Mhc9 P933
A 41
So21

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

The
EDWIN J. BEINECKE, '07
FREDERICK W. BEINECKE, '09 S
WALTER BEINECKE, 'io
FUND

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

SOCRATES and JESUS

COMPARED.

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, L. L. D. F. R. S.

Amicus Plato, Amicus Socrates, sed magis arnica
Veritas (.Christiana.)

LONDON,
PRINTED FOR J.JOHNSON ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD.
1803.

The DEDICATION.

To JOSHUA TOULMIN, D.D.

Dear Sir,
MY having had for many years the happiness
of your acquaintance and friendship, and particular
ly my having lately turned my thoughts to- the sub
ject of one of your valuable dissertations, have led
me to take the liberty to address to you the follow
ing Essay, chiefly as a testimonial, and one of the
last that I shall be able to give, of my esteem for
your general principles and character.
Having here much leisure, and having been led
to look back to some writings of the antients with
which I was formerly much better acquainted than
I am now, and among others the Memorabilia of
Xenophon, and Plato's account of Socrates, it oc
curred to me to draw out an exhibition of his prin
ciples and conduct from the words of those two ori
ginal writers ; and this suggested the idea of dravv-
a comparison between him and Jesus. Knowing
that you had published an excellent dissertation on
the same subject, I forbore to look into it till mine

DEDICATION.
was transcribed for the press. By this means I
was not biassed, as I naturally should have been,
in favour of your opinion ; and I have seldom more
than a very indistinct recollection of any work that
I have not very recently read. On this second per
usal of your Dissertation I was as much pleased
with it as I remember I was at the first, though I
found that in some particulars I differ from you. I
hope that neither of us, inattentive as most persons
now are to subjects of this kind, will have wholly
written in vain.
I take this opportunity of publicly thanking you
for your manj. excellent publications in defence
of rationalchnstijmjiy. Having given so many
specimens of your ability and zeal in the cause,
it is to you, and your excellent coadjutors, Mr.
Belsham, Mr. Kentish, and a few others, that the
friends to the same cause will naturally look,
whenever particular occasions, occurring on your
side of the water, will appear to call for a cham
pion. My labours in this or any other field
of exertion are nearly over ; but it gives me much
satisfaction to reflect on what I have done in defence
of what appeared to me important christian truth.
As we have laboured, I hope we shall hereafter re
joice, together. But we must hold out to the end,
without being weary of well doing, indulging no
remission of labour while we are capable of any.
Even a dying hand has sometimes done execution.
f According to the apostle Paul, the whole life of
; every christian is a warfare. Our enemies are
j %\ce and error, and with them we must make

DEDICATION.
neither peace nor truce. Their advocates will not
make either peace or truce with us.
I know I shall not offend you by acknowledg-
ing, as I now do, that I had a particular view to you
in my late tract in favour of infant baptism.
Whatever you may think of the performance itself,
you will not, I am confident, think uncandidly of
the intention with which it was written. While
we really think for ourselves, it is impossible, in
this state at least, but that we must often see
things in different lights, and consequently form dif
ferent opinions concerning them. But with the
ingenuous minds which become christians this will
only be an occasion, of exercising that candour
which is one ofthe most prominent christian vir-
tues, in which I am persuaded you will never be de-
fective. With a very high degree of esteem,
I am, Dear Sir,
yours sincerely. J. PRIESTLEY.
Northumberland Jan. 1803.

SOCRATES and JESUS
COMPARED.

The INTRODUCTION.
X HE history of Socrates is so singular a pheno
menon in the heathen world, and his general behavi
our, and the manner of life to, which he devoted himr
self, have in them so much that resemble those of
the ancient prophets, and even of our Saviour, that
they have always drawn the particular attention of
the friends of divine revelation, though .these have
formed very different opinions on the subject.
If we look into any account of the Grecian phi»
losophers who preceded Socrates, or who followed
him (and some of the most eminent of the latter
were his professed disciples) we shall find none of
them to resemble him, even in the general, features
of his conduct, though his education as a philoso
pher was in all respects the same with theirs ; and
they all fell far short of him with respect to purityv
of moral character.
If we may -depend upon what is transmitted to us
concerning him by Xenophon and Plato, who were
his cotemporaries and disciples, both men of great.e-
minence, (and there were no writers in the heathen

SOCRATES AKB

world whose characters stand higher than theirs) he
was a very extraordinary man with respect both to
wisdom and virtue. And as Socrates had enemies
as well as friends, and his accusers must have had
their friends too, had the accounts of Xenophon or
Plato not been in the main agreeable to truth, it
would have been in our power, (as the age abounded
with writers) to perceive some trace of their-objec-
tions. But nothing of this kind appears.
From both these accounts we must conclude that
JSocrates was a man who, from early life, not onljr
'abstained from vice himself, and practised every
thing that he thought to be a virtue, but one who
devoted himself to the promoting of virtue in
others ; continually throwing himself in the way of
every person whom he thought he could benefit by
his exhortations or instructions ; that by this
means a considerable number of young men, espe
cially those of the best families, of much considera
tion and wealth, in the city of Athens, were strong
ly attached to him ; and yet, that though he was
poor, and many of them were rich, he never accept
ed of any reward for his instructions.
In his conduct as a citizen he was most uncor-
rupt and fearless, risking his popularity, and even
his life, rather than consent to any thing that appear
ed to him to be unjust. When he was falsely ac
cused he behaved with the greatest magnanimity at
his trial, and when sentence of death was passed up
on him he yielded to it with the greatest calmness.
He refused to solicit for any abatement of the sen
tence as a favour, and declined all the offers of his

JESUS COMPARED. *>
friends to assist him in an escape from prison.
When the fatal cup was brought to him, he drank
it with the greatest readiness and composure, and
died with much apparent satisfaction.
The sentiments and principles of such a man as
this, who lived in the most polished city of Greece,
at a period the most distinguished for every thing
that can contribute to fame, in arts, science, or po
licy, and yet the most addicted to idolatry of any
pity in Greece, certainly deserves to be investiga
ted, and his conduct to be scrutinized ; and this I
shall endeavour to do in the best manner that the
materials we are furnished with will enable me.

Section I.
Of the Polytheism and Idolatry of Socrates.
That Socrates was an idolater, or a worshipper
of a multiplicity of Gods, and such as were acknow
ledged by his countrymen, and that he conformed in
all respects to the popular modes of worship, cannot
be denied. " He sacrificed, says Xenophon, p. 2,
'' both on the public altars ofthe city, and often at
" his own house ; and he also practiced divination
" in the most public manner." On his trial.he said,
p. 377, " he had never sacrificed to, or acknowledg-
" ed, or sworn by, or even made mention of, any
" gods but Jupiter, Juno, and others that were re-
" ceived by his fellow citizens. Do not I believe,"
says he, p. 3, " that the sun, and the moon, are gods
" as well as others ?" " Do we not suppose de-

4 SOCRATES AND
" mons" (and one of these he acknowledged to have
given particular attention to him) " to be either
" gods, or the sons of gods," p. 21. And in his last
moments, after he had drank the poison, recollect
ing a vow that he had made to sacrifice a cock to
iEsculapius, he desired Crito, a pupil and particular
v friend of his, to discharge it for him, and begged
that he would not neglect to do it, p. 186. Though
on one occasion he speaks of one God that construct
ed and preserves the world, p. 318, he does not say
that he was the only God.
All heathens and idolaters, civilized or uncivili
zed, were addicted to divination ; imagining that by
this means they could pry into futurity, and find out
what their gods signified by certain signs, as the
flight of birds, the form of the livers of the animals
they sacrificed, and many other things, which are
generally considered as accidents. Socrates was so
far from seeing the folly of these observances, that
he was to an immoderate degree assiduous in his at
tention to them. Being of opinion, p. 8, that " the
" gods signified their will by divination to those
" whom they were disposed to favour." Whene
ver he was in doubt about any thing of importance,
he sent some of his friends to consult the oracle p. 5,
and he advised his friends, if they had occasion for
the knowledge of any thing that they could not at
tain to themselves, to apply to the gods in the modes
of divination, p. 352 ; Saying, that " they who
" would regulate either their own affairs, or those
" ofthe state, stood in need of these practices." p. 5.

JESUR COMPARED. 5
Besides having recourse to the usual modes of
divination, Socrates believed that, upon every occa
sion of importance, the will of the gods was signi
fied to himself in particular ; but in what manner
he does not clearly say. He sometimes calls it a
voice (<pan) p. 28. At his trial he said he had often
been heard to say that a divine voice was frequently
present with him.
Notwithstanding all this evidence of the polythe
istic sentiments, and corresponding practice, of So
crates, Rollin and others suppose him to have been
a believer in the divine unity, and to have been sen
sible ofthe absurdity and folly of all the popular su
perstitions, and ofthe popular worship of his coun
try. But I am far from seeing any suflicient evidence
of this. If he had had the weakness,which however is
never ascribed to him, to conceal this before his
judges, he might have avowed it before his death,
bearing a dying and most honourable testimony to
important truth ; whereas, on both these occasions,
his language and conduct were the very reverse of
what, on the supposition of this superior knowledge,
they ought to have been. Indeed I much question
whether any person educated as Socrates was, a-
mong polytheists and idolaters, could possibly, by
the mere light of nature, have attained to a firm be«
lief of the divine unity, though he might in some de
gree have been sensible ofthe folly and absurdity of
the prevailing superstitions.

