Chap. II. THE SCRIPTURES.
Reading edition
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.