Part 1

Transcribed from the 1812 J. Smith edition by David Price, email [email protected]

HULSEAN ESSAY _For_ 1811.

* * * * *

A DISSERTATION ON THE BOOKS _of_ ORIGEN _against_ CELSUS, WITH A VIEW TO ILLUSTRATE THE ARGUMENT AND POINT OUT THE EVIDENCE THEY AFFORD TO THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.

* * * * *

_Published in pursuance of the Will of the Rev._ J. HULSE, _as having gained the_ ANNUAL PRIZE, _instituted by him in the University of Cambridge_.

* * * * *

BY FRANCIS CUNNINGHAM, OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE.

* * * * *

“Quippe in his (_nimirum Origenis contra Celsum libris_) communem Christianorum doctrinam, adversus instructissimum Religionis nostræ hostem propugnat: hi summo Auctoris studio maxima eruditione, elucubrati fuere.” _Bull._ _Def._ _Fid._ _Nic._ Cap. ix. Sec. 2.

* * * * *

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED _by_ J. SMITH, PRINTER _to the_ UNIVERSITY; _AND SOLD BY DEIGHTON_, _CAMBRIDGE_; _AND RIVINGTONS_, _AND_ _HATCHARD_, _LONDON_.

* * * * *

1812.

* * * * *

TO THE _Very Rev. the_ DEAN _of_ CARLISLE, PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS, THE PRESIDENT, AND _To the Reverend and Learned_ THE FELLOWS _OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE_, THIS ESSAY IS DEDICATED AS A TRIBUTE OF RESPECT AND GRATITUDE BY THE AUTHOR.

* * * * *

CONTENTS.

Page Introduction 1 CHAP. I. History and Writings of the Jews 5 CHAP. II. The Scriptures 12 CHAP. III. History of Christ 19 CHAP. IV. Miracles 24 CHAP. V. Character of the early Christians 33 CHAP. VI. Doctrines of the early Christians 39 CHAP. VII. Conclusion 49

INTRODUCTION.

THE Book of Celsus, {1a} entitled “The True Discourse,” {1b} is supposed to have been written during the fifth persecution, {1c} in the reign of Marcus Antoninus, and in the one hundred and seventieth year of the Christian era. Of his history nothing is known, but that he was an epicurean philosopher, {1d} and a friend of Lucian, who inscribed a book {1e} to him. The object of his work was an attack upon Christianity, and as such, it is one of the most malignant and unreserved upon record. He is indebted to his opponents for bringing down any account of his writings to posterity, for they have otherwise perished.

Origen died in the year of our Lord {2a} two hundred and fifty-four. He undertook, at the request of Ambrose, {2b} to answer the work of Celsus, and “to leave no part without examination.” His Treatise is divided into eight books; but this division seems rather to be founded upon caprice, {2c} than upon any design of methodically discussing the argument. The reasonings of Celsus are discussed in the order in which they occur, which is without method, or connection. The extracts which are made by Origen from the works of his adversary are very copious, so much so, that, considering his object, of fully discussing every part of the original work, it is probable nothing of importance is omitted. The accuracy of the quotations of Origin is guaranteed both by his acknowledged veracity, {3a} and by the risk of refutation to which he would otherwise have exposed himself, from opponents who had the original writing in their hands. The work of Origen has been considered both by ancients and moderns, as a master-piece of eloquence and argument. Eusebius {3b} and Jerome {3c} have given it their highest approbation. Many of our own writers, {3d} and many more of the French, {3e} both Catholic and Protestant, have pronounced it to be the completest, and best written apology for the Christian Religion which has been bequeathed to us by the ancients.

The want of order, both in the attack of Celsus, and the reply of Origen, renders it impracticable to follow, precisely in their steps. Time will be gained, and perspicuity promoted, by endeavouring to bring their perplexed argument into a more regular form. We shall therefore single out the main topics discussed by each, and by stating the objections of the one, and the replies of the other, strive to collect the evidence which each furnishes to the truth of Christianity. Taking the more prominent topics therefore, we shall consider in order; the History and Writings of the Jews—the Scriptures—the History of Christ—the Conduct and the Principles of the early Christians. After which it will be useful to sum up the evidence to Christianity, supplied by the whole argument.

CHAP. I. HISTORY _and_ WRITINGS _of the_ JEWS.

THE evidence in favour of Christianity, to be deduced from the history and writings of the Jews, is so important, that it was a primary object with Celsus, to render it nugatory. This he endeavours to effect, first, by disputing the antiquity of Moses; and secondly, by condemning his narration. We shall examine his statement on these points, and some important acknowledgments he makes, of the existence of the prophetic writings.