SOCRATES AND

Section II.

The Sentiments of Socrates concerning the
Gods, and their Providence.
A polytheist and idolater as Socrates was, he had
just and honourable sentiments concerning the di
vine power and providence, and of the obedience
that men owe to the gods. And though his ideas on
these subjects are far short of what we find in the
Psalms of David, and the writings of the Hebrew
prophets, they are much more rational and sublime
than the opinions of the heathens in general, or
those ofthe philosophers that followed him.
We have seen that Socrates ascribed to a god
the formation and government ofthe world, whereas,
according to Hesiod (whose theogony was, no doubt,
that which was generally received by the Greeks)
the world had been from eternity, and the origin of
the gods was subsequent to it. Socrates points out
in particular the wisdom and goodness of provi
dence in the disposition of the different senses and
the several parts of the human body, as that of the
eyes, the eye-lashes, and eye-lids ; and in the struc
ture of the teeth, which in the different animals are
shaped and situated in the most convenient manner,
the best adapted to their respective uses, p. 62.
He had, no doubt, the same opinion of the wisdom
and goodness displayed in the structure and dispo
sition of every thing else in nature.

JESUS COMPARED. 7
He, moreover, believed that the gods know every
thing that is not only said or done, but that is even
thought and intended, though ever so privately ;
being present in all places ; so that, whenever they
think proper, they can give intimations to man of
every thing relating to them, p 14. " The deity"
(to St;o») he says, p 65, " sees and hears all things,
" is every where present, and takes care of
*' all' things." And he makes this obvious and
practical use ofthe doctrine, viz. that " if men be-
*' lieved it, they would abstain from all base acti-
" ons even in private, persuaded that nothing that
** they did was unknown to the gods." p. 70.
The gods, he also thought, know every thing that
is future, though they conceal the knowledge of
those things from men in general; so that, " though
" a man built a house, he could not be certain that
" he should inhabit it, nor could a general be sure
" whether it would be proper for him to march his
*' army, &c." p 6. Agreeably to this, it was his
custom, in his prayer to the gods, to request that
they would grant him what was good, without spe
cifying what he wished for ; since they best knew
what was so. p 45. Like the heathens in general,.
he considered lightning as coming more immediate-
ly-from the gods, as one mode of giving intimations
to men. p. 312.
According to Socrates, it is the gods that have
madethe distinctionnGetween men andthe, inferior
animals, having given them rational souls, so that
theyonl^no^ them. " There is no such principle and excellent

3 40CRATES AND
"quality," he said " in the brutes; and in: conse*
" quenceof this superiority, men are like gods with
" respect to other animals," p. 66.
Speaking of the goodness of the gods to manj he
says, p. 306, " they supply us not pnly with ne-
" cessaries, but with things that are adapted to give
" us pleasure." He mentions particularly as their
gifts, water and fire, the grateful and useful change
of the seasons, and our various senses, adapted to
peculiar species of good. " This," he says, p. 310*
" shews their concern for us."
Socrates considered all unwritten laws, obligatory
on man in society, the origin of which cannot be trai
ced, as having the gods for their authors. Among
these he mentions the universal maxim, that the
gods ought to be worshipped, p. 327, that grati
tude is due to benefactors, that parents ought not
to have sexual commerce with their children, and
all other universally acknowledged principles of mo
rality. In answer to the objection from our not seeing
the gods, he mentions several things in nature, the
existence and powers of which cannot be denied*
and which are invisible or inscrutable by us, as
lightning, the wind, and the intellectual powers of
man ; " Thus," says he, p. 313, " when we see
" the powers ofthe gods, we must reverence them,
" though we do not see them."
Nothing can exceed the respect that Socrates en
tertained for the authority and will of the' gods,
whenever, and in whatever manner, it was made
known. "If," says he, p. 51, " the gods signify

JESUS COMPARED. 9
" their will, we must no more depart from it, and
" take other counsel, than we should prefer the con-
" duct of a blind man, who did not know the road,
" to that of one who saw it and knew it ; always
" prefering the direction of the gods, to that of
" men."Agreeably to this, when he was addressing his
judges, he said, p. 40, that " if they would acquit
" him on condition that he would discontinue his in-
• ' structions to young persons, which he believed
" the gods had enjoined him, or" suffer death, he
" would answer that he must obey god rather than
" man ; and that if they should banish him to any
*' other country, he should think it his duty, to do
*' there what he had done at Athens." p. 40.
" Whatever be the situation in which a man is plac-
" ed, there, he said, he should remain at any risk,
*' even of life, (p. 23) dreading baseness more
" than any thing else. So the gods having, as, I
"believe, placed me where I haye been, and ordered
" me to rfemain philosophizing, and scrutinizing
*' myself and others, I must not desert that station]
" for fear of death, or any thing else." ^ 1
When Aristodemus, with whom he was discours
ing on this subject, said that he did not deny that
that there were gods, but he thought they were
too great to stand in need of his worship, Socrates
replied, p. 64, that the greater they were, the more
they were to be honoured.
As to the manner in which the gods were to be
honoured, he, like other heathens, thought it was to
be determined by the laws of every particular coun-

10 SdCRATES AND
try. But he justly thought that the satisfaction the
gods received from these marks of ;respect did not
depend upon the costliness of the sacrifice. " The
" offering of a poor man,"' he said, p. 49, "is as
•' acceptable to the gods, as the more expensiveones*
" ofthe rich."

Section III.
Of the excellent moral Character of Socrates:
These, it cannot be denied, are excellent senti
ments, and much to be admired, considering the lit--
tie light that Socrates had, viz. that of nature only,
uninstructed by any revelation. And with him
these sentiments were not merely speculative. His
whole life seems to have been strictly conformable
to them, being eminently virtuous, and wholly de
voted to the service of his fellow citizens.
Xenophon, who knew him well (though, having
been his pupil, we may suppose him to have been
prejudiced in his favour)' gives the following general
account of his character and conduct, p. 359. " He
" was sp religious that he did nothing without the
" advice of the gods. He was so just, that he ne-
" ver injured any person in the smallest matter, but
" rendered every service in his power to those with
" whom he had any connection. He was so tempe-
" rate that he never preferred what was grateful to
" what was useful. He was so prudent, that he ne-
" ver mistook the worse for the better ; nor did he

JESUS COMPARED. 11
** want the advice of others, but always judged for
*' himself. In his conversation, he excelled in de-
"" fining what was right, and in shewing it to
" others, reproving the vicious, and exhorting to
*' the practice of virtue."
Though the circumstances of Socrates were the
reverse of affluent, he would never receive any gra
tuity for the lessons that hegave,as all other philoso
phers and public teachers did; and by this .means,
as he said, p. 74. he preserved his freedom and inde
pendence. When upon his trial he was urged by his
friends to supplicate the judges, as was the universal
custom, in order to move their compassion.he refu
sed to ask any favour even^of them ; being of opini.
on that this was contrary to the laws, according to
which, and not according to favour, judges ought
to decide, p,,317.
In all the changes in the political state of the tur
bulent city of Athens, which were many in the time
of Socrates, he adhered inflexibly to what he
thought to be just, without being influenced by hope
or fear. This was particularly conspicuous on two
occasions. The first was when, being one of the
judges in the case of the ten generals who were tried
for their lives on account of their not collecting and*
burying the dead after a naval engagement, and all
the rest (influenced, no doubt, by the popular cla
mour against them) condemned them to die, he alone
refused to concur in the sentence. Soon after the
citizens in general, convinced of the injustice ofthe
sentence, though after it had been carried into exe
cution, approved of his conduct, The other waa

12 SOCRATES AND
during the government of the thirty tyrants, when,
though in manifest danger of his life, he refused to
approve of their measures ; and he escaped by no
thing but their overthrow, and the city recovering
its liberty.
That Socrates at the close of life expressed hiss
satisfaction in his own conduct cannot be thought
extraordinary. It was, he observed, p. 366, in con
currence with the general opinion of his country
men, and with a declaration of the oracle at Delphi
in his favour. For when it was consulted by Chse-
rephon, one of his disciples, the answer was, that
there was no person more honourable (^A^te^x)
more just, or more wise * than he. p. 371.
He put, however, a very modest construction on
ithis oracle ; which was that, though he knew no
jmore than other men, he did not, like them, pretend-
(to know more. p. 9, 12, so that he only knew him
self, and his own ignorance, better than Other men.
His reputation in consequence of it, and bf his
Conduct in general, had no other than the happiest
influence upon him. For, addressing his judges
(p. 34,) he observed, that " it being a generally
" received opinion, that he was wiser than other
*' men," he said that " whether that opinion was
" well founded or not, he thought he ought not to
«' demean himself by any unworthy action."
Notwithstanding Socrates's consciousness of in
tegrity, and general merit, and the good opinion of
* In Xenophon the response of the oracle is expressed by
w<pp<»ssTef<&, but Plato always uses the word mf uhe@^. Cicero ia
f eferring to it uses the word sapkntissimuu

