If rA M
■lll..|^:.-t^'
* 11
m !^ •;?£;
*>■"• > *■
|
,•■ |
av- |
^'^^ |
* |
■'» |
||
|
J. |
. » |
|||||
|
i^ |
.^' |
M ■•• .•?: |
^ |
r
-^ ^
THE LIBRARY
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
FREDERIC THOMAS BLANCHARD ENDOWMENT FUND
'1
q ct
THE
WORKS
O F T H E
RIGHT REVEREND
WILLIAM W A R B U R T O N,
LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.
IN SEVEN VOLUMES.
VOLUME THE SECOND.
LONDON,
PRINTED BY JOHN NICHOLS; AND SOLD BY T. CADELL, IN THE STRAND.
MDCCLXXXVIII.
178 2 THE
DIVINE LEGATION
O F
MOSES.
IN NINE BOOKS,
VOLUME THE SECOND:
CONTAINING
BOOKS III. and IV.
[ !v ]
CONTENTS
O F
THE THIRD BOOK.
BOOK III.
PROVES the necejjity of the dodirine of a future Jlate tofociety, from the opinion and conduSi of the ancient f ages and philofophers^ p. I — 261.
SECT. I.
TESTIMONIES of ancient fages and fhilofophers, concern- ing the necejfay of the doSlrine of a future Ji ate to civil fociety, p. i — 8.
SECT. If.
TH AT none of the ancient philofophers believed the doBrine of a future fate of rewards and punifiments, though, on account of its con- fejjed necejfiiy to the fupport of religion, and confequmtly of civil fociety, all the thefical philofophers feduloufly taught it to the people. The fe- deral fenfes in which the Ancients conceived the permanency of the hu- man foul explained. Several general reafons premfed, to Jloew that the ancient philofophers did not always believe what they taught, and that they taught the doSirine of a future fate of rewards and pnnfhmcnts iioithout believing it : Where the principles that induced the ancient figes
to
CONTENTS OF THE THIRD BOOK. v
io make it /awful to deceive for public good^ in matters of religion, are explained, whereby they are feen to be fuch as had no place in the pro- pagation or genius of the Jewirti and Chrilliaa religions. In the courfe of this enquiry, the rife, progrefs, perfection, decline, and genius of the ancient Greek philofophy, under its fever al divifons, are confidered and explained, p. 8 — 30.
SECT. III.
ENTE RS on a particular enquiry into the fentimcnts of each fe^ of pbilofophy on this point. The divifion and fucceffion of their fchools. The character of Socrates ; and oj the new and old Academy. The charaSler and genius of each fe^ of the grand Quaternion of theljtic phi- lofrphy, /^f Pythagoric, /y^f Platonic, /Z-r Peripatetic, and the Stole: fhewingthat not one of thefe believed the doSlrine of a future fate of re- ijoords and pump ments. The chjraSler of TmWj, and his fentiments on this point. The original of the ancient fables, and of the doSlrines of the Metempfychofis and Metamorphoiis, occafionally enquired into and explained, p. 30 — 85.
SECT. IV.
SHEWS, in order to a fuller conviction, that the ancient phi' lofophers not only did not, but that they could not poffibly believe a future fate of rewards and punifloments, becaufe two tnetaphyjical principles, concerning the nature of God, and of the human foul, which entirely overturn the doctrine of a future fate of rewards and pun'fmients, were univerfally held and btlieved by all the Greek philofophers. Thefe doSlrines examined and explained : In the courfe of this enquiry, the true genius of the ancient Egyptian wifdom ex- plained', and their pretended philofophy, as delivered by the later Greek writers, f)ewn to be fpurious. The feSlion concludes with the ufe to be made of this remarkable faSl (of the ancient philofophers not believing, and yet feduloufy teaching, a future fate of rewards and punijhments) for the fupport of our main que/iion, p.. 85 — 141.
SECT.
vi CONTENTS OF THE THIRD BOOK.
SECT. V.
THIS account of the aticient fhikfophy, fo far from behig pre- judicial to Chrijlianity, that it greatly credits and recommends it. Proved from the mif chiefs that attend thofe different reprefentaiions of paganifm, in the i^vo extremes^ which the defenders of religion are aC' cufomed to make : where it isfjeivn that the difference in point of per- fection^ belzveen the ancient and modern Jjf/lems of morality, is entirely o^ving to Chrifiianity, p. 141 — 146.
SECT. VI.
T H R atheijlical pretence of religion's being an invention of fate f- men^ and thertfore falfe, clearly confuted, and f Jew n to be both \va- pertinent and falfe. For that, loas the Athei/Ts account of religion right, it tvotild not foHciW that religion was falfe, but the contrary. But the pretence Jalfe and grounalefs, religion having exifed before the civil magif rate -^vas in being, p. 146 — 213.
Appendix and Notes to the Third Book, p. 214 — 261.
CON.
C vii ]
CONTENTS
O F
THE FOURTH BOOK.
Dedication of Books IV. V. VL to Lord Mansfield^ J7*^5> p. 263—275.
Dedication /o //6^ y^ze^j, 1740, p. 276 — 291.
Preface to Books IV. V. VL IJ4.0, p. 242 — 29S.
Preface /<? f&e Edition of ly^S, p. 299 — 335.
BOOK IV.
PROVES the high antiquity of the arts and empire of Egypt ; and that fuch high antiquity illujlrates and confirms the truth of /^^ Mofaic Hiflory, p. '^^'j — 739.
SECT. I.
INTRODVCTIONy fhewing that the univerfal Pretence to Reve- lation, proves //6^ Truth o/" fome, and particularly of the Jewidi, 337—346.
SECT. II.
ENTERS on the x\nx^ Propofition. Some general refeSlions on the high antiquity of Egypt ; and of the equal extravagance of both parties in their attempts to advance or deprefs that antiquity,
P- 347—354.
SECT.
vlli CONTENTS OF THE FOURTH BOOK.
