תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

"At this time he, [Peregrinus] also learned the wonderful wisdom of the Christians, having associated with their priests and doctors about Palestine. And what then? In a little time he made them seem like boys to him; a prophet, and leader, and preacher, and every thing else did this one wight become. And he explained some of their books, and expounded, and he himself wrote many, and they esteemed him as a god, and employed him as a lawgiver, and elected him president. At any rate, they still worship (LIUON) that great man, who was crucified in Palestine, because he brought this new religion into existence."

The bitterness of the satire is here very apparent. Lucian represents the Christians as so excessively weak and superstitious, that they considered the miserable Peregrinus a god, on account of his skill as a preacher and interpreter of their sacred books; and intimates that this need not be thought incredible, since they paid divine honors to the founder of their sect, who was crucified in Palestine. He goes on to relate, that Peregrinus was cast into prison on account of his zeal for Christianity, that he was there very affectionately visited by the adherents of the sect, particularly the old maids (2) and widows, that the Christians throughout Asia, spared no cost or pains in his behalf, and then, speaking of their devoted attachment to each other, and the losses and dangers they were willing to hazard for the promotion of their cause, he proceeds:

"For the wretches have persuaded themselves that they shall be entirely immortal and live forever; wherefore they despise death, and many willingly give themselves up. And since their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brethren to each other, after they have once passed over," i. e. from paganism to Christianity, (επειδαν απαξ παραβάντες) they indeed renounce the Greek gods, but worship that crucified sophist of theirs, and live according to his laws." (Luc. de Mor. Per. cap. 11-14. vol. viii. pp. 278— 81, ed. Bipont.)

There is another treatise generally attributed to Lucian, and printed with his works, in which the Christians are ridiculed. It is entitled, Philopatris, or the Learner, and is a dialogue, in which a Christian is introduced in conversation with two pagans. The learned are divided in opinion respecting the real author of this piece, some ascribing it to a writer more ancient than Lucian, and others assigning it to a Lucian whom they suppose to have flourished as late as the reign of Julian the Apostate, A. D. 361. I have not the means of deciding the controversy; and, as the true date of the piece is a matter of some uncertainty, I shall quote but one passage from it. The pagan says, "By whom shall I swear?" The Christian replies, apparently in the words of some Christian hymn, as the sentence is in poetic measure, "By

[blocks in formation]

God, who reigns on high, great, immortal, heavenly, the Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, one from three, and from one three; think these to be Jove, consider him to be God." The pagan contemptuously answers, "You are teaching me to count, and your oath is arithmetic. You do indeed reckon like Nichomachus the Gerasene; for I do not understand what you say, one three, three one! Do you speak of the quaternary of Pythagoras, or the octonary, and triad"? (Luc. Philop. cap. 12. vol. ix. pp. 248-9, ed. Bipont.) It seems that the heathens of ancient times could speak of the Trinity with as little reverence as the rational Christians of our own day.

Celsus was a contemporary of Lucian; but whether he was the Epicurean friend to whom Lucian dedicated his biography of Alexander of Paphlagonia, or (as Neander is inclined to suppose) a Platonist of the same period, is not ascertained. Celsus was the first professed antagonist of Christianity, and published a treatise against the system, entitled, a True Statement, (sans.) This work is now lost; but Origen, who wrote a reply to it about A. D. 210, has preserved the arguments, and in many instances the very words of the original treatise. This reply of Origen's, by the universal consent of critics, is pronounced the best of all his works, and happily it has come down to us in a very perfect state of preservation; so that we have ample means of ascertaining from it the very first philosophical objections that were offered against Christianity, and we find them just the reverse of what Priestley and others after him have stated. As it is well known and universally acknowledged, that Origen was a Trinitarian, it will not be necessary to give his replies to all the objections of Celsus; for he, of course, admits that the Christians paid divine honors to Christ, and defends them on the ground that Christ is a proper object of religious worship. It should be observed that Celsus often puts his objections into the mouth of a Jew; so that whenever the Jew speaks, we hear the words of Celsus.

Lib. i. cap. 28. The Jew says, "He (Jesus,) exercised a trade in Egypt on account of his poverty, and there learned certain arts, on which the Egyptians pride themselves; and when he returned home, thinking highly of himself on account of these arts, by them he declared himself God."

Cap. 58. The Jew says, "It was affirmed by Jesus, that the Chaldeans, moved at his birth, came to worship him, while yet an infant, as God."

Cap. 66. The Jew says to Jesus, "What need was there that you, when an infant, should be carried to Egypt? That you might not be slain? But it was not becoming that God should be afraid of death."

Cap. 69. Celsus says, "The body of God would not have been so produced, [that is, by natural generation,] as thou, O Jesus, wert produced."

Cap. 70. In reference to the food which the Evangelists represent Christ as eating, Celsus says, "The body of God is not nourished by such things;" and on the passage, Luke xxii. 15, he observes, "The body of God uses not such words, nor persuades in this manner."

Lib. ii. cap. 9. The Jew says, "How should we suppose him (Christ) to be God, who, as it was reported, did not perform the other things which he had promised; and when we, having convicted him and condemned him, considered him worthy to be punished, he, concealing himself and running away, was most shamefully taken, and was betrayed by those whom he called disciples? Surely it was not proper that he, being God, should flee, or be led away bound."