JESUS COMPARED. 13
the wise and virtuous, he was so sensible ofthe ma
lice of his enemies, that when he was brought before
his judges he had no expectation of being acquitted,
and therefore he expressed his surprize when he
found that he was condemned by a majority of no
more than three. votes p. 36, out of 500.*
It being 'customary at Athens, when any person
was found guilty ofthe charge brought against him,
to require him to say what, in his OAvn opinion, his -
punishment should be ; and this question being
proposed to Socrates, conscious as he was of no de
merit, but on the contrary of his valuable services
to his. country ; he said that, since he had made no
gain by his profession of public instructor, had
never held, any lucrative office in the state, and he
was poor, he was, like other persons in a similar sit
uation, and with similar claims, entitled to a main
tenance at the public expense in the Prytaneum,
\p, 37. If they destroyed him, he farther said, they
{would not soon find another like him, p. 27. This
lhasthe appearance of vanity and osten tation. But
if the praising a man's self be at all justifiable, it is
on such an occasion as this, when he is unjustly
censured and condemned by others.
* This, exclusive of the president, Rollin supposes to have bee*
the number ofthe judges.

lar

14 SOCRATES AND
Section IV*
The Imperfection vf Socrates'* s Ideas concerning
Piety, and Virtue in general.
Just and sublime as were the sentiments that
Socrates professed concerning the power and provi
dence of the gods, and of the obligation that men
are under to reverence and worship them, his ideas
Of the manner in which this was to be done were
by no means such as might have been expected in
consequence of them. According to him, all the
duties that properly rank under the head of piety
are the observance of the religious rites of the coun-
ies in which men live. " The gods, he says,
*' p. 338, are not to.be honoured by every man as he
*( pleases, but as the laws direct." This was agree
able to the answer received from Delphi, when in
quiry was made concerning the manner in which
men should please the gods ; for the answer return
ed was, " by complying with the institutions of our
11 country," p. 313. After mentioning this, Soc
rates added, that " all states had decreed that the
" gods are to be placated by sacrifices, according to
" the faculties of each of them." p. 314.:
Now, what the rites ofthe heathen religions were,
those of Athens by no means excepted, is well
known. Little did they accord with any just sen
timents of what we now deem to be piety, i. e. a
reverence for the perfections and providence of God,
gratitude for his favours, submission to his will, in
a strict obedience to the moral precept's he has en.

JESUS COMPARED. IS
joined, and confidence in his protection and favour in
consequence of it. With these sentiments sacrifi
ces, and the other rites of the heathen religions, had
no connection whatever. Rather, they were the
occasion, and provocatives, of licentiousness, and
lewdness, as must have been well known to Socrates
himself. The moral maxims of Socrates, independent of
those relating to religion, are admirable, especially
/his saying, p 83, that " there is no better way to
" true glory than to endeavor to be good rather than
" seem to be so." But his general rule concern
ing the nature ot justice, in which he probably in
cluded virtue in general, was that, " whatever is
" lawful" or agreeable to the laws, " is just,"
p 321, 326 ; whereas, nothing can be more variable
than the laws of particular states, or more discordant
with one another.
With respect to the subjects of religion and mor
als in general, Socrates always, professed a greater
regard to the laws than reason or good sense will
justify, though he might be induced to say more on
this subject in consequence of his being accused
of being no friend to the popular religion, and of
corrupting youth by attaching them to himself, to
the neglect of their parents and others. And it is
very possible that, in some of his instructions he
had inculcated duties of a purer and higher kind than
the institutions of his country would encourage on
authorize. Such, however, might be expected
from the sentiments, he generally expressed.

16 SOCRATES AND
Considering the wretched philosophy of the So
phists, whose ostentation, and absurdities, Socrates
exposed, we shall not wonder at the advice he gave
his hearers with respect to the principal object of
their pretended science. He recommended to them
the study of Geography, Astronomy, and the scien
ces in general, only so far as they were of particular
use in life, p. 350 ; but he particularly dissuaded
them from the study of the structure of the uni
verse, because, he said, " it was not designed to be
" discovered by man, nor could it be agreeable to
" the gods to have that inquired into which they
" did not make known to man." For nothing
could be more presumptuous than the manner in
which those Sophists, and the philosophers of those
times in general, decided concerning this great
subject ; and with them it led to nothing of any real
value with respect to men's conduct, but puffed
them up with conceit, without any foundation of
real knowledge. On this account he is said by
Seneca to have reduced all philosophy to morals.
Totam philosophiam revocavit ad mores, Epist*
71. But could Socrates have seen the progress that a
truer philosophy than any that existed in his time
has now made, and how directly it leads to the most
profound admiration of the works and providence
of God, unfolding the wisdom, power, and good
ness of the great creator ; and had he seen the con
nection which this reverence for God, and conse
quently for his laws, has (on the system of revela
tion) with moral virtue, he would have been the

JESUS COMPARED. 17
i
first to lay stress upon it, and to inculcate it upon
his pupils.
As the laws of his country j which with Socrates
were too much the standard of right, with respect
both to religion and morals, were very imperfect on
many subjects, we do not wonder that he did not ex
press a sufficient indignation (such as those do who
are acquainted with the purer and more severe pre
cepts of revealed religion relating to them) at some
particular vices, especially sodomy, which the laws
of God by Moses justly punished with death.
When Critias, then his pupil, was in love with
Euthydemus, and avowedly, as it should seem, for
the vilest purpose, he dissuaded him from pursuing
his object ; but only as a thing that was illiberal, un
becoming a man of honour and delicacy* " It was"
he said " begging of the object of his passion like
" a pauper, and for a thing that would do him no
" good," p. 29. The gratification of this passion
he said, resembled a hog rubbing himself against a
stone, p. 30. This, no doubt, shews a contempt
for this vice, but no sufficient abhorrence of it,
as such a degradation of human nature ought to
excite. When another of his pupils gave a
kiss to a son of Alcibiades, who was very beautiful,
he only asked whether it did not require great bold
ness to do it , meaning that, after this, it would not
be easy to refrain from endeavouring to take greater,
liberties with him. There is too much of pleas
antry, and too little of seriousness, in this method
of considering the subject.

18 SOCRATES AND
A similar remark may be made on the interview
that Socrates had with a celebrated courtesan of
the name of Theodota, whom he had the curiosity
to visit on account of what he had heard of her ex
traordinary beauty and elegant form, so that statu
aries applied to her to take models from her ; and
to whom the historian says she exhibited her per
son as much as decency would permit. In this sit
uation Socrates and his pupils found her ; but in the
conversation that he had with her he discovered no
just sense of the impropriety of her life and profes
sion. She spake to him of her galants as her friends,
who contributed to her support without labour, and
hoped that by his recommendation she should pro
cure more ; adding, " How shall I persuade you to
" this." He replies, " This you must find out
" yourself, and consider in what way it may be in
"my power to be of use to you." And when she ,
desired him to come often to see her, he only jes
tingly said, that he was not sufficiently at leisure
from other engagements, p, 251. Ready as Socra
tes was to give good advice to young men, he said
nothing to her to recommend a more virtuous and
reputable course of life than that which he knew
he led.
It was not in this manner that Jesus and his
apostles would have conversed with such a person.
He did not decline all intercourse with women of
her character, but it was not at their houses ; and
what he said was intended to instruct and reclaim
them. He considered them as the sick, and him
self as the physician.

V

JESUS COMPARED. 19
Women ofthe profession of this Teodota, if they
had been well educated, were resorted to in the
most open manner by men of the first character at
Athens, as Aspasia by Socrates himself, and by
Pericles, who afterwards married her. Nor was ¦;
fornication ingeneral, with women of that profession, '
at all disreputable, either in Greece, or at Rome. - •
v How much more pure are- the morals of christian.
ity in this respect, So great, however, was the
prevalence of this vice, and so little had it been con
sidered as one, in the heathen world, that the apostle
Paul, writing to the christian churches in Greece,
and especially at Corinth, the richest and most
voluptuous city in that part of the world, is urgent
to dissuade his converts from it. See particularly
1 Cor. vi. 9 Sec. where among those who would
be excluded from the kingdom of heaven, he men
tions fornicators in the first place. Know ye not,
that the unrighteous shall not inherit the king
dom of God. Be not deceived ; neither fornica
tors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves, with mankind, nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of
God,

20 SOCRATES AND
Section V.
Of Socrates' s Belief in a future State.
Though Socrates had more just ideas concerning
the nature and character of deity, and also of the
nature and obligations of virtue, than the generality
of his countrymen, and even of the philosophers,
he does not appear to have had any more knowledge
than others concerning the great sanction of virtue,
in the doctrine of a future state. In none of his
conversations recorded by Xenophon on the subject
of virtue with young men and others, is there the
least mention of it, or allusion to it ; which was cer
tainly unavoidable if he had been really acquainted
with it, and believed it.
Speaking of the happiness of his virtuous pu
pils, he mentions the pleasure they would have in
this life, and the respect that would be paid to them;
and says that, " when they died they would not be
" without honour, consigned to oblivion, but would
'* be for ever celebrated, p. 111." Having said
this, could he have forborne to add their happier
condition after death, if he had had any belief of it i*
All his dissuasives from vice are grounded on
some natural and necessary inconvenience to which
men expose themselves by it in this life, but none
of them have any respect to another. Thus he re
presents intemperate persons as slaves to their ap
petites, p, 322 ; and treating of what he considered
g§ being the laws of nature, and therefore as those of

