from the beginning, if he look up to him he will

not be received.”

He compares a chriftian doctor to a quack, who promifes to heal the fick, on condition that they keep from intelligent practitioners, left his ignorance be detected.

"You will hear them, though differing fo widely from one another, and abufing one another fo foully, making that boaft, "the world is cru cified to me, and I to the world*."

"The fame things are better said by the Greeks, and without the imperious denunciation of God, or the Son of God."

"If one fort introduce one doctrine, another another, and all join in faying, "Believe, if you would be faved, or depart;" what are they to do, who defire really to be faved? Are they to determine by the throw of a dye? Where are they to turn themfelves, or whom to believe?"

"Do you not fee, that any man, that will, may carry you away and crucify you and your dæmon, as you fay, the Son of God gives you no help?”

But enough of Celfus. He would not deserve a moment's attention, were it not for the light which he throws on the hiftory of the chriftians of his own times, that is, of the second century.

It appears evident that there was then a fingular fort of perfons, fubject to all manner of ill treatment from the rest of the world, and who might be hunted down at pleasure by violence or by calumny. Celfus infuits them on account of their defencelefs condition. Had they refifted evil with evil, his malignity would have taught him to reproach their turbulence and feditioufnefs. Undoubtedly then they were a meek, quiet, peaceable, inoffenfive people. It appears alfo that they worshipped

Nn 2

* Gal. vi.

fhipped a perfon named Jefus, who had been cru cified at Jerufalem, and worshipped him as GoD, and Celfus derides their folly on that account; in his view of things, that the fame person should be both God and man was the greateft inconfiftency. Their doctrine concerning Chrift appears to him foolish beyond meafure, fit only for the understanding of fools, and beneath the regard of wife men. Even from his loofe and sarcastic views of it one may conclude, that they laid great stress on faith; that the exercise of it was connected with salvation, but that this exercise in its whole nature was contrary to all that is esteemed wife and great in the world. It was alfo a great ftumbling block to Celfus, that men the most wicked and abandoned might be faved by faith in Jefus, and that men's confidence in moral virtues was a bar to their falvation. Nor does it appear that the number of converts among the wife or great was large; the lower ranks of men were best difpofed to receive it, and the bulk of chriftian profeffors confifted of thefe.

From thefe premifes, with a careful study of the facred volume, any man, poffeffed of a humble fpirit, may fee what the religion was which Celfus fo vehemently reprobates. It could not be the doctrine of common morality. He owns indeed they taught this, though he fays that the philofophers taught it better. One may appeal to any perfon almoft at this day, whether chriftian morals are not immenfely fuperior to any thing that is to be learnt from Plato, Tully, or Seneca. It has been the fashion to extol the moral part of fcripture, I fear with an infidious eye to the doctrinal. What that was in Celfus's days, he himself, in a measure, tells us. "Chrift crucified, the living and true GoD, the only Saviour

of

of finful men-the neceffity of renouncing our own wisdom and righteoufnefs, falvation through believing alone, dependance on our fuppofed goodness, ruinous and fatal." It is certain that moral doctrine, had that been the main part of the chriftian fcheme, would not fo much have provoked the enmity of Celfus.

The peculiar doctrines of the gofpel, man's fallen ftate, juftification by Jefus Chrift alone, divine illumination and influence, thefe which excite the ill-will of man by nature now as much as then; these were plainly the doctrines which occafioned fuch mifreprefentation and abuse as that we have feen.

If the reader were to dip into fome controverfial pamphlets published against the revival of godlinefs in our own times, he would fee a ftrong conformity of taste and fentiment between Celfus and many who call themselves chriftian paftors. Circumftances vary; the dreffes of religious profeffion will alter in the world's courfe of things. The undifcerning will be thençe liable to form a wrong eftimate. But there is no new thing under the fun.

That which, in our times, has been derided as enthusiafin, was thus treated in the fecond century; and he who pleafes may fee in England the fame fort of perfons, living by the faith of the SON of GOD, derided by perfons of the fame ftamp as Celfus. And I add to the remarks made on him by others, as giving a good teftimony to the miracles and facts of the gofpel, that he testifies alfo the work of the Spirit of God, in his day, and fhews us what fort of doctrine was preached and profeffed by chriftians at that time.

Lucian of Samofata was a contemporary of Celfus. He has already been mentioned as throwing confiderable light on the hiftory of chriftians

in the ftory of Peregrinus. The delufion into which this hypocritical chriftian was fuffered to fall, after his apoftacy, deferves to be noticed as a warning to thofe who ufe the name of Jesus for a cloke to finifter pursuits.

He publickly burnt himself in the fight of all Greece, foon after the Olympic games were over*. He did it to gain himself a name, and he had his reward. Heathen authors fpeak honourably of him. The luftre of his philofophic life and oftentatious fuicide expiated, in the eyes of men of this world, the guilt and infamy of his juvenile profeffion of the gofpel. A ftatue was erected to him at Parium in Myfia, which was fuppofed to be oracular.

The depth of iniquity, in a chriftian view, may feem the perfection of virtue in a philofophical. The Lord feeth not as man feeth.

Lucian tells us alfo of one Alexander, a falfe Prophet, who deluded mankind by oracular falfehoods. Some Epicureans detected and expofed his fallacies, which made him declare that Pontus was full of Atheifts and Chriflians, who had the affurance to raife flanderous ftories against him. And he excited the people to drive them away with ftones. He appointed myfterious rites, like those of Athens, and on the first day of the folemnity proclamation was made as at Athens. "If any Epicurean, Chriftian, or Atheist, be come hither as a spy upon thefe myfteries, let him depart with all speed. And a happy initiation to thofe who believe in God." Then they thruft the people away, he going before and faying, "Away with the chriftians:" then the multitude cried out again," Away with the Epicureans."

* Lardner's Collect, chap. xix,

We

We fee here again that there is nothing new under the fun. A fervent or artful fupporter of old pagan fuperftitions finds himself oppofed by two forts of people, the most oppofite to one another poffible, Epicurean fceptics, men of no religious principle, and chriftian believers. It is fo at this day. A Chriftian and a Sceptic would unite to discountenance Papal fuperftitions, but with how different a fpirit! the one with compaffion and gravity, the other with careleffness and levity. And with how different a defign! the former to establish the true worship of God, the latter to fupport univerfal profaneness.

The author Lucian himself was an Epicurean, as full of wit as of profanenefs. His dialogues abound in farcaftic infinuations against the fashionable idolatry. He did not know that he was cooperating with chriftians in fubverting the abominations which had fubfifted for fo many ages. His writings were doubtlefs of ufe in this refpect. And who knows how ferviceable, under God, the prefent fashionable spirit of depreciating and lowering Popery may be to the general eftablifhment of chriftianity, though nothing be farther from the thoughts of thofe political fceptics who are engaged in it!

There is a dialogue, called Philopatris, afcribed to Lucian, but probably written by fome other person somewhat later. Doubtless it is of high antiquity. It ridicules the doctrine of the Trinity.

One three, three one. The most high God, Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father." Such are the expreffions in the dialogue. He speaks alfo of "a beggarly, forrowful company of people;" he infinuates their difaffection to government, that they wifhed for bad news and delighted in public calamities. Some of them fafted ten whole days without eating, and they spent