Celsus should have defended the doctrine he approves
After this he approves of those who hope that the soul, or the mind, or what they call the spiritual or rational spirit, intellectual, holy and blessed, or the living soul (Genesis 2:7), will be theirs for ever and will be with God; and he admits as rightly held both the doctrine that those who have lived well will be happy and the doctrine that the unjust will be held wholly in the grip of eternal evils. And of all that Celsus says, what amazes me most is what he adds to these words, where he says: “And from this doctrine let neither these nor any other man ever depart.”
Writing against Christians, for whom the whole foundation of faith is God, and the promises made through Christ concerning the righteous, and the teachings about punishment concerning the unjust, he ought to have seen this: a Christian overthrown by accepting Celsus’s arguments against Christians would in all likelihood, in throwing away the teaching, throw away with it the very doctrine from which, he says, neither Christians nor any other man should depart.
But Chrysippus, I think, acted more humanely than Celsus in his Therapeutic book On the Passions. Wishing to heal the passions, since they press hard upon the human soul and trouble it, he does so first by the arguments that seemed sound to him, but secondly and thirdly even by doctrines that did not please him. “For even if there are three kinds of goods,” he says, “even so the passions must be healed; one should not, while the passions are inflamed, busy oneself with the doctrine that has already taken hold of the one troubled by passion, so that the cure that is still possible may not be lost through untimely labour over overturning the doctrines that have already seized the soul.” And he says: “Even if pleasure is the good, and the one mastered by passion thinks so, he must none the less be helped and shown that every passion is inconsistent even with the views of those who make pleasure the good and the end.”
Celsus too, then, once he had said that he accepted the doctrines that those who have lived well will be happy and that the unjust will be held wholly in the grip of eternal evils, ought to have acted consistently with himself, and, if he could, after what seemed to him the principal argument, to have built further upon it and to have shown with further arguments that the unjust will truly be held wholly in the grip of eternal evils and that those who have lived well will be happy.
Greek
Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἀποδέχεται τοὺς τὴν ψυχὴν (??) τὸν νοῦν ἢ τὸ καλούμενον παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς πνευματικὸν ἢ λογικὸν πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἄγιον καὶ μακάριον ἢ ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ἐλπίζοντας ἕξειν αἰώνιον, καὶ σὺν θεῷ αὐτὸ ἔσεσθαι, προσίεται δὲ ὀρθῶς νομιζόμενον καὶ τὸ μὲν περὶ τῶν εὖ βιωσάντων ὡς εὐδαιμονησόντων δόγμα περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀδίκων ὡς πάμπαν αἰωνίοις κακοῖς συσχεθησομένων. καὶ τεθαύμακά γε τοῦ Κέλσου παρὰ πάντα τὰ λεγόμενα παρ᾿ αὐτῷ τὸ οὕτως ἐπιφερόμενον τοῖς προειρημένοις, ἐν ᾧ φησι· καὶ τούτου δὲ τοῦ δόγματος μήθ᾿ οὗτοι μήτ᾿ ἄλλος ἀνθρώπων μηδείς ποτε ἀποστῇ. καὶ ἐχρῆν γε αὐτὸν ὁρᾶν κατὰ Χριστιανῶν γράφοντα, οἷς ἡ πᾶσα ὑπόθεσίς ἐστι τῆς πίστεως ὁ θεὸς καὶ αἱ διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ τῶν δικαίων ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀδίκων αἱ περὶ κολάσεως διδασκαλίαι, ὅτι τὸν ἀνατραπέντα Χριστιανὸν ἐκ τοῦ παραδέξασθαι τοὺς κατὰ Χριστιανῶν τοῦ Κέλσου λόγους εἰκός ἐστιν ἀποβαλόντα τὸν λόγον συναποβαλεῖν καὶ τὸ δόγμα, (οὗ) , φησὶ. μήτε Χριστιανοὶ ἀποσταῖεν μήτε μηδεὶς ἄλλος ἀνθρώπων. ἀλλὰ φιλανθρωπότερον οἶμαι Κέλσου Χρύσιππον πεποιηκέναι ἐν τῷ περὶ παθῶν θεραπευτικῷ, βουλόμενον θεραπεῦσαι τὰ πάθη ὡς κατεπείγοντα καὶ ἐνοχλοῦντα τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ψυχὴν προηγουμένως μὲν τοῖς δοκοῦσιν αὐτῷ ὑγιέσι λόγοις δευτέρως δὲ καὶ τρίτως κἂν τοῖς μὴ ἀρέσκουσι τῶν δογμάτων· „κἂν γὰρ τρία,“ φησὶν, „ᾖ γένη τῶν ἀγαθῶν, καὶ οὕτω θεραπευτέον τὰ πάθη, οὐ περιεργαζόμενον ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς φλεγμονῆς τῶν παθῶν τὸ προκαταλαβὸν δόγμα τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους ἐνοχλούμενον, μή πως τῇ ἀκαίρῳ περὶ τὴν ἀνατροπὴν τῶν προκαταλαβόντων τὴν ψυχὴν δογμάτων σχολῇ ἡ ἐγχωροῦσα θεραπεία παραπόληται.“ φησὶ δὲ ὅτι, „κἂν ἡδονὴ ᾖ τὸ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ τοῦτο φρονῇ ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους κρατούμενος, οὐδὲν ἧττον αὐτῷ βοηθητέον καὶ παραδεικτέον ὅτι καὶ τοῖς ἡδονὴν τἀγαθὸν καὶ τέλος τιθεμένοις ἀνομολογούμενόν ἐστι πᾶν πάθος.“ ἐχρῆν τοίνυν καὶ τὸν Κέλσον, ἅπαξ παραδέξασθαι λέγοντα τὰ περὶ τῶν εὖ βιωσάντων δόγματα ὡς εὐδαιμονησόντων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀδίκων ὡς πάμπαν αἰωνίοις κακοῖς συσχεθησομένων, ἀκολούθως ἑαυτῷ ποιεῖν καὶ, εἰ οἷόν τ᾿ ἦν, μετὰ τὸν φαινόμενον αὐτῷ προηγούμενον λόγον ἐπικατασκευάσαι καὶ διὰ πλειόνων ἀποδεῖξαι ὅτι ἀληθῶς οἱ ἄδικοι πάμπαν αἰωνίοις κακοῖς συσχεθήσονται καὶ οἱ εὖ βιώσαντες εὐδαιμονήσουσι.