SECT. III.
THE high antiquity of E^y^t proved from Scripture i-— "And from the ancient Greek hijorians, fupported and confirmed by Scrip- ture. In the courfe of this inquiry the rife and progrefs of the art of tnedki?2e is treated of and explained, p. 354 — 387.
SECT. IV.
THE high antiquity of S.gy^t proved from /ZwV Hieroglyphics. Their nature.^ original, and various kinds, explained. Proved to bs the original of the aj-t o/Oiiirocritics or ititerpretation of Dreams, and likcwife of Brute-worlhip. In this inquiry is contained the hi/lory xf the various modes of injormation by Speech and Writing : And of the various modes of ancient idolatry, in the order they aroje front one ano- ther, p. 387 — 461.
S E C T. V.
SIR Ifaac Newton's chronology of the Egyptian empire confuted, andfievon to contradiSl all facred and profane antiquity, and even the nature of things. In the courfe of this Dijfertation the caufes of thai infinite confufion in the ancient Greek hiflory and mythology are in- quired into and explained, p. 491 — 565.
S E C T. VI.
PROVES that Mofes was Jkilled in all the learning ('/'Egypt, and the Ifraelites violently inclined to all their fuperfiitions. — That the Ritual La-iv was infituted partly in oppofition to thofe fuperfiitions, and partly in compliance to the People s prejudices. — That neither that Ri- tual nor Mofes' s Learning is atry objcSlion to the divinity of his Mif- fion — But a high confirmation of it. In which Herman Witfius' ar- guments to the contrary are examined and confuted ; and the famous Prophecy in the twentieth chapter of Ezekiel explained a?id vindicated againfi ihe abfurd interpretation of the Rabbins and Dr. Shuckford,
p. 565—655.
Notes on tic Fourth Book, p, 654 — 739.
THE
THE
DIVINE LEGATION
O F
MOSES
DEMONSTRATED.
BOOK III.
S E C T. I.
IN the beginning of the laft book, I entered upon the proof of my fecond propofition ; namely, That all antiquity was
UNANIMOUS IN THINKING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS WAS NECESSARY TO THE
WELL BEING OF SOCIETY *. And the method I laid down for it, was,
1. To ihfw the condu£l of Legijlators, and the founders of civil policy.
2. The opinions of the wifejl and mojl learned of the ancient Sages. The CONDUCT OF THE LEGISLATORS hath been fully examined
in the laft book.
II. The OPINION of the ancient sages, is the fubjed of the prefent.
They too, as well as the Lawgivers, were unanimous in this point, how difcordant foever and at variance amongft themfelves, in other matters. Whatever Syftem of Policy the Hiftorian fa- voured ; whatever Theory of Nature the Philofopher efpoufed ;
Vol. II. B this
2 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
THIS always remained an unqueftionable principle. The favourer of arbitrary power deemed it the ftrongeft bond of blind obedience ; and the friend of civil liberty, the largeft fource of virtue and a public fpirit. The Atheift, from the vaftnefs of its fecial ufe, concluded religion to be but an invention of State ; and the Theift, from that confeffed utility, laboured to prove it of divine original.
To give the reader a detail of the difcourfes, where this truth is owned and fupported, would be to tranfcribe Antiquity : for, with this begins and ends every thing they teach and explain of Morals, Government, human Nature, and civil Policy. I (hall therefore content myfelf with two or three paffages, as a fpecimen only, of the general voice of ancient Wifdom.
Tim^us the Locrian, a very early Pj/thagorean, well praifllfed in Affairs, and, in Plato's opinion, of confummate knowledge in philofophy, difcourfing on the remedies to moral evil, after having fpoken of the ufe of philofophy to lead well tempered minds to happinefs, by teaching the meafures of juft and unjufl; adds, that, for intra£lable fpirits civil Society was invented ; which keeps men in fear by the coercions of Law and Religion : " But if we come *' (fays he) to a perverfe ungovernable difpofition, there, punifh- ** ments fhould be applied ; both thofe which civil laws inflicl, ** and thofe which the terrors of religion denounce againfl: the *« wicked from above and from below : as, that endless punish- *' MENTS attend the remains of unhappy men ; and all thofe tor- *' ments, which I highly applaud the Ionic poet for recording from *' ancient tradition, in order to cleanfe and purify the mind from ** vice *."
That fage hlflorian, Polybius (whofe knowledge of mankind and civil Government was fo celebrated, that Rome preferred him to the auguft employment of compofing laws for Greece, now
• _ Et Jt xa T15 o-xXajot >^ airfiOit, riru J' Wla^a xoXatri.-, a r t« tut »o'f<f ■/ k, ci Ix. rw» hiyat cillofX lirayii<ra Jii/na!» n iTTuiavta >cj Ta xaS' a Jiai, oTi xoXao-n; awapairijlci a,v6xtivlat hriainoTt npifoii' 1^ TaX^a oV« Itcuvch to» 'iwrixov oronilaF, Ix craXaiKj woiiiJila T«; liay(a(. Heji 4'UX«s xoV/xj).
Tijnxus, p. 33. in Opufculis Myth. Eth. etPhyficis, Cantabr, 1671, 8vo.