Lib. iii. cap. 34. Origen says, "Celsus supposes that we, worshipping (pevovlas) him, [Jesus] taken prisoner and put to death, as Celsus says, do the same thing as the Getæ, who worship Zamolxis, and the Cilicians, who worship Mopsus," &c. Celsus here pretends that Christianity had no advantage over heathenism, because the Christians worshipped a deified man. The same objection is made to evangelical Christianity at the present day.

Cap. 41. Origen says, "Then Celsus reproaches us, and I know not how many times he has done it before, concerning Jesus, that having a mortal body, we suppose him to be God; and imagine that we do a very pious act in this."-" We do indeed suppose and are persuaded, that he is from the beginning, God, and the God," &c.

of

Cap. 43. Origen writes, "After this, Celsus says concerning us, that we ridicule those who worship Jupiter, because his tomb is shown in Crete; and yet we no less worship one from the tomb, not knowing how and in what respect the Cretans do the same."

Lib. viii. cap. 12. Origen writes, "Perhaps some may think, that, as to what follows, Celsus says something plausible against us in this If they indeed worshipped no other but one God, they might perhaps have a sound argument against others, [pagans;] but now do they worship beyond measure (7) this man who so lately appeared, and yet they suppose no vice is committed against God, although his servant is worshipped.' To this let it be replied, that if Celsus had considered this text, I and the Father are one," &c. "Wherefore we worship one God, Father and Son, as we have explained; and there remains to us a sound argument against others," &c.

It seems that the subtle pagan had taken hold of the very objection that is now made to evangelical missionaries by liberal Christians, who live at their ease, and scrutinize, in no friendly humor, the actions of those who are laboring to comply with the command of their Saviour, to spread the blessings of his religion through the

world; and Origen gave the same reply that is given at the present day. Truly,There is no new thing under the sun.'

Many other passages equally appropriate and decisive I had noted for quotation, but I fear that my remarks have been already too far protracted. This pagan philosopher, who was the first that ever made a philosophical attack on Christianity, used for substance the same arguments that are now urged against the evangelical system. I repeat the assertion, that these are the first objections which we know to have been made against Christianity by the heathen philosophers. Such was the shape in which this religion presented itself to them, and such was the mode in which the early Fathers were obliged to meet their assaults. If there are any such objections on record as the assumption of Priestley supposes, of an earlier date, let the passages be quoted, that we may see and believe. Till such evidence is produced, which, so far as I know, never yet has been, (the assertion has been often made and repeated, but a single clear, decisive passage in proof of it, from the philosophers or Fathers, I have never seen ;) till such evidence is produced, we must be content to judge according to the evidence which we possess.

If the Fathers did invent the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, in order to secure respect for their religion from philosophic pagans, they surely were most unfortunate in their choice of means; for, from the very first, nothing so much excited the contempt of heathen philosophers as this same doctrine. But the primitive Fathers were not thus weak or wicked. They maintained the doctrine of Christ crucified, as it had been taught them by the Apostles; Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them that are saved, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.' In this would we most earnestly endeavor to imitate their example. Deo soli gloria, omnia hominum idola pereant.

ARE THE NATURAL AFFECTIONS HOLY?

THE opposers of Evangelical religion seem not to have determined this question so definitively as perhaps they imagine. When told of the entire depravity of the unrenewed heart, they always appeal to the natural affections, as proof that there is something morally good, something holy in man by nature. They tell us how tenderly parents love their children, and children their parents; how deeply some persons, who make no pretensions to Evangelical religion, appear to feel for objects in distress, and how

ready they are to afford relief. Feelings of this kind, they insist, are real goodness, holiness, and consequently, the natural heart is not entirely depraved, and needs rather to be mended than changed, reformed than renewed, in order to prepare its possessor for heaven.

[ocr errors]

But these same persons-when hearing of revivals of religion, when told of the ardent love, the deep repentance, the lively faith, the animating hopes, the zeal, the fervor, of new born souls -are wont to exclaim, Of what avail is all this! It is mere sympathy a mere gush of animal feeling-an excitement of the natural affections-a tumult of the passions! There is no religion, no goodness in it. It will soon subside, and leave the subjects of it no better than they were before.'-Now these gentlemen are welcome to take whichever side of the question before us they please. But they certainly ought to confine themselves to one side. They ought not to be shuffling here and there, to say one thing and the other, just as their inclinations or their exigences demand. We hope they will settle the question among themselves, and with as little delay as possible, whether the natural affections are holy or not, and adopt some theory on the subject by which they are willing to abide.

Evangelical Christians, in general, have no difficulty in regard to this point. They have ascertained to their satisfaction that the natural affections are not holy, and consequently, that the possession of such affections by unregenerate men, is no proof that their moral natures are not entirely depraved. And so far as Christian teachers have evidence that affections of this sort mingle with revivals of religion, (and without doubt they often do mingle with them in some degree) they attach no value to these affections, and warn others not to place the least dependence upon them. They make a wide distinction between the mere sympathies of nature and holy love, and insist perpetually, that "without holiness, no man can see the Lord"—"without faith, it is imposCONSISTENCY. sible to please God."

REVIEWS.

Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of the Rev.
MATTHEW HENRY. By J. B. WILLIAMS, Esq. F. S. A.
First American Edition. Boston: Peirce & Williams, Phi-
pp. 348.
ladelphia: Tower & Hogan. 1830.

THOSE familiar with the Commentary and other valuable writings of Matthew Henry will desire an acquaintance with his life

« הקודםהמשך »