XXVlll 



PREFACE. 



fubjeds, ftich as God and Natu.-e, and the Unlverfe * ; and It was 

 only the neceffities of human nature that made them defcend to the 

 common aiTairs of life. 



Eul even the pradical Philofophy of Socrates was defedive in 

 this refpedt, that It did not take in, what was Principal in Morals, 

 according to the antient notion ; I mean the right conftitution and 

 proper adminiftration of a fyftem of Policy or Government, upon 

 which the happinefs of every individual rnuft depend, more or lefs» 

 His fyftem of Morals therefore was entirely confined to private 

 life ; and even with regard to it, he does not appear to have known 

 that diftindiion which is the foundation of the whole human Philo- 

 fophy, betwixt our intelle<Stual nature, and our animal or fenfitive : 

 Wanting therefore the knowledge of this diftindion, he does not 

 give us, as the Pythagoreans do, a fyftem of Morals deduced from 

 the conftitution of the human mind, but only from experience and 

 common obfervation ; And when he endeavours to philofophife 

 upon virtue, he falls into a great error, by fuppofing that it is 

 nothing more than Science ; fo that according to his do^Vrine, if a 

 man had the fcience of virtue, and knew perfedly what it was, he 

 was therefore virtuous f . But he might have learned from the Py- 

 thagorean School what Plato and Ariftotle there learned, that to 

 make an adlion virtuous, befides a right opinion or judgment of the 

 mind, there was required, a fenfe of the Pulchrum and the Ho7ieJliim ; 

 and a kind of enthufiafm thence arifmg, which gives the true 

 colour and beauty to virtue. But of this more hereafter. 



That Socrates's fyftem of Philofophy fliould have been fo confined, 

 and even fo erroneous, is not to be wondered, if we confider that 



he 



* See upon this fubje(5l, Ariftotle in the laft Chapter of the "Nicomachela. 



f Ariftotle, Lib. vi. ad Nicomachum—-^ Magna Moralia, Lib, i. Cap. i.— — 

 See alfo the Protagoras of Plato. 