become
Sect. I. OF M O SES DEMO N STR ATE D. 3
become a province to the republic) fpeaking of the excellence of the Roman Conftitution, expreffeth himfelf in this manner : " But " the fuperior excellence of this Policy, above others, manifefts " itfelf, in my opinion, chiefly in the religious notions the Ro- *' mans hold concerning the Gods : that thing, which in other *' places is turned to abufe, being the very fupport of the Roman *' affairs ; I mean the fear of the gods, or what the Greeks call ^^ fuperjlition ; which is come to fuch a height, both in its influence *' on particulars, and on the public, as cannot be exceeded. This, " which many may think unaccountable, feems plainly to have " been contrived for the fake of the Community. If, indeed, one *' were to frame a civil Policy only for wife men, it is poflible this *' kind of Inftitution might not be neceflTary. But fince the mul- *' titude is ever fickle and capricious, full of lawlefs paffions, and *' irrational and violent refentments, there is no way left to keep " them in order, but by the terrors of future punishment, and *' all the pompous circumftance that attends fuch kind of fidions. " On which account the Ancients a£led, in my opinion, with *' great judgement and penetration, when they contrived ta bring *' in thefe notions of the Gods, and of a future state, into the *' popular belief; and the prefent age as inconfiderately, and ab- " furdly, in removing them, and encouraging the multitude to ** defpife their terrors. For fee now the confequence : in Greece, •' the man who is entrufted with the public money (to pafs by *' other matters) though it be but of a fingle talent, and though " he give a ten-fold fecurity in the moft authentic form, and before *' twice the number of witneffes which the Law requires, cannot *' be brought to difcharge his engagements ; while, amongft the *' Romans, the mere religion of an oath keeps thofe, who *' have vaft fums of money paffing through their hands, either in *' the public adminiftration or in foreign legations, from the leaft *' violation of their truft, or honour. And whereas, in other ** places, it is rare to find a man, who can keep his hands clean, or
B 2 *' forbear
4 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
« forbear plundering his Country; in Rome it is as rare to take any " one offending in this kind. That every thing which exifts is " fubjecl to mutation and decay, we need not be told ; the unal- *' terable nature of things fufficiently informs us of this truth. But *' there being two ways, whereby every kind of Policy is ruined *' and dlffolved ; the one from without, and the other from " WITHIN ; that deftruftion, which Cometh from without, can- " not be conftantly avoided by any human provlfion : but then, " there are known and efficacious remedies for thofe evils which " arife from within *."
Polyblus lays hterally, There are two ways by which a ftate is brought to diflblution, from without and from within : that from without is uncertain and little known ; that from within is known and certain. By which words he muft mean what I make him to fay, as appears by what he immediately fubjolns, where he fhews how the power of the Great, when degenerated into tyranny, may be checked by the people : whofe oppofition to power produces, as it happens to be well or ill managed, either the beft or worft form of government, a Democracy or Ochlocracy.
* MtyWr,i Ji ftoi Jans" Ji«yogav "j^Hv to 'Pa//aii» moKltiVft.* 07^05 rt JSe?,7iov, iv T>i rofgi 5iS> «»A>i- ■V«>. Kai (ioi ioxi'i TO «7afa roT^ aX^ols ay9^wiroi; i>iio,^ou,()iov, tSto ai-ii-xiif Ta 'Poijta'.ut T^fxyficclx' fjyu Jf Tr.t Jac-iJai^oxiav' {Ti too-Stov yaf ixjtlj ay u'Mai ty wajSiff?*:!*! tSto to pef®- ©■«§ avToTi ei{ Ti TUj xar' iJiay |Si'»5 ;tj ra xoiva T>),- 'ooMu;, are f^i xalaXmtit i^E^foXi)*' 0 kJ ^o|«iv a» vjoXXoTf mat %a,vu.i<ri(it' i;*«i yt juri» ^oxSs-i tS crXiSs; X"S" '^^'"' wiffoixxiyai. Ei ft£» yac rii ffoipSf anS^uy ■srcXt- 7iUfi« ffvtxyayut, to-uf i^h Jy i.myxuT'S)' i TtiaT®- Tfo'-®-' fwii ^1 mi> vrXv^o; lr» fXaip{i» >^ to?i5,«5 i3-i8t)f«iii» ra-afayofii'v, ojy?; aXt>Va, Sv.uS ^laia, Xsis-ilon Tor; aJ^Xoif (fioCcts, )^ TJf touhJtj) r^xyaiia, Ta lirXiQr) amixff AioTtf 01 uraXaiol JokSui ftoi Taj ■nrEg. 9ii3, l»yc»af, >^ Taj ■at(\ roiy [» a^a ^laX^vj^wf «K !1K^ >Q i; tTvvif ci; Ta roXiSii crajeifrayayfiy' sjeXu di fxa?>Xo> ci jDy tix? >cj aAoyi^j UCaXX»y aiVa. ToiyafSf %4-vi? Til» cixXuy, 01 Ta xoi»» X^^'C''"'''' "^f* /*" Tor; £M»icr(y, !«» TaXavloy jtoioi iB-iritJ&a- cri>, ay\iyfu<pi~i tX"*''' J£X«» "^ (r(f^ay'^ct( TCKj-avTac, j^ ftajluja; tfiwAaCTia;, » Svta»lai Tti^Hv tV C7iri»* ■raaja Jf "Puftaioij 01 xala te tkj a.^%a5 J^ T«5 ■sr^ts-Csiaj woXiJ Ti •Er\r,fl®- j(;{rftaTwy x"?'^"'''? 1^'' a^T^f TBS ""I* '"'c* •e"!" ci'rsws, TJigSffl TO xaSSnoy. Kai ma^a. juiy Tor; a\Xoi; o-wano'y Iriy sigtry avi^iiunt Utipot Tut Aijuoffi'i^y, xj xa9a(!tM>Ia wtgi roivTa.' <aa,^a, ^1 Tor; Puiftaioij oTrayioy Ir* rJ ^aCtr» Tiy« ■Bsffluffc/AivoF Eirt ToiatT>! •a^oi^ti. "Ote (xiy By craff» 70"; air>» iroxftlai ^So^a )^ jnElafoXi, cxsJoy a «TfC<ri£» X»-.a" inoy!) y»e i tSj (puTtWf iydyxri cra^ar^o-ai td» Tciai/Tr,y ■Kri'riy" ofory Je Tfoffwy oylwy xaS' 2< ^SiipfffSai •ai^vKi vrit yjy©* laoXilitas, t5 fii» i'|iu6By, Ta it it uvtoT; <fvtifA.iia' to fi.it i«ios aralon
«X«» o-v/»C*Uh T>i» ^iu^'ictt' TO. y i| atriif Ti\ayniint» E Polyb. Hiftoriarum, lib. vi.
