causes of things, and even the mysteries of the Supreme Being?

After a long discourse, which is compofed of the groffeft calumny, and a misrepresentation of facts, our author attacks the moral of the Evangelifts, the principal part of which, he says, has been extracted from the works of the philofophers, and particularly from the writings of Plato, and reduced into a vulgar ftile, to please the populace, and the most vile and miferable part of the human race; and is much better known, and explained, by the Greeks; and without all this parade of promifes, and threatenings, on the part of God, or of his Son.

If the moral precepts of the philofophers were good in themselves, and worthy of imitation, it was certainly an act of great merit in those poor illiterate fishermen, and publicans, to extract these pearls from the heap of earth in which they were enveloped, and to place them in a confpicuous light for the benefit of mankind in general; of the ignorant as well as of the learned, of the Barbarians as well as of the Greeks; and therefore Celfus, although perhaps against his inclination, has been obliged to acknowledge the fuperiority of the Apostles. He must confess, tacitly, that the task which they undertook was full of humanity; and to fucceed in this defign, according to his ideas' of things, it was neceffary that they should learn to speak popularly, and in a manner proportioned to the understandings of all ranks of men, who

had

had not a capacity to discover the beauties of a well-finifhed difcourfe: But there is not the leaft appearance that either of the Apostles, except perhaps. St. Paul, had ever heard of the name of Plato, or of the Grecian philofophers; they being all, according to the Jewifh accounts, ignorant and illiterate men; and yet, notwithstanding all that Celfus and his followers have faid against them, I must beg leave to fay, that their moral is fuch as was never before taught in the world; and that there is a majefty, fublimity, and true perfuafive reasoning in their writings, that has never been imitated by the greatest philofophers. Hear how the great Apostle before mentioned expreffes himself: For my speech, and my preaching, was not with enticing words of man's wifdom, but in the demonftration of the ઠંડ Spirit, and of power; that your faith should' ἐσ not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the

66

66

σε

power of God: Howbeit we speak wisdom

among them that are perfect; but not the wif"dom of this world; for we speak the wisdom of દ God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, σε which God ordained before the world unto

our glory: As it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him: But God hath "revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit fearcheth all things, yea, the deep things "of God. For what man knoweth the things

“of man, fave the spirit of man which is in

him? even fo the things of God knoweth no

man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have re"ceived not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit

which is of God; that we might know the things which are freely given to us of God *."

How infinitely inferior is the dry and studied ftile of Plato, to this of the Apostle, although he was one of the greatest and the most rational of all the Greek philofophers! In explaining the nature of the fovereign good, he says, that the favereign good is not a thing which can be expreffed by words; and even cannot be acquired but by long habitude, and great affiduity; which make it shine up at length, all of a sudden, in the foul, as a great light, which we perceive when a fire first breaks out; and afterwards it nourishes, and fupports itself +.

What this great author has obferved is certainly true and juft, although it was comprehended by few of his followers. There are many pafvery fages in the works of this author which far surpass moft of the authors of antiquity: But what idea can we form of a great philofopher, who in many respects appears to have been inspired of God, and who wrote fo admirably of the fovereign good, and yet condefcended to addrefs his prayers to Diana, as to a Divinity, and to affift in all the idolatrous ceremonies, with a folemn affembly of ignorant people? This philofopher has likewife wrote upon the nature and immortality of 1 Corinth. ii. 4, &c. + Plato, Letter 7.

the

the foul, and upon the ftate to which its virtues will bring it after this life;-but, forgetting immediately thefe fublime things, which God had revealed to him, and confiding too much upon his vain reasoning, he fuffered himfelf to be drawn infenfibly into low and vile fentiments, and afterwards found himself plunged into the groffeft ignorance, refpecting the worship of God. We fee this great man, who was fo proud of his wifdom and knowledge, which he certainly had in a high degree, proftrating himself at the foot of an image, which is the reprefentation of a corruptible being, to honour the Divinity: And if this was the cafe of this Prince of philofophers, what confidence can we place in those of the other fects who were infinitely his inferiors ?-Plato was even fenfible of his own weakness, in this refpect; for he afterwards obferves, that the will of the Divinity is known to very few perfons; because that mankind in general, full of a high and vain opinion of themselves, and defpifing others, fuppofe that all their imaginary ideas are fo many facts, and that they have been the difcoverers of great mysteries. And again he expreffes himself in the following manner; If I thought that the revelations of the Divinity, or the fovereign good, could be expreffed in fuch a manner, by words, that they might be written for the use of the people, what aɛt could I do, in my life, that would be more glorious, than to publish writings, which would be fo useful to mankind* ?

Could it be imagined that, after Plato had expreffed himself fo clearly upon this fubject, fhewn how glorious it would be to explain the divine will to mankind, but, from a diffidence which he had of his own abilities, was apprehensive it could not be done, Celfus, and his followers, should condemn the Apoftles, and primitive Chriftians, because they actually did what Plato, from his great modefty, thought could not be done? Our author expreffes himself in the following terms: Plato, it is true, speaks of those things, but however be does not fill his difcourfe with vain prodigies; neither does he stop the mouth of those who would farther inform themselves upon what he promises. He does not order us. to believe, before all things, and without any other examination, that fuch is the effence of God; that he has a Son who has fuch and fuch qualities; and that this Son himself came down from heaven to learn him.

This miferable author, who pretended to know every thing, and who has cited feveral paffages of Plato, has taken no notice of that part of his works, wherein he speaks of the Son of God, becaufe he imagined that it would make against his argument. You will have the witness of the God of the universe, the arbitrator of all things prefent and to come, with the Father, and the Lord of this first and fovereign caufe; whom we may know clearly, as much as men, who are happy, are capable of knowing them, if we apply ourselves properly to the Study of philofophy.