He says that “the Jews, {5a} who were originally fugitive slaves from Egypt, pretended, on the authority of the Books of Moses, to a very ancient genealogy; {5b} that they lived together in a corner of Palestine, in profound ignorance; {5c} not having heard of the things long before celebrated by Hesiod, and many other men divinely inspired.” He then particularizes much of the history of Genesis, which he calls “an old woman’s story, full of impiety;” {6a} and asserts that “many of its facts are taken from the heathens.” To this Origen {6b} replies by referring to Josephus {6c} and Tatian {6d} for external proof of the history of the Jews: He affirms that they have all the evidence of their existence which other nations have, {6e} that they have records which others have not; {6f} that other nations are allowed to have existed who bear testimony to the Jews; {6g} that it would have been impossible for so small a band, to have opposed itself to the whole power of Egypt; that it must have changed its language; and that, in changing, it has not assumed one resembling the neighbouring nations. He then urges the wisdom of the Jewish Institutions; infers from their perfect preservation, the esteem in which they were held; and challenges a comparison, {7a} as to sublimity of doctrine, and purity of morals, with any other system, proposed to mankind.

Celsus then notices many of the Old Testament characters: He ridicules the relation of “the Fall, {7b} the Deluge, Children born of old Persons, Brothers who kill each other, Mothers who deceive, the Sin of Lot, the Animosity of Esau, the Deceit of the Sons of Jacob, the History of Joseph,” &c. Origen replies that such facts alone are selected by Celsus from the writings of Moses, as supply a ground of attack; that the simplicity of his narration proves the integrity of its author; and he then apologizes for these causes of offence by the necessity of the case, he contrasts with them the greater profligacy of the heathen, or fancifully explains them upon the scheme of allegory.

No direct admission of Celsus, relating to Jewish prophecy, is to be found. There are however many observations, which prove the coming of Christ to have been expected by the Jews, and this expectation must have been the result of prophecy. The remarks of Celsus, with regard to this topic, are of this kind. That the “Jews {8a} and Christians believe, that the Spirit of God had promised there would come a Saviour; but they could not agree, whether or no, he had already come;” {8b} that “the prophecies which the Christians apply to Christ refer equally to other persons;” {8c} that “others had lived who had applied the prophecies of Christ to themselves,” &c. &c. Thus he plainly admits prophecies to have existed of some great person, who was to come; and that Jews and Christians believed in them, but that it was uncertain whether they were accomplished.

The inferences to be collected from the preceding observations, are as follows.

First, The Jewish Scriptures are of older date, than the birth of Christ. For if these writings had been compiled since that time, some rumours of such an event must have reached Celsus; and this fact which would have ruined all the pretensions of Jewish antiquity, would have been urged by the heathens as a primary objection to their claims. The Jews themselves moreover could not have been deceived, if this had been a cunningly devised fable; for they were a widely extended people, and in so short a space of time, it would have been impossible to make them the dupes of such an imposture. Secondly, It may be inferred from the admission of Celsus, that the prophecies were found in the Jewish Scriptures _in his time_; and _since_ then no alteration has been made in them by the Jews. But if so, this is the strongest presumption, that the Jews had never altered them _before_. For, if, when by the fulfilment of the prophecies, in the person of Christ, they were most tempted to erase predictions, so hostile to their own creed, they made no change, much less, would they do it, when the temptation was diminished. Thirdly, If little is to be collected from the writings of Celsus, in favour of those prophecies which he has attacked, something may be inferred in favour of those which he has failed to attack. Their existence is admitted, and his spirit of hostility is such, that we must attribute his silence not to his forbearance, but to his disingenuousness. Fourthly, The admission that some important character was expected, not only by the Jews, but by the heathens, at the era of Christ’s advent, is very important to religion. Where could the expectation originate, except in the Jewish Scriptures? The sages, poets, and historians of antiquity, appear to have drunk at this sacred source. The Arabians {10a} came from a far country to greet it; Herod destroyed {10b} the Jewish genealogies that the family of David might not be known, {10c} undertook the building of the temple, a work it was thought the Messias was to perform, and murdered {11a} his own son in fear that the promised King should dethrone him. Virgil, building upon the popular persuasion, applied it on two occasions to Augustus. {11b} This expectation is also mentioned by Cicero, {11c} Sallust, {11d} Suetonius, {11e} and Tacitus. {11f} If the origin of this expectation was with the Jews, where else can we look for the accomplishment. Who has fulfilled their wide-spread expectations? Where is this hope of all nations to be sought, if not in the person of Christ?

CHAP. II. THE SCRIPTURES.

CELSUS in his general mode of argument against the Christians, renders a very important testimony to the truth of their Scriptures: for his charges are not grounded on facts or doctrines, not there recorded; but almost every one of them may be directly traced, to some important and obvious passage of the Bible.

