"Sed fac, ut ifti volunt, animos NON remanere ** poft mortem.M. Mali vero quid affert ista fententia? Fac enim fic animum interire, ut corpus. Num igitur aliquis dolor, aut omnino poft mortem SENSUS in corpore eft ?-Ne in ani*mo quidem igitur SENSUS remanet, ipfe enim nuf "quam eft.-Hoc premendum etiam atque etiam eft argumentum, confirmato illo, de quo, fi mortales animi funt, dubitare non poffumus, quin ** tantus interitus in morte fit, ut ne minima qui dem fufpicio SENSUS relinquatur "." Now, this is the very language of the Epicureans, as appears from the following words of Pliny: "Poft fepul turam aliæ atque aliæ manium ambages. Om* nibus a fuprema die eadem, quæ ante primum: nec magis a morte SENSUS ullus aut corpori aut animæ quam ante natalem. Eadem enim vani"tas in futurum etiam fe propagat,alias immortalitatem animæ, alias transfigurationem, alias fenfum inferis dando, & manes colendo, deumque faciendo, qui jam etiam homo effe defierit. Que (malum) ifta dementia, iterari vitam "morte? Quæve genitis quies unquam, fi in fublimi SENSUS ANIMÆ manet "."" PLUTARCH was amongst the Greeks, what Cicero was amongst the Latins, as far as concerned the bufinefs of delivering and digefting the various opinions of the Philofophers. In his famous tract of SUPERSTITION he uses their cOMMON arms to combat that evil; and expreffes himself with uncommon force where he speaks of a future ftate as an error effential to fuperftition, and what the general voice of Reason, interpreted by found Philofophy, difclaims. "Death is the final period of our Tufc. Difp. lib. i. c. 34-36. ^ Nat. Hiff. lib. vii. ç. 55 «being. She " being. But SUPERSTITION fays NO. extend further than our exiftence. She has join, "ed to the idea of death, that other inconsistent idea of eternal life in mifery. For when all "things come to an end, then, in the opinion of Superftition, they begin to be endless " I will beg leave to conclude this fection with two obfervations relative to the general argument. 1. We have juft given a paffage from the oration for Cluentius, in which, Cicero having ridiculed the popular fables concerning a future ftate, he fubjoins, if thefe be falfe, as all men fee they are, what bath death deprived him of, befides a SENSE of pain?? From this inference of the Orator it appears, that we have not concluded amifs, when, from feveral quotations, interfperfed throughout this work, in which a difbelief of the common notion of a future ftate of rewards and punishments is implied, we have inferred the writer's difbelief of a future ftate of rewards and punishments in general. 2. We have, feen the Philofophers of every Sect, one while fpeaking directly for, and at another, as directly against a future ftate of rewards and punish αέρας έσι βίε πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὁ θάνατος τῆς δε δεισιδαιμονίας, ουδ' ἔτῶν ἀλλ ̓ ὑπερβαλλει τοὺς ὅρους ἐπέκεινα τὸ ζῆν, μακρότερον τὸ βία * ποιοῦσα τὸν φόβον, καὶ συναπίουσα τῷ θανάτῳ κακῶν ἐπίνοιαν αθανάτων και ότι παύεται πραγμάτων, άρχεσθαι δοκοῦσα μὴ παυομένων. P Quæ fi falfa funt, id quod omnes intelligunt, quid ei tandem aliud mors eripuit præter SENSU M doloris ?- -Seneca reafons in the fame manner. Mors contemni debet magis quam solet: multa enim de illa credimus. Multorum ingeniis certatum eft ad augendam ejus infamiam. Defcriptus eft carcer infernus, & perpetua nocte oppreffa regio, in qua -" ingens janitor orci, &c. Sed etiam cum perfuaferis iftas fabulas effe, nec quicquam defundis fupereffe quod timeant, fubit alius metus, æque enim timor ne apud inferos fint, quam ne nufquam. Ep. 83. ments, ments, without intimating the leaft change in their principles, or making the leaft hefitation in their profeffions: So that either we must hold them guilty of the moft grofs and impudent contradictions, which their characters will not fuffer us to conceive of them; or elfe admit the explanation given above of the DOUBLE DOCTRINE, and the different methods of their exoteric and efoteric difcipline. ! Yet to all this it hath been faid, "If the Philo "fophers difbelieved the popular Divinities, and "yet really believed the being of a God; why "might they not reject the popular opinions of a "future ftate, and yet, at the fame time, hold a "future ftate of real rewards and punishments? Now as they who did not believe Hercules. and Efculapius to be Gods, did not for that reafon difbelieve the existence of a governing Mind; fo "they that did not believe Æacus or Minos to be % judges of Hell, did not for that reafon difbelieve "all future rewards and punishments." I answer, the two cafes are nothing alike; the common fate of this Writer's Parallels. 