fore what time the Liber Enoch was already in existence, and known to writers of the second century, is that of Celsus, apud Origenem. Origen has preserved a considerable extract from the work of Celsus, lib. v. 52. Operum i. 617. D-F. of which this is a portion. Ἂν δὲ βουλόμεθα ἐξετάσαι νῦν, says Origen, του Κέλσου λέξιν, οὕτως ἔχει· Καὶ δὴ παραλείπωμεν ὅσα περὶ τοῦ διδασκάλου διελέγχονται, καὶ δικείτω τις ὡς ἀληθῶς ἄγγελος. ἧκε δὲ πότερον οὗτος πρῶτος καὶ μόνος, ἢ καὶ ἄλλοι πρότερον ; εἰ μὲν φαῖεν ὅτι μόνος· ἐλέγχοιντο ἂν ἐναντία σφίσι ψευδόμενοι. ἐλθεῖν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλους λέγουσι πολλάκις, καὶ ὁμοῦ γε ἑξήκοντα ἢ ἑβδομήκοντα· οὓς δὴ γενέσθαι κακοὺς, καὶ κολάζεσθαι δεσμοῖς ὑποβληθέντας ἐν γῇ· ὅθεν καὶ τὰς θερα μὰς πηγὰς εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνων δάκρυα. κ', τ. λ.

It appears from Origen's remarks upon this passage, that though the Book of Enoch is not mentioned in it by name, he understood the statements in question to be taken from it. Thus cap. 54. 619. Β: πολλῷ δὲ πλέον οὐ προσήσεται ἅπερ ἔοικε παρακούσας ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ Ενώχ γεγραμμένων τεθεικέναι ὁ Κέλσος . . πάνυ δὲ συγκεχυμένως ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν ἐληλυθότων πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἀγγέλων ἐξετάσει τίθησι τὰ ἀτρανώτως ἐλθόντα εἰς αὐτὸν, ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ Ενὼχ γεγραμμένων· ἅτινα οὐδ ̓ αὐτὰ φαίνεται ἀναγνοὺς, οὐδὲ γνωρίσας, ὅτι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ φέρει ται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ Ἐνὼχ βιβλία· ὅθεν νομι σθείη ἂν ἐῤῥιφέναι τὸ, ὁμοῦ ἑξήκοντα ἢ ἑβδομήκοντα καταβεβη κέναι, κακοὺς γενομένους. And again, cap. 55. 620. C: καὶ φέρει, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἐνὼχ οὐκ ὀνομάζων αὐτὸν, τὸ, ὅθεν καὶ τὰς θερμὰς πηγὰς εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνων δάκρυα.

It is clear, then, that in the opinion of Origen, though Celsus did not quote the Book of Enoch by name, this was the authority to which he referred in general, for the fact of the descent of such and such a number of angels, among men, before the

supposed descent of any, in the time of our Saviour, for their defection or apostasy, and for their punishment, by being bound and imprisoned under the earth. There is no doubt that this is a correct general representation of what is found at present in the Book of Enoch itself. But when Celsus specifies the number of angels in question, at sixty or seventy, Origen supposes him to be speaking in some degree from memory, or hearsay—and so far at random; and therefore it is no serious objection to the fact of a reference to the Book of Enoch, that both in the Ethiopic version, at present, chapter vii. sect. ii. 7. 9, and in the Greek as quoted by Syncellus, Extract i. cap. i. p. 182, the number of apostate angels, who descended on mount Hermon, is represented at two hundred, and their leaders or præfects at twenty. The main circumstance to fix these allusions of Celsus upon the Book of Enoch, as we have it at present, or as the ancients had it formerly, is that the fact of a descent of the angels among men, generally, implying their own apostasy previously, and followed by such and such penal consequences; whatever was the number who joined in that apostasy, and shared alike in its consequences; was recorded only in the Book of Enoch; and could be known to Celsus only from it. But when Celsus proceeded to observe," Whence also they say that "the warm baths, or springs, are the tears of those

66

angels," it is clear that Origen understood him to be actually quoting the Liber Enoch, though he did not name it. There can be no doubt, then, that this passage occurred in the Greek Liber Enoch, and was known to Origen to be there; though we do not find it at present in the Ethiopic version.

