Few nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Col. iii. 11.) There is neither Greek nor Few, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all and in all. This is language suited to the equal nature, and equal rights of all men; but it was never held by the Grecian philosophers, nor did their conduct at all correspond to it. With them barbarians, and especially slaves, were of little account, any farther than they were qualified to serve them.

Accordingly, we find that the schools of the Grecian philosophers were attended by none but persons of considerable rank and wealth. The lower order of the citizens took no interest in any thing that they taught, so that their morals could not be at all improved by them. But by the preaching of the apostles a great and visible reformation was made among all ranks of men, and especially the lower, and of those some of the most depraved. Thus the apostle Paul, after observing what was quoted from him before, concerning those who should not inherit the kingdom of God, as idolaters, adulterers, thieves, &c. adds, but such were some of you, But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by G 4.

the

the spirit of our God. Many passages in the epistles of the apostles shew the wretched state with respect to morals in which the gospel found men, and how much they were improved by it.

In none of the dialogues of Socrates do we find any woman to be present, except Theodota, the courtezan above mentioned; and though the domestic manners of the Grecian women of virtue, and of condition, were such as that they could not with decency attend public discourses, the middle and lower classes of women in Greece, as in all other countries, went abroad as openly as men ; and therefore might have been in the way of instruction, had the common people in general been addressed by the philosophers.

But christian teachers never made any account of difference of sex. When Jesus fed the five thousand, and also the four thousand, there were women and children among them, as well as men. The same was the case with the christian churches in Corinth, and other cities of Greece. Even at Athens, where Paul did not make many converts, there was one woman of the name of Damaris, (Acts xvii. 34.) What her condition was is not said. But as she is mentioned by name, it is pmhahle

probable that, like Lydia, she was of some considerable rank, at least her own mistress, not subject to the controul of another.

SECTION IX.

Inferences to be drawn from the Comparison of Socrates and Jesus.

1. In comparing the characters, the moral instructions, and the whole of the history, of Socrates and Jesus, it is, I think, impossible not to be sensibly struck with the great advantage of revealed religion, such as that of the Jews and the christians, as enlightening and enlarging the minds of men, and imparting a superior excellence of character. This alone can account for the difference between Socrates and Jesus, and the disciples of each of them; but this one circumstance is abundantly sufficient for the purpose.

The manner in which the mind of Jesus must have been impressed by the persuasion that he had of his peculiar relation to God on the one part, and to all mankind on the other, could not fail to make him superior to Socrates, or any other man, in elevation of mind, what ever might be their superioriG 5.

ty

ty with respect to intellect, general knowledge, or natural advantages of any other kind.

The far greater extent of the views of Jesus, as bearing an important relation to all mankind, and the most distant generations of them; being their prophet and king, and also his own peculiar relation to God, the common parent of them all, being, as it were, his vicegerent upon earth, necessarily gave him an elevation of character that neither Socrates nor any other man could have.

Interested as he was for all that should ever bear the christian name (which in due time he did not doubt would be the case with all men) with what fervour did he pray, (John xvii. 21.) that they might be one with him and his Father, as they two were one, and that they might share in the glory that was destined for himself from the foundation of the world- What dignity, as well as piety, do we see here? What other man could have used such language as this?

The habitual piety of Jesus was such as could not have been expected in Socrates, or the most virtuous of the heathens. He appears to have spoken, and acted, as at all times not only in the immediate presence, but as by the immediate direction of God. The words that he spake, he said, (John xiv. 10.)

xiv. 10.) were not his own, but those of the Father who sent him; and who, being always with him, and always hearing him, performed the miraculous works by which his divine mission was evidenced. So assiduous was he in the discharge of his high commission, that, as he said, (John iv. 34.) it was his meat and drink to do the will of his heavenly fa ther, and finish the work that he gave him to do.

Raised as he was to a preeminence above all other men, he seems to have been even more than any other man sensible of his dependence upon God, and he had recourse to him on all occasions. We even read (Luke vi. 12.) of his spending a whole night in prayer to God; and it was in obedience to his will that, notwithstanding the dread that he naturally felt for the painful death to which he was destined, and the horror that he expressed on the near view of it, he voluntarily and patiently submitted to it. He prayed, and with peculiar earnestness, that the bitter cup might pass from him, but immediately added, (Matt. xxvi. 39.) Not my will but thine be done. Nothing like this could be expected from Socrates, or any heathen. Their knowledge of God, his providence, and his will, were too obscure and uncertain for the purpose, though they had been ever so well disposed.

As