Origen’s words in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments as follows:  “But here again we have to do with nothing else than a completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic’s poverty.  For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception.  The words of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition of the whole apology, run as follows” [and here I must give the German]:  “‘Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat’ [has promised] ’jedenfalls in seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.’  ’Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht geschrieben hat’ [has not written], ’so genuegt es uns mit diesen acht Buechern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben.  Wenn er aber auch jene unternommen und vollendet hat’ [has undertaken and completed], ‘so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,’” &c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly, but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases, but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2] Whatever disregard of tenses and “free handling” of Origen there may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.

Instead of depending on the “strength of the passage so translated,” however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of this or any other version of Origen’s words; and, in fact, the point is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than my own.  I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his adversary:  and I add that “it is almost impossible to avoid the conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became considerably modified.”  I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.  In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean actually did.  In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert, on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen.  I proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend