition of the latter. [Sidenote: The ventriloquist really invoked Samuel for Saul.] In his commentary upon the First Book of Samuel,[1940] Origen takes the ground that when Saul consulted the witch or ventriloquist (ἐγγαστριμύθος), Samuel’s ghost really appeared and spoke to Saul, for the Scriptural account plainly says that the woman saw Samuel[1941] and that Samuel spoke to Saul. Consequently Origen cannot agree with those who have held that the woman deceived Saul or that both she and he were deluded by a demon who assumed the guise of Samuel. No demon, he thinks, could have prophesied that the kingdom would pass to David. It has been objected that the enchantress could not raise the spirit of Samuel from the infernal regions because he was a good man, but Origen holds that even Christ descended to hell and that all before Him had their abode there until He came to release them. From this position not even the parable of Dives and of Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom with the great gulf fixed between them can shake Origen. [Sidenote: Christians less affected by magic than philosophers are.] Origen disputes the statement of Celsus that philosophers are not affected by the magic arts by pointing out that in Moiragenes’s _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, who was himself both a philosopher and magician, it is affirmed that other philosophers were won over by his magic power “and resorted to him as a sorcerer.”[1942] On the other hand Origen makes the counter-assertion that the followers of Christ “who live according to His gospel, using night and day continuously and becomingly the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by magic or demons.” [Sidenote: Their superstitious methods against magic.] If these “prescribed prayers” were set forms of words, they would seem not far removed in character from the incantations of the magicians which they were supposed to counteract. An even clearer example of preventive magic is seen in Origen’s explanation that the practice of circumcision was a safeguard against some angel (_sic_) hostile to the Jewish race.[1943] [Sidenote: Incantations.] If demons are for Origen of primary importance in magic, incantations run a close second, since it is chiefly through them that men are able to utilize the power of the demons. Some of the barbarians, Origen tells us, “are admired for their marvelous powers of incantation.”[1944] And when he mentions the miraculous releases of Peter and Paul and Silas from prison, he adds that if Celsus had read of these events he “would probably say in reply that there are certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors.”[1945] But Celsus did not say this; we must therefore attribute the thought rather to Origen himself. Speaking elsewhere in his own person Origen more than once informs us that “almost all those who occupy themselves with incantations and magical rites” and “many who conjure evil spirits” employ in their spells and incantations such expressions as “God of Abraham.”[1946] Origen grants that these phrases are used by the Jews themselves in their prayers to God and exorcisms, and that the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob possess great efficacy “when united with the word of God.”[1947] Yet he will not acknowledge that the Jews practice magic. He also denies the charge of Celsus that Christians use incantations and the names of certain demons, although he admits that Christians ward off magic by regular use of prescribed prayers and frequently expel demons by repetition of “the simple name of Jesus, and _certain other words_ in which they repose faith, according to the holy Scriptures,” or “the name of Jesus accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him” (presumably a repetition of the names of the four Evangelists).[1948] It is even possible for persons who are not true Christians to make use of the name of Jesus to work wonders just as magicians use the Hebrew names.[1949] [Sidenote: The power of words.] Origen, however, does not try to justify these Hebrew and Christian formulae, adjurations, and exorcisms on the ground that they are simply prayers to God, who Himself then performs the cure or miracle without compulsion. Origen believes that there is power in the words themselves, as we have already heard him state in speaking of Balaam. This is seen from the fact that when translated into another language they lose their operative force, as those who are skilled in the use of incantations have noted.[1950] Thus not what is signified by the words, but the qualities and peculiarities of the words themselves, are potent for this or that effect. It seems strange that Origen should thus cite enchanters, when in the sentence just preceding he had spoken of “our Jesus, whose name has been manifestly seen to have driven out demons from souls and bodies....” Was the divine name alone and not God the cause of the miracle? It may be added, however, that Origen denied that languages were of human origin.[1951] But he has already gone far along this line and in the previous chapter has stated that “the nature of powerful names” is a “deep and mysterious subject.”