ARTICLE IX.

Ancient and Modern Unbelief.

SOME thousands of years ago it was said by a wise man, that "there is nothing new under the sun." We should take exceptions to this saying in its application to the present age, certainly, as regards the sphere of science and mechanics; but in some other directions it is without doubt expressive of much truth. The new is forever old, and the old is forever new. And this fact is specially forced upon our attention by the various forms of attack which are made to-day on the historical integrity of the Scriptural records; and by the evident presumption on the part of some of those attacking, that they are occupying entirely new and untrodden ground, that they have discovered weak points in the Christian fortifications, hitherto unknown, where a successful assault may be made, and the citadel itself blown up. We purpose to note two or three of the points involved, in order to show that they were urged and answered in the very first centuries; that Christianity survived the assault then, and will probably survive it now.

I. Jesus not the Messiah of the Old Testament Prophecies. There has been considerable discussion of this question lately. The ground taken is, that, though Jesus is, perhaps, in some sense, the Son of God, he is not the Messiah of the Hebrew prophets; that he did not answer in character, teaching or action to the language of their predictions. If the object of this article were argument instead of statement, we might answer to this, If the prophets were inspired of God in any sense, they were inspired to prophecy of the true Messiah, or of a false one. If of a false one, it leaves the doctrine of inspiration slightly embarrassed-if of the true one, then Christ is either that Messiah, or he is yet to come. If he is yet to come, may we not ask with those of old time, "when Christ

(Messiah) cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?" John vii. 31.

But we do not propose to discuss this question, but only to show that the position involved is old, and not new. And in order to illustrate this, we shall cite a few ancient authorities.'

1. Dialogue with Trypho. This work is by Justin Martyr, who was a Pagan philosopher, converted to Christianity about A. D. 130; and it was designed to present and answer the objections of the Jews of that age, represented by Trypho, who might, or might not, have been a real person. Justin has cited the prophecies at large to show that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by them, to which Trypho replies as follows:

"These Scriptures which you quote, and others like them, compel us to look for a great and glorious person, who, as the Son of Man, receives from the Ancient of Days an everlasting kingdom: but this Christ of yours was so utterly without regard or honor, that he fell under the last curse of God's law, for he was crucified."

This is the substance of his argument which is elaborated at great length, and by many citations, for the purpose of showing that the prophets predicted the coming of a Messiah who should be a true Prince in Israel, a political ruler and conqueror, raising up his nation to be the glory of the earth; and therefore that Jesus in his humiliation and crucifixion did not at all answer to the prophecies. So the ancient and modern, the Jewish and Christian, Tryphos meet on the same ground.

With regard to the prophecy in Isaiah vii. "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," &c., Justin seems to have connected it with an argument for the pre-existence of Jesus; but Trypho denies both the application of the prediction, and the doctrine involved. "As to your saying that this Christ was a God before the ages, and then consented to be born and become a man, this appears to

I The quotations are chiefly drawn from Lardner's "Jewish and Heathen Testimonies," Works, vol. vii."; and Palfrey's Lowell Lectures on the "Evidences of Christianity. We make this general acknowledgment to save the trouble of constant reference.

me not only amazing, but also foolish." And again he says, it is "an incredible and well nigh impossible thing, that a God should submit to be born and become a man." The reply of Justin to this is introduced as below. It is interesting as showing the care with which he guards his argument, and states his views of Christ and his pre-existence. And the reader will remember that Justin was probably born in the very year the Apostle John died, A. D. 100.

"Observe, Trypho, that my declaration of Jesus being the Christ of God will not fall to the ground, even though I should fail to demonstrate that he pre-existed as the Son of the Creator of the universe, and that he is a God himself, and became a man by birth of the virgin. Even though I should not prove that he had a previous life, and then was born a man like ourselves, with a body, and so endured the Father's will, it would be proper for you to say only that in this I am mistaken, but not to deny that he is the Christ (Messiah), even though he should appear a man born like others, and only constituted the Christ by divine selection. For there are some of our own people who hold that he is Christ, but that still he was a man born like others; with whose view I do not myself accord, nor would many others admit this who are of the same opinion with me."