JESUS COMPARED. 21
the gods, as the prohibition of marriage between
parents and their children, p. 828, he only says that
** the offspring of such a mixture is bad, one ofthe
" parties being too old to produce healthy chil-
" dren ;" and this reason does not apply to the case
of brothers and sisters. Another law of nature, he
says, is to do good in return for good received ; but
the penalty of not doing it he makes to be nothing
more than being deserted by a man's friends when
he will have the most want of them, and to be forc
ed to apply to those who have no friendship for him.
p. 329.
It is particularly remarkable that nothing that
Xenophon says as coming from Socrates, not only
in his conversations with his pupils, but even at
his trial, and the scenes before his death, implies a
belief of a future state. All that we have of this
kind is from Plato ; and though he was present at
the trial, and therefore what he says is, no doubt,
intitled to a considerable degree of credit, it wants
the attestation of another witness ; and the want of
that of Xenophon is something more than nega
tive ; especially as it is well known that Plato did
not scruple to put into the mouth of Socrates lan
guage and sentiments that never fell from him ; as
it is said Socrates himself observed, when he was
shewn the dialogue intitled Lysis, in which he is the
principal speaker, as he is in many others.
In Plato's celebrated dialogue intitled Phado, in
which he makes Socrates advance arguments in
proof of a future state, we want the evidence of some
person who was present ; for Plato himself was at

22 SOCRATES AND
that time confined by sickness, (P. p. 74) so that it is
very possible, as nothing is said of it by Xenophon,
that he might not have held any discourse on the
subject at all.
Besides, all that Socrates is represented by Plato
to have said on this subject is far from amounting
to any thing like certain knowledge, and real belief,
-with respect to it, such as appears in the discourses
of Jesus, and the writings of the apostles. Socrates,
according to Plato, generally speaks of a future
state, and the condition of men in it, as the popular
belief, which might be true or false. " If" says he
(p. 46) " what is said be true, we shall in another
" state die no more. In death " he says to his judg-
" es" (p. 44) " we either lose all sense of things,
" or, as it is said, go into some other place ; and
" if so, it will be much better ; as we shall be out
" of the power of partial judges, and come before
" those that are impartial. Minos, Rhadamanthus,
" iEacus, Triptolemus, and others, who were de-
" migods." Taking his leave of them, he says,
" I must now depart to die, while you continue in
" life ; but which of these is the better, the gods
" only can tell; for in my opinion no man can know
" this." This certainly implies no faith on which to-
ground real practice, from which a man could, with
the apostle, live as seeing things invisible, being
governed by a regard to them more than to things
present, the one as certain as the other, and infinite
ly superior in value, the things that are seen be-

JESUS COMPARED. 23
ing temporary t while those that are unseen are
eternal. 2. Cor. iv, 10.
Notwithstanding this uncertainty of Socrates with
respect to a future state, he died with great compo
sure and dignity; considering his death at that time
as, on the whole, better for him than to live any lon
ger in the circumstances in which, at his time of
life (being seventy years old) he must have lived ;
especially as a coward, discovering an unmanly
dread of death, in exile and disgrace ; dying also
without torture, surrounded by his friends, and ad
mirers, who would ensure his fame to the latest
posterity. That such arguments in proof of a future state as
Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates should really
have been advanced, and have had any stress laid
upon them, by him,in so serious a time as just before
his death, is exceedingly improbable, from the ex
treme futility of them. They are more like the
mere play of imagination, than the deductions
of reason.
His first argument is, that as every thing else in
nature has its contrary, death must have it also,
and if so, it must be followed by life, as day follows
night, and a state of vigilance always follows sleep.
p. 56. But might it not be said that, for the same
reason, every thing that is bitter must some time
or other become sweet, and every thing that is
sweet become bitter ? •"
His second argument is, that all our present ac
quired knowledge is only the recollection of what

24 SOCRATES AND
we knew before in a former state, p. 100. But whst
evidence is there of this ?
His third argument is, that only compound sub
stances are liable to corruption, by a separation of
the parts of which they consist ; but the mind is a
simple substance, and therefore cannot be affected
by the dissolution of the body in death, p. 111.
This is certainly the most plausible argument ofthe
three, but it is of too subtle a nature to give much
satisfaction. If the mind have several powers and
affections, and be furnished with a multiplicity of
ideas, there is the same evidence of its being a com
pound as there is with respect to the body ; and if
the power of thinking, or mental action, bear any
resemblance to corporeal motion, it may cease, and
be suspended, though the substance remain.
Are these sufficient arguments for a man at the
point of death to build his faith and hope upon I
As this appears to have been all that the most saga
cious ofthe heathens could attain to by the light of
nature, what reason have we to be thankful for the
superior light of revelation, and especially for the
gospel, which brings life and immortality to
light. 2. Tim. i. 10.
Socrates does not, in this celebrated dialogue,
make any mention ofthe argument from the univer
sal belief of a future state, as handed down by tra
dition in all nations ; which, though far short of a
proper proof of the doctrine, is more plausible
than any of the three arguments above mentioned.
For it might be presumed that the ancestors of the
human race, from whom the tradition descended to

JESUS COMPARED.' 25
their posterity, had some proper evidence of what
they delivered, though that had not preserved, the
doctrine itself only being retained. This, indeed,
seems to have been the case with respect to the
Jews. Though they were in the time of our Savi
our firm believers in the doctrine of a resurrection,
the record of the revelation (for it could not have
come from any other source) had been long lost.
How far short is every thing that Socrates is re- 5
presented as saying of the perfect assurance with
which Jesus always spoke of his resurrection to an j
immortal life, and ofthe glory thatwas prepared for \
him in the councils of God from the foundation of !
the world ; when, as the writer of the epistle to the
Hebrews says (c. xii. 20) for the joy that was set
before him, he endured the cross, despising the
shame, and is set down at the right hand of the
throne of God. How short it falls ofthe confidence
which the apostle Paul, in the near view of death,
expresses with respect to his future prospects, 2.
Tim. iv. 7. I have fought the good fight, I have
finished my course, I have kept the faith. Hence-
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous
ness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will
give me at that day ; and not to me only, but to
all them that love his appearing. With what sa
tisfaction and joy have thousands of christian mar
tyrs relinquished this life in the assurance of a better.
Besides, after all that Socrates advances in proof of
a future state, he seems to make it the peculiar pri
vilege of those who apply to philosophy, who have
in some degree abstracted the purer mind from the

26 SOCRATES AND
gross body by intense meditation, p. 83. " This,"
he says, (p. 94) " was intended by the authors ofthe
" mysteries when they said that none besides the
" initiated would live with the gods after death ;
" for that by the initiated were meant those who
" philosophized ina right manner (0(>.V*) and that
" whether he had succeeded or not, it had been his
" endeavour through life to do so."
According to this the great mass of mankind
have no more interest in a future state than brute
animals. But the gospel makes no difference
in favour of philosophers, or any other class of
men. According to this, all that are in the
graves shall hear the voice of the son of man,
(John v. 28) and shall come forth ; they that have
done good to the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil to the resurrection of condem
nation. Then too (Rev. xx. 15) the sea shall
give up the dead that is in it, and every man shall
be judged according to his works.

JESUS COMPARED; 27
Section VI.
Of the Damon of Socrates.
>Much has been advanced on the subject of the
¦djemon, as it is commonly called, of Socrates, or
that qjvinevoice, as he termed it, whichsgavejhim
warnings about what he was about to do, jf it was
improper for him, and which was evidently some
thing different from divination, to which he often
had recourse, or from any casual omen that might
occur to him. This he said had accompanied him
from his youth ; but though it forbad him to do
certain things that he was deliberating about, it had
never prompted him to any particular action.- ib.
This divine voice did not respect his own conduct
only, but sometimes that of others ; and he declar
ed that whenever he had, from this warning, signi
fied the will of the gods to any of his friends, he
had never been deceived by it. p. 370.
Speaking of his general manner of life, and plan
of conduct, in devoting his time and talents to the
instruction of others, he said, p. 32, it had been en
joined him " by the gods, by oracles, by the god"
(probably meaning that particular deity from whom
he had the hints above mentioned) " by dreams, and
" every other mode in which, by divination, they
" order things to be done," This was said by
him in his address to his judges; and he added
that, though the deity had checked him in the
smallest things that he was about to do, if they

28 SOCRATES AND
were improper (p 44) yet that when he was think
ing of his defence the deity had thus forbidden him
to make any, and this not only once, but twice,
p. 365, nor, while he was then speaking did he per
ceive any check with respect to any part of his
conduct, p, 44. He therefore concluded that,
since this divine voice had not interfered on this oc
casion, it was best for him to await the sentence of
his judges, though they should condemn him to
death. " The situation I am now in," he said,
. " did not come to me by chance ; for nothing
" can happen amiss (to a good man With respect to
" life or death ; since the gods never neglect him.
" It is, therefore, better for me to die now, and to
" be exempt from all farther labours." p. 47.
These intimations, in whatever manner they were
j communicated, are now, I believe, generally
| thought to have been a mere illusion, when nothing
really supernatural took place.. Had these sugges
tions occurred only once or twice in the course of
his life, the hypothesis of their being an illusion, or
mere imagination, might have been admitted. But
they had attended him, he said, from his youth,
and had given him hints not only respecting his
own conduct (which by his account had been very
frequent) but sometimes that of his friends ; and be
cause he had received no check from this quarter
with respect to his conduct at his trial, he concluded
with certainty that it was right, and would have the
best issue.
Besides the ^momtions of this kind which were
eomnrunJ£^$e4^^ he had others.