[1952] Some such names, he goes on to say, “are used by the learned amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans.” [Sidenote: Origen admits a connection between the power of words and magic.] Later on in the work, in a passage which we have already cited, Origen waxed indignant with Celsus for speaking favorably of the Magi, inventors of the destructive magic art. But now he speaks almost in a tone of respect of magic, stating that if “the so-called magic also is not, as followers of Epicurus” (i. e., men like Celsus whom Origen accuses of being an Epicurean) “and Aristotle think, an entirely chaotic affair but, as those skilled in such matters show, a connected system comprising words known to very few persons,” then such names as Adonai and Sabaoth “pertain to some mystic theology,” and, “when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power.” [Sidenote: Jewish and Christian employment of powerful names is really magic.] These last clauses make it clear that Jews and Christians were guilty both of incantations and magic, however much Origen may protest to the contrary. It can hardly be argued that Origen means to distinguish this “so-called magic” from the magic art which he condemns in other passages, for not only is it evident that the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle make no such distinction, but Origen himself in other passages ascribes the employment of such Hebrew names to ordinary magicians and declares that such invocations of God are “found in treatises on magic in many countries.”[1953] Origen also states in his _Commentary upon Matthew_[1954] that the Jews are regarded as adepts in adjuration of demons and that they employ adjurations in the Hebrew language drawn from the books of Solomon. Moreover, he continues in the present passage, “And other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and others in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every different nation, for different purposes.” “ ... And when one is able to philosophize about the mystery of names, he will find much to say respecting the titles of the angels of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel, and another Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge in the world. And a similar philosophy of names applies also to our Jesus.” Between such mystic theology and philosophy of names, the Gnostic diagram of the Ophites,[1955] and the downright incantations of the magicians, there is surely little to choose. [Sidenote: Celsus’ theory of demons.] From the names of God and angels, by uttering which such wonders may be performed, we turn to the spirits themselves. Celsus seems to think of demons as spiritual beings who act as intermediaries between the supreme Deity and the world of nature and human society. He believes that “in all probability the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits.”[1956] He warns the Christians that it is absurd for them to think that they can escape the demons by simply refusing to eat the meat that has been offered to idols; the demons are everywhere in nature, and one cannot eat bread or drink wine or taste fruit or breathe the very air without receiving these gifts of nature from the demons to whom the various provinces of nature have been assigned.[1957] The Egyptians teach that even the most insignificant objects are committed to demon care, and they divide the human body into thirty-six parts, each in charge of a demon of the air who should be invoked in order to cure an ailment of that particular part.[1958] Celsus mentions some of the names of these thirty-six demons: Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, and others. Celsus, however, does not accept this Egyptian doctrine without qualification. He suspects, Origen tells us, that it leads toward magic, and hence adds “the opinion of those wise men who say that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence, blood, odors, sweet sounds and other such sensual things; and therefore they are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and do other such things as relate to this mortal life.”[1959] Celsus himself, however, seems as unwilling to accept this Egyptian view as he is to condone magic, and concludes that “the more just opinion is that the demons desire nothing and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who discharge toward them offices of piety.”[1960] Celsus believes that divine providence regulates the acts of the demons and so asks: “Why are we not to serve demons?”[1961] [Sidenote: Origen calls demons wicked.] Origen’s reply to this question is that the demons are wicked spirits and concerned with magic and idolatry. He maintains that not only Christians “but almost all who acknowledge the existence of demons” regard them as evil spirits.[1962] His own attitude toward them is invariably one of hostility. The thirty-six spirits who, as the Egyptians believe, have charge of different parts of the human body, Origen spurns as “thirty-six barbarous demons whom the Egyptian Magi alone call upon in some unknown way.”[1963] Really we probably have here to do with the astrological decans or sub-divisions of the signs of the zodiac into sections of ten degrees each. [Sidenote: But believes in presiding angels.] Yet Origen’s notion of the spiritual world rather closely resembles that of Celsus, for he is ready to ascribe to angels or other good invisible beings much the same functions which Celsus attributed to demons. He does not, for example, dispute the theory that different parts of the earth and of nature are assigned to different spirits. Instead he “ventures to lay down some considerations of a profounder kind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different superintending spirits.”