riamne quickly found out, that the whole family confifted of feven. Well, faid Mariamne, while her hand was defcending infenfibly into her pocket; five children, an improvident husband, and thine own neceffary wants, are too many evils by fix! Come, let us travel on. Yes, thought I, and that half-crown, which I faw glide into the woman's hand, will be very foon travelling too. We had now cleared the houfes, and were got into the unpaved road. Here I would have perfuaded my fair companion to put down her little burden. Poor thing! faid Mariamne, we need not have come fo far to kill thee.-Well, throw it then into that verdant field-Ah, but field-mice, I have heard, are very deftructive; mine is a domeftic animal. We had not proceeded much farther, when Mariamne, with a quick turn, darted into a brick-field. I believe this will do -you will here neither be hurt thyfelf, nor injure any one. Go poor thing! how her fine eyes Iparkled, while her taper fingers opened the prifon-door. Ah, hadst thou a purfe capacious as thy noble heart, few prifon doors would be locked up-Go, poor thing! if you fare not fumptuoufly, you will have a cheap and warm lodging. At this inftant, a poor, tattered, forlorn rational prefented herself; fhe had not broke her faft with a fingle morfel of bread: But, replied Mariamne, and I thought the but founded harsh; but, lowering her voice, good woman, why fo dirty? Water is cheap enough! -poor foul! there is a little brafs, more than fufficient to buy foap; (do not make others neglect thee, by neglecting thy felf; cleanliness may, perhaps, procure thee a betVOL. II. No. z.

ter garment, Mariamne, you might as well have caft your copper on the highway; chance might have led one to have picked it up, who would make a better ufe of it, than the prefent object of your compaffion. I hate the word chance, returned the fair philanthropist: Come, I feel I want a breakfast myfelf; let us, if you pleafe, return the fhortest way home.

THE

GUARDIAN OF CHRISTIANITY No. II.

The Converfion of the Corinthians a ftrong Proof of the Truth of Christianity.

W

ITHOUT fuppofing St. Paul to be mad, (a fuppofition too grofs for a man of sense to make) we cannot conceive how he could hope, without God's extraordinary affiftance, to convince all perfons in Corinth that they were in an error. He went a ftranger thither, unknown to any perfon there, unless he was before. acquainted with Aquila and Prif cilla. With these two banished Jews, who were of the fame occupation with himself, he worked for his livelihood. His bodily prefence was no recommendation of him; for he himself acknowledges, that he was with them in weaknefs of body, and in much fear and trembling." And he has informed us, that the Corinthians did in fact object to him, that his bodily prefence was weak, and his fpeech contemptible. What they faid of his perfon was true, if we may believe the ancients, who inform us, that his ftature was low,' his body crooked, and his head bald. And it is not improbably conjectured by Dr. Whitby, that a ftammering in his fpeech, or a fqueaking fhrilnefs in his voice, or fome other infirmity in his fpeech

M

66

in

in teaching, rendered him contemptible in the eyes of fome of the Corinthians. He was a base and contemptible perfon, they faid, and one who lived by his labour. Nay, fome affirm that he was mad, or befide himself. He himself has declared, that he was made a fpectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men;" that he was laught at for Chrift's fake, that he was weak, defpifed, that he both hungered and thirfted, was naked, buffeted, and had no certain dwelling-place; that he worked with his own hands, labouring unto weariness, that he was reviled, perfecuted, defamed, made as the filth of the world, and the offfcouring of all things. Was a man of St. Paul's character, a likely perfon to convert the richest and moft flourishing city in Greece, a city filled with orators, philofophers, and banished Jews; a city above all others infamous for lewdnefs? Every unprejudiced perfon, I fhould think, will grant, that nothing can be more improbable; especially if it be confidered what kind of doctrine he taught the Corinthians.

Without having the fullest affurance that God was with him, he could never hope to perfuade the proud and vain philofophers, who depended wholly upon human reafon, and would admit nothing for truth but what was demonftrable by it, to give their affent to the articles of our most holy faith. He was fure to meet with the utmost oppofition when he endeavoured to perfuade thefe wife men to admit for certain truths things above their reafon. They were fo fully perfuaded of the fufficiency of it, as to think they could account for every thing. A poor obfcure mechanic therefore, a perfon who was of a nation, which the rest of mankind defpifed and hated, could never hope to perfuade them in a natural way, by reafoning and dif

