death is undeniable. It is equally certain that their | admitted fact, and as proving that a portion of the opinions upon this important subject varied exceedingly, and that the kind of immortality admitted by one class can hardly be allowed to deserve the name. Thus they who considered it as a portion of the Divine essence severed for a time, in order to be united with a perishable body, believed in a future existence without memory or consciousness of personal identity, and merely as a reuniting of it with the Divine mind. Such, however, was not the belief of the more pure and enlightened theists, and to their opinion, as approaching nearest our own, it is proposed to confine the present notice. In one respect, even the most philosophical of those theories differed widely from the Christian faith, and indeed departed almost as widely from the intimations of sound reason. They all believed in the soul's pre-existence. This is expressly given as proved by facts, and as one argument for immortality or future existence, by Plato in the most elaborate treatise which remains upon the subject, the Phado. He considers that all learning is only recollection, no panoiy avaμvnoiy εival, and seems to think it inconceivable that any idea could ever come into the mind, of which the rudiments had not formerly been implanted there. In the Timaus and other writings the same doctrine is further expounded. Ην που ημων, η ψυχη πριν εν τω δε τω ανθρωπινω ειδει γενέσται, ώστε και ταυτη αθανατον τι εοικεν ἡ ψυχή είναι. "Our soul existed somewhere before it was produced in the human form (or body, so it seems to be immortal also.” The arguments indeed, generally speaking, on which both Plato and other philosophers ground their positions, derive their chief interest from the importance of the subject, and from the exquisite language in which they are clothed. As reasonings they are of little force or value. Thus it is elaborately shown, or rather ascerted in the Phado, that contraries always come from contraries, as life from death, and death from life, in the works of nature. Another argument is that the nature or essence of the soul is immortality, and hence it is easily inferred that it exists after death, a kind of reasoning hardly deserving the name;-Όποτε δη τον αθανατον και αδιάφθορον εστιν, αλλοτι ψυχη η, ει αθανατος τυγχανει ουσα, και ανωλεθρος av un "Since that which is immortal is also indestructible, what else can we conclude but that the soul being (or happening to be) immortal, must also be imperishable."(Phad.) A more cogent topic is that of its simplicity, from whence the inference is drawn that it must be indestructible, because what we mean by the destruction of matter is its resolution into the elements that compose it. In one passage, Plato comes very near the argument relied on in the text respecting the changes which the body undergoes; but it appears from the rest of the passage that he had another topic or illustration in view-adda yap αν φαίην έκαστην των ψυχων πολλα σώματα κατατριβειν, αλλώς, τε και πολλα ετη βιω. Ει γαρ ρεσι το σώμα και απολλύοιτο ετι ζωντος του ανθρωπου αλλ' ἡ ψυχη αει το κατατριβόμενον ανύφαινοι αναγκαιον μεντ' αν είη, όποτεαπολλύοιτο ή ψηχη, τον τε λευταίον ύφασμα τυχειν αυτην έχουσαν, dε TOUTOV μovoν протερаν añоdλvoda" But I should rather say that each of our souls wears out many bodies, though these should live many years; for if the body runs out and is destroyed, the man still lives, but the soul always repairs that which is worn out, it would follow of necessity that the soul when it perished would happen to have its last covering, and to perish only just before that covering."--Phad. A singular instance of the incapacity of the ancients to observe facts, or at least the habitual carelessness with which they admitted relations of them, is afforded in another of these arguments. Socrates is made to refer, in the Phado, to the appearance of ghosts near places of burial as a well known and soul for a while survived the body, but partook of its nature and likeness, and was not altogether immortal. This distinction between the mortal or sensitive and the immortal or intellectual part of the soul pervades the Platonic theism. We have observed already in the statement of Plutarch, that the Platonists held the vous or intellect to be contained in the fox or soul, and the same doctrine occurs in other passages. Aristotle regards the soul in like manner as composed of two parts; the active, or vous, and the passive; the former he represents as alone immortal and eternal; the latter as destructible, τουτο μονον αθανατον και αίδιον, ὁ δε manтins peapros.-Nic. Eth. It must, however, be admitted, that the belief of the ancients was more firm and more sound than their reasonings were cogent. The whole tenor of the doctrine in the Phado refers to a renewal or continuation of the soul as a separate and individual existence, after the dissolution of the body, and with a complete consciousness of personal identity; in short, to a continuance of the same rational beings existence after death. The liberation from the body is treated as the beginning of a new and more perfect life—rorɛ yap avṛṇ kað' avrny n fuxn coraL χωρις του σώματος προτερον δ' ου (τελυτησασι). Xenophon thus makes Cyrus deliver himself to his children on his death-bed: Ούτοι εγωγε, ω παίδης, ουδε τουτσ πώποτε επεισθαν ως ἡ ψυχή, έως μεν αν εν θνητο σωματι η, ζην, όταν δε τουτου απαλλαγα, τεθνηκεν ουδε γε όπος άφρων εσται ἡ ψυχη, επειδαν του αφρονος σώματος διχα γενηται, ουδε τουτό πέπεισμαι αλλ' όταν ακρατος και καθαρος ο τους εκρίθη, τοτε και φρονιμωτατον εικός αυτον είναι.