[1964] He quotes the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy, “When the most High divided the nations.... He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God.”[1965] He narrates how after Babel, men “were conducted by those angels who imprinted on each his native language to the different parts of the earth according to their deserts.”[1966] He concludes by saying, “These remarks are to be understood as being made by us with a concealed meaning,”[1967] but there seems little doubt as to his substantial agreement with the view of Celsus. Indeed, later when Celsus asserts that Christians cannot eat, drink, or breathe without being indebted to demons, Origen responds, “We indeed also maintain ... the agency and control of certain beings whom we may call invisible husbandmen and guardians; ... but we deny that those invisible agents are demons.”[1968] In his fourteenth homily on Numbers, as extant in Rufinus’s translation,[1969] Origen again speaks of presiding angels in these words. “And what is so pleasant, what is so magnificent as the work of the sun or moon by whom the world is illuminated? Yet there is work in the world itself too for angels who are over beasts and for angels who preside over earthly armies. There is work for angels who preside over the nativity of animals, of seedlings, of plantations, and many other growths. And again there is work for angels who preside over holy works, who teach the comprehension of eternal light and the knowledge of God’s secrets and the science of divine things.” How this passage might be used to encourage a belief in magic is made evident by the paraphrase of it in _The Occult Philosophy_ of Henry Cornelius Agrippa,[1970] written in 1510 at the close of the middle ages. He represents Origen as saying, “There is work in the world itself for angels who preside over earthly armies, kingdoms, provinces, men, beasts, the nativity and growth of animals, shoots, plants, and other things, giving that virtue which they say is in things from their occult property.” In the treatise _De Principiis_,[1971] Origen states that particular offices are assigned to individual angels, as curing diseases to Raphael, and the conduct of wars to Gabriel. This notion he perhaps derived from the _Book of Enoch_ which, however, he states in his _Reply to Celsus_ is not accepted by the churches as divinely inspired.[1972] He further declares on the authority of passages in the New Testament that to one angel the Church of the Ephesians was entrusted; to another, that of Smyrna; that Peter had his angel and Paul his,—nay that “every one of the little ones of the Church” has his angel who daily beholds the face of God.[1973] [Sidenote: A law of spiritual gravitation.] Origen advances a further theory concerning spirits, which may be described as a sort of law of spiritual gravitation. It is that when souls are pure and “not weighted down with sin as with a weight of lead,” they ascend on high where other pure and ethereal bodies and spirits dwell, “leaving here below their grosser bodies along with their impurities.” Polluted souls, on the contrary, have to stay close to earth where they wander about sepulchers as ghosts and apparitions.[1974] Origen therefore infers that pagan gods “who are attached for entire ages to particular dwellings and places” on earth, are wicked and polluted spirits. Origen of course will not admit that Christians or Jews bow down even to angels; such worship they reserve for God alone.[1975] [Sidenote: Attitude of Celsus toward astrology.] Both Celsus and Origen closely associate with the world of invisible spirits, whether these be angels or demons, the visible heavenly bodies, and thus lead us from magic, which Origen makes so dependent upon demons, to the kindred subject of astrology, the pseudo-science of the stars. Celsus had censured the Jews and by implication the Christians for worshiping heaven and the angels, and even apparitions produced by sorcery and enchantment, and yet at the same time neglecting what in his opinion formed the holiest and most powerful part of the heaven, namely, the fixed stars and the planets, “who prophesy to everyone so distinctly, through whom all productiveness results, the most conspicuous of supernal heralds, real heavenly angels.”[1976] This shows that Celsus was much more favorably inclined toward astrology than toward magic and less sceptical concerning its validity. Origen also represents Celsus—and furthermore the Stoics, Platonists, and Pythagoreans—as believing in the theory of the _magnus annus_, according to which, when the celestial bodies all return to their original positions after the lapse of some thousands of years, history will begin to repeat itself and the same events will occur and the same persons live over again.