Oracle. Neither did Alcibiades understand him fo, as appears from hence, u that as he offers a garland to Socrates, in token of gratitude for his good advice, fo he promises all other due offerings to the Gods, when he should fee that happy day which Socrates had given him fome ground to hope for, and which he hoped would not be far off, fince it depended upon their favour and good will. Socrates indeed, in his Apology, as Plato has represented it, owns himself to have been an inftrument raised up by providence, to awaken the Athenians out of that lethargy of wickedness and disorder, into which they were fallen; " but that poffibly they would take his admonitions fo ill, (as men in a flumber bate to be awaked) that they would, at the inftigation of his Accufer, take away his life: And then they might fleep on fecurely ever after, unless God himself fhould fend fome other exprefs Messenger to take care of them.. However, * Τοῖς Θεοῖς ἢ καὶ σεφάνες καὶ τἄλλα πάντα τὰ νομιζόμμα τότε δώσομαι, ὅταν ἐκείνῳ ἢ ἡμέραν ἐλθᾶσαν ἴδω· ἕξε δ' ε α μακρόν τέτων θελόντων. Ib. αν αν την Ὑμεῖς δ ̓ ἴσως τάχ ̓ ἂν ἀχθόμθμοι, ὥσπερ οι νυσάζοιπες έχει ρόμθμοι, κράσαντες ἂν με πειθόμθμοι Ανύτῳ, ῥᾳδίως ἂν επικλείνη]ε, εἶτα ὶ λοιπὸν χρόνον καθεύδοντες ελοῖτε ἄν, εἰ μή τινα ἄλλον ὑμῖν ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιπέμψειε, κηδόμου ὑμῶν. Platonis Apolog. Soc. pag. 31. However, let the loweft meaning poffible be put upon these, and the like expreffions: Thus much may certainly be concluded from them, that the best men thought, the fending of a Divine revelation, to reform both the Religion and Morality of the world, was neither unneceffary, nor, confidering the goodness of God, unreasonable to be expected. To these Confiderations we may also add; Lastly: 6. That fuch men as now think that no Revelation was ever neceffary, but that the want of it might always have been fufficiently supplied, by the use of human Reason alone, do not state the matter fairly; because they unwarily confound part of that light which we infenfibly receive by the Revelation of the Gospel, with that light of Nature which men had before it: That is, they do not distinguish between thofe notions which the mere Heathen world were in poffeffion of before, and those which they attained to after the preaching of the Gospel. And yet whoever carefully confiders it, will find that Chriftianity made a very confiderable alteration, both in the notions and practices, even of those who continued obftinate oppofers of its establishment. Juft as the great light, which accompanied the Reformation of the Chriftian Religion it self, Bb 2 in in these later ages, helpt to correct some of the doctrines and practices, even of that corrupt part of Christendom, which refused to embrace the principles of the Reformation it self; and whose doctrines and practices, for want of that light, which was even against their inclination forced upon them, would otherwise, instead of being corrected, have been continually growing worfe and worse; fo fome part of the light of Christianity broke in upon the Neighbouring heathen world, whether they would or no. And though their manner of writing was not fo polite, as that of some of the more ancient Philofophers,. yet their thoughts and reasonings were much improved. And I make no question, but Plotinus, and others of that time, put a more fublime meaning upon fome of the Doctrines of Plato, and other Ancients, than they themselves ever thought of. And fo likewise they invented new Hypothefes, to account for ancient practifes. Thus, for instance, though they did not wholly discard Polytheism and Idolatry, yet they refined upon it very much, to make it as plaufibie as they could, and came much nearer towards the acknowledgment of the Unity of the Supreme Being, and the Attributes of his Divine nature, than their ancient prede predeceffors had done. And when they faw the Christians, with fuch affurance afferting, and with such conftancy dying, for the belief of a Future ftate of Rewards and Punishments, they themselves spoke of it with more certainty, and laid much greater stress upon it, than had been done formerly; making it a neceffary foundation for the conftant perfeverance in virtue; which others, for want of a sufficient affurance of this matter, were forced to recommend from more abstracted motives, and fuch as were both less intelligible, to a common capacity, and lefs effectual. And therefore Hierocles tells us, that those who imagine the Soul of man to be mortal, are more in jeft than in earnest, when they pretend to talk of not abandoning virtue upon any terms. For if there be nothing in us which furvives after death, and which naturally would be adorned with Truth and virtue, which is what we afirm of the Rational Soul, then we could have no pure affection, or defire of Good. And it is very remarkable, that even Celfus Bb 3 * Ὅθεν καὶ οι θνητώ διόρθριοι * ψυχὴν, περὶ δὲ μὴ προΐεος ἀρετι, κομψεύον) μᾶλλον ἢ ἀληθοῦσσιν· εἰ δὲ μὴ εἴη τι τσου μένον ἡμῶν μετὰ θάνατον, καὶ τᾶτο φύσιν ἔχον ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀρετῇ κοσ μείας, οἷον δὴ φαμπώ είναι λογικώ ψυχήν, οὐκ ἂν ἔφεσις ἡμῖν zalaggi ye10170 + xar. Hierocl. in Carm. Aurea. Celfus himself, an Epicurean, in his books against the Chriftian Religion, is forced to own his approbation of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, and of Future rewards and punishments y; which it is certain none of the more ancient Epicureans would ever have done. And as for our modern Deifts, who have any tolerable notion, either of natural Religion or true Morality, they are more beholding for it to that light of Revelation, in the midft of which they live, and which has greatly cleared up, and firmly established, the principles of Reason, though they will not own it, than to any of thofe human difcoveries, which Philofophers, utterly deftitute of fuch Revelation, or living before it, could certainly lead them to. So that when men argue against the neceffity or usefulness of Revelation, from the prefent improvement of Reason, they argue against fact and experience. And if they were not both very ungrateful, in difowning and defpifing that light, whereof they 8 Τ8 το μέν γε ὀρθῶς νομίζεσι, ὡς οι ᾗ ἐν βιώσαντες εύδαιμονήφασιν, οι ἢ ἄδικοι πάμπαν αιωνίοις κακοῖς συνέξον, καὶ τότε το δόγμα ο μήθ' ὅτοι, μήτ' ἄλλο ἀνθρώπων μηδείς ποτε τύπο 5--Vide Origen. Contra Celf. lib. 8. p. 409. And to the fame purpofe, Μήτε τέτοις εἴη μητ ̓ ἐμοὶ, μήτ' ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἀνθρώπων Στιθέας, τὸ περὶ τὸ κολαθήσεως τῆς ἀδίκος, καὶ γερῶν ἀξιωθήσεως 78's dinaios dégua. lib. 1. pag. 120. |