as undoubtedly genuine ;'* and then, speaking of some other writings bearing the name of Peter, 'We know (he says) that they have not been delivered down to us in the number of catholic writings, forasmuch as no ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made use of testimonies out of them.' But in the progress of this history,' the author proceeds, we shall make it our business to show, together with the successions from the apostles, what ecclesiastical writers, in every age, have used such writings as these which are contradicted, and what they have said with regard to the scriptures received in the New Testament, and acknowledged by all, and with regard to those which are not such.'† After this it is reasonable to believe, that, when Eusebius states the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, as uncontradicted, uncontested, and acknowledged by all; and when he places them in opposition, not only to those which were spurious, in our sense of that term, but to those which were controverted, and even to those which were well known and approved by many, yet doubted of by some; he represents not only the sense of his own age, but the result of the evidence which the writings of prior ages, from the apostles' time to his own, had furnished to his inquiries. The opinion of Eusebius and his contemporaries appears to have been founded upon the testimony of writers whom they then called ancient; and we may observe, that such of the works of these writers as have come down to our times, entirely confirm the judgment, and support the distinction which Eusebius proposes. The books which he calls books universally acknowledged,' are in fact used and quoted in the remaining works of Christian writers, during the 250 years between the apostles' time and that of Eusebius, much more frequently than, and in a different manner from, those, the authority of which, he tells us, was disputed. SECTION IX. Our historical scriptures were attacked by the early adversaries of Christianity, as containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded. I. NEAR the middle of the second century, Celsus, a heathen philosopher, wrote a professed treatise against Christianity. To this treatise, Origen, who came about fifty years after him, published an answer, in which he frequently recites his adversary's words and arguments. The work of Celsus is lost; but that of Origen remains. Origen appears to have given us the words of Celsus, where he professes to give them, very faithfully, and, amongst other reasons for thinking so, this is one, that the objection, as stated by him from Celsus, is sometimes stronger than his own answer. I think it also probable, that Origen, in his answer, has retailed a large portion of the works of Celsus: 'That it may not be suspected (he says) that we pass by any chapters, because we have no answers at hand, I have thought it best, according to my ability, to confute every thing proposed by him, not so much observing the natural order of things, as the order which he has taken himself."* Celsus wrote about one hundred years after the gospels were published; and therefore any notices of these books from him are extremely important for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more so by the character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety of these books must have been well established amongst Christians, to have made them subjects of animadversion and opposition by strangers and by enemies. It evinces the truth of 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 * Origen, cont. Cels. I. i. sect. 41. + In Matt. Hom. 1. 7. 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 them.'* Upon 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 disciples, 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 gospel.† The accusation refers to some variations in the readings of particular passages; for Celsus goes 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 standing: 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 shows, 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 ceeds upon the supposition that the books, over which the writer affects to triumph, possessed an authority by which Christians confessed themselves to be bound. *Lardner's Jewish and Heathen Testim. vol. ii. p. 274. pro 4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present gospels, is made out by his allusions to various Celsus takes notice of the passages still found in these gospels. 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 also ;* of the woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying, that it is impossible to serve two masters; † 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 cross, 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 one. § It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four gospels, but that he referred to no other accounts: that he founded none of his objections to Christianity upon any thing delivered in spurious gospels. We 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. 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 the 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 *Lard. Test. vol. ii. p. 276. + Ib. pp. 280, 281. + Ib. p. 277. T The particulars, of which the above are only a few, are well collected by Mr Bryant, p. 140. judgment denounced by St Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death.* 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 depositories 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. 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. 23); 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 demoniacs, 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 neither 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 letters 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 Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. iii. p. 166, et seq. + Ib. vol. iv. p. 77, et seq. |