and as a brother. It cannot be denied, however, that the founder of Christianity was the first to publish such views of God, and propagate them even among the lowest classes of society. It will be difficult, therefore, for us in antiquity, to meet with that benevolent enlargement of thought, which has a very close and intimate connexion with them.

To all these it may now be added, that every nation of antiquity had its own gods, and its own method of worshipping them, accompanied with peculiar rites and forms; that one nation considered that as holy which another detested; that one gave divine honor to a creature which another despised, or at best treated as common; that this opinion respecting national gods, necessarily created a kind of hatred between nations, as they differed from each other exactly in that point, which they looked upon as the most sacred and important;* and finally, that this hatred must have taken a firm hold of the hearts of the ignorant populace, their zeal in such cases easily degenerating into a fury that knows no bounds. These additional circumstances being taken into view, it will be evident, as I think, that the religions of antiquity interposed insuperable obstacles in the way of that goodness which embraces all mankind. Hence, if, notwithstanding the character of the ancient world, we should be able to discover in it, a mind which was capable of that enlargement of thought, which shines forth so conspicuously in the plan of Jesus, we should be obliged to look upon it as a kind of psychological wonder.

62. We shall, however, not confine ourselves any longer to general considerations. Let us now proceed to

* Vid. a fine passage upon this subject in Athanasius, Contra Gentes, p. 25, 26.

The ancient history of the Egyptians furnishes us with examples. The murder of a sacred, old cat, whether done intentionally or not, would excite the populace to a degree of rage, which could be allayed only by shedding the blood of him who committed the deed. [Diodor. Sicul., I. c. 83, Bip., p. 246.]

Comp. Iselin, Geschichte der Menscheit, B. IV. Kap. X. XI. S. 421 ff.

an examination of those benefactors of the human race which made their appearance before the author of Christianity, and, from a survey of their enterprises and plans, endeavor to ascertain whether history furnishes us with any, who exhibited such greatness and benevolence in their thoughts and actions, as Jesus.

The men, as I think, whom we are to look upon as the benefactors of mankind, and among whom we must search for great plans for the good of the world, are the founders of states, and legislators; defenders of their native country, and benevolent heroes; wise kings, and statesmen; philosophers, teachers of the human race, and the founders of religions. We shall make some particular remarks respecting each of these classes.

FOUNDERS OF STATES, AND LEGISLATORS.

§ 62. It is not an easy thing to create a nation by collecting together a mass of wild, uncultivated people, binding them together with salutary laws, and animating them with the spirit of order and mutual good will; or to reunite the severed fragments of a state, which has once fallen to ruins, and is full of internal discord, and, by means of better laws, impart to the whole new strength, harmonious ef ficiency, and lasting connexion. There are difficulties inseparable from such a work. He who is acquainted with them, will admire those spirits of antiquity which engaged in it, and, though they may have committed great errors, and in a measure failed in their undertakings, must acknowledge and highly prize the courage that could venture upon such important business, as well as the penetrating views which originated and arranged their plans, and the superiority and activity which carried them into execution. Now the numerous difficulties which encompass a plan of this kind, even when confined to a very small nation, entirely discourage us from expecting to find one of any greater magnitude among the founders of states,

and the legislators of antiquity. The education of their own countrymen required all their wisdom, time, and efforts. In resolving to devote themselves to this particular object, they had, as it were, renounced every plan of more general extent, and, I may say, devoted all their powers to acquiring the most accurate information of a definite subject. They were obliged to avail themselves of those measures which were called for by the circumstances of the nation to which they belonged and its relation to other nations, and were calculated to form that character which it was to sustain, and of course such as could not be adapted to other nations or mankind at large. Finally, the work in which they were engaged, forced them to descend to so many views and measures, having respect to individuals and particulars, as to disqualify them, just so far as they were faithful to their own people, from entering into the affairs of other nations. One of the most important resolutions, however, that a man can make, is to reform a whole nation, and, by means of salutary laws, render its descendants happy, to the latest generations. The plans of these men, therefore, in themselves considered, are always great, and worthy of exalted spirits. But if a plan which aims at the welfare of a single nation, when contemplated alone, appears so great, how small and insignificant must it appear, when viewed in comparison with the plan formed by Jesus for the good of all mankind!