This
Sect. I. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 5
This long paffage deferves our attention, and for many reafons. Polybius was a Greek, and, as all good men are, a tender lover of his Country, whofe ancient glory and virtue were then faft on the decline, and the Roman mounting to its meridian. I'he melan- choly refleclions, arifing from this view of things, were always uppermoft in his thoughts : fo that fpeaking here of the great in- fluence which Religion had on the minds of the Romans, he could not forbear giving his countrymen a leflbn, and intruding them in what he efteemed the principal caufe of their approaching ruin ; namely, a certain libertinifm, which hadfpread amongft the People OF CONDITION, who, afhamed of the fimplicity of their Anceflors, and defpifiiig the ignorance of the People, afFeded a fuperior pene- tration, which brought them to regard, and prepofleroufly to teach others to regard, the reftraints of religion as illufory and unmanly. This he confirms by (hewing the ftrong influence religion hath on the morals of men. But to underftand what follows, of the two ways by which ajiate comes to ruin, from without and from within, which feems to be brought in a little abruptly, we muft fuppofe, that thofe, to whom the hiftorian addreffes himfelf, had objeded, That it was not a want of piety amongjl ihemfelves, but the force of the Roman arms without, which had broken the power of Greece • and that this difajler they ivere patiently to fubmit to, becaufe all em- pires have their fated periods. Let us fuppofe this, and the politi- cal refledlion on the fall of States will have a high propriety, and clofe connexion with what preceded. It is to this efFed : *' I aoree with yc\T, fays Polybius, that evils, coming fuddenly on a State from without, cannot be eafily warded; but then, thofe arifing from within, as they are commonly forefeen, have their remedies at hand. Now I take our misfortunes to have proceeded from thefe : for had not a negled of religion depraved the manners of the Greeks, Rome had wanted both pretence and inclination to invade 138, and Greece would have continued able to fupport its own fove- reignty : therefore your trite aphorifm of the mutability of human things is here altogether milapplied."
But
6 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
But had this great man lived only one age later, he would have 'found large occafion of addrefling this very admonition to the Ro- mans themfelves ; when the fame libertine fpirit fore-ran and con- tributed to the deftruclion of their Republic ; and religion had fo loft its hold of thofe, w'hom, in the time of Polybius, it fo en- "tirely pofleffed, that C^far could dare, in full Senate, with a degree of licence unexampled in Antiquity, to declare, that the doftrine •of z future Jlate of rewards and pwiijhrmnts was all a groundlefs notion. This was a dreadful prognoftic of their approaching iruin.
If this great politician then may deferve credit, it would be ■worth while for our People of condition to look about them, and compute their gains by fuch a condu«5l : thofe of them I mean, if any fuch there be, who profefs to love their Country, and yet as publicly defpife the Religion of it. One of them, who did both in an eminent degree, and who would fubftitute a taste, inftead of z future Jlale, for the government of the world, thus expreffeth liimfelf : " Even conjcience, I fear, fuch as is owing to religious *' difcipline, will make but a flight figure, where this taste is fet *' amifs. Amongft the vulgar perhaps it may do wonders : a devil *' and a hell may prevail, where zjail and a gallows are thought *' infufficient. But fuch is the nature of the liberal, polifhed, and ** refined part of mankind ; fo far are they from the mere fmplicity " of babes and fuckUngs, that, inftead of applying the notion of a " future reward or puniftiment to their immediate behaviour in fo- " ciety, they are apt much rather, through the whole courfe of *' their lives, to (hew evidently that they look on the pious nar- " rations to be indeed no better than children's tales and the amufe- *' ment of the mere vulgar*." I will not now aflc. Where was the religion, but where was the civil prudence of this great patriot ? For if it be indeed true, as he confeffes, that amongji the vulgar a devil and a hell may prevail^ where a jail and a gallows are thought
* CharatSlerifUcs, vol. iii. p. 177. edit. 3.
Sect. I. O F M OSE S DEMONSTRATED. 7
infufflcJent ; why would this lover of his country take off fo neceflary a reftraint on the manners of the multitude ? If he fays he would not, I alk, why then hath he publicly ridiculed it ? Or was it indeed his intention to make all his fellow-citizens men of taste ? He might as well have thought of making them all Lords *.
So abfurd and pernicious is the conduft of the Free-thinkers, even admitting them to be in the right. But if, inflead of remov- ing the rubbifh of fuperftition, they be indeed fubverting the grounds of true religion, what name mufl: be given to this degree of madnefs and impiety ?
On the whole, I fear we are in no right way. Whether in the Public too we refemble the pifture this fage hiftorian hath drawn of degenerated Greece, I leave to fuch as are better fkilled in thofe matters to determine.
The great Geographer, whofe knowledge of men and manners was as extenfive as the habitable globe, fpeaks to the fame purpofe : *' The multitude in fociety are allured to virtue by thofe enticing *' fables, which the poets tell of the illuftrious atchievementsof " ancient heroes, fuch as the labours of Hercules and Thefeus ; and " the rewards conferred by the Gods, for well-doing. So again, " they are reftrained from vice by the punilhments, the Gods are " faid to inflifl upon offenders, and by thofe -j- terrors and threat- *' nings which certain dreadful words and monflrous forms imprint "upon their minds; or by believing that divine judgements have »' overtaken evil men. For it is impofTible to [govern women and *' the grofs body of the people, and to keep them pious, holy, and ** virtuous, by the precepts of philofophy : this can be only done " by the fear of the Gods; which is raifed and fupported by *' ancient ficlions and modern prodigies. The Thunder therefore " of Jupiter, the -^gis of Minerva, the Trident of Neptune, the *' Thyrfus of Bacchus, and the Snakes and Torches of the Furies^
* See note [AJ at the end of this Book. f See note [B], at the end of this Book.
