« PreviousContinue »
Acts." Speaking also in the same paragraph of Peter, “ Peter (says he) has left one epistle acknowledged ; let it be granted likewise that he wrote a second, for it is doubted of." And of John, “He also has left one epistle, of a very few lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow these to be genuine.” Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates, and thus confesses his own doubts, and the doubts which subsisted in his time, expressly witnesses concerning the four gospels, “that they alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven.'
III. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning the book of Revelation, whether it was written by St. John; states the grounds of his doubt; represents the diversity of opinion concerning it, in his own time, and before his time.t Yet the same Dionysius uses and collates the four gospels, in a manner which shows that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their authority, and in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, were received as authentic histories of Christ. I
IV. But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose to introduce to the reader two remarkable passages, extant in Eusebius's ecclesiastical history. The first passage opens with these words.-—- Let us observe the writings of the apostle John, which are uncontrudicted ; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gospel according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven. The author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the gospels, and the reasons for placing St. John's the last, manifestly speaking throughout of all the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The second passage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, 6 of the Scriptures universally acknowledged, and of those that are not such." Eusebius begins his enumeration in the following manner:
In the first place, are to be ranked the sacred four gos. pels; then the book of the Acts of the apostles ; after that are to be reckoned the epistles of Paul; in the next place, that called the first epistle of John, and the epistle of Peter, are to be esteemed authentic: after this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known, or approved by the most, are that called the epistle of James, and that of Jude,
+ Ib. vol. IV. p. 670. Ib. p. 66. $ Ib. vol. VIII. p. 90.
* Ib. p. 234.
and the second of Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the same name. He then proceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in another controverted, meaning, as it appears to me, nearly the same thing by these two words.t
It is manifest from this passage, that the four gospels, and the Acts of the apostles, (the parts of scripture with which our concern principally lies) were acknowledged without dispute even by those who raised objections, or entertained doubts, about some other parts of the same collection. But the passage proves something more than this. The author was extremely conversant in the writings of Christians, which had been published from the commencement of the institution to his own time ; and it was from these writings that he drew his knowledge of the character and reception of the books in question. That Eusebius recurred to this medium of information, and that he had examined with attention this species of proof, is shown, first, by a passage in the very chapter we are quoting, in which, speaking of the books which he calls spurious, - None (he says) of the ecclesiastical writers, in the succession of the apostles, have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in their writings;' and secondly, by another passage of the same work, wherein, speaking of the first epistle of Peter, “ This (he says) the presbyters of ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine;"I 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." 66 But in the progress of this history,” the author proceeds, 6 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 Euse
* Ib. p. 98. + That Eusebius could not intend, by the word rendered "spurious.” what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chapter where speaking of the gospels of Peter and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others, he says, They are not so much as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are to be rejected, as altogether ab. surd and impious. Vol. VIII. p. 98.
Ib. p. 99.
$ Ib. p. 111.
bius 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 enquiries. 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 6 books universally acknowledged," and 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, unà in a different manner from those, the authority of which, he tells us, was disputed.
SECT. IX. Our historical scriptures were attacked by the early adversa
ries 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 frea quently 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 work of Cel. sus : “ That it may not be suspected (he says) that we pass by any chapters, because we bave 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 bimself."*
Orig. cont. Cels. l. i. sect. 41
Celsus wrote about 100 years after the gospels were published; and therefore any notice of those books from him are extremely important from 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 hid 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 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 Cel. sus, there were books well known, and allowed to be written by the disciples of Jesus, which books contained a his tory of him. By the term disciples, Celsus does not mean the followers of Jesus in general, for them he calls Chris. tians, 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 varieties 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, proved that these books were composed by the disciples of Jesus, strictly so called; the present quotation shows, that though * Lardner's Jewish and Heathen Testim. vol. II. p. 274.
Ib. p. 275.
objections were taken by the adversaries of the religion to the integrity of these books, there were none to their genuineness.
3. In a third passage, the Jew, whom Celsus introduces, shuts up an argument in this manner:—6. 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 the one cheek, offer to him the other also;t of the woes denounced by Christ; his predictions ; 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.
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 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;
# Ib. p. 277. $ Ib. p. 280, 281. Ib. p. 282. ** The particulars, of which the above are only a few, are well collected by Mr. Bye
* Ib. p. 276.
# Ib. p. 276.
rant, p. 140.