JB'SUS COMPARED. 29
he says, given him in dreams, .One of these he
mentioned just before his death ; which was that he
should apply tolnusicT On this he had put vari-
ous constructions ; and lest he should not have hit
upon the true meaning of it, he composed while he
was in prison, a hymn in praise of Apollo, and turn
ed some of the fables of iEsop into verse, which
were always recited in a musical recitative, p. 77.
This might have been nothing more than a com
mon ' dream, on which he put an uncommon con
struction, in consequence of imagining that there
was something supernatural in it. But this could
not have been the case with respect to the hints that
he received when he was awake, whether by -the
medium of a real voice, or in any bther way.
In no other respect does Socrates appear to have
been an enthusiast. On the contrary, he was a man
of a calm and even temper, not distinguished by any
peculiarity of behaviour, or extravagance of any
•kind. And though he seems to have addressed
himself to every person to whom he imagined that
his advice would be useful, he was never charged
with being impertinent, so as to give offence to any.
On the contrary, his address was insinuating and
pleasing ; so that his hearers in general were de
lighted with his conversation,. and this through the
course of a long life.
Since, then, he persisted in his account of these
admonitions to the last, and in the most serious sit
uation that a man could be in, and his veracity was
never questioned, though I am far from forming any
fixed opinion on a subject cf so great obscurity, I
think H may admit of a doubt, whether they may not

30 SOCRATES AND
be supposed to have come, in whatever manner they
were given, from God» I do not see any thing un
worthy of the Divine Being in his distinguishing
this extraordinary man in this way. Being no judge
of the propriety of the divine conduct, we must be
determined in every case of this kind by the evidence
ef facts, according to the established rules of esti
mating the value of testimony in general.
These admonitions are said to have been proper
to the occasions on which they were delivered ; so
i that leading to good, if they came from any superi
or b^ing, it must have been a wise and benevolent
one. They would, therefore, tend to impress the
mind of Socrates, and those of his numerous disci
ples and admirers, with an idea of the existence of a
power superior to man, though not in a manner so
djcisiye_and_^rayhrcjngcaa-the express revelations
that jvere made tothe 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 ca
vil 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 ofthe 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 .E_p_icurus
and other philosophers supposed, one who, (whether
he had created the world or not) sat a perfectly un-

JESUS COMPARED. Si
concerned spectator of all thatpassed in it, but re-
ally interested himself in the affairs of men by oc
casional interpositions., it cannot be doubted but that,
from the same principle, he does it at all times,
though in a manner less apparent ; and that his final
treatment of men will be according to his proper char
acter, whateyerthat be, If he be a righteous and good
being, he will, no doubt, most approve of virtue
and goodness in men, and show it byTrewaraTngthe
righteous and punishing the wjcke^.
TTieTreason why he does not do this completely
at present, though we are not without some intima
tions 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 pur
pose ; and it is not till a character be properly form-
****—- 1 « —¦  ii ¦ i. . jiii wi ¦mM" w < jui i mill**"'"' """*—' nini —nrrnwiw jsbmb* •« n'n *mmaita* rfr«ii i mi i fti ¦ ¦• ¦ i irffl 1 1 »  1 11 in n in^
edth'at asuraibTe treatment can be adjusted to it-
If our maker think^ojhjsjjU^yL^^ our
Thus do such supernatural suggestions as Soc
rates asserts that he had afford some obscure and
indistinct evidence of a moral government of the
world, and consequently 'of a future state of righte.
ous retribution. </ Why such intimations were not
more frequent, more distinct, or more general, is
beyond our comprehension. If Ave be asked why
the wise and benevolent author of nature permitted
the rise and long continuance of the most absurd
and abominable systems of polytheism and idola
try to prevail so long in the world, or why he
should suffer so much vice and misery to exist in

32

SOCRATES AND

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" tfiey seemjfoT our ideas of
benevolence, mav hereafter appear to have been the
bej£ja£tilojIsjoJL^^ hap
piness. 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 affection
ate, 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
sorneeyidence  ijh^.th^sjigjhj^
being; and is therefore an_ar^uiDien.t, and apromiseT
asjfejnajjajB. of fature^gojod. And slight as it
may be, and less satisfactory than we could wish,
it should be highly grateful and acceptable to us.

JESUS COMPARED. 21

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 pas-,'
sions, or their temper in general. Both were equal-i
ly 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 be
haviour, being equally affable, and no enemies to
innocent festivity on proper occasions.
They were both capable of strong personal at
tachments, 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 he hung upon the
cross, deserves particular notice in this respect.
Both of them were the friends of virtue, and la
boured to promote it ; but Jesus expressed stronger
tion against vice, especially the vices of the

34 SOCRATES AND
great, and of the leading men of hiscountr& against
whcsTpndl^ ,he pronoun

ced the"°mostvMmaJ^d*FoVo^ J
whereas Socratesaa^edthe gentler metnoa ot
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, Matt, xxiii. 13 Sec.
Woe unto you Scribes and pharisees, hypocrites &c.
And let it not be forgotten that this was pronojn-
eed by the son of a earpenter, of only about thirty
years of agey and publicly in the temple* where he
was always attended by great multitudes of person^
©f all ranks, and that no reply was ever made to him
on these occasions. He by thiscpj^u^mjde^hini-
self as manyenemks as ^ocrates, bjatjLJEas_.in a
manner that showed more courage.
B™oth Jesus and Socrates took advantage of pre
sent incidents, as hints for their instructive discour
ses ; but those of Socrates have the appearance of
having been contrived before hand, while those to
which Jesus alluded were such as naturally present
ed themselves at the time»
What was peculiar to Socrates was his proposing
to his_hearers a series of questions. by_ means of
which he made the conclusions he wishejLtfiLhave
skawn seem to be their own ; so that all objections

JESUS COMPARED. .35
Igereprecluded. A great peculiarity in the discour
ses of Jesus, though his manner was very various,
and often authoritatively didactic, which that of
Socrates never was, consisted in his numerous par
ables, the meaning of which, when he intended it to
be so, was sufficiently obvious, and peculiarly stri
king ; as in those of the rich man and Lazarus, of
the man who was robbed, and nearly murdered, om
his way to Jericho, and the peculiarly fine one of
the prodigal son, and therefore more easily retained
in memory, as well as adapted to make a stronger im
pression on^eTuind, than a moral lesson not so in
troduced and accompanied.
At other times there was an intended obscurity
in the parables and sayings of Jesus. He did not al
ways wish to be understood at the time, but to
have what he said to be remembered, and reflected
upon afterwards- Such sayings were calculated to
engage more attention from their being expressed
in a concise, figurative and enigmatical manner ; as
when he said, (John ii.19-) Destroy this templejind
in three days I will raise it up. Such a saying
as this would not be forgotten. His enemies, we
find, remembered It, and his friends would under
stand his meaning in due time ; as they would his
saying, (John xii. 31.) If I be lifted up from the
earth I will draw all men unto me ; in which he
alluded both to his crucifixion, his resurrection,
and the universal spread of his gospeL
It is very remarkable that there are not in the
most elaborate compositions of the antients or mo
derns any parables so excellent for pertinency to the

36 SOCRATES AND
occasions on which they were delivered, for propri
ety and consistency in their parts, and for important
meaning, as those of Jesus. Numerous as they
are, they all appear to have been unpremeditated,
as they arose from circumstances in which the spea
ker had no choice. There is nothing trifling or ab
surd in any of them ; and few others, though the re
sult of much study, are free from some objection
of this kind. It will not be supposed that the parables
of Jesus received any improvement from the writers
of his life, and yet the more they are studied the
more admirable they are found to be.*
Both the discourses and the general manner of
life of Socrates and Jesus have an obvious resem
blance, as they both went about gratuitously doing
good, according to their several abilities, situations,
and opportunities ; but we see an infinite superior
ity with respect to Jesus, though he had no such
advantage of education and instruction as Socrates
^had. Socrates had all the advantage that education, in
the most polished city of Greece, and the most
improved period of it, could give. him ; having been
enabled by the generosity of a wealthy citizen to at
tend the lectures of all the celebrated masters of his
time, in every branch of science then known : and
* On this subject of parables, and every thing relating to the
internal evidences of Christianity, I would particularly recommend a
most comprehensive and excellent work of Mr. J. Simpson's, en
titled, Internal and presumptive evidences of Christianity considered
\ separately^ andas united to form one argumentt 1801,

JESUS COMPARED. 37
with respect to natural capacity, he was probably
equal to Jesus, or any other man,
On the contrary, the circumstances of the pa
rents of Jesus, and his low occupation till he appear
ed in public, exclude the supposion of his having
had any advantage of liberal education. This, in
deed, was objected to him by his adversaries. John
vii. 15. The jews marvelled, saying, How know
eth this man letters, having never learned, that
is, how did he acquire so much knowledge, without
being regularly instructed by the professed teach
ers of the law ?
Notwithstanding this great disadvantage; we
find that, without any previous preparation that was
visible, Jesus, from his very first appearance, assu- \
med more authority, as a teacher and reprover of j
vice, than any other man before or since ; addressing j
himself to great multitudes, or single persons, the
most eminent for their rank or knowledge, without
the least embarrassment, and with an air of superi
ority to all men ; and yet without the appearance of
any thing impertinent, ostentatious, or insulting.
Had Socrates introduced any of his instructions
with Verily, verily, I say unto you, or any lan
guage of a similar import, he would have exposed
himself to the ridicule of his audience, even in the
latest period of his life, when he had acquired the
greatest respect and authority.  Butthis language
was usual with Jesus .from the very first ; as in his
discourse on the mount, when, instead of being in
sulted, he by this very means excited the greater ve
neration and attachment. For we read,Matt. vii. 28,