* Cicero has translated the whole passage upon this subject beautifully, though somewhat pharaphrastically; but this portion he has given more literally: “Mihi quidem nunquam persuaderi potuit, animos dum in corporibus essent mortalibus, vivere; quum exissent ex iss, emori: nec vero tum animum esse insipientem, quum ex insipienti corpore evasisset; sed quum omni admixtione corporis liberatus purus et integer esse cœpisset, eum esse sapientem."'+ None of the ancients, indeed, has expressed himself more clearly or more beautifully upon the subject than this great philosopher and rhetorician. His reasoning, too, respecting it greatly exceeds in soundness and in sagacity that of the Grecian sages. Witness the admirable argument in the Tusculan Questions. They who deny the doctrine, says he, can only allege as the ground of their disbelief the difficulty of comprehending the state of the soul severed from the body, as if they could comprehend its state in the body. "Quasi vero intelligant, qualis sit in ipso corpore, quæ conformatio, quæ magnitudo, qui locus."-" Hæc reputent isti (he adds) qui negant animum sine corpore se intelligere posse; videbunt quem in ipso corpore intelligant. Mihi quidem naturam animi intuenti, multo difficilior occurrit cogitatio, multoque obscurior, qualis animus in corpore sit, tanquam alienæ domi, quam qualis, cum exierit, et in liberum cælum quasi domum suum venerit." That he derived the most refined gratifications from such contemplations, many passages of his writings attest. None more than those towards the close of the Cato Major, which must often have cheered the honest laborers for their country and their kind in the midst of an ungrateful and unworthy generation. "An censes (ut de me ipso aliquid more senem glorier) me tantos labores diurnos nocturnosque, domi militiæque suscepturum fuisse, si iisdem finibus glo * Cyrop. ii. + De Senect. 80. Here the words "omni admixtione," &c. are added. Tusc. Quæst. i. 22. riam meam, quibus vitam essem terminaturus ? NOTE IX. Nonne melius multo fuisset otiosam ætatem et qui of Bishop Warburton's Theory concerning the ancient etam sine ullo labore aut contentione traducere?" Doctrine of a Future State. To any one who had read the extracts in the last Note, but still more to one who was familiar with the ancient writers from whose works they are taken, it might appear quite impossible that a question should ever be raised upon the general belief of antiquity in a Future State, and the belief of some of the most eminent of the philosophers, at least, in a state of rewards and punishments.— Nevertheless, as there is nothing so plain to which the influence of a preconceived opinion and the desire of furthering a favorite hypothesis, will not blind men, and as their blindness in such cases bears even a proportion to their learning and ingenuity, it has thus fared with the point in question, and Bishop Warburton has denied that any of the ancients except Socrates, really believed in a future or punishment. He took up this argument because it seemed to strengthen his extraordinary reasoning upon the Legation of Moses. It is therefore necessary first to state how his doctrine bears upon that reasoning. His reasoning is this. The inculcating of a future state of retribution is necessary to the well being of society. All men, and especially all the wisest nations of antiquity, have agreed in holding such a doctrine necessary to be inculcated. But there is nothing of the kind to be found in the Mosaic dispensation. And here he pauses to observe that these propositions seem too clear to require any proof. Nevertheless his whole work is consumed in proving them; and the conclusion from the whole, that therefore the Mosaic law is of Divine original, is left for a further work, which never appeared; and yet this is the very position which all, or almost all who may read the book, and even yield their assent to it, are the most inclined to reject. Indeed, it may well be doubted if this work, learned and acute as it is, and showing the author to be both well read and well fitted for controversy, ever satisfied any one except perhaps Bishop Hurd, or ever can demonstrate any thing so well, as it proves the preposterous and perverted ingenuity of an able and industrious man. The Platonic ideas of a future state, as well as those adopted by the Roman sage, distinctly referred to an account rendered, and rewards or punishments awarded for the things done in the body--state of the soul individually, and subject to reward χρη παντα ποιειν, says Plato, ώστε αρετης και φρονησεως εν τω βίω μετασχειν καλον γαρ ταθλον και η ελπις μεγαλη --" We ought to act in all things so as to pursue virtuc and wisdom, in this life, for the labor is excellent and the hope great."-(De Legg. x.) Tov de ovra npwv εκαστον οντως αθανατον είναι, ψυχην επονομαζόμενον, παρα θεοις άλλοις απιεναι, δώσοντα λόγον, καθαπερ ὁ νομος ο πατρως λέγει, τω μεν αγαθω θαρραλέον, τω δε κακω μαλα φοβερον "In truth each of us-that is to say, each soul-is immortal, and departs to other Gods (or Gods in another world) to render an account as the laws of the state declare. This to the good is matter of confidence, but to the wicked of terror."