A Passage of Origen out of his Books against Celsus, concerning these three Miracles.

I HAVE in the Vindication prolixly shewn, that the literal histories of these miracles is rational, consistent, and credible: so that we may be safe and easy in understanding them in their literal sense, whatever any fathers or other people may say to the contrary. I shall however here set before the reader a passage of Origen writ about A. D. 245, which passage I have chosen, not only as containing a testimony to the real performance of these miracles in their literal sense, and shewing, that Origen argued the Messiaship of Jesus from miracles; but also as containing an excellent observation concerning the credibility of the Evangelists. The reader will likewise perceive, that in Celsus’s time, who flourished about the middle of the second century, the miracles of xvJesus were much talked of and well known to Heathens: and that the Christians in the time of Celsus, or before, believ’d the miracles of Jesus, and argued his divine mission from them.

“But this, says Origen, is no new thing with Celsus, when he is not able directly to oppose the miracles which Jesus is recorded to have done, to asperse them as jugling tricks. To which I have already often replied according to my ability. And here⁶⁶—Καὶ νῦν δὲ φησιν ὁιονεῖ ἡμᾶς ἀποκείνασθαι, ὅτι διά τοῦτ᾽ ὀνομίσαμεν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ὑιὸν Θεοῦ, ἐπεὶ χωλοὺς καὶ τυφλοὺς ἐθεράπευσε. Προστίθησι δὲ καὶ τό ὡς ὐμεῖς φατε, ἀνίστη νεκρούς. ὅτι μὲν οὖν γωλοὺς καὶ τυφλοὺς ἐθεράπευσε, διόπερ Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καὶ Ὑιὸν Θεοῦ νομίζομεν· δῆλον ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ καὶ ἐν προθητείαις γεγράφθαι· Τότε.—Ὅτι δὲ καὶ νεκροὺς ἀνίστη, καὶ οὑκ ἔστι πλάσμα τῶν τὰ ἐυαγγέλια γραψάντων· παρίσταται ἐκ τοῦ, εἰ μὲν πλάσμα ἦν, πολλοὺς ἀναγεγράφθαι του ἀναστάντας, καὶ του... ἤδη χρόνους ἔχοντας πλείονας ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι πλάσμα, πάνυ ἐυαριθμήτους λελέχθευ, τήν τε τοῦ ἀρχισυναγὡγου θυγατέρα (περὶ ἧς οὐκ ὀιδ᾽ ὅπως ...πεν, οὐκ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ καθέυδει· λέγων τὶ περὶ αὐτῆς ὅ οὐ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀποθνοῦσι προσῆν) καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ τῆς χήρας ὑιόν. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ σπλαγχνισθείς ἀνέστησεν, στήσας του... φέροντας τὸν νεκρόν· καὶ τείτον Λάζαροντετάρτην ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ μνημείῳ ἔχοντα. Cont. Cels. 1. 2. p. 87. he makes us answer him; That we therefore believe him to be the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. He adds; and, as you say, raised the dead, For certain, we do believe him to be the Christ and the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the blind. And we are confirmed in it, because that in the Prophets it, is written: Then shall the eyes of the blind be xvi opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the lame man leap as an hart. And that he raised the dead, and that this is not a fiction of those that wrote the gospels, is evident hence; that if it had been a fiction of theirs, they would have related, many persons to have been raised up, and those who had lain a long time in their graves. But it not being a fiction, there are few of whom this is related: for instance, the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom I do not⁷⁷Origen, it seems, did not then think of the reason of this, I have assigned the plain reason of it, p. 52. See also, p. 105. know why he said, she is not dead, but sleepeth, expressing somewhat peculiar to her, not common to all dead persons) and the only son of a widow, on whom he had compassion, and raised him up, after he had bid the bearers of the corpse stop; and the third, Lazarus, who had been buried four days.”

ERRATA. Page 6. l. 19. after there, r. mere. p. 16. l. 4. for every, r. ever. p. 43. l. 6. for despair any longer, r. hope no longer, p. 104. l. 18. for in his, r. is his.