the Belief of a future State in the Minds of the common People, who were not, as they alledg'd, capable of receiving it under any other than a material Representation, and fenfitive and corporeal Images.

But, as they themselves had more rational Notions concerning a future State, they taught their Difciples a different Doctrine about the Soul, and the Happiness and Misery of the State after Death. This was called the Efoteric or fecret Doctrine, in diftinction to the Exoteric or public and vulgar Opinion.

They taught that the human Soul was congenial with the Soul of the World; and that the Happiness of it after Death confifted in its Return to and intimate Union with the divine Nature, or God, from whom it was deriv'd: On the other hand, that the Mifery of it confifted in being excluded from this Union with God, and having no communication with him; and being left to affociate with evil Dæmons. Some distinguished between the Soul and Spirit ; but all agreed, that as Happinefs confifted in the Improvement of the intelligent or rational Soul in divine Knowledge and Virtue, fo in the fu ture State the Soul, they conftantly believ'd, was render'd more perfect in Knowledge and Virtue by its Union and Communion with the divine Substance, or Deity. This was a rational and exalted Notion of a future State, and very agreeable to the Doctrine of it taught by Revelation. This was the Esoteric Doctrine of the Philofophers concerning a future State, which they thought

E 4

thought the Vulgar not capable of receiving; and fo they taught it only to their Disciples, and explain'd it in their Writings in a metaphyfical manner, not understood by the common People; and let the political Notions remain as they were received.

But now it cannot with any reafon be inferr'd from the Philofophers Doctrine of the Return of the Soul to God, and its Reunion with the Deity or divine Subftance, that they did not believe a future State at all, nor could believe it. This [inávodos] Return and Union was in their opinion fo far from deftroying the perfonal Subfiftence of the Soul, that they thought it the Completion of its perfonal Happiness. And this Notion of future Happiness was not only firmly believed by the Philofophers in general, but is also highly rational in itself: And to fuppofe that any Union of the Soul with God, by which it became more knowing and happy, fhould deftroy its perfonal Exiftence, or be inconfiftent with the Belief of it, is contrary to all Reafon and true Philofophy. For as no Union with the divine Subftance can make any other Thing or Being have identical or fameness of Subfiftence with the divine Subftance; fo perfonal Subfiftence is evidently confiftent with any conceivable Union: and any one may with as much reafon fuppofe that the Philofophers could not believe the perfonal Exiftence of the Soul in the prefent State, because they believ'd it to be deriv'd from the divine Subftance, as that they did not believe the future perfonal Existence of

it

it in his Return to and Union with the Deity. And that which shews farther that they neither did or could difbelieve the future perfonal State of Existence of the Soul in its moft intimate Union with the Deity is, that the Pythagoreans and Platonics both of them believ'd the Soul in this Union to fubfift in a material Body, tho' different from and more refined than the grofs Body which it had on Earth: and this is utterly inconfiftent with their believing the Soul in its Union with the divine Subftance to have the fame personal Subfiftence with it; for they never believ'd either that the fupreme Soul or God, or the inferior divine [Ns] Mind, was perfonally united to Matter, or had a material Vehicle or Body. A Soul or Spirit united to Body or Matter, and having the fame perfonal Subfiftence with a pure immaterial or incorporeal Soul or Spirit, was an abfurdity which never enter'd into the Heads of the ancient Philofophers to believe or fuppofe so much as poffible; and is altoge ther an unphilofophical Fiction. And furely it is very unreasonable to charge Men with Infidelity in a point which they conftantly and invariably profess to believe, only because we imagine (whether right or wrong) that they held fomething inconfiftent with it: This is a way of reafoning that will deftroy all the Faith and Religion of many who think themselves very knowing Chriftians and true Believers.

But the Philofophers had even without Revelation very rational Notions of the future State of Happiness and Mifery as the Lot of righteous

and

and wicked Men and they founded their Be lief of it on the best Principles of Reason, viz. upon the Nature of Virtue and Vice, the Fitnefs of Things, and the Rectitude and Purity of the divine Nature or God, who was not actuated by or capable of any human Paffions. It was therefore their fixed Principle [ὁ καθαρὸς μὴ καθαρῷ ἐ μὴ ila] that a pure or holy God had no communion with an impure or unholy Perfon: That he was of purer Eyes [according to the ScripturePhrafe] than to behold Iniquity, Habac. i. 13. and that no Evil could dwell with him. They thought the Virtue of good Men would bring them to a Communion with God, by which their Happiness would be made perfect and unchangeable, from the very Nature and Conftitution of Things, to which the divine Actions and Will were for ever conformable, and directed by them; and that the Wickedness of evil Men would feparate them from this Communion and Felicity from the fame immutable Caufe; and fubject them to unavoidable Mifery. And this Foundation of Happiness and Mifery they thought (as it truly was) more fure and invariable, than the fuppofing it to proceed, as the Vulgar thought, from the Paffions either of Love or Hatred, which were variable and very unworthy to be conceiv'd as belonging to the divine Nature: tho' the afcribing such Paffions to the vulgar Hero-Gods was not fo unfuitable to their Characters, who had been Men, and was thought would fooner raise Impreffions of Fear and Obedience in the Minds of the com

I

mon

mon People, than the philofophical Notions were likely to do.

Therefore it is by no means true, either that the Philofophers did not believe a future State, or that they taught it to the People in order only to fupport the Authority of human Laws, and more effectually to fecure Obedience to them, and for no other end. On the contrary, the Philofophers undoubtedly did believe, as well as conftantly profefs a future State of Happiness and Mifery; and it is alfo certain that they did not teach this Doctrine merely to promote Obe dience to human* Laws, but chiefly to promote the final Happiness of human Nature, which they believ'd to be completed only in a future State: And this is plain, because the Epicureans and Sceptics, who did not believe this Doctrine themselves, did not teach it to the People.

The ancient Heathen Theology having been much misrepresented and misunderstood, I shall give a fhort account of it.

The Phenician, Egyptian and Chaldean Priests were the first Theologers: and the Theology of their Nations was very anciently mix'd

and

Cicero well obferves; Quid ii qui dixerunt totam de Diis immortalibus opinionem fictam effe ab hominibus fapientibus Reipublicæ caufa, ut quos ratio non poffet eos ad officium religio duceret, nonne omnem religionem funditus fuftulerunt? De Nat. Deor. lib. 1. ad fin. Do not they who alledge that the whole Syftem of Opinions concerning the immortal Gods is a Fiction of wife Men taught for the Benefit of the Public, that fuch as could not by Reafon be brought to do their Duty, might be engaged by Religion to do it; do not they, who alledge this, fundamentally fubvert all Religion?