--(De Legg. xii.) So in the beginning of the Epinomis he says that a glorious prospect (kan cλns) is held out to us of attaining, when we die, the happiness not to be enjoyed on earth, and to gain which after death, we had exerted all our efforts. In the Phado, where he is giving a somewhat fanciful picture of the next world, he tells us that souls which have committed lesser crimes come εις την λίμνην και εκει οικουσι τε και καθαιρόμενοι των δε αδικηματων διδοντες δικας απολύονται ει τις τι ndings—“ they remain in that space, and being cleansed (or purged) of their offences, are released;" (from whence the idea and the name of purgatory has been taken.) But such as have been incurably wicked, murderers and others, are driven, he says, into Tartarus, ODEV OUTOTE EXBALvovsiv, "whence they never morc escape."+ It is remarkable, that in the same work, Plato, if some words have not been interpolated in the text, looks forward to some direct divine communications of light upon this subject; but recommends abiding by the light of reason till that shall be granted. Let us, he says, choose the best human reason, and, sitting on it like a raft, pass through the dangers of life, unless (or until) et pnris duvairo ασφαλέστερον και ακινδυνότερον επι βεβαιοτερου οχήματος η Aoyov OcLov Tivos dianopevonvai-"unless some one can pass us over more easily and safely upon some stronger vehicle or divine word."§ That such was very far from being the author's opinion, we have ample proof. He terms his work A Demonstration." He describes his reasoning "as very little short of mathematical certainty," and "to which nothing but a mere physical possibility of the contrary can be opposed;" and he declares his only difficulty to be in "telling whether the pleasure of the discovery or the wonder that it is now to make be the greater." Accordingly, in the correspondence between him and his friend Bishop Hurd, the complete success of the "Demonstration" is always assumed, and the glory of it is made the topic of endless and even mutual gratulation, not without pity and even vituperation of all who can remain dissatisfied, and who are habitually and complacently classed by name with the subjects of Pope's well known satire. The passage in the Somnium Scipionis, where celestial enjoyments are held out as the rewards of public virtue, is well known. The precision, indeed, of the language touching a future state, which marks this treatise, is singular, approaching to that The two things which the author always overof the New Testament. This has given rise to looked, were the possibility of a human lawgiver doubts of the authenticity of the treatise-doubts making an imperfect system, and of skeptics holdeasily removed by looking to the many absurdities ing the want of the sanction in question to be no respecting the celestial bodies, and the other ac- argument for the divine origin of the Mosaic law, companiments of heaven with which the work but rather a proof of its flowing from a human and abounds; to the Platonic doctrine respecting mo- fallible source. As these "mere possibilities" are tion as the essence of mind, which it adopts; and wholly independent of the admission that every also to the doctrine distinctly stated of the pre-word in the book is correct, and all the positions existent state. * De Senect, 82, Ibid. 85. Phæd. § Ibid. are demonstrated, and as nothing whatever is said to exclude such suppositions, it is manifest that a more useless and absurd argument never was main tained upon any grave and important subject. The | upon the punishment of the conspirators, as related merit of the book lies in its learning and its colla- by Sallust, "Ultra (mortem) neque curæ neque teral argument; indeed, nearly the whole is col- gaudio locum esse;" and from the way in which lateral, and unconnected with the purpose of the Cato and Cicero evade, he says, rather than answer reasoning. But much even of that collateral ma.- him, appealing to the traditions of antiquity and ter is fanciful and unsound. The fancy that the the authority of their ancestors instead of arguing descent of Æneas to hell in the sixth book of the the point. (Div. Leg. III. 2, 5.) Can any thing be Eneid, is a veiled account of the Eleusinian Mys- more inconclusive than this? Granting that Salteries, has probably made as few proselytes as the lust, in making speeches for Cæsar and Cato, (whom, main body of the "Demonstration;" and if any by the way, he makes speak in the self-same style, one has lent his ear to the theory that the ancients that is, in his own Sallustian style,) adhered to the had no belief in a future state of retribution, it can sentiments each delivered; and further, that Cæsar only be from being led away by confident assertion uses this strange topic, not as a mere rhetorical from the examination of the facts. figure, but as a serious reason against capital punishment, and as showing that there is mercy and not severity in such inflictions, (a very strong supposition to make respecting so practised and so practical a reasoner as Caius Cæsar;) surely so bold a position as practical atheism brought forward in the Roman Senate, was far more likely to be met, whether by the decorum of Cato or the skill of Cicero, with a general appeal to the prevalence of the contrary belief, and its resting on ancient tradition, than with a metaphysical or theological discourse singularly out of season in such a debate. To make the case our