great facts and features of the Christian religion were foreshown to the Jewish saints. Now these means were to a large extent of the symbolic kind. The Jewish ritual was characteristically symbolic. Prophets, by the medium of symbols, were themselves instructed, and instructed others, respecting the Messiah and his times. And among the symbols made use of, apparel was by no means the least conspicuous. That of the High Priest was of great significancy. The sackcloth which the prophet often assumed, was also symbolic. These facts of themselves are sufficient to invest symbols with a high importance and sacredness. No one surely who recognizes the typical character of the Jewish ritual, and finds Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, can set a light value on them.

But if we regard Christianity itself, we discover stronger evidence still, of the propriety of the custom. In the first place, Christianity recognizes the general principle on which it rests, namely, that the inward loves an outward and symbolic manifestation. This principle was verified in Christ himself, as is abundantly shown by the history of his life. Whatsoever is genuinely human, he came by no means to destroy, but rather to hallow and endear. Every emotion and impulse which belongs appropriately to our nature was apparent in his character, in its purest and archetypal form.

More than this, Christianity exhibits God himself as an exemplar in this matter. There occurred on Calvary an event in which his heart was greatly interested. How sublime the manifestation of his emotions! The Psalmist beautifully calls the heavens God's vesture. When Christ died, that vesture changed its wonted hue, and became sombre and gloomy as midnight; and the brightest gem in the divine crown withdrew its shining. God loves a symbolic manifestation of emotion! Well may man!

We have termed the usage commemorative. In this aspect of it, too, Christianity puts on it a broad seal of approbation. The wonderful death of so exalted a personage as our Saviour, one would think, could not but be remembered, and exert its appropriate influence, at least among the friends and followers of Christ, without the aid of outward memorials. Christ thought otherwise. And the remembrance and influence of his death depends for perpetuity, in no small degree, on the sacramental symbols. If the out

ward be in no way adapted and auxiliary to the inward, why was the Eucharist instituted?

To abolish the usage, then, would be to violate some of the best impulses of our nature, to deprive ourselves and others of those salutary influences which it so powerfully exerts, and to overlook a principle which is everywhere recognized in the examples of Scripture, and in the rites of our holy religion.

ART. VII. CELSUS.

By ENOCH POND, D. D., Professor in the Theological Seminary, Bangor, Me.

ABOUT the middle of the second century, and within fifty years of the death of the apostle John, lived Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher, and an avowed and bitter enemy of Christianity. He was contemporary with Lucian, the celebrated Greek critic and satirist, who dedicated to Celsus his Pseudomantis. Of the place of his nativity or residence, I have not been able to obtain any satisfactory information. He wrote a work against the Christians, the first that was ever written, entitled, the True Word.

That I do not err in assigning to Celsus so high an antiquity, is evident, not only from the fact already mentioned of his being contemporary with Lucian, but from various incidental expressions which occur in his writings. Thus, he objects to the doctrine of the Christians, that "it is but a few years since he (Jesus) delivered this doctrine, who is now reckoned to be the Son of God."* And again," They (the Christians) worship excessively him (Jesus) that lately appeared; and think that nothing is done wickedly in respect to God, if his Son be served."* Celsus reproaches the Christians with having no temples, or houses of religious worship-conveniences with which they began to be favoured

*Orig. Contra Cels. Lib. I. et Lib. VIII.

at a pretty early period. It is remarkable, too, that Celsus refers not at all to any of those spurious gospels and revelations, which, during the second century, began to be palmed upon the world; which is evidence, that, in his time, they did not exist. About the middle of the third century, Origen, at the request of his friend Ambrosius, wrote a reply to the work of Celsus, in eight books; in which reply he speaks of Celsus as having been at that time long dead.*

From many passages in the work of Celsus, it is evident that he wrote during a season of persecution. He charges the Christians with "teaching secretly the things that please themselves, keeping off the judgement of death impending over them."† Again; "they that were with him (Jesus) while living, and heard his voice, and used him as their teacher, seeing him punished and dying, neither suffered with him, nor for him, nor were persuaded to despise punishments; but they even denied that they were disciples. Yet now ye die with him."+ In other places, Celsus charges the Christians with "a purpose of dying," and with being "forward in striving to death." In all probability, the work of Celsus was written during the reign of Marcus Antoninus, who, though a philosopher, and on many accounts an estimable ruler, was yet a cruel persecutor of the Christians.

I have already mentioned the reply of Origin to Celsus. This Reply was much esteemed by the ancients, and is spoken of in terms of high commendation by several modern ecclesiastical historians. Du Pin says that it is "not only the best work of Origin, but the completest and best written apology for the Christian religion, which the ancients have left us."

