one of which is a plain counter part to the other. One, the feal or type; the other, the impreffion or antitype, anfwering to it in a thousand particulars. But this internal proof will not be apprehended in its full force, by those who are not fatisfied of the divine original of both. But when the divinity of them is once acknowledged, there appears in almoft every chapter of the New Testament, fome hint, reference, or doctrine, which either explains, or fulfils, or farther continues, or confirms the fame scheme of Providence, which we learn from our own fcriptures, in a confiftent, intelligible, and very extraordinary manner.

SECTION XXIV.

Teftimony of Deiftical Writers to the Distinguishing Excellence of Christianity.

MEN of genius and learning,

who have unfortunately embraced the pernicious fyftem of infidelity, have, in general, acknowledged the fuperiour morality which christianity inculcates. Among others, the celebrated Rouffeau, whofe originality of genius, and ftriking manner of expreffion, have been so justly admired, has paffed the highest eulogy on the excellence of the gofpel, and the character of its divine founder, in the following remarks, which are extracted from his writings.

ON THE GOSPEL.

This divine book, the only one neceffary to a chriftian, and the most useful of all to those who are not, only requires being meditated, to inspire the foul with love to its author, and a defire to accomplish his precepts. Never did virtue fpeak in more perfuafive language! Never did the most perfect wisdom explain itself with so much energy and fimplicity! It is impoffible to read without feeling ourfelves the better for the perufal. The majefty of the language furprises me; the holiness of the gofpel speaks to my heart. Obferve the books of the philofophers, with all their pomp, how infignificant do they appear, in comparison with this? Is it poffible that a book, which is at once fo wife and fublime, fhould be the work of

man? Is it poffible that he whofe hiftory it contains, fhould himself be a mere man? Is the flyle that of an enthufiaft, or an ambitious fectary? What sweetness, what purity of morals! What affecting graces in his inftructions! What elevation in his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses! What prefence of mind, what ingenuity and juftice in his replies! What command of his paffions! Where is the man, where is the philofopher, who could act, suffer, and die without weakness, and without oftentation? When Plato drew the character of his imaginary juft man, overwhelmed with all the ignominy of vice, and entitled to all the rewards of virtue, he painted every trait of our faviour Jefus Chrift. The refemblance was fo ftriking that all the fathers felt it, it was impoffible to be deceived by it.

How prejudiced, how blind muft he be, who could dare to compare the fon of Sophronius with the fon of Mary. What a difference between them. Socrates, dying without forrow, without reproach, easily sustained his character to the end, and if his easy death had not reflected credit on his life, it is dubious whether Socrates, with all his intelligence, was better than a fophift. He devised, they say, a scheme of morality; others, before him, had put it in practice. He only faid what they had performed. He only compofed precepts from their example. Ariftides was just before Socrates described juftice. Leonides died for his country, before Socrates made patriotifm a virtue. The Spartans were fober before Socrates praised fobriety; and before he applauded virtue, Greece abounded with virtuous men. But from whence among his people did Jefus draw the morality fo

pure and elevated, of which he alone gave the precept and example? In the centre of the moft furious fanaticifm, meaning Judea, did he make the voice of the most exalted wisdom heard, and the fimplicity of the most heroic virtues honoured the loweft of all the people. The death of Socrates, quietly moralizing among his friends, is the eafieft that could be defired; that of Jefus, expiring in torments, injured, infulted, and curfed by a whole people, the moft terrible that could be dreaded. Socrates, taking the poisoned cup, bleffes those who prefented it to him weeping. Jefus, in the anguish of his torments, prays for his exafperated tormentors. If the life and death of Socrates fpeak a philofopher, the life and death of Jefus mark a God. It has been argued, that the hiftory of the gofpel was a defigning invention. It is not thus that people invent; and the actions of Socrates, which were never difputed, were lefs powerfully attested than thofe of Jefus Chrift. Upon the whole, it is raifing difficulties without deftroying the fact. It is much more incredible, that many men fhould have agreed together to form the book, than that one alone fupplied the subject. -Never have we met, in any Jewish writers, fuch a style, fuch a moral; and in the gofpel, the characters of truth are so great and striking, that the inventor would be more wonderful than even the hero.

The principles of chriftianity form an univerfal religion, which has nothing exclufive, nothing local, nothing that is more adapted to one people than another. The divine author, embracing equally all men in his boundless charity, came to remove the barrier between nation and nation, and to reunite the human race in one community of

brethren. gofpel.

Acts, x. 5. 35. Such is the true spirit of the

I know not why the fine morality of our books fhould be ascribed to the progress of philofophy; the morality drawn from the gospel was chriftian before it was philofophical. The precepts of Plato were frequently very fublime, but how erroneous are they fometimes, and how far do not thofe errours extend. As to Cicero, it is poffible to believe that without Plato he would have devised his offices. The gofpel alone, with refpect to the moral, is always fure, always true, and always like itself.

Beauties of Rouffeau.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED.

FREDERICK III. king of Pruffia, freely owns the purity and excellence of the morality of Chrift, and the amiable tenour of his whole doctrine; but he infifts that his religion has undergone the fate of all fublunary things, and has been corrupted. Hence he makes the following remarks on the "Syftem of Nature," a celebrated deiftical performance.

But let us proceed to the article, which relates to religion. We may accuse the author of poverty of underftanding, and especially of ill address, because he calumniates the chriftian religion, by imputing to it faults which it has not. How can he fay with truth, that this religion is the caufe of all the miferies of the human race.

To

exprefs himself wich juftice, he might have faid fimply, that the ambition and intereft of, man had seized on the

Нн