38 SOCRATES AND
It came to pass when Jesus had ended these say
ings, the people were astonished at his doctrine,
for he taught them as one having authority, and
not as the scribes.
How must any other man than Jesus have expo
sed himself to ridicule, if, when speaking of the
Ninevites repenting at the preaching of Jonah, and
ofthe queen of Sheba coming from her own distant
country to hear the wisdom of Solomon, he had ad
ded, as Jesus did, but a greater than Jonah, and one
greater than Solomon is here, Matt. xii. 41. Sec.
But for any thing that appears he was heard with
the greatest awe and respect. Infinitely more arro
gant must it have appeared in any other man to say,
as he did, after his resurrection, Matt, xxviii. 18.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations. No man
but one who had actually risen from the dead, and
who had hefore this performed such miracles as
convinced his hearers that he had a commission
JrornJ3c-d, could have used such language as this,
and have been heard with acquiescence and re
spect. To say nothing on the subject of miracles, to
which Socrates did not pretend (but the truth of
which in the case of Jesus can alone account for
the air of superior dignity and authority that he
constantly assumed, as a messenger fromGod, and
having his authority deligated to him) his discour
ses relate to subjects of infinitely more importance
than those of Socrates, the great object of them be
ing tojnculcate a purer and more sublimeuiipjcality

JESUS COMPARED. 39
respecting- God and man than any heathen could
%Yfi .a, jn &t idea,, ,pf» andKjj£gin§Jai&Ji£a]£i»JjiMaU
their behajdQurjn thblifeJoJiai^a,prinCipal respect
to another, which wa&.tftrf-nmmctir.p when hp jiirp-
afJl aftg^-a-painfiil'rl'p.ath, to which he knew that he
was destined, and his removal from the world,
should return, invested with power to raise the
dead, and to judge the world, whenjie would give
These are pretensions that no other man besides
Jesus ever made ; but with these ideas of his pre
sent power from God, and his future great destina
tion, his conduct, and his language, as a public
teacher corresponded ; and his hearers, believing
this, heard him with suitable reverence and respect.
What other man, to mention but one instance
more, would not have exposed himself to ridicule
by making such pretensions, and using such lan
guage, as the following, John xi. 25. lam the re
surrection and the life. He that believeth in me,
though he were dead,yet shall he live.vi. 40. This
is the will of him that sent me, that every one
who seeth the son, and believeth on him, shall
have everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at
the last day I Matt. xxv. 31. When the son of
man (by which phrase he always meant himself)
shall come in his glory, and all his holy angels
with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his
glory ; and before him will be gathered all nati
ons, and he will separate them one from another,
as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats,

40 SOCRATESf AND
The most astonishing proof of extraordinary
authority assumed and exercised, by Jesus was his
driving the buyers and sellers out ofthe outer court
ofthe temple at the time of a public festival, when
that use had, of course, been made of it time imme-
rriorial, and with the permission of the rulers of the
nation. This he did with only a ( whip of small
cords to drive out the oxen and other cattle ; when
as we read, Mark xi. 15. he overthrew the tables
of the money changers, and the seats of them that
sold doves ; saying ; It is written, My house
shall be called the house of prayer for all nati
ons, but ye have made it a den of thieves. This
was done without opposition, remonstrance, or de
lay. When this was done the scribes and pharisees
asked him by what authority pie had done it, and
who gave him that authority ; but they declining
to answer a question that he put to them, he refused
to give them any answer. We do not, I will ven
ture to say, in all history, read of an act of authority
equal to this by any private person, and a person
without any relations or patrons conspicuous for
wealth or power ; and yet^this bold unauthorized
action was never alleged against him as a breach of
thejgiiisai^^ .hjajrial. We
only read (Mark xi. 18) that the scribes and chief
priests heard it, and sought how they might de
stroy him. For they feared him, because all the
people were astonished at his doctrine.
But independently of this superior authority
with which Jesus always delivered himself, the

JESUS COMPARED. 41
subjects of his discourses and exhortations were*
far more serious and weighty than those of So
crates.. Indeed, some of those that are recorded by
Xenophon are so exceedingly trifling, that we can
not help wondering that a writer of such judgment
and good sense should have thought it worth his
while to relate them. Some of those of Jesus are,
no doubt, of much less importance than others ; as
when he advises persons how to place themselves
at table where there are many guests of different
ranks, &c. and observations and advices of far less
importance than even this are not unbecoming So
crates, Jesus, or any man in proper circumstances.
For the gravest characters are nct_aiwj|yj3_srjeaking,
as^Wes^TxTflfWra . In the ordinary situati-
ons^cTlnjiman life, when nothing very serious is
expected, but mere good humour and good sense,
even innocent pleasantry is well received.
But the great inferiority in all heathens with re
spect to knowledge, especially concerning God, pro
vidence, and a future state, made it absolutely im
possible that the moral discourses of Socrates should
have the clearness, the weight, and importance, of
those of Jesus. The comparison of their discour
ses in this respect shews the great superiority of
the. system of religious truth that was familiar to all
Jews, as contained in their sacred books, to any
thing that was known to the most enlightened of
the heathens, among whom Socrates shines with a
distinguished preeminence.
To resort once more to the conduct of Socrates
and Jesus. Socrates behaved with great propriety
c

42 SOCRATES AND
and dignity at his trial ; but it was by no means
equal to the behaviour of Jesus in similar circum-
fstances, though it is probable that he was wholly
unacquainted with the forms and solemnity of
courts of justice, especially those of the Romans r
which would have thrown many persons intirely
off their guard; whereas Socrates had himself sat as-
a judge in one of the most important criminal causes.
that was ever brought before any court of justice.
But Jesus replied to the interrogations of Pilate
the Roman gpvernor,as wellas to those ofthe Jewish
high priest, with the greatest presence of mind, and
the utmost propriety ~r having the prudence and self
command, to make no answer at all to questions.
[that were improper, and required none- This he
did in a manner that astonished Pilate himself-.
The readiness of Jesus to die after a hasty -and
most unjust condemnation, was certainly not less to
be admired than that of Socrates, though the death
of the latter was the easiest possible,, and not in the
least disreputable ; being that to which the first
citizens in the stater if sentenced to die, were
brought' r. whereas that to which Jesus was sentenc
ed was at the same time the most painful and die
most ignominious-
Socrates had a very humane and compassionate
person to administer the poison to him, shedding
tears when he delivered it ; and with great propri
ety Socrates spoke kindly to him on the occasion.
But it is most probable that the Roman soldiers who
nailed. Jesus, to the cross did that office as they ge
nerally did,,without any feeling of compassion,, and

JESUS COMPARED* 4S
perhaps with mockery, as they had treated him be*
fore. And yet it is probable that at the very time
when they were putting him to the greatest pain,
he pronounced that admirable prayer in their fa
vour, (Luke xxiii. 34.) Father forgive them, Jot
they know not what they do, there being no particu
lar guilt in their doing that office.
Rousseau, though an unbeliever, was struck with
the great difference between the cases of Jesus and
Socrates in their last moments, and describes them
in the following energetic manner. ''* The death of
" Socrates, who breathed his last in philosophical
*' conversation with his friends, is the mildest death
•" that nature could desire ; while the death of Je-
*' sus, expiring in torment, injured, inhumanly
*' treated, mocked, and cursed by an assembly of
"people, is the most horrible one that a mortal
** could apprehend. Socrates while he takes the poi-
" soned cup gives his blessing to the person who
" presents it to him with the tenderest marks of sor-
" row, Jesus in the midst of his agonies prays — for
" whom ? for his executioners. Ah! if the life and
" death of Socrates carry the marks of a sage, the
" life and death of Jesus proclaim a God."

