But not for style alone—­seen equally in his essays and in his orations—­is he admirable.  His most enduring claim on the gratitude of the world is the noble tribute he rendered to those truths which save the world.  His testimony, considering he was a pagan, is remarkable in reference to what is sound in philosophy and morals.  His learning, too, is seen to most advantage in his ethical and philosophical writings.  It is true he did not originate, like Socrates and Plato; but he condensed and sifted the writings of the Greeks, and is the best expounder of their philosophy.  Who has added substantially to what the Greeks worked out of their creative brain?  I know that no Roman ever added to the domain of speculative thought, yet what Roman ever showed such a comprehension and appreciation of Greek philosophy as did Cicero?  He was profoundly versed in all the learning the Grecians ever taught.  Like Socrates, he had a contempt for physical science, because science in his day was based on imperfect inductions.  There were not facts enough known of the material world to construct sound theories.  Physical science at that time was the most uncertain of all knowledge, although there were great pretenders then, as now, who maintained it was the only certainty.  But the speculations of scientists disgusted him, for he saw nothing in them upon which to base incontrovertible truth.  They were mere dreams and baseless theories on the origin of the universe.  They were even puerile; and they were then, as now, atheistic in their tendency.  They mocked the consciousness of mankind.  They annihilated faith and Providence.  At best, they made all things subject to necessity, to an immutable fate, not to an intelligent and ever-present Creator.  But Cicero, like Socrates, believed in God and in providential interference,—­in striking contrast with Caesar, who believed nothing.  He taught moral obligation, on the basis of accountability to God.  He repudiated expediency as the guide in life, and fell back on the principles of eternal right.  As an ethical writer he was profounder and more enlightened than Paley.  He did not seek to overturn the popular religion, like Grecian Sophists, only (like Socrates) to overturn ignorance, before a sound foundation could be laid for any system of truth.  Nor did he ridicule religion, as Lucian did in after-times, but soared to comprehend it, like the esoteric priests of Egypt in the time of Moses or Pythagoras.  He cherished as lofty views of God and his moral government as any moralist of antiquity.  And all these lofty views he taught in matchless language,—­principles of government, principles of law, of ethics, of theology, giving consolation not only to the men of his day, but to Christian sages in after-times.  And there is nothing puerile or dreamy or demoralizing in his teachings; they all are luminous for learning as well as genius.  He rivalled Bacon in the variety and profundity of his attainments.  He gloried in the