er of magiftrates, and with the intereft, credit, and craft of the priests; but also with the prejudices and paffions of the people.

I am next to fhew, that he was to expect no lefs oppofition from the wisdom and pride of the philofophers. And though fome may imagine, that men who pretended to be raifed and refined above vulgar prejudices and vulgar paffions, would have been helpful to him in his defign, it will be found upon examination that inftead of affifting or befriending the gofpel, they were its worst and most irreconcileable enemies. For they had prejudices of their own ftill more repugnant to the doctrines of Chrift than those of the vulgar, more deeply rooted, and more obftinately fixed in their minds. The wifdom upon which they valued themfelves, chiefly confifted in vain metaphyfical fpeculations, and logical fubtleties, in endless difputes, in high-flown conceits of the perfection and felf-fufficiency of human wisdom, in dogmatical pofitivenefs about doubtful opinjons, or fceptical doubts about the most clear and certain truths. It must appear at first fight, that nothing could be more

contradictory to the first principles of the christian religion, than thofe of the atheiftical, or fceptical fects, which at that time prevailed very much, both among the Greeks and Romans? nor fhall we find that the theiftical fects were much lefs at enmity with it, when we confider the doctrines they held upon the nature of God and the foul.

But I will not enlarge on a fubject which the most learned Mr. Warburton has handled fo well.* If it were neceffary to enter particularly into this argument, I could easily prove, that there was not one of all the different philofophical fects then upon earth, not even the Platonics themfelves, who are thought to favour it most, that did not maintain fome opinions fundamentally contrary to thofe of the gofpel.

And in this they all agreed, to explode as moft unphilofophical, and contrary to every notion that any among them maintained, that great article of the chriftian religion, upon which the foundations of it are laid,

See "The divine Legation of Moses, 1. iii." See also a late pamphlet, intituled, "A critical Enquiry into the Opinions and Practices of the ancient Philosophers, concerning the Nature of the Soul, and a future State."

and without which St. Paul declares to his profelytes, their faith would be vain, 1 Cor. XV. 17, 20. the refurrection of the dead with their bodies, of which resurrection Christ was the first born, Coloff. i. 18. befides the contrariety of their tenets to those of the gofpel, the pride that was common to all the philofophers, was of itfelf an almost invincible obftacle against the admiffion of the evangelical doctrines calculated to humble that pride, and teach them, that profeffing themfelves to be wife, they became fools, Rom. i. 22. This pride was no lefs intractable, no lefs averfe to the inftructions of Chrift or of his apostles than that of the Scribes and Pharifees. St. Paul was therefore to contend in his enterprize of converting the Gentiles, with all the oppofition that could be madè to it by all the different fects of philofophers. And how formidable an oppofition this was, let thofe confider who are ac quainted from hiftory with the great credit thofe fects had obtained at that time in the world, a credit even fuperior to that of the priests. Whoever pretended to learning or virtue was their difciple; the greateft magiftrates, generals, kings, ranged

themselves under their difcipline, were trained up in their schools, and professed the opinions they taught.

All the fects made it a maxim not to disturb the popular worship, or established religion; but under thofe limitations they taught very freely whatever they pleased, and no religious opinions were more warmly fupported, than thofe they delivered were by their followers. The chriftian religion at once overturned their feveral systems, taught a morality more perfect than theirs, and established it upon higher and much ftronger foundations, mortified their pride, confounded their learning, discovered their ignorance, ruined their credit. Against fuch an enemy what would they not do! would they not exert the whole power of their rhetoric, the whole art of their logic, their influence over the people, their intereft with the great, to difcredit a novelty fo alarming to them all! If St. Paul had had nothing to truft to but his own natural faculties, his own understanding, knowledge, and eloquence, could he have hoped to be fingly a match for all theirs united against him! could a teacher unheard of before, from an obfcure and un

learned part of the world, have withstood the authority of Plato, Ariftotle, Epicurus, Zeno, Arcefilaus, Carneades, and all the great names which held the first rank of human wifdom? He might as well have attempted alone, or with the help of Barnabas and Silas, of Timotheus and Titus, to have erected a monarchy upon the ruins of all the feveral ftates then in the world, as to have erected Christianity upon the deftruction of all the feveral fects of philofophy, which reigned in the minds of the Gentiles, among whom he preached, particularly the Greeks and the Ro

mans.

peo

Having thus proved (as I think) that in the work of converting the Gentiles, St. Paul could have no affiftance, but was fure on the contrary of the utmost repugnance and oppofition to it imaginable from the magiftrates, from the priests, from the ple, and from the philofophers; it necef farily follows, that to fucceed in that work he must have called in fome extraordinary aid, fome stronger power than that of reafon and argument. Accordingly we find, he tells the Corinthians, that his fpeech and preaching was not with enticing words of