bstinence from the affairs of the world,
we should reject what was so inconsistent with their established
characters, still crediting what he relates in conformity with our ideas
of them. So again, the superlative wisdom of Socrates is testified
by all antiquity, and placed on ground not to be questioned. When,
therefore, Plato puts into his mouth such paralogisms, such quibbles on
words, and sophisms, as a school-boy would be ashamed of, we conclude
they were the whimsies of Plato's own foggy brain, and acquit Socrates
of puerilities so unlike his character. (Speaking of Plato, I will add,
that no writer, ancient or modern, has bewildered the world with more
_ignes fatui_, than this renowned philosopher, in Ethics, in Politics,
and Physics. In the latter, to specify a single example, compare his
views of the animal economy, in his Timasus, with those of Mrs. Bryan in
her Conversations on Chemistry, and weigh the science of the canonized
philosopher against the good sense of the unassuming lady. But Plato's
visions have furnished a basis for endless systems of mystical theology,
and he is therefore all but adopted as a Christian saint. It is surely
time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of
names so artificially magnified. But to return from this parenthesis.) I
say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication
of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers
matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a ground-work of vulgar
ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and
fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the
Supreme Being, aphorisms, and precepts of the purest morality and
benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence, and simplicity
of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors,
with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed.
These could not be inventions of the grovelling authors who relate them.
They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They show that
there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid
conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their
hands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials, and ascribing
each to its genuine author? The difference is obvious to the eye and
to the understanding, and we may read as we run to each his part; and I
will venture to affirm, that he wh