putation, to embrace, for certain truths, many points which were above the reach of human underftanding, feveral things which they had not fo much as thought or dreamt of. When this Jewish tent-maker informed them, that when all mankind was concluded under fin, and knew not how to be abfolved from the guilt of it, our Lord Jefus Chrift, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, came down from heaven, for us men, and for our falvation, was miraculously conceived, was incarnate by the Holy Ghoft of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, he delivered to them nothing but the truth. But thefe wife men knew nothing of Jefus Chrift, nor of the Holy Ghost; neither could they conceive how a man could be born of a pure virgin. St. Paul therefore could not have perfuaded them by any human means that all this was true; for thefe wife men of the world, thefe wife men according to the fleth (as the apoftle files them) admitted of no higher principle to judge of things by, but philo. fophy, and demonstration from the principles of natural reafon. And therefore he muft needs think it an impoffible thing, without God's fpecial affiftance, to perfuade them to believe him to be God who was born of a pure virgin; to adore him, whofe mother was a poor Jewish woman efpoufed to a carpenter; to pay divine honour to him who was a carpenter by trade; to believe him, who died, and was buried, to be "God bleffed for ever; by whom all were created that are in heaven and earth, vifible and invifible, whether they be thrones and dominions, or principalities or powers:" In a word, to acknowledge him for their Lord and Mafter who was crucified under Pontius Pilate between two thieves. Not only in St. Paul's days, but for a long time after,

the doctrine of Chrift's crucifixion was foolishness. They account us mad, fays Juftin Martyr, that after the immutable and eternal God, the Father of all things, we give the fecond place to a man that was crucified. Tis wicked and abominable, faith Celfus. In the days of Lactantius, Chriftians were reckoned a filly and contemptible people, for following a crucified mafter and leader. Arnobius acquaints us, that the Heathens faid, the gods were not angry with Chriftians becaufe they worffipped the omnipotent Deity, but because in their daily prayers they adored a man that was born, and fuffered the infamous death of the cross, and because they contended that he was God, and believed him to be yet alive. In another place he informs us, that they asked thefe questions; If Chrift was God, why did he die as a man? Who was it that was feen hanging upon the crofs? Who was it that died? The wife men of the world infult over us, faith St. Austin, and ask, where is your understanding, who worship him for a God who was crucified? And in the days of Athanafius, when the Gentiles were told by the Chriftians that their images were but filver and gold, the work of men's hands; in oppofition to this reproach they answered that the doctrine of the cross was foolishness. The Greeks laugh at this mystery as foolishness, lays Theophylact, because by faith alone, and not by fyllogifms and reafonings, it is found that God was crucified. fame author informs us, that there were fome unbelievers at Corinth who made a jeft of the cross, and faid, truly it is a folly to preach a crucified God. For had he been God, he would have defended himself at the time of his crucifixion. But how could he rife from the dead, who could not prevent his own death? They accounted the doctrine of the refurrection of the

The

dead as ridiculous and abfurd a tenet as was ever held, and made it matter of their fport and jett. To raite a body that was perfectly dead, and restore it to life again, was not in the power of any being in the world, they faid. But fuppofe it was poffible, yet they did not account it a thing worthy of God to raise dead bodies to be united to the fouls of good men. "Their chief objection against the refurrection of the flesh, and of the body, was this: That the body was the prifon and fepulchre of the foul, and that it was her punifhment to be tied to it; that the body was the great hindrance to the knowledge of the truth, and that we could not be truly happy, 'till by death we were delivered from it. It was therefore judged by them, not only an impoffible, but even an urjuft, unworthy thing, for God to raise thefe bodies, to be united to thofe fouls, whofe happiness confifted in being delivered from the body, and whofe punishment it was to be confined to it; that being, according to their philofophy, not to make then live but die again. And therefore Celfus faith, the hope of the refurrection of the flesh, is the hope of worms, a filthy and abominable, and impoffible thing, which God neither will, nor can do. He cannot do what is vile, neither will he do what is against nature. And Ori gen exprefsly declares, that the doctrine of the refurrection was a myftery which the unbelievers laught at and made a jeft of." So many, fuch great and formidable obftacles the apostle could not but expect to meet with from the philofophers.

And he was fure to meet with as great oppofition from the magiftrates, who would fuffer no innovation in the theology established by law. Had he contented himself with confuting the Jews only, he would have given no offence to the M 2 civil

civil power: But when he attempted to demonftrate the abfurdity of the religion of the Heathens, he must be very fenfible that they would be greatly alarmed. How furiously

muft they be enraged when he en deavoured to alter their religious rights, the ancient ufages, the agreeable and pleafing cuftoms of their country? What an abhorrence muft they have of him when he taught them, that the objects of their worship were not gods; that an idol was nothing in the world but a fenfelefs piece of matter; that though they had gods many, and lords many, yet there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jefus Chrift? Could any thing be more fhocking to the Corinthians than to hear a poor mechanic affirm, that what they worfhipped were no gods, and that they ought to admit Jefus Chrift for their Lord? When Plato was in Sicily he brought himself into the greatest danger by endeavouring to render virtue amiable. If a barbarian had not been more humane than the Sicilian tyrant, the philofopher would probably have fpent the remainder of his days in fervitude in a frange country, only for making fome innovations in political affairs. He did not fo inuch as attempt to deftroy the gods of Sicily, as St. Paul did thofe of Corinth Nay, the apoftle did not only affirm that what they worfhipped were no gods, but that his countryman Jefus, who had been crucified as a malefactor, was God bleffed for ever. And must not fuch a doctrine be highly provoking to the Corinthians?