" with
8 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
*' with all the other apparatus of ancient theology, were the en- *' gines which the Legiflator employed, as bugbears, to ftrike a " terror Into the childifli imaginations of the Multitude *."
Laflly, Pliny the elder " owns it to be expedient for Society, " that men fhould believe, that the Gods concerned themfelves in "human affairs; and that the punifliments they Inflidt on ofFen- *' ders, though fometimes late indeed, as from Governors bufied in '* the adminiftration of fo vaft an Univerfe, yet are never to be " evaded +." Thus He, though an Epicurean ; but an Epicurean in his fenfes : from whom we hear nothing of the mad flrains of Lucretius, " That all religion fhould be aboliftaed, as inconfiftent " with the peace of mankind."
SECT. II.
BU T to give this matter its full evidence, it will be proper to fet together the public professions, and the private SENTIMENTS of the ancient theistical philosophers : who, notwithfianding they were for ever difcourfing on the do£lrine of a future Jlate of rewards and punlfhments, to the People, yet were all the while fpeculating in private on other and different principles. A condudl which could proceed from nothing, but a full perfuafion that this doStrine was the very vital part of Religion ; and the only fupport of that influence, which divine worfliip hath on the minds of the Multitude.
* Oi'te ■Er6XX»< Ta% t«5 ctsXhs oixa>1a;v tic ,u!» WfoljOTij ayovlai Toi; i^E<ri tut j/.i9uii, orat ixiuai ■ tut ■sjoivlut i»Jjaya9i^a1« fiviui^-n ^Tiyaiievut' oTov 'H^axAjSs Kfl^«5, » ©uffEwj, » Tjfia; ma^u luv Ssiir ttfioiAStxCf—ili ctToljoTJiv Ji, 0T«» hOmshi; -au^x Sf«v, tij If aba;, >t) wTrftXac, ■» Sat Xiyut, 'ij Six Tu- wiit uufut rttHi crfOtrj!';^av]ai, >i «J 'airivnon 'S!l^iwei7iit Tivag. Ou ya.^ o^Xot TS yvtutxSt, k, •nravlof yv^xM iij>.i6«? lirayayiXt >,Qyi> Svtaiot (pi\o(r6^u, itj tsptrnaKiaoiff^ai «7{o; lijivHXt, >^ oaioTtila, xj «iri», afJix ifT >cj i'li Seuh^xifiotix;' iSro J' «x aveu fiuOoTToiiix;, >y rc^aiiizf. Ki^xvtoi yap, aiyK»
Txvra J' xTi^t^xila oi ra; BJoAilij'a; KOilxrnTafxnot j*cJ(;«o^I/xa; Tt>«{ •arjof tbj tninif^ftxi, Strabo, Geogr. 1. i.
f Verum in his Deos agerc curam rerum hiimananim credi, ex ufu vitce eft ; pocnaf- que maleficiis aliquando feras, occupato Deo in tanta mole, nunquam autem irritas efle. Hift, Nat. i. ii, c. 7.
Now,
Sect. 2. OF MOSE S DEMONSTRATED. 9
Now, though after reading their hijlory^ refledling on their cha^ rcidiersy and examining their writings with all the care I was able, it appeared to me, that thefe men believed nothing of that yz//«r^ Jiate which they fo induftrioufly propagated in the world ; and therefore on this, as well as other accounts, deferved all that af- perity of language with which they are treated by the Sacred writers ; yet the contrary having been long and generally taken for granted, and their real opinions often urged by our ableft di- vines, as conformable and favourable to the Chriftian doArine of a future ftate ; I fufpe«£l that what I have here faid, will be exclaimed againft as an unreafonable and licentious ^^r^^oA*.
But, for all this, I do not defpair of proving it a certain, though an unheeded, truth : and then I fhall hope my reader's pardon for the length of this enquiry, as it is of no fmall moment to fhew the fenfe Antiquity had of the ufe of a future ftate to Society : and as, in (hewing that ufe, I fhall be able to clear up a very important point of antiquity, doubly obfcured, by length of time and perver- fity of contradi£lion.
But, before I enter on the matter, I ftiall, in order to abate the general prejudice, explain what is meant by that future state, which, I fuppofe, the theistical philosophers did not believe. And this the rather, becaufe the contrary opinion has continued the longer unqueftioned, through the lax and ambiguous ufe of the term. Thus, becaufe it was evident, that all, or moft of the theif- tical philofophers believed, as well as taught, the immortality, or rather the eternity of the foui, men, tied down to the affociations of modern ideas, concluded that they believed, as well as taught, the doftrine of z future Jiate of rewards and punijhments.
To make the reader, therefore, mafter of the queftlon, it will not be unfit, juft to diftinguifh the feveral fenfes, in which the Ancients conceived the permanency of the human foul ; and to refervc the explanation of them, and affignment of them to their proper authors, for another place.
Vol. II. C This
lo THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
This permanency was either,
I. A SIMPLE EXISTENCE afterthislife: or,
II. Existence in a state of reward and punishment, aC'
cording to metis behaviour here.
Each of thefe was two- fold.
Simple exijience was either,
I. An immediate refusion of the soul, on death, into
THE UNIVERSAL NATURE or TO' "EN, FROM WHENCE IT PRO- CEEDED :
Or, II. A CONTINUANCE OF ITS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT EXISTENCE, ON DEATH, FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD, BEFORE ITS REFUSION INTO THE TO^ '^EN, IN A SUCCESSIVE TRANSITION THROUGH VARIOUS ANIMALS, BY A NATURAL AND FATAL, NOT MORAL DESIGNATION.
'Exijience in ajlate of rewards and puriiJJiments was either,
I. A STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, IMF ROPER- LT SO CALLED ; WHERE HAPPINESS AND MISERY WERE THE NATURAL AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES OF VIRTUE AND VICE ; NOT POSITIVELY SO, OR BY THE FREE DESIGNATION OF WILL :
Or, II. A STATE OF REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, PRO- PERLY SO called; WHERE THE HAPPINESS AND MISERY CON"- SEQUENT ON VIRTUE AND VICE, WERE THE POSITIVE AND FREE DESIGNATION OF WILL, AND NOT THE NECESSARY CONSE- QUENCES OF THINGS.