He seemed therefore to consider, that he could most effectually destroy Christianity, by overturning the authority of the writings which the Christians believed to have been delivered to them by inspiration, and which they considered the authority, the guide and the security of their religion.

He acknowledges {13a} that there were “writings concerning the affairs of Christ made by his disciples;” using the word _disciple_ distinctly from the _follower_ of Christ, and plainly in the sense of the immediate attendant upon his person. Whence may be inferred the general belief, in his time, that the Gospels proceeded from their accredited authors.

He states the Christians to have “preached their doctrines to the poor and wicked, without partiality or respect of persons;” {13b} a statement admitted by Origen, to be conformable to the genius of the Gospel, and fulfilling its own declarations, “that to the poor the Gospel is preached;” {13c} and that “Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” {13d} This statement also proves the Gospel to have been publicly promulged.

He charges the Christians with so “mutilating the Scriptures, that if one expression was attacked they might take refuge in another;” {14a} but the charge rests alone upon his assertion. Origen confidently challenges any proof of it; imputes the mutilations of Scripture, exclusively, to Marcion and Valentinus; but denies their claim to the title of Christians.

The quotations of Celsus from the New Testament are so numerous, {14b} that from them a great part of the History of Christ, a statement of his doctrines, his character, and that of his disciples, might be gathered. These quotations are taken from the Gospels, in general, but more particularly from Saint Matthew, from the Acts of the Apostles, from the various Epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John. They are so faithful a transcript of our New Testament, as to leave no doubt, that he had it before him. Now and then, however, he mutilates passages, as if to show the contempt in which he held the whole relation. Thus in mentioning the disciples of Christ, he says, “that he took ten or eleven abjects, vile publicans and sailors.” {15} This error is plainly one, rather of contempt, than of ignorance.

It is also worthy of notice, that Celsus has taken very few stories from the heretical writings, which assumed to themselves equal authority with the Gospels, and which abounded in his days. These stories, wherever they occur, are disallowed by Origen, and their authors, at once, given up as uninspired. The concessions of Celsus may be taken in evidence, that the canon of Scripture was already so well established, that it would have been in vain for him to mis-state it.

The general testimony furnished by Origen to the Scriptures, may be viewed in some degree distinctly from that of Celsus. It must be considered as coming about fifty years after. {16a} In this work he quotes from twenty-nine books of the Old Testament, {16b} from all but three in the New, {16c} and from five books of the Apocrypha. {16d} His quotations agree very accurately with our Text, and many passages, which since have been disputed, {16e} are held by him as authentic. He allows no objection to lie against the plenary inspiration of Scripture; he indeed admits {16f} some differences to have existed, as to the interpretation of passages, but adverts to none respecting their authority.

Origen frankly avows the _difficulties_ of Scripture; and it is to cut his way through these, that he is tempted to employ the weapon of allegorical interpretation; a weapon, which never fails to wound the hand of the employer, and to injure the cause it is designed to serve. His rashness in this method of interpretation may be estimated by the following specimen. {17a} “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” {17b} “The little ones, the children of Babylon,” he says, “are to be interpreted vexatious thoughts, the offspring of confusion, which vice has produced; and he who is happy in dashing them against the stones, is he, who crushes these thoughts against the solidity of reason.” Such excesses, whilst they betray the unsoundness of an expositor of Scripture, evince his faith in its authority: and it is rather the authority of the text, than the universal sobriety of its interpreters, which we are anxious to defend.

CHAP. III. HISTORY OF CHRIST.

THE attack of Celsus, upon the History of Christ, maybe arranged under the three divisions, of his birth; his life; his death.

In adverting to the birth of Christ, Celsus introduces a Jew, charging Christ with being privately born {19a} in a little village of Judea, his mother being driven out by the Carpenter, to whom she was betrothed, because convicted of adultery {19b} with a soldier named Panther. He imputes to him that he was privately educated, and went to earn his livelihood in Egypt.

It is enough to say of all this, that it is mere assertion; that no proof of it is either established or offered. Origen, however, justly asks, if it be probable, that a person, the purity of whose life and doctrine is so remarkably opposite to the imputation laid against his birth, {20a} should have been born and educated by a profligate parent. Perhaps, even the idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary, in the Church of Rome, of which the first elements are discernible at a very early period, may in a measure serve, (the only good purpose it ever served) to vindicate her moral character. {20b}