Anaxagoras, who was the first of the Greeks that taught this theology; that not the fun, but the creator of it, was God; was accounted an Atheist by a people who had made the utmost improvement of their parts, and was in the utmost danger of being ftoned

to death. The fame Athenians expelled Protagoras of Abdera, their city, and caufed his works to be burnt, because he spoke (as they thought) difrefpectfully of the gods. They likewife banifhed Diagoras, and promifed a talent for a reward to him that should slay him; because he denied there was a God, or rather only fet at nought the idols and falfe gods of his time. The great Socrates, prince of the philofophers, being fufpected of holding bad opinions of the gods, was condemned to die by drinking a potion of hemlock. And if a bare fufpicion of innovation brought the philofophers into fo much danger; if perfons fo greatly renowned for their wifdom and understanding could not effect what they defigned; can we account, in a natural way, for the fuccefs of our apoftle, who was fo far from being held in admiration, as the philofophers whom I have mentioned were, that he was defpifed upon the account of his nation, his perfon, his mean occupation, and rudeness of fpeech ¿

Plato was greatly admired by his countrymen, and very justly. And yet he himself confeffed, that 'he durft not with his own fecurity difcover his opinion of God to the folly of the multttude. Was it not as dangerous for St. Paul to difcover to the Corinthians his notions, which were far more noble and exalted than thofe of Plato ?

But the philofophers and magiftrates were not the only powerful adverfaries whom St. Paul had to: encounter at Corinth. He might alfo expect to meet with a very frong oppofition from the priests, the augurs, diviners, ftatuaries, and with many others, whofe intereft it was, that the fuperftitious religion of their ancestors might be continued. All thefe would undoubtedly be as full of wrath, and raife as great an uproar againft St.

Paul,

Paul, as Demetrius the filverfmith, and the workmen of like occupation did, when they heard him perfuade the people, that they are no gods which are made with hands. In a word: a man of his good fenfe, great penetration, forefight, and experience, could not but expect to be accounted and treated as one who turned the world upfide down, a blasphemer of their gods, and confequently a fubverter of the whole frame of their religion.

As the apoftle was fure of the greateft repugnance when he taught the Corinthians what they were to believe; fo he must expect to meet with the utmoft oppofition when he endea. voured to perfuade them to fet about the reformation and amendment of their lives; when he commanded then to flee fornication; when he taught them, that every other fin that a man doth is without the pollution of the body; but he that committeth fornication finneth against and polluteth his own body; when he forbad them to eat with any brother, who is a fornicator, and declared that God would pronounce the fentence of condemnation upon whoremongers and adulterers, he could not but forefee, that the Corinthians would be averfe to his doctrine. "For Corinth was above all other cities, even to a proverb, infamous for fornication and lacivioufnefs; fo that a Corinthian woman is in the language of the ancients, a whorish woman and the words κορινθιάζουν and κορινθιάζεσθαι fignify to play the whore. It was no crime with them for a man to have his father's wife, and live adulterously with her in his father's lifetime. How then was it poffible for the apostle, without the help of God, to convince fo debauched and lafcivious a people, that fornication and uncleannefs ought not to be named among them, being crimes of a most deftructive nature? or how could he hope for fuccefs when he informed them, that neither filthipeís, nor foolish talking, nor jefling,

which are not convenient, were to be named among them? or when he acquainted them, that at the day of judgment men were to give an account of every idle word which they had spoken or when he declared, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a caufe, thall be in danger of the judgment? or when he told them, that whofoever looketh on a woman to luft after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart? Lastly, how could he in a natural way prevail upon a people, who were proud and ambitious, debauched and intemperate, revengeful and envious, contentious and litigious, to embrace a religion which taught humility, fobriety, temperance, the forgiving of injuries, love, charity, moderation, meekness, and univerfal benevolence?

Having thewn what obftacles St. Paul must neceffarily meet with at Corinth from the Gentiles; let us now enquire what oppofition he might expect from the unbelieving Jews, who inhabited this city when he undertook that glorious work of converting them from darkness to light, of giving knowledge of falvation to them for the remiffion of their fins.

When St. Paul went to Corintho the city was full of Jews, whom ther emperor Claudius had expelled from Rome. They were as bitter enemies as the Gentiles to the Chriftian religion, and the preachers of it. And they hated St. Paul much more than, the rest of the apostles, because all of a fudden from being a violent persecutor of the difciples of the crucified Jefus, and making havock of his church, he gave a convincing proof of the invincible power of our Saviour by becoming one of the most zealous propagators of his religion. A people fo much prejudiced against him, muft be, nay were in fact greatly incenfed when they heard him perfuade men to worship God in a manner different from what their law required. What a hatred muft they have of him who abolished circumcifion? How.

could