The LAST is that notion of a future flnte, fo ufeful to Society, which all the Lawgivers, Priefts, and Philofophers publicly taught and propagated ; and which the People throughout the whole earth xiniverfally believed. Of this, the metempsychosis was, gene- rally, a part j and, what is more, continues to be fo to this very day, amongft the civilized Gentiles of the Eaft.
It is A FUTURE state, then, of rewards and punishments IN general, and particularly the fecond and proper notion of it
(for
Sect. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. n
(for as to thefij}, it was peculiar to the Platoaifts) which I pre- tend to prove the ancient Philolophers did not beUeve.
But before I proceed to explain the principles of each fe(£l:, It will not be improper to premife thofe general reasons, which in- duced me to think fiat the Phiiojophers did not always beUeve •what they taught : And that they taught this doctrine without believing it. And as the reader's chief prejudice, on this point, arifeth from the Philofophers' having talked and written fo much in behalf of a future flate of rewards and punifhments; the three firfl of the following general reafons will fhew, I. That they all thought it lawful to fay one thing, and think another. 2. That they per- petually pracftifed what they thus profeflcd to be lawful. And 2. That they pradtifed it on the very point in queflion.
I. My Jirji general reafon was, that the ancient Sages held it law- ful, for the public good, to fay one thing when they thought aim- ther.
We have defcribed the times of Antiquity very ill, if It doth not appear, from what is here fald, that each People had the moft re- ligious regard to the laws and conflitutions of their country. What raifed this veneration (natural to all men, accuflomed to a form of Policy) to fuch a height, was the popular prejudice In favour of their original. For, we have feen, the Founders pretended to re- ceive their refpedive inftitutions from fome patron God. At the time, they received the civil policy, they eftablilhed the national religion', whofe principal rites were objeftive to the patron God; which gave occafion to the public part of religion, explained above: whereby, the State, as fuch, became the fubje6l of religious vvorfliip.
This making the national Religion one of the mofl: necefiliry and eflential parts of civil Government, It would become a general maxim, not only oi mere politicians, but of all the beft and wifeft of thofe times, that every one should conform to the reli- gion OF HIS country. We fee, by the behaviour of Socrates
C 2 himfdf,
12 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book ITT.
himfelf, how much men were pofiefled with the fitnefs and im- portance of this rule. That excellent man, who made it the bufinefs of his life to fearch out, and expofe the errors of human conduft, was moft likely to detedl the folly of this general preju- dice. Yet when he comes to his defence before his judges ; a de- fence, in which he was fo fcrupulous that he rejedled what his friends would have added of confefled utility to his fervice, becaufe not flridly conformable to that truth, by which he fquared the rec- titude of his life ; when he comes, I fay, to anfwer that part of the charge which accufes him of attempting to overturn xht popular Divinities, he declares it, in the moft folemn manner, as his opi- nion, that every one Jl:ould adhere to the Religion of his country^. If it (hould flill be fufpedled, that this was only faid, as it made beft for his defence, let us follow him in his laft moments, retired amidft his philofophic friends and followers ; and there we fhall find him ftill true to this great principle, in a circumflance which hath much diftreffed, and ftill diftreffes, modern critics to account for ; I mean the requefling his friends to facrifice a cock to^/Efculapius ; a piece of devotion, on fome account or other, no matter what, due from him, according to the cufloms of his country, which he had neglefted to perform ■\.
But for all this, no one the leaft converfant in antiquity, will, I fuppofe, take it into his head that thefe Sages, becaufe they held tvery one Jhould adhere to the religion of his country, did not there- fore fee the grofs errors of the national religions. Why then (it may be afked) was this flrange violation of truth amongfl men who employed all their lludies to evince the importance of it, in general, to happinefs ?
The explanation of the riddle is eafy : the genius of their na- tional religions, confifling rather in the performance of Rites of Worfliip than in the profeflion of Opinions, taught them to con-
* See note [CJ, at the end of this BooV. f See note [D], at the end of this Book.
cludcy
S£CT. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. ij
elude, THAT UTILITY AND NOT TRUTH WAS THE END OF RELI- GION. And if we attentively confider thofe religions (formed in fubferviency to the State) as is occafionally explained in the feveral parts of this work, we fhall not much wonder at their conclufion. And then not rightly diftinguifhing between particular and general UTILITY ; between that which arifeth from the illegitimate, and legitimate^ adminiflration of civil policy, they univerfally embraced this other falfe conclufion, that utility and truth do not COINCIDE *. From this latter principle, a third necefiarily arofe,
that it was lawful AND EXPEDIENT TO DECEIVE FOR THE
PUBLIC GOOD. This all the ancient Philofophers embraced : and Tully, on the authority of Plato, thinks it fo clear, that he calls the doing otherwife nefas, a horrid wickednefs. The famous Scffivola, the Roman Pontiff, frankly declares his opinion (as St. Auflin tells us) " that Societies fhould be deceived in religion +•" The laft mentioned author goes on : " Varro, fpeaking of religions, *' fays plainly, that there are many truths which it is not expe- *' dient the vulgar fhould know ; and many falshoods which yet *' it is ufeful for the people to receive as truths |." Upon which the Father remarks, " Here you have the whole arcana of flate §." Nothing (hews more ftrongly, that, not truth, but utility, ruled all, in Paganifm, than the cafe Livy mentions, of what happened in the S73^ 7^^^ of Rome. Some concealed books of Numa were difcovered; which, on examination by the proper officers, being found to be injurious to the ejlablijloed JVorJl?ip, were ordered, by Authority, to be burnt. Not one word is objefted to them as containing any /7^i'Ci><3'; on the contrary, they were treated at their
* See the contrary propofition proved towards the beginning of the Cxth feftion of the third book.
f Expedire exiftimat falli in religione civitates. De Civ. Dei, 1. iv. c. lo.