[1977] Origen also complains that Celsus regards as a divinely-inspired nation the Chaldeans, who were the founders of “deceitful genethlialogy,”[1978] as well as the Magi whom Celsus elsewhere identified with the Chaldeans or astrologers, but whom Origen as we have seen regards rather as the founders of magic. [Sidenote: Attitude of Origen toward astrology.] Origen is opposed both to this art of casting horoscopes and determining the entire life of the individual from his nativity, and to the theory of the _magnus annus_,[1979] because he is convinced that to admit their truth is to annihilate free-will. But he is far from having freed himself fundamentally from the astrological attitude toward the stars; indeed he still shows vestiges of the old pagan tendency to worship them as divinities. He is convinced that the celestial bodies are not mere fiery masses, as Anaxagoras teaches.[1980] The body of a star is material, it is true, but also ethereal. But furthermore Origen is inclined to agree, both in the _De principiis_[1981] and in the _Contra Celsum_,[1982] that the stars are rational beings (λογικὰ καί σπουδαῖα—the latter word had already been applied to them by Philo Judaeus) possessed of free-will and “illuminated with the light of knowledge by that wisdom which is the reflection of everlasting light.” He interprets a passage in Deuteronomy[1983] to mean that the stars have in general been assigned by God to all the nations beneath the heaven, but asserts that from this system of astral satrapies God’s chosen people were exempted. He is willing to admit that the stars foretell many things, and puts especial faith in comets as omens.[1984] He states that they have appeared on the eve of dynastic changes, great wars, and other disasters, and inclines also to agree with Chaeremon the Stoic that they may come as signs of future good, as in the case of the star announcing the birth of Christ.[1985] But while Origen will grant reasoning faculties and a certain amount of prophetic power to the stars, he refuses to permit worship of them. Rather he is persuaded “that the sun himself and moon and stars pray to the supreme God through his only begotten Son.”[1986] Pierre Daniel Huet (1630-1721), the learned bishop of Avranches and editor of Origen, in his commentaries upon Origen[1987] cites other works, commentaries on Matthew, the Psalms, the Epistle to the Romans, and Ezekiel, in which Origen again states that the stars are reasoning beings, honor God, praise and pray to Him, and even that they are capable of sin, a point upon which he agrees with the _Book of Enoch_ and Bardesanes but not with Philo Judaeus. Nicephorus[1988] states that Origen was condemned in the fifth synod for his error concerning the stars being animated. Sometimes, however, Huet points out, Origen leaves it an open question whether the heavenly bodies are animated or not.[1989] Huet also asserts that in his own time such great men as Tycho Brahe and Kepler have defended the view that the stars are animated beings. [Sidenote: Further discussion in his _Commentary on Genesis_.] In a fragment from Origen’s _Commentary on Genesis_ preserved by Eusebius we have a further discussion of the stars and astrology.[1990] Here he represents even Christians as troubled by the doctrine that the stars control human affairs absolutely. This theory he attacks as destructive to all morality, as rendering prayer to God of no avail, and as subjecting even such events as the birth of Christ and the conversion of each individual to Christianity to fatal necessity. Like Philo Judaeus Origen holds that the stars are merely signs instituted by God, not causes of the future, and quotes passages from the Old Testament in support of his view; like the _Book of Enoch_ he holds that men were instructed in the interpretation of the stars’ significations by the fallen angels. He argues at length that divine foreknowledge does not impose necessity. While, however, God instituted the stars as signs of the future, He intended that only the angels should be able to read them, and deemed it best for mankind to remain in ignorance of the future. “For it is a much greater task than lies within human power to learn truly from the motion of the stars what each person will do and suffer.”[1991] The evil spirits have, however, taught men the art of astrology, but Origen believes that it is so difficult and requires such superhuman accuracy that the predictions of astrologers are more likely to be wrong than right. His tone toward astrology is thus distinctly more unfavorable here than in the _Reply to Celsus_. In arguing that the stars are merely signs, Origen asks why men admit that the flight of birds and condition of entrails in augury and liver-divination are only signs and yet insist that the stars are causes of future events.[1992] The answer, of course, is simple enough: all nature is under the control of the stars which alike produce the events signified and the action of the birds or condition of the liver signifying them. But the question is notable because it was also put by Plotinus a little later in the same century. [Sidenote: Problems of the waters above the firmament and of one or more heavens.] In explaining the Book of Genesis Origen said that celestial and infernal virtues were represented by the waters above and below the firmament respectively. This figurative interpretation gave offence to many later Christian writers, although some of them were ready to interpret the waters above as celestial virtues, but not to take the waters below as signifying evil spirits.