The work of Celsus is irrecoverably lost, except so much of it as may be extracted from the Reply of Origin. But Origin's method of reply was such-taking up all the objections of his author, and stating them at large in his own words that it is presumed we are in possession of the more material parts of this early attack upon the religion of our Saviour. At least, we are in possession of enough to constitute a considerable volume.

*

This work of Celsus is of importance, if viewed merely

Orig. Contra Cels. Lib. 1. et Lib. VIII.

t Contra Cels. Lib. I. et II.

Vol. II. Ch. 38.

as a curiosity. Who would not be interested to know what a learned Pagan philosopher, within fifty years of the Apostolic age, would object against Christianity; how he would resist the arguments in its favour; and how reason in respect to those wonderful facts, on which its credibility and its doctrines rest?

But this work has a much higher importance. Modern infidels have called in question the authenticity of our sacred books, and have insinuated that they might have been written by interested individuals, priests or monks, during the dark ages. But here is Celsus, within a half a century, or a little more, of the apostolic age, labouring to refute these very books. And it was well said by Chrysostom," I presume he did not oppose writings which have been published since his own time."

Modern infidels have admitted that our gospels would be entitled to some consideration, if we could be sure that they were written by the disciples of Christ, who had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with his life and actions. But Celsus asserts, that these gospels were written by the disciples of Christ; he insists, and abundantly shows, that he was well acquainted with these writings;* and he undertakes to refute the Christians out of their own Scriptures. "From your own Scriptures," says he, "ye have these things. We make use of no other witness. Ye fall in your own snare." Lib. ii. Referring to the four gospels, he says, "Some of them that believe, in their madness, allow themselves to change the gospel from the first writing, three ways, and four, and oftener, that they may be able to deny them that confute them." Lib. ii.

The allusions in the work of Celsus, and his representations as to the state of public sentiment, in regard to a variety of topics, are all in accordance with the time in which he is supposed to have lived.

It is well known that the Jews, in those times, were confidently expecting the coming of their Messiah, and were ready to follow almost any one, who, with plausible pretensions, should set up for the Messiahship. This expectation is frequently indicated in the work of Celsus, especially in those parts in which he personates a Jew.

"Let them answer me," says he, "not as one seeking information; for I know all." Contra Cels. Lib. i.

"My prophet in Jerusalem formerly said, that the Son of God would come, the judge of the pious, and the punisher of the unjust." Lib. i.

"If any one foretold to you, that the Son of God would come to men, he was our prophet, and the prophet of our God." Lib. ii.

"How could we, who have declared to all men, that one would come from God, punishing the unjust, treat him ignominiously, when he came ? Why did we reject him, whom we have foretold?" Lib. ii.

The prophets said, that he who was to come, would be a great and mighty Lord of the whole earth, and of all nations and armies." Lib. ii. "What God coming to men would be disbelieved, when he appeared to those who hoped for these things? Or why indeed was he not known to them, who had long expected him?" Lib. ii.

"We hope surely to rise in the body, and to have eternal life, and that the Sent unto us will be the pattern and first leader of this; showing that it is not impossible with God to raise any man in the body. Where is he then, that we may see and believe?" Lib. ii.

There were those in the days of the apostles, who attributed an inherent baseness to matter, considering it as the source and centre of all evil. This led them to undervalue and neglect the body (Col 2: 23); to deny that there would be any resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15: 12); and to doubt whether Jesus had a real body, or (in the language of John) whether he had come in the flesh. It is evident, from the work of Celsus, that these opinions prevailed in his time, and that he was himself a believer in them.

"God made nothing mortal; but whatsoever things are immortal, these indeed are the works of God; but the mortal are from others. The soul, truly, is the work of God; but the nature of the body is different. And in this respect, the body of a bat, or worm, or frog, or man, is strai lar. For the matter is the same, and the corruptible part of them alike. The nature of all the aforesaid bodies is common, and, being one, goes and returns into reiterating change. And nothing begotten of matter is immortal."*

"This also is their folly, to think, that after God, like a cook, has brought in fire, and others are boiled away, that they alone will remain, not only the living, but also they who are of old dead, emerging from the earth with their same flesh; this is plainly the hope of worms! For what soul of man would desire a body already putrified? What sort of body, altogether corrupted, can return to the nature it had from the beginning, and the same first constitution from which it was dissolved? Having nothing to answer, they (the Christians) fly to a most absurd pretence ;-All things are possible with God. But God can neither do base things, nor will he do any thing contrary to nature; nor, if thou shouldst desire, in thy wretchedness, any thing abominable, could God do this? For God is not the patron of vicious appetite, or of erroneous indecency, but of righteousness and justice. He can, indeed, give eternal life to the soul; but carcases,' says Heraclitus, are more fit to be thrown out, than dung. Surely, God neither would nor could make the flesh, which is full of things not fit to be mentioned, eternal; for he is the reason of all beings; he can therefore work nothing unreasonable, or contrary to himself."'*

* Lib. iii. iv