\ Varro de religionibus loquens, evidenter dicir, multa efle vera, qux vulgo fcire non fit UTILE ; multaque, qus tametfi falfa fint, aliter exiftimare populum expediat.
§ Hie certe totuna confilium prodidit sapientium, per quos civitates & populi regerentur,
execution
14 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
execution with the utmofl reverence and refpeft ; and the fire was
lighted by the facred Minifters who ferved at the Altar. As we
go along, we fhall find this maxim univerfally received by the the'Jlkdl Philofophers.
I would onlv obferve, that it appears from hence, that the prin- ciples, which induced the ancient Sages to deem it lawful to lye or deceive for the public good, had no place in the nature^ or in the confonant propagation of the Jewish and Christian religions.
II. My fecond general reafon was, that the ancient Sages did aSiu- aily fay one thing when they thought another. This appears from that general pradlice in the Greek Philofophy, of a twofold DOCTRINE ; the external and the internal ; a vulgar and a fecret. The firft openly taught to all ; and the fecond confined to a fele61; number. If this needed any other proof than what is given above, it might be fupported by the very language ufed in fpeak- ing of the Philofophers — e*V ■'"'!'' nAarwi©^ r^ytv f^vguyuiytuv *. — Jtt^i/ ^ A^i^olb-.ag ro~g fivr^pioi; +• Now what initiation or what myflery could there be in a fe£t that had nothing to hide from the Many, nothing to communicate to the Few ? And how, but by faying one thing and thinking another, could fuch a Syftem be fupported ? Nor were they different dodrines or fubje6ls, but one and the fame, handled differently ; popularly and fcientifically ; viz. according to OPINION, or according to truth |.
Parmenides, we are told, had two doclrines concerning the nature of the univerfe ; one, in which he taught that the world had been nwde^ and would be dejlroyed ; another, in which he faid, it was wigenerated, and would never be dijfolved ; and that the firft was his PUBLIC, and the fecond was his private teaching §.
That Plato followed the fame praftlce, we learn from his own words, who, in a letter to his friends, fays, according to Dr.
* MarLnus in vita Procli. f Themifl, in Patr. ob.
% See note [E], at the end of this Book. f Sec note [F], at the end of this Bok.
Bentley's
Sect. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 15
Bentley's tranflation *, "As for the fymbol or private note you *' defire, to know my ferious letters, and which contain my real ^^ fentiinenis, from thofe that do not, know and remember that God " begins a ferious letter, and gods one that is otherwife t" Now had not Plato ufed the exoteric dodlrine, or dehvered things not correfponding to the real fentiments of his mind, what bccafion had his friends to defire this private mark or fymbol to know when he was in earneft ?
Galen fays, " Plato declares that animals have conftantly a *' foul, which ferves to animate and inform their bodies : as for *' ftones, wood, and what we commonly call the inanimate parts *' of the creation ; all thefe, he fays, are quite deftitute of foul. *' And yet in his Timaeus, where he explains his principles to his " difciples and fele6l friends, he there gives up the common no- " tion, declares that there is a foul difFufed through the univerie, *' which is to actuate and pervade every part of it. Now ive are *' not to imagine that in this cafe he is inconsistent with himfelf, *' or maintai?is contrary doHrines, any more than Arijlotle and Theo- *' phrajiiis are to be charged ijuith contradiSiion, -when they delixercd *^' to their Difciples their acroatic do5irines, and to the Vulgar, prin- ♦• ciples of afiother natiire\y And, in the communication of their acroatics or arcane opinions, the phllofophers were as cautious as the teachers of the Myjieries were in theirs : and fet about it with the fame folemnlty §.
* See the Doftor's Remarks on the Difcourfe of Free-thinking, &:c,
•f n«5-t Je J-J tS lujuGo'Xs tS ■st!^ Taj sTiroXaf, oo-aj n ai l5rirjW.« SIIOYAH KAI OSAS AN MfT,
5 faSf.) fxti^ui JujuEiVtai* T?j y.a yaf e-iraiaiu; i)T(roX?5 0<o5 «fX^> ®"' ^' '''^i St'j&v. Ep. xiii.
J riAarav jAt aiTos s,u4't'%'* f"' "" ?-''y'» Ta ^i!a, Taj XiSh^ cl, xj Ta; wca.:, ^ ra i;6\a, xj xa^iXa tpitai Ta Ifivra, •crocvia rut aj^f^i^tii (T-jifiaTuy i'ltai (pvavi' a,\h oVav h Tif^am Tr,» (pv^iKriv Sfu^i'av oJvi- yWott aKfoalaTi, xcclcmoXu^th sTirijuO'iKOi;, Xoyoi; tfuiajn/ioi;, axo^^i'c^o-A!; T«» Tor; ta-o^Ao."! Joxavln'v, ti'? c&.o» Toir xoo-ftor iitliTar^ai X/",'oi T»|y 4't';^;j»* atrS Jia^iadav, a ;^^jj Taro »o(*i^«» tliai Ta.>3'i:o5 latTsi TairavliaE AeyoH^, ua'TTi^ aa 'Aprol/Xtff »J 0fo^par»j Ta /aei" toPj OToXXor^ ysy^a^&T«^| Tit: ^i anpaoio'iii 70?$ iTaJ^oi,-. Galeni De fubilantia naturalium facultatum fragmentum.
§ And in the fame form of w ords :
So, Porphyry in Eufcbius introduces his iaternal doflrines.
Syne.
i6 THE DIVINE LEGATION Bqok in.
SyNESius, a thorough Platonift, and fcarce more than half a Chriftian, who perfectly well underftood all the intrigues of Pagan philofophy, delivers it as the plain confequence of the pradice of the double dodlrine^ " that philofophy, when it has attained the "truth, allows the ufe of LIES and fictions*."