Now such was the narrow sphere to which, according to the representations of history, all the old founders of states, and the legislators of antiquity, were confined. The beginning of most kingdoms was small and insignificant. Their first laws and regulations usually originated in chance and pressing necessity, and of course were enactments for the occasion, rather than the constituent parts of an original and well contrived plan. The time of actual legislation almost always came on at a later period, and not until people began to perceive, that the laws and observances which had arisen at different times, were very defective, had but little connexion, agreement, and dura

bility, and, if not amended, would prove prejudicial to a part of the state or to the whole body, in proportion as it came to maturity. When, however, the period actually arrived for a more general, perfect, and systematic legislation, the ground plot marked out for the purpose, was almost always more limited than it should have been. Indeed, antiquity does not furnish us with a single legislator, who gave his country laws and regulations, which appear to have had any reference to the welfare of other nations, or been founded upon a plan, which originated in wisdom, design, and benevolence, of greater extent than we have described.

§ 63. It is true that the Romans thought they found decisive marks among the nations of heathen antiquity, indicating that they had been destined, even from those remote ages, in which their history was lost in the obscurity of fable, to become the rulers of the world. This thought is also known to have produced a powerful effect upon them, and greatly to have contributed to raise them to that degree of power and authority, to which they afterwards attained. It did not originate, however, with the founder of this nation. Romulus certainly never had the great object, the immense plan in view, of giving his rising state such regulations as should, in the sequel, enable it to swallow up all others.* This thought originated in a lie of necessity, which was first confirmed by a false oath, and afterwards maintained by superstition, by which means, however, it acquired a sufficient degree of honorable authority, to produce a permanent impression upon the rough

*Several writers, indeed, as Plutarch observes, have been inclined to attribute something of the kind, to this founder of the Roman empire. But Plutarch himself rejects the supposition as improbable, and gives a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the seizure of the Sabine women, in which Romulus engaged, and which these writers, strangely enough, would deduce from his great plan, by recurring to the condition of the city, which had then hardly begun to exist. In Romul. e. XIV. p. 103, Reisk. ed. [Vol. I.] [Plutarch's Lives, translated by Langhorne, &c., Vol. I. p. 40, Phil., 1822. TR.] Comp. also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquit. Rom., 1. II. cap. 31. p. 301, Reisk. ed.

and warlike hearts of the Romans.* The first Roman legislator, the peaceful Numa, does not appear to have been very favorable to this opinion, for he evidently intended, out of his Romans, to form a quiet and happy nation. Nor can we say that express reference was had to it, in the formation of laws in after times. Indeed, the Roman constitution was always destitute of proper stability, and so deficient as to its entire groundwork, in unity and lasting connexion, that it was necessary for it to undergo the most important changes to accommodate it to circumstances. The thought, therefore, that Rome was to become the mistress of the world, does not appear to have been sustained by legislation, or to have served as a guide in the formation of laws; but, on the other hand, it often served rather to divest the constitution of its unhappy influence, by binding the people in all their difficulties with the government, in some measure, to the state.§ If we admit, however, that Rome ever had a legislator, who, in anticipation, devised the very extensive plan of giving his nation a constitution, which should prove the means of making it the first nation on the globe, even this

*To this place belong the accounts taken from Livy's Hist., 1. I. c. XVI. and LV., and also the remarks of Plutarch, in Romul., c. XXVIII. p. 139 seq. [Plutarch's Lives, translated by Langhorne, &c., Vol. I. p. 57. TR.] Speaking in this place, of the powerful effect which this well known fiction of Proculus is said to have produced, Plutarch says; "It gained credit with the Romans, who were caught with enthusiasm, as if they had actually been inspired; and, far from contradicting what they had heard, they bade adieu to all their suspicions of its authenticity, united in deifying Quirinus, and addressed their devotions to him, as a new, tutelar god of the nation." What was better calculated to fill a nation as rough and warlike as the Romans of that day were, with fiery zeal, than a miracle so flattering to their passions?

Plutarch infers this very correctly from the regulations of this king in general, and particularly from the manner in which he favored agriculture; in Numa, c. VIII. p. 254, and c. XVI. p. 282. [Reisk. Vol. I.] [Plutarch's Lives, ed. as above, Vol. I. p. 118. TR.]

This is said in express terms by Polybius, that sagacious judge of the history of Rome and its constitution, in Reliquiis lib. Hist., VI. p. 478. Tom. II. Schweighäus. ed.

§ Vid. Plutarch in Camill., c. XXXI. p. 561. [Reisk. Vol. I.] [Plutarch's Lives, &c. Vol. I. p. 227. TR.]