[1993] Concerning the question of a plurality of heavens Origen says in the _Reply to Celsus_, “The Scriptures which are current in the Churches of God do not speak of seven heavens or of any definite number at all, but they do appear to teach the existence of heavens, whether that means the spheres of those bodies which the Greeks call planets or something more mysterious.”[1994] [Sidenote: Augury, dreams, and prophecy.] Of other pagan methods of divination than astrology Origen disapproved and classed them, as we have seen, as the work of demons. He was impressed by the weight of testimony to the validity of augury,[1995] although he states that it has been disputed whether there is any such art, but he attributed the truth of the predictions to demons acting through the animals and pointed out that the Mosaic law forbade augury[1996] and classified as unclean the animals commonly employed in divination. The true God, he held, would not employ irrational animals at all to reveal the future, nor even any chance human being, but only the purest of prophetic souls. Origen would appear for the moment to have forgotten Balaam’s ass! Moreover, he himself accepted other channels of foreknowledge than holy prophecy, and believed that dreams often were of value in this respect. When Celsus, criticizing the Scriptural story of the flight into Egypt, stated that an angel descended from heaven to warn Joseph and Mary of the danger threatening the Christ child, Origen retorted that the angelic warning came rather in a dream—an occurrence which seemed in no way marvelous to him, since “in many other cases it has happened that a dream has shown persons the proper course of action.”[1997] Origen grants that all men desire to ascertain the future and argues that the Jews must have had divine prophets, or, since they were forbidden by the Mosaic law to consult “observers of times and diviners,” they would have had no means of satisfying this universal human craving. It was to slake this popular curiosity concerning the future, Origen thinks, that the Hebrew seers sometimes predicted things of no religious significance or other lasting importance.[1998] Once Origen alludes to physiognomy, saying, “If there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists, whether Zopyrus or Loxus or Polemon.”[1999] [Sidenote: Animals and gems.] The allusions to natural science in the _Reply to Celsus_ are not numerous. There are a few passages where animals or gems are mentioned. The remarks concerning animals mention the usual favorites and embody familiar notions which we either have already met or shall meet again and again. Celsus speaks[2000] of the knowledge of poisons and medicines possessed by animals, of predictions by birds, of assemblies held by other animals, of the fidelity with which elephants observe oaths, of the filial affection of the stork, and of the Arabian bird, the phoenix.[2001] Origen implies the belief that the weasel conceives through its mouth when he says, “Observe, moreover, to what pitch of wickedness the demons proceed, so that they even assume the bodies of weasels in order to reveal the future.”[2002] Origen also adduces the marvelous methods of generation of several kinds of animals in support of the virgin birth of Jesus.[2003] Origen’s allusions to gems can scarcely be classified as natural science. He contends that Plato’s statement that our precious stones are a reflection of gems in that better land is taken from Isaiah’s description of the city of God.[2004] In another passage Origen again quotes Isaiah regarding the walls, foundations, battlements, and gates of various precious stones, but states that he cannot stop to examine their spiritual meaning at present.[2005] In one of his homilies on the Book of Numbers Origen displays a favorable attitude towards medical and pharmaceutical investigation, saying, “For if there is any science from God, what will be more from Him than the science of health, in which too the virtues of herbs and the diverse properties of juices are determined.”[2006] [Sidenote: Origen later accused of countenancing magic.] Origen’s belief that the stars were rational beings continued to be held by the sect called Origenists and also by the heretic Priscillian and his followers in the later fourth century. Priscillian, as we have seen, was accused of magic and executed in 385. But we are surprised to find Theophilus of Alexandria, who attacked some of Origen’s views as heretical and persuaded Pope Anastasius to do the same, accusing Origen in a letter written in 405 and translated into Latin by Jerome, of having defended magic.[2007] Theophilus states that Origen has written in one of his treatises, “The magic art seems to me a name for something which does not exist”—a bold and admirable assertion, but one which, as we have seen, the Epicurean Celsus would have been much more likely to make than the Christian Origen—“but if it does, it is not the name of an evil work.” Theophilus cannot understand how Origen, who vaunts himself a Christian, can thus make himself a protector of Elymas the magician who opposed the apostles and of Jamnes and Mambres who resisted Moses. Huet, the learned seventeenth century editor of Origen, knew of no such passage in his extant works as that which Theophilus professes to quote.[2008]