But fuppofing they might be perfuaded to quit their habitual fenfuality for the purity of the Gospel, and to forfake their idolatries, which St. Paul* reckons amongst the works of the flesh, for the Spiritual worship of the one invisible God, how were they difpofed to receive the doctrine of the Salvation of man by the cross of Jefus Chrift? Could they, who were bred in notions fo contrary to that great mystery, to that bidden. wifdom of God, which none of the princes of this world knew †, incline to receive it against the inftructions of all their teachers, and the example of all their fuperiors? Could they whofe Gods had almost all been powerful kings, and mighty conquerors, they who at that very time paid divine honours to the Emperors of Rome, whofe only title to Deification was the imperial power; could they, I fay, reconcile their ideas to crucified Son of God, to a Redeemer of mankind on the cross? Would they look there for him who is the image of the in Gal. v. 19, 20. + 1 Cor. i. 7, 8. vifible vifible God, the firft-born of every creature: by whom and for whom were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers? Now, moft furely, the natural man, (to fpeak in the words of St. Paul) received not these things, for they are foolishness to him; neither could be know them, because they are fpiritually difcerned †. I may therefore conclude, that in the en terprize of converting the Gentiles, St. Paul was to contend not only with the policy and power of the magiftrates, and with the interest, credit, and craft of the priests; but alfo with the prejudices and paffions of the people. I am next to fhew, that he was to expect no lefs oppofition from the wifdom and pride of the philofophers. And though fome may imagine, that men who pretend to be raised and refined, above vulgar prejudices and vulgar paffions, would have been helpful to him in his defigns, it will * Coloff. i. 15, 16. +1 Cor. ii. 14. be found upon examination, that instead of affifting or befriending the Gospel, 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 themselves, chiefly confifted in vain. metaphyfical fpeculations, in logical fubtleties, in endless difputes, in high-flown conceits of the perfection and felf-fufficiency of human wisdom, in dogmatical pofitivenefs about doubtful opinions, 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 Chriftian religion, than thofe of the Atheiftical or Sceptical fects, which at that time prevailed very much, both among the Greeks and the Romans; nor fhall we find that the Theiftical fects were much lefs at enmity with it, when we comtider the doctrines they held upon the nature of God and the foul. But But I will not enlarge on a subject 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 Platonicks them-. felves, who are thought to favour it most, that did not maintain fome opinions fundamentally contrary to thofe of the Gospel. And in this they all agreed, to explode as. most 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, and without which St. Paul declares to his. profelytes, their faith would be vain †, the refurrection of the dead with their bodies, of which refurrection Chrift was the firstborn. Befides the contrariety of their * See the divine legation of Mofes, 1. iii. See also a late pamphlet, entitled, A Critical Enquiry into the Opinions and Practice of the ancient Philofophers, concerning the Nature of the Soul, and a future State. 1 Cor. XV. 17, 20. ‡ Col. i. 18. tenets tenets to those of the Gofpel, the pride that was common to all the philofophers, was of itself an almoft invincible obstacle against the admiffion of the evangelical doctrines, calculated to humble that pride, and teach them that professing themselves to be wise they became fools. This pride was no lefs intractable, no lefs averfe to the inftructions of Christ, or of his Apoftles, 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 made to it by all the different fects of philofophers. And how formidable an oppofition this was, let those confider who are acquainted from history 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 Disciple; the greateft magiftrates, generals, kings, ranged themselves under their Rom. i. 22. difcipline, |