、one. They would, therefore, tend to impress the mind of Socrates, and those of his numerous disciples and admirers, with an idea of the existence of a power superior to man, though not in a manner so decisive and convincing as the express revelations that were made to the Hebrew prophets. But why it should please God to distinguish any one man, or any particular nation, with his peculiar gifts, and in what degree he should do this, is not for us to say. If we see good to result from it, we ought not to cavil or complain, but be satisfied, and thankful.

That in any manner whatever, and in what degree soever, it shall appear that the maker of the world gives attention to it, it is a proof of the reality of a providence in general, and of the divine interference out of the usual course of the laws of nature. It is therefore a decisive proof of a great and important truth. And if he be not such a god as Epicurus and other philosophers supposed, one who, (whether he had created the world or not) sat a perfectly unconcerned spectator of all that passed in it, but really interested himself in the affairs of men by occasional interpositions, it cannot be doubted but that, from the same principle, he does it at all times,

F 2.

times, though in a manner less apparent; and that his final treatment of men will be according to his proper character, whatever that be, if he be a righteous and good being, he will, no doubt, most approve of virtue and goodness in men, and show it by rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked.

The reason why he does not do this completely at present, though we are not without some intimations of his disposition to do so, it is not difficult to account for. There must be time and opportunity to form characters. The existence of vice, as well as of virtue, in the world is necessary for this pu rpose; and it is not till a character be properly formed that a suitable treatment can be adjusted to it. If our maker think us at all, it must be for our good.

Thus do such supernatural suggestions as Socrates asserts that he had afford some obscure and indistinct evidence of a moral government of the world, and consequently of a future state of righteous retribution. Why such intimations were not more frequent, more distinct, or more general, is beyond our comprehension. If we be asked why the wise and benevolent author of nature permitted the rise and long continuance of the most absurd

and

and abominable systems of polytheism and idolatry to prevail so long in the world, or why he should suffer so much vice and misery to exist in it at present; why mankind should be afflicted with war, pestilence, and famine, and be subject to such distressful accidents as lightning, hurricanes, and earthquakes, we can only say with Abraham of old, (Gen. xviii. 25.) that the maker and judge of the earth will do what is right; and therefore that all these evils, repugnant as they seem to our ideas of benevolence, may hereafter appear to have been the best methods of promoting general and lasting happiness.

If the present state be considered as nothing more than the infancy of our being, we may naturally expect to be no more able to account for our treatment in it, than a child is able to account for that of its parent, who, though ever so affectionate, must, if he be wise, continually do what the child, cannot see any reason for, and what he must think to be very often exceedingly harsh and unreasonable. And as appearances in nature, and in the structure of the world, furnish an unquestionable proof of a wise and benevolent author, the present imperfect state of virtue and happiness does, as such, afford some evidence that this is the infant

state of our being; and is therefore an argument, and a promise, as we may say, of future good. And slight as it may be, and less satisfactory than we could wish, it should be highly grateful and acceptable to us.

SECTION VII.

Of the Character, and Teaching, of Socrates compared with those of Jesus

When we consider what was most obvious in the general disposition and behaviour of Socrates and of Jesus, we see no apparent difference with respect to the command of their natural appetites and passions, or their temper in general. Both were equally temperate, though as Jesus was not married, and was never charged with incontinence, he shewed a command of his natural passions in this respect for which there was no occasion in the case of Socrates. Both of these men seem to have been equally free from austerity and moroseness in their general behaviour, being equally affable, and no enemies to innocent festivity on proper occasions.

They

They were both capable of strong personal attachments, as Socrates to several of his friends and pupils, and Jesus to the family of Lazarus, to his apostles in general, and to John in particular. And his discourses and prayer before his death shows his affection for them in the strongest manner. Also his attention to his mother, while hung upon the cross, deserves particular notice in this respect.

Both of them were the friends of virtue, and laboured to promote it; but Jesus expressed stronger indignation against vice, especially the vices of the great, and of the leading men of his country, against whose pride, hypocrisy, and injustice, he pronounced the most vehement and provoking in*vectives; whereas Socrates adopted the gentler method of irony and ridicule.

There was, I doubt not, great propriety, as well as ingenuity, in the ironical manner that Socrates is said to have very often used, in exposing the vices of particular persons; and by this means he is said, and with great probability, to have made himself many bitter enemies. But there was certainly more of dignity in the direct and serious invectives of Jesus, such as his saying, (Mat, xxiii. 13. &c.) Woe unto you Scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, &c.