1. At the very time the Philofophers difcard the popular Divinities they declare for the being of a God. Thus when Varro had faid that Hercules and fculapius, Caftor and Pollux were not Gods; he adds, they only have a right notion of God, who "conceive him to be a Soul, actuating and governing all things by his power and wifdom". But now, when 9 Dr. Sykes.. Que funt autem illa, quæ prolata in multitudinem nocent? Hæc, inquit, non effe Deos Herculem, fculapium, Caftorem, Pollucem. Proditur enim a doctis, quod homines fuerint, et -humana conditione defecerint.-- But the fame Varro fays,Quod hi foli ei videantur animadvertiffe, quid effet Deus, qui crediderunt eum effe animam, motu et ratione mundum gubernantem, Apud August. de Civ. Dei, 1. ív. c. 27—31. thefe thefe Philofophers exploded Styx, Acheron, and Cocytus, did they ever fubftitute any other future ftate of rewards and punishments in their place? 2. The Philofophers give the popular stories of the infernal regions as the only foundation and fup Fort of future rewards and punishments; fo that, if they explode the popular ftories, they must explode the things themselves. And what is more, THEY TELL US THAT THEY DID SO. But was this the cafe concerning their popular Divinities? Do they ever represent these as the only foundation and fup. port of the belief of a Deity? 3. Lastly, The Philofophers held a PRINCIPLE (and we are now about to enter upon that matter) which was inconfiftent with a future ftate of rewards and punishments: in confequence of which they formally, and in exprefs words, disclaim and reject all fuch state and condition. But I know of no principle they held, inconfiftent with the be lief of a God; nor of any declarations they ever made against such belief. We conclude, there fore, that the two cafes are altogether diffimilar and unrelated. N° SECT. IV. OTWITHSTANDING this full evidence against the PHILOSOPHERS; I much doubt, the general prejudice in their favour, fupported by the reasonableness of the doctrine itself, will be yet apt to keep the reader's opinion on this point fuf pended. I fhall therefore, in the last place, explain the CAUSES which withheld the Philofophers from believing: and thefe will appear to have been certain fundamental PRINCIPLES of the ancient Greek Philofophy, lofophy, altogether inconfiftent with the doctrine of a future ftate of rewards and punishments. But to give this its due force, it will be proper to premife, that the conftitution of that Philofophy, being above measure refined and fpeculative, it was always wont to judge and determine rather ON METAPHYSICAL than on MORAL maxims; and to stick to all confequences, how abfurd foever, which were feen to arise from the former. Of this, we have a famous inftance in the ancient Democritic Philofophy: which holding, that not only fenfations, but even the cogitations of the mind, were the mere paffion of the Thinker; and fo, all knowledge and understanding, the fame thing with fenfe; the confequence was, that there could not be any error of falfe judgment; because all pas fion was true paffion, and all appearance true appearance. From hence it followed, that the fun and moon were no bigger than they feemed to us: and these men of reafon chofe rather to avow this conclufion, than to renounce the metaphyfic princi ple which led them into it. So juft is that cenfure which a celebrated French writer paffes upon them: when the Philofophers once befot themselves with a prejudice, they are even more incurable than the People themfelves; because they be fot themselves not only with the prejudice, but with the falfe reafonings. employed to fupport it. The regard to metaphyfic principles being fo great, the Greek Philofophers (as we fhall fee) muft needs reject the doctrine of a future, ftate of rewards and punishments, how innumerable and invincible foever the moral arguments are which may be brought Quand les philofophes s'entêtent une fois d'un prejugé, ils font plus incurables que le peuple même; parce qu'ils s'ente tent également & du prejugé & des fauffes raifons dont ils le foutiennent. Fontenelle Hift. des Oracles. |