Which of these two now was a preacher of true religion? Let those who value human reason at the highest rate determine

the point.

The manner in which Socrates died was the calmest and the bravest in the world, and excludes all pretension to say that he dissembled his opinion and practice before his judges out of any fear or meanness of spirit; vices with which he was never taxed, and of which he seems to have been incapable.

Consider then, was it possible for any man, on the authority of Socrates, to open his mouth against the idolatry of the heathen world, or to make use of his name to that purpose, who had so solemnly, in the face of his country, and before the greatest judicature of Greece, borne testimony to the gods of his country, and the worship paid them?

But to proceed the city of Athens soon grew sensible of the injury done to the best and wisest of their citizens, and of their own great mistake in putting Socrates to death. His accusers and his judges became infamous; and the people grew extravagant in doing honors to the memory of the innocent sufferer: they erected a statue, nay, a temple, to his memory; and his name was had in honor and reverence. His doctrines on the subjects of divinity and morality were introduced into the world with all the advantage that the ablest and politest pens could give; and they became the study and entertainment of all the considerable men who lived after him. It is worth observing too, that from the death of Socrates to the birth of Christ were, if I remember right, near four hundred years; which was time sufficient to make the experiment, how far the wisdom of Socrates, attended with all the advantages before-mentioned, could go in reforming the world. And what was the effect of all this? Can you name the place where religion was reformed? Can you name the man who was so far reformed, as to renounce the superstition of his country? No: none such are to be found; and how should there? since the greater the credit and reputation of Socrates were, the more strongly did they draw men to imitate his example, and to worship as their country worshipped.

Consider, on the other side, what was the consequence of preaching the gospel. St. Paul entertained the Athenians with

no fine speculations; but he laid before them, in the plainest dress, the great and momentous truths of religion; he openly rebuked their idolatry, and condemned their superstition. The gospel was published in the same manner every where. The first preachers of it were enabled to support it by miracles; and most of them shed their blood in defence of its truth. By these means they came likewise to have credit and authority in the world. But in these two cases there was this great difference : the corrupt example of Socrates was a dead weight on the purity of his doctrine, and tended to perpetuate superstition in the world; the authority and example of the Apostles went hand in hand, and united their force to root out idolatry. There was this farther difference too: the doctrines of Socrates could go only among the learned: the doctrines of the gospel were artless and plain, and suited to every man's capacity.

For near four hundred years the disciples of Socrates had the world to themselves, to reform it if they could; in all which time there is no evidence remaining that the religion of the world was the better for their wisdom. But in much less time the gospel prevailed in most parts of the known world: wherever it came, superstition and idolatry fled before it: and in little more than three centuries the empire became Christian; which completed the victory over the heathen deities. And if we may judge by this comparison between the wisest of the heathens and an Apostle of Christ, the doctrine of the text will be fully verified; that the world by wisdom knew not God, and that God by the foolishness of preaching has provided salvation for them who believe.'

I have gone through the principal points which the text led me to consider, and shall add but few words by way of reflection on the whole.

If then it appears from history, and the experience of the world before us, that men for ages together lived in ignorance of the true God and of true religion, and that reason was not able to contend against inveterate errors and superstitions; let us not be so vain as to imagine that we could have done more in the same circumstances, than all or any who lived in the many ages of idolatry. If we consider to what height arts and sciences were carried in those days, and the politeness of Greece and

Rome in all parts of learning, we shall have little reason to imagine that men have grown wiser as the world has grown older. If we have more reason in matters of religion, and undoubtedly we have more, it should lead us to consider to whom we are indebted for the happy change, and to give praise to him who set the reason of mankind free from the chains under which it had been fast bound for ages together by superstition and idolatry.

When we consider the means made use of by God for restoring true religion in the world, and pretend to judge of the fitness of them to attain the end proposed, we should be aware of being misled by the conceits of some who think themselves wise enough to give directions in a matter of so great moment. Some may imagine it might be better, if the gospel had reasoned more philosophically on the nature of the Deity, or more fully explained the nature of the human soul; and others may wish that other abstruse points of reason and divinity had been cleared to their satisfaction. But this was not the errand Christ came on: he came to teach true religion, and to teach it to all men ; and therefore what was not fit for all was no part of his business. The Greeks sought after wisdom, and the Jews required a sign; but the preachers of the gospel had no commission to satisfy the curiosity of one or of the other; but to teach the doctrines of God in such a manner, and to prove them by such means, as might influence and affect as well the lowest as the highest. If then the means made use of to introduce the gospel into the world were such as were proper and necessary to subdue ancient errors and prejudices; if the truths taught by Christ are a proper foundation for all the duties of religion in which man can have any concern; if they are left to be supported in the world, and propagated from age to age, by methods which by experience have been found effectual, and which, human nature considered, must be effectual to preserve the profession of religion amongst men: if, I say, we discover these marks in the gospel, we see enough to convince us that the gospel is the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation; which is seeing all that we are concerned to look after, or have any pretence to expect from him who came to save and to redeem us.

Lastly, Since we have the experience of many ages before us

to show us how unable human reason is to struggle against the errors and follies of superstition, when once they have got possession; since from our own experience we know how much reason is indebted to the light of the gospel; we should be careful to preserve this light, for fear of falling back again into the wretched state from which we have been delivered, or into a worse. Reason was once, what the light of the gospel is now, a sufficient guide in religion: but when men grew corrupt and vain in their imaginations, superstition and error prevailed over the world, and false religion led reason in triumph for ages together. As reason was subdued, the light of the gospel may be; and will be, when the same causes meet to work together: a consideration that should make men who have any sense of religion, think seriously of the treatment the gospel every day If we use it no better, it may soon leave us; and when once we get rid of this foolishness of preaching, we know by sad experience what is to be expected from the wisdom of the world.

meets with.

SUMMARY OF DISCOURSE V.

JOHN, CHAP. 111.-VERSE 16.

WHATEVER difficulties men find in the gospel, we might suppose it would be admitted at least to be a good representation of God's mercy towards mankind. Yet there are some who think that Nature holds out better hopes to her children, in teaching them that the infirmities of humanity are unavoidable, and the mercy of God infinite; whence they conceive all promises of mercy to be unnecessary, and therefore liable to suspicion and this is made an argument against revelation, past or to come. The credit and authority of revelation are much strengthened by its being reconciled to the natural hopes and expectations of mankind. The answers of a Christian and a Deist when asked the grounds of their respective hopes and expectations, shown nearly to coincide. The gospel is no enemy to the hopes of nature; but the question is, whether these give such security of pardon and immortality as will justify us in rejecting the light of revelation. Whoever depends on God's forgiveness, admits himself to be a sinner: upon this admission three considerations laid down:-I. that natural religion could not be originally founded in the consideration of man's being a sinner, and in expectation of pardon: II. that the hopes which we are able to form in our present circumstances, are too imperfect to give us intire satisfaction: III. that the coming of Christ has supplied these defects, perfecting and completing the hopes of nature.

The original religion of nature was agreeable to the original