44 SQCRATES AND
Section VIII.
Of the different Objects ofthe Instructions of
Socrates and of Jesus.
There is a remarkable difference between the ge
neral conduct of Jesus and his apostles, and that
of Socrates and the Grecian philosophers in gene
ral, with respect to the persons to whom they usu
ally addressed their instructions. All the teaching
of the latter was confined to persons of good condi
tion, such as were likely to have influence in the
important offices and concerns ofthe state ; but this
was no particular object with Jesus. Though So
crates, unlike other philosophers, took no money
for his instructions, his admonitions appear to have
been confined to persons of the same class with the
pupils of the others. There is not one of the dia
logues in which he is the speaker, either in Xeno-
!)hon or Plato, in which the common people are
iny part of the audience ; so that the great mass
>f citizens could not receive any benefit from his
eaching.
i On the other hand, the discourses of Jesus were
(addressed to persons of all ranks promiscuously,
and generally to crowds of the common people,
though without excluding any, and rather selecting
those of the lower classes, who were held in con
tempt by the learned scribes and pharisees, for his
audience. He was commonly attended by great
multitudes, of whom very few can be thought to

JESUS COMPARED. 45
have been what we call persons of condition, or who
were likely to have any influence in public affairs,
to which indeed his instructions had no relation
whatever. On two occasions, when crowds of this kind at
tended him, he fed them by a benevolent miracle ;
whereas had they been opulent, they would, no
doubt, have come sufficiently provided with every
thing. We read Mark vi. 34, that he was moved
with compassion towards the multitude, because
they were as sheep not having a shepherd. And
again, (Matt. xv. 32) he says, I have compassion
on the multitude, because they have continued
with me now three days, and have nothing to eat;
and I am unwilling to send them away fasting,
lest they faint in the way.
Sometimes persons of better condition, and of
a higher rank, such as Nicodemus, applied to Je
sus ; but we never find that he sought their soci
ety, or first, in any manner, applied to them, or to
any of the scribes and pharisees, who were the
leading men in the country. Whereas, Socrates
with the best views, no doubt, appears to have ap
plied to no o^her. In this circumstance, however,
we see a striking difference between these two
teachers of virtue. The object of Socrates was
the instruction of a few, but that of Jesus ofthe
many, and especially those ofthe middle and lower v
classes, as standing in most need of instruction, and
most likely to receive it with gratitude and without
prejudice.

46 SOCRATES AND-
The apostles, in this and in every thing else, fol
lowed the example of their master, and addressed
themselves to all classes of men without destinction,
and without ever selecting the powerful, the rich,
or the learned. To them men of all descriptions
were equal, as standing in the same relation to the
common parent of all mankind ; equally training up
I by him in the same great school of moral discipline
jhere, and alike heirs of immortality hereafter.
Thus the apostle Paul says, (1 Cor. xii. 13,)
We are all baptized into one body, whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether, we be bond or free.
Gal. xiii. 27. As many of you as have been bap
tized into Christ have put on Christ. There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus. Coll. iii. 11. There is neith
er Greek nor Jew , circumcision nor uncircumcision,
barbarian, Saythian, 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 condu^TaTaTncorresp(onaTo Tt7"With them
barbarians, and especially slaves, were of little ac
count, any farther than they were qualified to serve
them. Accordingly, we find that the schools ofthe Greg^
cian philosophers were^tend^d^bj^none but per
sons of considerable rank and wealth. The lower

/..v _jaot>awfliM.vfc

orders ofthe citizens took no interest in any thing
thajt^they, taught, so that their morals could hot
be at all improved by them. But by the preach-

JESUS COMPARED: 47
iftg 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 ofthe Lord Jesus, and
by the spirit of our God. Many passages in the epis
tles of the apostles shew the wretched state with
respect to morals in which tbe gospel found men,
and how much they were improved by it.
In noneof the dialogues of Socrates do we find
any woman.. to.be '.present, except Theodota, the
courtizan above-mentioned ;. and though the domes
tic manners ofthe Grecian women of virtue, and of
condition, were such as that they could not with
decency_jal^_nd_public discourses, the middle and!
lower classes of women in Greece, as in all other
countries, went abroad as openly as men ; and there
fore 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
©f difference of sex. When Jesus fed thefive "thou'-
nr-H Tnimiin),! ¦wiinnwimniiiiiIU|jUj.Bn' <rt^«wi"*"«i"™M"wl*,WWWWWlM,lw'^
sand^andalso the four thousand^ ^^vewcre women
and children among them, as well as men. The
same was the casiewuxTTnechristian 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 Damans,

4S SOCRATES AND
Acts, xvii. 34. What her condition was is not
said; But as~she is mentioned by name, it is prob
able that, like Lydia, she was of some considera-
blerankTatTeast her own^tmstress, 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 in
structions, and the whole ofthe history, of Socrates
and Jesus, it is, I think, impossible not to be sen-
s^^L-sJIS£k-.^Jt^ tne flTrea*_ a5Jvai>taSe, ,of ,re,yealed
relieion, such as that of theJews and the christians,
¦Mum  ilfr.irtinhinwrriMMniT^riiTnTirnr liirn niurrrrir-n»iimi  |i»win.^iiuiijiiiiWWi'WHi'»WH»«iH'miii«'Ul '
impartin|jjjjji^ This
alone can account for the difference between Socra
tes 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 ele
vation of mind, what ever might be their superiority
with respect to intellect, general knowledge, or na
tural advantages of any other kind.

JESUS COMPARED. 49
The far greater extent of the views of Jesus, as
bearing an important relation to all mankind, and
the most distant generations of them ; J^Ang,nthfiir
prophet and king, and also his own peculiar relation
to God, the commonparent of them all, beinar, as it
were, his vicegerent upon earth, necessarily* gave
him an elevation of character that neither Socrates
no^iSS^^ESHCBiver™*^" 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 lanT
giiage as this ?
The habitual piety of Jesus was such as could not
have been expected in Socrates, or the most virtu-
ousioTthTn'eatKens. ''"''He^ap^ars^f6"'uhaVe*s^oken,
and^cte^aTaTaTTtinTes not only in the immediate
presence, but as by the immediate direction of God.
The words that he spake, he said, (John xiv. 80.)
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 assidu
ous was he in the discharge of his high commis
sion, that, as he said, (John iv. 34) it was his meat
and drink to do the will of his heavenly father,
and finish the work that he gave him to do.

50 SOCRATES AND
Raised as he was to a preeminence above all
other men, he seems to have been even more than
any other_maiL 8f"«"h1p nf his-dependence upon
God, and he had recniirse^JxJiimjanjalL occasions .
Weeyen.jead^LuJi^^ a
whoU night in prayer taHatL: and it was in obedi
ence 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 sub
mitted to it. He prayed, and with peculiar earnest
ness, 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 ex
pected of Socrates, or any heathen. Their know
ledge of God, Jus~pj£yjdence> and his will, were too
obscure and uncertain for the purpose, though they
had been ever so well disposed.
As the worship of Socrates was, nominally at least,
directed only to Jupiter, Juno, and the other gods
that were acknowledged by his country, it was hard-
ly possible for him not to retain such ideas as were
generally entertained of them ; and notwithstanding
his endeavours to divest his mind of every thing in
their character that must have appeared unworthy
of divinity, such is the power of association, that it
was impossible he should ever do it completely;
and if not, his reverence for the objects of his wor
ship must have fallen infinitely short of that which
Jesus, and the Jews in general, had for their God ;
and every sentiment of devotion must have partaken
of that imperfection. Their love, or attachment to

JESUS COMPARES. 51
them, their dread of their power, their devotedness
to their will in doing, and their resignation to their
will in suffering, the sense they had of their con
stant dCpendance upon them, and of their presence
With them, must have been very little compared
with the, same sentiments in the mind of a pious
Jew, with respect to the one great object of his
worship. This must be apparent to any person who will
read the book of Psalms, and compare those devo
tional compositions with any (if there be any such)
of a similar nature composed by heathens. .Butthere
was nothing in the religions of the heathens, at least
among the Greeks and Romans^ that could inspire
any sentiments that deserve to be called devotional.
This striking difference no person will say was ow
ing to; any superiority of genius in the Hebrew po
ets, and therefore it must have been owing tp supe
rior knowledge ; and this superior knowledge could
not have had any source but from divine, revelation.
Without this the Hebrews would, no doubt, have
beenr.as - absurdly superstitions as anymQfjhfc.neigh-
•tourjriiLSStiSS.8 » and consequently their ideas ofthe
power and providence of God as little proper to in*
spire sentiments of true devotion.
To persons pf reflection, and acquainted with the
state of the heathen, world, and especially their turn
of thinking and acting with respect to religion, there
needs no other, evidence of the truth of revelation
than a comparison of the hymns in honour of the
heathen, gods by CalKmachus, and other Grecian-po
ets, or the carmen seculare of Horace, with the

52 SOCRATES AND
psalms of David, and other devotional parts of the
{books of scripture, with respect to justness and ele
vation of sentiment, and correspondent sublimity of
language. 2. In the account that we have of the daemon of
Socrates, what he says of it himself, and what appears
to have been generally thought of it by others,
we clearly perceive that there is nothing so naturally
incredible as modern unbelievers represent with res
pect to divine interpositions, either in the case ofthe
vulgar, or the philosophers of ancient times. The
universal practice of having recourse to oracles and
divination, is alone an abundant proof of this with
respect to mankind in general ; and the idea of a
mystical union with God, and a consequent intimate
communication with him, Came into Christianity
from the later Platonists. In every thing of this kind
the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Julian, the great
boasts of modern unbelievers, were as credulous as
the lowest ofthe vulgar.
Where, indeed, can be the impropriety, or im
probability, ofthe Being that made the world, giving
attention to it, and giving suitable intimations of
that attention ; and this no uniform appearances will
do. It is not men's seeing the sun rise and set, or
their observing the regular changes of the seasons,
that impresses them with the idea of any thing su
pernatural; but unusual appearances, though equal
ly natural, arising from the same principles and laws
of nature, such as thunder, lightning, eclipses, and
earthquakes &c._ Both history and daily observation
is a proof of this. And, surely miracles, performed