To this Trypho answers that the Humanitarian view is the more probable; "for all we Jews," says he, "expect the Messiah to be born like other men, and we look for Elias to come and anoint him. So that if Jesus is to be shown to be the Messiah, it is by all means necessary for us to understand that he is a man by human descent." And he adds farther, "I do not think that he is the Messiah, because Elias has not yet appeared;" to which Justin answers that John Baptist, endued with the spirit of Elias, was the herald of his first coming, and Elias will be of his second coming.2

2. Celsus. This man was an Epicurean (Neander thinks a Platonist) philosopher of the second century (A. D. 176), and wrote an elaborate treatise against Christianity to which he gave the title of "The True Word." The book itself is

3

2 There is an excellent synopsis of the objections of Trypho, and of Justin's replies in Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, vol. i. pp. 112-114.

3 Even names are borrowed, for Chubb in 1747 published an attack on Christianity under the title of "The True Gospel."

lost, but the substance of it is extant in the numerous and extensive quotations in Origen's answer to it, published in the next century. That it was regarded as a great work is proved by the fact that, after fifty years, it should demand such a labored reply, in eight books, at the hands of the greatest scholar and theologian of the age. Celsus insists that the prophecies do not describe such a person as Jesus, and are not at all applicable to his character, conduct or pretensions. For example, he says:

"The prophets declare that he who is to come will be a very powerful king, and lord of the whole earth, and of all nations and armies." And he argues that this was not true of Christ as reported by the Evangelists. Again he says, "The prophecies correspond to innumerable others more fitly than to Jesus." And again, affirming that Jesus did not meet the Jewish ideal of the Messiah, he says, "What god ever came to men, who did not obtain acceptance, especially if he came to them who expected him? Or why should he not be acknowledged by them who had long before expected him." 4

The substance of all this, and much more of the same sort, is that Celsus adopted the Jewish interpretation of the prophecies, that the Messiah was to be a political ruler, instead of the Christian interpretation, that he was to be a spiritual ruler; and from this point made his attack, and argued that Jesus was not the Christ foretold, that the prophecies were not fulfilled in him, and that therefore he was substantially a deceiver, or self-deceived. And we cannot well see how any modern Celsus can come to any other conclusion than this ; and whichever branch of the conclusion he accepts, deceiving or self-deceived, it is not easy to understand how he can follow Jesus as an authoritative and reliable guide in any revelation which, though it may not contradict reason, may yet lie out

4 There is much more in Celsus on the subject of Christ's being born of a virgin, which is too much in the spirit of Paine's vulgarity and coarse blasphemy to admit of quotation. It serves however to illustrate the argument of the text, that there is nothing new in the matter or temper of modern attacks on the New TestaIt may be added in further confirmation, that the same arguments urged by Trypho and Celsus were repeated by Anthony Collins in his "Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered," published in 1727, which was answered by William Whiston, the associate of Sir Isaac Newton, in his " Literal accomplishment of Prophecies."

ment.

beyond and above the range of its orbit. Renan, who, in this respect, has some small children in America, very generously grants the part of self-deceived to Jesus, and thinks he honestly believed himself to be the Messiah of the Prophets, but was mistaken.

II. The alleged Contradictions of Scripture. Paine, Strauss, and many other writers of their class, have made much account of what they consider the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Old and New Testaments; dwelling with great satisfaction on the differences in the genealogies of Jesus, and in the narratives of the crucifixion and resurrection. Their disciples employ their arguments as if they believed the discovery of these difficulties was original with them; as if the New Testament had lived through these many centuries, only because these unanswerable objections had never before been arrayed against it. Of course such as Strauss know better than this; but it may be well to show that they are only copyists from the Pagan unbelievers of the early ages of Christianity.

Celsus takes up this very point, and calls attention to the differences in the genealogical tables of Matthew and Luke, and says, that "the biographers of Jesus were extravagant in pretending to trace him to the first man, and to the line of Jewish kings;" and sneeringly adds, "the carpenter's wife was ignorant of her high original." He also mentions the accounts of the resurrection of Christ, and says, "To the sepulchre there are said to have come two angels, by some; by others, only one." And he affirms that the darkness at the time of the resurrection was probably an eclipse, or something of that nature; and that the stories of Christ's reappearance after his death were either pure inventions, or the result of optical illusions, and to be classed with stories of apparitions and ghosts. It may be proper to observe also, that, like Renan, whenever the evangelical records can be made to help his argument, he regards them as undoubted history; and when they make against him, he rejects them as legend or falsehood.