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.