JESUS COMPARED. 53
by duly authorized prophets, do this infinitely bet
ter than any merely unusual natural phenomena.
This opinion of the natural incredibility of ac-
counts of miracles, on which Mr. Hume, and after
him other unbelievers lay so much stress, as what
no positive testimony can shake, is quite a modern
thing. But had this incredibility had any founda
tion in nature, it must have been the same at all
times, and in all countries ; and it must have affec
ted all Classes of men, princes and peasants, the
learned and the unlearned; whereas all history shews
that a propensity to believe accounts of divine inter
positions has been universal. It entered into all
systems of religion whatever, and no nation was
ever without some religion. It is impossible, there*
fnt-RjjTint to ennrJnde that a system which supposes
miracles is naturally adapted to gain belief, and there
fore that a pretension to miracles is far from being
a' circumstance unfavourable to its reception. It is
ratner^presumption in its favour. If it be any ob
ject with the Divine Being to give mankind in
timations of his attention to them, and government
over them, which no person can say is impossible,
or improbable, he could not take any other method
than that of miracles to gain his ends,
Much' has been said about Socrates referring
Aleibiades to a future instructor, as if he had been
sensible ofthe want of supernatural communication,
and that he hoped for, and expected it. But sup
posing Plato's account of the Conversation, (p. 295)
to be depended upon, which it certainly cannot, I
can by no means infer so much from it. After ex-

54 SOCRATES AND
pressing fhe uncertainty men are under with respect
to proper requests to the gods, he tells Alcibiades
that •« he must wait till some person inform him
" (ris ***» hpw he should conduct himself both with
" respect to the gods and to men."
When, in reply to this, Alcibiades expresses
much importunity to be informed who this teacher
was, taking for granted that it was some man (frjr he
says " I would gladly know who this man is,") Soc
rates only says, that " it was one who cared much
" for him," meaning probably that he was much his
friend; " but that at present a degree of darkness
" hung over his mind, which must first be dispers
ed." I therefore think it most probablethat, he meant
himself, but that he thought his pupil not then suf
ficiently prepared to receive farther instruction on
the subject.
3. Wpjpg_jr^ thf rasp xdL Snoratpq .hilQfffi,- as
well as in that of the people of Athens in general,
the strc^g~attach1nemT~w^ to
the rites of tn'eTr™anGent r eTTglons . To disregard
them, and to adopt other rites, was punishable with
death. The Athenians, as well as other nations,
occasionally adopted the worship of other gods, and
other modes of worship, but individuals were not
allowed to do it. It must be done by the authority
of the state, and at Athens it was by the court of

Areopagus. On this account the apostle Pauli who
was said to ende1iyour"H5rinTro3^^ of
strange gods, and a new religion, was brought De*
fore this court.

Missing Page

Missing Page

JESUS COMPARED: 57
they would not fail to give alarm to all heathen go
vernors. They were then exposed to the most
unrelerrtrngperseCution, except vvheretheacting
magistrates were secretly disposed in their fa-
VXiUTj. The rapid progress of Christianity in these cir
cumstances will ever appear the most extraordinary
thing in the history of the world. It appears from
the epistles of Paul, that in his time there were
christian churches in all the more considerable cities
in the eastern part of the Roman empire. In the
time of the emperor Trajan the younger Pliny, the
governor of Bithynia, complained that the rites of
the ancient religions were generally discontinued in
his province ; and in the space of about three hun
dred years so numerous and respectable were the
christians become, in the whole extent of that vast
empire, that the emperors themselves found they
might safely declare themselves christians.
To account for the rise and progress of Christi
anity, and the overthrow of heathenism, and this
without violence, in the whole extent of the Roman
empire, in so short a space of time, is a problem
that no unbeliever has seriously attempted to solve,
except Mr. Gibbon may be said to have endeavour
ed to do it. But his observations on the subject
are so exceedingly futile, that they discover equal
prejudice and ignorance, ignorance of the common
principles of human nature, of the nature of hea-
thenism.and ofthe state of the heathen world. I pro-
i

58 SOCRATES AND
posed to enter into the discussion of this important
subject with him, but he petulantly declined it, as
may be seen in the letters that passed between us
relating to it, published in the Appendix to the first
volume of my Discourses on the evidence of reveal
ed religion, and also in the Life of- Mr. Gibbon by
one of his friends. At my time of life I cannot en
gage in this, or any other controversy ; but I earn
estly wish, as a friend to important truth, that some
learned and candid unbeliever (and such I doubt
not there are) would engage in it. He would find
christians enow equally learned and candid to dis
cuss the question with him.
4. Neither Socrates nor Jesus were writers, and
there seems to be more of dignity in their charac
ters in consequence of it, as if they were not very
solicitous about transmitting their names to poster
ity ; confident, that as far as it was an object with
them, it would be sufficiently done by others. All
the accounts, therefore, that we have of them come
from their disciples and friends. And there is a
remarkable difference in the manner in which the
life of Socrates is written by Xenophon, and that
of Jesus by the evangelists. There cannot be a
doubt but that the evangelists had a much higher
opinion of their master than Xenophon or Plato had
of theirs. The traces of this are numerous, and
indisputable ; but there is not in their writings any
direct encomium, or praise, of him, as there is in
the Greek writers of Socrates ; and yet without any

JESUS COMPARED. 59
assistance of this kind a reader of moderate discern
ment cannot help forming a much higher idea of
Jesus than he does of Socrates from the facts re.
corded of him, and the discourses ascribed to him.
Indeed, we have no example of such simplicity
in writing as that of the scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments in all the heathen world ; and it is
not easy to account for the difference, especially
with respect to the later writers ; except that Mo
ses having begun to write in this simple manner,
the succeedingWriters, having; nTTotKeFniocleTTTia-
  ,1111 in'  i g— - ^-  -,, D -3-rai.i.—iii,ni^aAJ.  i muflinnin 11.n1.m4jn  un iiiw ¦¦nti'i'ii
turally followed that; inserting in their compositions
nothing that appeared superfluous, as ajrecrenco-
mimns^e7wTjen~the facts from which such enco
miums are drawn, are before the reader ; who may
be supposed as capable of drawing a proper infer
ence from them as the writer himself.
As the sacred writers say nothing directly in
praise of those whom they most esteemed and ad
mired, they say nothing directly in dispraise, or
censure, of those whom they most disliked," but
leave the circumstances- they simply mention to
make their natural impression upon their readers.
And from the effects of these_ two different ittodes
of Writing, the , natural and the artificial, as they
mSi^^£S£iS^ cal
culated to ans^W£rjhejpjur^cseof the writer than the
latter. When a man directly praises or censures
another, we suspect some previous bias for or
against him, and are upon our guard j but when

60 SOCRATES AND &C.
we read a simple narrative of facts, without any
explanatory remarks ofthe writer ; we have no sus
picion of any thing unfavourable to truth. We
think we see with our own eyes, and hear with
our own ears, and that we thus judge for our
selves.

THE END.

• Published by the AUTHOR.
1. A general history of the christian church to
the fall of the Western empire, 2 vols. 8 vo.
2. The continuation of this work to the present
time in 4 vols. 8 vo. is nearly printed.
3. Institutes of natural and revealed religion, 2
vols. 8 vo.
4. A History of the Corruptions of Christianity,
2 vols. 8 vo,
5. A History of early opinions concerning Jesus
Christ, 4 vols. 8 vo.
6. Letters to a philosophical unbeliever, contain
ing an answer to the principal objections to natural
and revealed religion, especially those of Mr. Hume
and Mr, Gibbon, 8 vo.

Published by the Author.
7. Letters to the philosophers and politicians of
France on the subject of religion. A second set of
these letters has been published in America, toge
ther with an answer to Mr, Paine'' s Age of reason.
8 vo. 8. A Harmony of the evangelists in Greek, to
which are prefixed Critical dissertations in English.
4 vo. 9. The same Harmony in English, with notes
and an occasional paraphrase, for the use of the un
learned. 4 to.
. 10. Letters to the Jews, inviting them to an ami
cable discussion ofthe evidences of Christianity, in
two parts. 8 vo. . ¦ ;
11. Letters to a young man, occasioned by Mr.
Wakefield's Essay on public worship, with a se
cond part in answer to Mr. Evanson on the disso
nance of the gospels. 8 vo.
' 12. A history of the sufferings of Lewis de Ma-
rolles and Isaac le Fevre on the revocation ofthe
edict of Nantes. 8 vo.
13. Discourses on various subjects. 8 vo.
14. Observations relating to education, more
especially as it respects the mind. 8 vo.
15. Lectures on Oratory and criticism. 4 to.
16. An Essay on the first priciples of govern
ment. 8 vo.
17. Letters to Mr. Burke on the subject of the
revolution in France. 8 vo.

Published by the Author."
18. A comparison of the institutions of Moses,
with those ofthe Hindoos and other ancient nations,
8vo. '
19. Observations on the increase of infidelity,
3d edition, 8vo.
20. An outline of the evidence of revealed reli
gion, 12mo.
21. Observations and experiments on different
kinds of air, &e. the six volumes methodized and
reduced to three. 8 vo.
22. The doctrine of phlogiston established, and
that of the decomposition of water refuted. 8 vo.
23. The history and present state of electricity,
5th edition. 2 vols. 8 vo.
24. The history and present state of discoveries
relating to vision, light, and colours. 2 vols. 4 to.
25. Heads of a course of experimental philoso
phy, including chemistry. 8 vo.
To be Printed Speedily.
Notes on all the books of Scripture, in 3 or 4 vols.
8 vo.

3 9002 00768 7834