, 1881-06-12

Of the believers, stas coming to themselves
out Of debaucl,, transform the Gospel from
rs = first shape into three or four, or more
'srent vc ax.siags ones and alter it, that they
be charged as was only committed by Mar
cion and other depravers of the Gospels, and
IS did not affect the general Christian name.
Celsns, IN his rude way, was giving a theory
Of the origin of the Gospels as due to MI
apOlogetic purpose, and thus accounting for
the variations and apparent contradictions
ION which he elsewhere lays lloO as due to.
this will not affect Celsus' concession to the
Gospels as accepted Christian documents, or
the use he makes Of them, as deriving from
them the. received Christian history.
S2cs 1t one pest pesteneS q the ansacnt sn It:
'',rhese things are from your own writings.
rs to which we need ITO other evidence, fur
you fall by your own authoritics.'' CELSIUS
shows BY his citations that he knows all the
genealogics, Mark By the reference to the
carpenter, and John by the blood and water
from the Savior's side. The marllinainci-
dents OF the Gospel history are also repro
the connection with Nazareth; the baptism,
the dove. the voice; the itinerant life with
publicans and mariners; the record Of
miracles, healing. resurrection, feeding
Ct m,ultt,1des; ,! the g, foretsling 70 OF on, one
and Of His own death and resurrection; the
struggle i'll the garden, with the cup and the
prayer; the purple robe, the crown Of thorlls,
the reed; the vinegar and gall; the expiring
voice, the earthquake, the darkness. Tlest,
incidents can only belong to the existing
Gospels; nor is anything stated that requires
| lis to bring in any apocryphal source. So.
also. the evidence Of the identity Of the
sources of CELSIUS with our Gospels is greatly
ht- a tn fht4r IL
OF the resurrection. Jesus is reproached for
needing to have the stone rolled away by all
| angel. Tile difficulty as to one angel or two
is noticed. Prominence is given to Mary
| Mags1clelle, with :lnson to ller earlier lltn-
tai trouble (1HncnnrotstroS, strange ant!cl-
patton of 1senal' 81 femme hul thci1lcc). Mention
is made of Jesus showing the marks Of His
punishment, and especially His hands, as
they had been pierced. Nor does the obiec
ton fail that Jesus concealed Himself from
Ills enemies after Ills resurrection. This is
b1lt a portion Of the evidence drawn from
CELSIUS own wt,xls, that, however he derided
and sought to confute the Gospel narratives
(and the same remark applies to other por-
| position rs the genuine and accepted ducl1-
incnts of the Christians, but rather used
them in that. character to assall
christ2nity Lis ia 1est'm1ny raf41y nerG /:
| and his position rs :lr once an Immediately
| succeeding writer and all eiltlny gives the
| Gospels recognition which could have come
] from no other quarter. even from later I'M
bic for modern unbelief to shake this found:-
! ton, or to resolve those materials which Gel
sus has attested us so solid and document
ary into the mist and vapor of shifting tra-
| tlitlon. What he assails is not cloud, put q
| fortress well defined, and the mark of stud
| led attack nnd Siege. 1t is too late now to
| obliterate his lines and parallels, which have
| even been added tu the iitrcncllments
against which they we're directed
With regard to porpllyry, as he falls a
| century later, and as his principal work
against the Christians, filed with references
| to Scripture, has persisted, except i'll frag-
! ,nellts he docs not supply the same valuable
matter as CELSIUS. 1t may seem, indeed, that
| one celebrated reference i'll that work IS all
verse-riz,: his denial Of tie genuinelless Of
the Book of Daniel, and his Interpretation OF
it It's u prophecy written after the event
| This, however, though all exception to the
The Scripture canon, does not mean SO much
as may be at hrst supposed. 1t was evl-
IDENTIFY the question, Of Interpretation that
led Porplyry astray. Had he been
able to make light of te contents %; and yet
SO constantly did in regard to the Gospels, Inc
| would not have rejected Il work for which
the external evidence is SO strong: Besides,
it is to be remembered that this denial stands
alone; for the Christian Wrlters--Euseblus,
| n;n+' E,.,r.l,,-rv hurt. 1,otierd no nrhar
nsa,l'as nsl,! r, ~. ~ h"n1s rhat ha r,;ecteeI
aouH nd onc., y, "a n,npe the authority Of Poruhyry
nt' = W.. v1'uu ssaimht yhatpvrr against n honk so
- @ -. of,r,. ilo E;s Nv" ~. os in cnmnarist,n If
!oiis ', :eau1e - nn.'i.. 6ninm.,inr IT, his n,yn
Is III 1ayoF na5af ol ooHh p9riaT Fix" the he VIII
lllle ~ +,,s Hns, 'rc.fa,n'snt jiorc thnuu
ilss " tS i,u tIar ~ i;a1si1s III trsi
iess Halu'to' a,,' t'i.1 taanc " We Hi lin I,v
mony IS ol =, tt,o eannatn@v @ ~ naf
nolasli - +i'e rs,mtt,nn nf the nal;.t If
IneMm;: i, ,l!s n,ct' If twu ea.s of fn,rtpen
Jecnoas II, t'1,, Isl a+tn.tmp ;ts n1ce anI t'at
rG.. aons, inyv in the i?osnrt of Satthew.
= g. ,..;t G tha "atI If Afatfhew. il, tho ninth
o,,,ntar ~ tie SAM. i;os1uL which is ol}-
GnapI tpp r. ~ a. n'srng the assnt Of the t]iscinie
Ie.'o" - II" ,'% ~. w;tI, other minis If criIi
u n;s,,. iI:,. rho arSunrnt a.sainst Jesus being
! Ita.'' 10 ',Vnrd as nIlr@r.f in the brginuluy
- ~ +ha f',nrt,, t;Hsrn.]. that lie could
,,a;+tar " @ M The i1war.1 Word nor r3le
n1t,,s-d t,,.',rd W and thar,fnrc cou1I mot he the
Wori IN onv senst.. These exceptions stand
,'s', 49,, m nntirnlv different footine from thu.
t.p;natinn to thn :',thnrsIin Of Da,1iel. I'hey
!!.:t +ho ~ a,. md rnra,tio1 If the Nt.w
1uttt aG h..,.c and Hnv :,s was in ri1cn
icsl.,'e., ,,,,nt;ns:nr danv their t.achIntr. nr
ioa u, t;'1os o,,;t # nc whei, the Enisfn to
ule1 ~ ..;.'So IS, 'na. +" Ne TnS. 0f Itati and
iIe ua4allams asGo e',,,+;,', m ,i1Scraltaj,i. to
Ielet, 70 aeeoa" .a"s. soA'''E' ~
l1ie ta' a''a.l"" e""'s' c.;.>+, 49,
The references py Jualait ~ oGi!ptufffe pff tlT f,