The Book of Enoch, then, we may conclude with an high degree of probability was already in existence, and current among Christians as a work of some authority, before the time when Celsus wrote against Christianity. The question of its antiquity, therefore, is virtually reduced to that of the time when Celsus was writing against Christianity: and this time may be shewn, with every appearance of probability, to have been the reign of Antoninus Pius.

It seems to have been generally understood that the principal adversaries of Christianity, who employed any argument against it but that of force, lived and wrote in the following order, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian: and Origen has preserved an extract from Celsus, lib. iii. 17. 457. D-F. the general sense of which is so like a passage in Clemens Alex. i. 252. 22-253. 10. Pæd. iii. 2, that the one might be supposed to have been borrowed from the other. Origen himself, who had so much more ample means of ascertaining the truth upon this question, than we have, and whose knowledge on almost every subject, was nearly encyclopædic or universal, was yet aware of only two persons, of the name of Celsus; both of them Epicureans, and both known as authors and philosophers of repute; one a contemporary of Nero, the other, karà 'Adpiavòv kai Kαтwτéрw. The Celsus who wrote the work, answered by Origen, could not be the former of these; therefore he must have been the latter. And this

* Vide Hieronym. iv. pars 2da. 98. De SS. Eccles. Præf. ad calc. y Operum. i. 327. A. Contra Cels. i. 8. z Cf. Ibid. 317. B. Præf. 4: Lib. iv. 36. 530. A: Lib. viii. 76. 799. B. Cf. also vii. 11. 702. B.

conclusion may be confirmed by a variety of circumstantial evidences, furnished by his work itself.

First-it was not long after the commencement of the preaching of the Gospel, that Celsus declared himself to be writing a; not long after the personal ministry of our Lord; and when the recollection of his person, appearance, features, or the like, was still traditionally preserved b.

Again, Celsus was aware of the fact of the deification of Antinous in Egypt ; and this circumstance proves that he did not write before the eleventh of Hadrian; in which year, as I endeavoured to shew in my Supplementary Dissertations a, that deification took place.

Again, Celsus predicts the extinction of the Jews as a nation in a short time; whence we may infer that he had witnessed the second war of the Jews and Romans, and what consequences that had been of to them. His age would thus be later than A. D. 136, the last year of that war, at least.

Again, allusions occurred in his work, which Origen understood to be meant of the heretic Marcion, and of others before, or contemporary with him. If this was the case, he wrote later than the time of Marcion, the date of whose heresy, I have shewn in my Supplementary volume, to have been the reign of Antoninus Pius.

Now it appears from Galen, De Libb. Propriis 17h, that among his contemporaries, Celsus the Epi

e Lib. vi. 80. 693. D. f Lib. v. 62. 626. B: vi. 53. 673. C: vi. 74. 688. C. g Diss. vi. 55, 56, 57. h Opera, i. 48. E.

curean was one; and Galen's acme, as we have seen in my Supplemental volume, was the first half of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. It appears, too, that the Alexander or Pseudomantis of Lucian, is dedicated to a Celsus, a friend of his, and an Epicurean also as there is every reason to believek; and though it may be collected from cap. 48, that the work itself was written after the death of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore most probably in the reign of Commodus; yet it refers to an event which happened in the second year of Marcus', as well known to his friend and himself—the defeat and death of Severianus, the president of Syria, in an action with the Parthians.

I have little doubt that Celsus, the Epicurean, the friend of Galen, was also this friend of Lucian's; and that he is the same whom Origen knew to have flourished, κατὰ ̓Αδριανὸν καὶ κατωτέρω, and believed to be the author of the work against Christianity. In this case, it becomes morally certain that he wrote his book very soon after the reign of Hadrian, and early in that of Antoninus Pius. He has frequent occasion to refer to the Roman emperor; and whenever he does so, it is always in the singular number m; which so far proves that he was not

i Supp. Diss. xv. 263. note. k Opera, ii. 207. cap. 1. 47, 61. 1 Supp. Diss. xv. 275. Cf. the note. m See Lib. viii. 35. 768. B: 67, 68; 792. D-F: 73. 796. F. In the last of these passages, (viii. 73.796. F.) Celsus so expresses himself, as to imply that when he was writing, the Roman emperor was actually waging no war, in which Christians might be called upon to assist him, as well as any other description of his subjects-however liable to wage such wars he might be. Now there was no time in the reign of M. Aurelius, from the second year thereof to the end, of which this could properly be said; and scarcely any time in that of Anto