Against the Life of Christ, no charge is brought by Celsus; {20c} except that he did not answer to _his_ conception {20d} of the appearance of a Deity on earth. It is obvious that this objection is founded on a misconception of the object of his advent. Celsus believed that other gods had descended {20e} from heaven to earth, and framed his notion of the appearance of deity, upon the model with which the fictions of heathen poetry and history supplied him. To satisfy his perverted imagination, {21a} God must descend in showers of gold, {21b} or armed with celestial thunders. And indeed had Jesus Christ appeared, like the gods of heathenism, to gratify lust, or decide the fate of empires; the ensigns of pomp and power would have been adapted to his commission. But when it is remembered, that he came to establish a spiritual religion, {21c} to wean men from the world, {21d} to live with the poor, {21e} and above all to die for the guilty; {21f} then it is evident, that the character which became him, was that of a “Man of Sorrows.” {21g} Moral grandeur was the only grandeur with which he could invest himself, righteousness his sceptre, {21h} and his throne a cross. Had Celsus indeed been disposed to examine, or enabled to appreciate, the moral dignity of his character, he would have shrunk with disgust from the fabled descents of Jupiter. He would have seen that this Pillar of Cloud {22a} had a bright side; that if he was a man in suffering, in the grandeur with which he suffered he was truly God.

Celsus states, even to minuteness, the facts recorded by the Sacred Historians, as to the Death of Christ. He says, that he was “betrayed,” {22b} “bound,” “scourged,” “stretched upon the Cross;” {22c} that he “drank vinegar;” {22d} that after his death, he was “said to have appeared twice,” {22e} but that “he did not appear to his enemies.” {22f} To the objection conveyed in the last clause it is an obvious reply, that his appearance to his enemies cannot be claimed, except by those who contend that God is bound to increase evidence to the persons who shut their eyes against it. Those who, after the evidence of the miracles of Jesus Christ, could continue to doubt, would not have believed, though he “had risen from the dead” {23} in their view.

The objections of Celsus to the character of Christ being thus dismissed, and they are really unworthy even of the scanty space here bestowed upon them, it is plain that all the _facts_ admitted by him are so much to be added to the scale of evidence. It is thus proved, that, either influenced by universal persuasion, or borne down by overwhelming testimony, men, who desired to be infidels, were compelled to admit the facts of Christianity. It is also proved, that nothing can be charged against the life of Christ, except that he most accurately maintained the character in which he condescended to appear.

CHAP. IV. MIRACLES.

THE strongest evidence in favour of Christianity is supplied by the Miracles, which accompanied its promulgation. We shall proceed to consider the light cast by the work before us, on this important topic; and examine, first, the testimony of Origen and Celsus to the miraculous effects that were produced; secondly, the pretensions which these works had to a Divine original.

Celsus lived in an age when by the testimony of all history, the Miracles of Christ were objects of notoriety. The disciples had yet the power of working them, {24a} and they propounded {24b} them as the incontrovertible proof of the truth of their religion. It was impossible therefore, in a general work against Christianity, that Celsus should not refer to the subject of Miracles, or that he should, in the face of their public performance, flatly deny their existence. He has then taken the only method by which he could obviate this difficulty. He makes a “_supposition_ {25a} that Christ did perform many marvellous works;” these however he imputes to “the same magical power that is made use of in the market-places of Egypt.” We shall first examine how far this concession on the part of Celsus may stand as an admission that Miracles were really performed. Writers have differed about the meaning to be attached to these words; but the greater part of those, whose opinion is of highest authority, {25b} have considered them as an acknowledgment that these wonderful works could not be denied by him. Considering the peculiarly difficult circumstances in which Celsus was placed, he could, by a supposition of this kind alone, escape from the dilemma; and as he did not dare on such a subject to assert a falsehood, he endeavoured at least to excite a doubt. This opinion is moreover strengthened by the line of argument he pursues, “that if the by-standers had really thought these works to be Miracles, they could not but have believed;” then he proceeds to undervalue the worth of these performances, by comparing them with those of Æsculapius. {26a}

After reading the passage, in which our Lord foretells that “many should come in his name, doing many wondrous things;” {26b} he exclaims, “how great is the force of truth!—Christ carries with him his own refutation, for he acknowledges a certain Satan, should work the same miracles that he did.” Of this objection it may be observed, that it cuts two ways. If it invalidates the Miracles of Christ, yet the event corresponding with the prediction establishes his prophetical character, and thus authenticates his religion.

Origen continually proclaims, {27a} in bold and eloquent language, in the name of himself, and his fellow Christians, their faith in Christianity to be founded upon miracles, wrought in the name of Christ; of which {27b} they themselves had been eye-witnesses.

It may be asked whether modern infidels who have ventured to contradict the Miracles of Christ, a weapon Celsus was afraid to take up, have estimated the rashness of their enterprize. Are they competent to deny what a spectator no less malevolent than themselves was compelled to admit. Has the lapse of eighteen hundred years enabled them to ascertain a fact of daily occurrence with more accuracy than a by-stander? Are objects best seen at the greatest distance?

Having then stated the admission of the occurrence of certain supernatural events, both by the friend, and enemy of Christianity; we shall say a few words upon the _source_, to which they are ascribed by Celsus.