own: let us suppose some member of Parliament, or of the Chamber of Deputies, so ill-judged as to denounce, in short but plain terms, the religion of the country, would any person advert further to so extravagant a speech than to blame it, and in general expressions, signify the indignation it had excited? Would not an answer out of Lardner, or Paley, or Pascal, be deemed almost as ill timed as the attack? To be sure, neither Cato nor Cicero are represented as testifying any great disgust at the language of Cæsar, but this, as well indeed as the topic being introduced at all by the latter, only shows that the doctrine of a Future State was not one of the tenets much diffused among the people, or held peculiarly sacred by them. Had the orator vindicated Catiline, by showing how much less flagitious his bad life was than that of some of the gods to whom altars were erected and worship rendered, a very different burst of invective would have been called down upon the blasphemous offender. This position of Bishop Warburton is manifestly wholly unnecessary to the proof of his general theory. But he thought it would show more strongly the opinion entertained of the uses to be derived from inculcating the doctrine of a Future State, if he could prove that they who held it in public and with political views, did not themselves believe it. The way in which he tries to prove this, is by observing that there prevailed among the old philosophers as well as lawgivers, a principle of propagating what they knew to be false opinions for the public benefit, and of thus holding one kind of doctrine in secret, the esoteric, and another, the exoteric, in public. Of this fact there is no doubt, but its origin is hardly to be thus traced to design always prevailing. The most ancient notions of religion were the birth of fear and ignorance in the earliest ages, and the fancy of the poets mingled with these, multiplying, and improving, and polishing, the rude imaginations of popular terror and simplicity. The rulers of the community, aiding themselves by the sanctions which they drew from thence, favored the continuance and propagation of the delusions; and philosophers who afterwards rose among the people, were neither disposed themselves, nor permitted by the magistrate, openly to expose the errors of the popular faith. Hence they taught one doctrine in private, while in public they conformed to the prevailing creed, and the observances which it enjoined. But whatever be the origin of the double doctrine, Bishop Warburton cannot expect that its mere existence, and the use made of it by ancient In truth, the passage thus relied upon only shows, writers and teachers, will prove his position, unless like all the rest of the facts, that the doctrine of he can show that the future state of retribution is retribution was rather more esoteric than exoteric only mentioned by them upon occasions of an ex- among the ancients. The elaborate dissertation of oterical kind, and never when esoterically occupied. Bishop Warburton's upon the Mysteries, proves Now this he most signally fails to do; indeed, he this effectually, and clearly refutes his whole argucan hardly be said fairly to make the attempt, for ment. For to prove that the doctrine of future rehis rule is to make the tenor of the doctrine the tribution was used at all as an engine of state, he is criterion of esoteric or exoteric, instead of showing forced to allege that it was the secret disclosed to the occasion to be one or the other from extrinsic the initiated in the Sacred Mysteries; which, accircumstances, which is manifestly begging the cording to Cicero, were not to be viewed by the imquestion most unscrupulously. It seems hardly prudent eye. (Ne imprudentiam quidem oculorum credible that so acute and practised a controver-adjici fas est, De Legg. II.14.) Surely this would sialist should so conduct an argument, but it is rather indicate that such doctrines were not inculquite true. As often as any thing occurs in favor cated indiscriminately, and that at all events, when of a Future State, he says it was said exoterically; a philosopher gives them a place in his works, it and whenever he can find any thing on the oppo- cannot be in pursuance of a plan for deceiving the site side, or leaning towards it, (which is really multitude into a belief different from his own. I hardly at all in the Platonic or Ciceronian writings,) is, indeed, plain enough that the bulk of the people he sets this down for the esoteric sentiments of the were restrained, if by any sanctions higher than writer. But surely if there be any meaning at all those of the penal laws, rather by the belief of conin the double doctrine, whatever may have been its stant interposition from the gods. An expectation origin, the occasion is every thing, and there can of help from their favor, or of punishment from be no difficulty in telling whether any given opinion their anger, in this life and without any delay, was maintained exoterically or not, by the circum- formed the creed of the Greeks and Romans; and stances in which, and the purposes for which, it nothing else is to be found in either the preamble to was propounded. Zaleucus, the Locrian's laws, quoted by Bishop Warburton, or in the passages of Cicero's treatise, to which he also refers, (Div. Leg. II. 3.) The argument on which he dwells most, is drawn from the allusion made by Cæsar in the discussion |