« PreviousContinue »
what Chrysostom, two centuries afterwards, observed, that “the gospels, when written, were not hidden in a corner, or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all the world, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now*."
1. Celsus, or the Jew whom he personates, uses these words :—“ I could say many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, too, different from those written by the disciples of Jesus, but I purposely omit themt.” Up. on this passage it has been rightly observed, that it is not easy to believe, that if Celsus could have contradicted the disciples upon good evidence in any material point, he would have omitted to do so; and that the assertion is, what Origen calls it, a mere oratorical flourish.
It is sufficient however to prove, that, in the time of Celsus, there were books well known, and allowed to be written by the disciples of Jesus, which books contained a history of him. By the term disciple Celsus does not mean the followers of Jesus in general, for them he calls Christians, or believers, or the like ; but those who had been taught by Jesus himself, i. e. his apostles and companions.
2. In another passage, Celsus accuses the Christians of altering the gospelt. The accusation refers to some variations in the readings of particular passages; for Celsus on to object, that when they are pressed hard, and one reading has been confuted, they disown that, and fly to another. We cannot perceive from Origen, that Celsus specified any particular instances, and without such specification the charge is of no value. But the true conclusion to be drawn from it is, that there were in the hands of the Christians, histories, which were even then of some stand
* In Matt. hom. i. 7.
ing: for various readings and corruptions do not take place in recent productions.
The former quotation, the reader will remember, proves that these books were composed by the disciples of Jesus, strictly so called ; the present quotation shews, that, though objections were taken by the adversaries of the religion to the integrity of these books, none were made to their genuineness.
3. In a third passage, the Jew, whom Celsus introduces, shuts up an argument in this manner :-“ These things then we have alleged to you out of your own writings, not needing any other weapons*.” It is manifest that this boast proceeds upon the supposition that the books, over which the writer affects to triumph, possessed an authority by which Christians confessed themselves to be bound.
4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present gospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found in these gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these gospels; of the precepts, resist not him that injures you, and, if a man strike thee on one cheek, offer to him the other alsot; of the woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions ; of his saying, that it is impossible to serve two masterst; of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand; of the blood that flowed from the body of Jesus upon the crossợ, which circumstance is recorded by John alone; and (what is instar omnium for the purpose for which we produce it) of the difference in the accounts given of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels at the sepulchre, others only ones.
It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Christ contained in
$ Ib. p. 277.
* Lard. Test. vol. ii. p. 276. Ń Ib. p. 280, 281.
+ Ib. p. 276.
Ib. p. 283.
the four gospels*, but that he referred to no other accounts : that he founded none of his objections to Christianitv upon any thing delivered in spurious gospels.
II. What Celsus was in the second century, Porphyry became in the third. His work, which was a large and formal treatise against the Christian religion, is not extant. We must be content therefore to gather his objections from Christian writers, who have noticed in order to answer them; and enough remains of this species of information, to prove completely, that Porphyry's animadversions were directed against the contents of our present Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles ; Porphyry considering that to overthrow them was to overthrow the religion. Thus he objects to a repetition of a generation in St. Matthew's genealogy ; to Matthew's call; to the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a sea ; to the expression in St. Matthew, the abomination of desolation ;' to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text, the voice of one crying in the wilderness,' Matthew citing it from Isaias, Mark from the prophets ; to John's application of the term “Word;' to Christ's change of intention about going up to the feast of tabernacles (John vii. 8); to the judgment denounced by St. Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of deatht.
The instances here alleged serve, in some measure, to show the nature of Porphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the gospels with that sort of attention, which a writer would employ, who regarded them as the depositaries of the religion which he attacked. Beside these specifications, there exists in the writings of ancient Christians general evidence, that the places of scripture, upon which Porphyry had remarked, were very numerous.
* The particulars, of which the above are only a few, are well collected by Mr. Bryant, p. 140.
† Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. iii. p. 166, et seq.
In some of the above cited examples, Porphyry, speaking of St. Matthew, calls him your evangelist ; he also uses the term evangelists in the plural number. What was said of Celsus is true likewise of Porphyry, that it does not appear that he considered any history of Christ, except these, as having authority with Christians.
III. A third great writer against the Christian religion was the emperor Julian, whose work was composed about a century after that of Porphyry.
In various long extracts, transcribed from this work by Cyril and Jerome, it appears*, that Julian noticed by name Matthew and Luke, in the difference between their genealogies of Christ ; that he objected to Matthew's application of the prophecy, “Out of Egypt have I called my son' ” (ii. 15.), and to that of “ a virgin shall conceive” (i. 22.); that he recited sayings of Christ, and various passages of his history, in the very words of the evangelists ; in particular, that Jesus healed lame and blind people, and exorcised demoniacks, in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany; that he alleged, that none of Christ's disciples ascribed to him the creation of the world, except John ; that nei. ther Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, have dared to call Jesus, God ; that John wrote later than the other evangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were converted ; that he alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and of Sergius Paulus, to Peter's vision, to the circular letter sent by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, which are all recorded in the Acts of the Apostles : by which quoting of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and by quoting no other, Julian shows that these were the historical books and the only his
* Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. iv. p. 77, et seq.
torical books,received by Christians as of authority,and as the authentick memoirs of Jesus Christ, of his apostles, and of the doctrines taught by them. But Julian's testimony does something more than represent the judgment of the Christian church in his time. It discovers also his own. He himself expressly states the early date of these records ; he calls them by the names which they now bear. He all along supposes, he nowhere attempts to question, their genuineness.
The argument in favour of the books of the New Testament, drawn from the notice taken of their contents by the early writers against the religion, is
considerable. It proves that the accounts, which Christians had then, were the accounts which we have now; that our present scriptures were theirs. It proves, moreover, that neither Celsus in the second, Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the fourth century, suspected the authenticity of these books, or ever insinuated that Christians were mistaken in the authors to whom they ascribed them. Not one of them expressed an opinion upon this subject different from that which was holden by Christians. And when we consider how much it would have availed them to have cast a doubt upon this point, if they could ; and how ready they showed themselves to be, to take every advantage in their power ; and that they were all men of learning and inquiry ; their concession, or rather their suffrage, upon the subject, is extremely valuable.
In the case of Porphyry, it is made still stronger by the consideration that he did in fact support himself by this species of objection, when he saw any room for it, or when his acuteness could supply any pretence for alleging it. The prophecy of Daniel he attacked upon this very ground of spuriousness, insisting that it was written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and maintains his charge of for