After this, it will hardly need to be obferved, That their extern nal dodlrine was, either the invention of fables, or the propagation of what they held to be falfe : and their internal, the delivery of what they held, or difcovered, to be the truth : Yet becaufe a re- markable paflage of Macrobius will, together with the proof of this point, tend to the further illuftration of the general fubje(5l we
are upon, I fhall give it at large. " Yet it is to be underftood
*' (fays this author) that the philosophers did not admit into *' every kind of difputation, the falfe and fabulous, whether of their *' own invention or of public allowance +> but only in thofe words *• which treated of the soul, or of etherial powers, or of the *• OTHER GODS |. But wheii their difcourfe ventured to raife itfelf *' to God, the origin and principle of all things. Him whom the *' Greeks call the good and the first cause ; or, to mind § ; *' which the Greeks call NOT2, the offspring of the fupreme God,
* NSs 5» ^iXoVo^©- Ito^tIdj ui retXtiSSs <rufx'>i^'' 'H' XS"? ''^ YETf AES0AI. Epift. cv.
f The text hySjfabulofai'cl Ikita. The two laft words are found in all the old editions : the more modern, for an obvious reafon, dropt them. Gronovius takes notice of the fraud, and reftores them to their place ; but, in order, finally, to degrade them, on a fair hearing: which he does, and puts vtl Jifla in their place. But //c/Va is, I believe, Macrobius's own word, and fignifies, thofe theological fahles allowed of by public authority. So that fabulofa vel I'lcita means, either fuch fables as the philofophers invented^ or fiich as they borrowed from the popular belief.
X The text fays — de aeriis atheriifve potefalibus ; by which the author means, the firft natural Gods of Gentilifm, the heavenly bodies; as by vel de ceteris D'ls, he means>
the fecond clafs of falfe gods, dead men deified.
§ ad mentem. By mind, the author here means the third hypoftafis of the Pla- tonic trinity, called i3i or Xoy®*. For he takes his example, of what he fays, of the condu£l of the philofophers, from Plato ; and illuflrates an obfervation of his own, in this place, by a paflage in that philofopher.
•* which
Sect. 2. O F MO S E S D E MO N STR A TE D. 17
" which contains the original fpecles of things called ideas, " when thefe. things, I fay, mixd and the supreme god, ** are the fubjett, then all fable and falfhood is banlflied frona the *' difcourfe. But flill let us obferve, that If, on thefe fubje£ts, ** their difcourfe leads them to inculcate doftrines, which not only ** exceed the power of fpeech, but even human ideas and coglta- ** tions, they then fly to allufions, fimilltudes, and figures.' ** But then again, on the other hand, when the difcourfe is of the *' firft kind, that is, concerning the gods and the human soul, ** where fable and falfhood are employed, the philofophers have *' had recourfe to this method, not out of an idle or fantaftic hu- ** mour, or to pleafe their audience by an agreeable amufement ; •* but becaufe they know that a naked and open expofitlon of NA- ** TURE * is injurious to her ; who, as flie hides the knowledge of ** herfelf from grofs and vulgar conceptions, by the various cover- '< ing and difguife of Fo/wr, fo It is her pleafure, that her priefts, *' the Philofophers, fliould treat her fecrets in fable and allegory. ** And thus it is even in the facred Myjlcries^ where the fecret Is " hid, even from the initiated, under figurative and fcenlcal repre- " fentations t* And while princes and magiflrates only, with *' Wifdom \ for their guide, are admitted to the naked truth § ; *' the reft may be well content with outfide ornaments, which, at ** the fame time that they excite the beholder's reverence and vene-
* qu'tafciuitt inlmlcam effe natura afertaia nuJam^ue expofitlonemque fui. He alludes here to the danger of explaining openly the phyfical nature of the heavenly bodies, becaufe it would unfcttle one half of vulgar polytheifm. So Anaxagoras was accufed, and fome fiy convided, -of a capital crime, for bolding the fun to be a mere material maft of fire.
f — fgurarum cuniculii oferluntur, i.e. cunkulh figurarum ad reprefentationem itptis. It alludes to the allegorical (hews of the myjlerks reprefented in fubterraaeous places.
X — SapUntia interprete ; Wljdom is here put into the office of hierophant of the myjlcries who inftrufted the initiated in \.\xefecrtt,
§ — fummatilui tantum virii vert arcani confciis. By thefe Macrobius means heroes princes, and legiflators : alluding to their old praftice of feeking initiation into the greater myjlcries.
Vol. IL D « ration.
i8 THE DIVINE LEGATION Booi; IIK-
** ration *, are contrived to fecure the dignity of the fecret, by ** hiding it under that cover from the knovvdedge of the Vulgar t-"' The firft obfervation I (hall make on this long paffage is, that the- SAME SUBJECT, namely, the nature of fuperior beings, was handled'' in a TWO-FOLD manner ; exoterically ; and then the difcourfe was of the national Gods : efoierically ; and then it was of the ^rj}- Caufe of all things. 2. That the exoteric teaching admitted fable and hXihood, fabulo/a vel licita : the efteric only what the teacher believed to be true, nl/jil fabukfum pe'nitus. 3. That what was tauo-ht the Vulgar concerning the human soul was of the exoteric kind. 4. That the teaching of fables was oue thing ; and the teaching in fables, or by figurative expreffions, quite another: the firfl being the cover of error ; the feccnd the vehicle of truth : that the paliions and prejudices of men made xh^firfi necelTary ; that the hitter became unavoidable through tl>e weaknefs of human conception. This diflindion was ufeful and feafonable, as the not attending to it, in thofe late times, in which Macrobius wrote, was the occaiion of men's confounding thefe two wa}^ of teaching with one anotlier.
* Cantenti Jim reVqui ad vcneratimtmf.gurU, Sc'c. is equlvaleBt to Cqntenti fint reVuiui mpt'is rjcncyationi figuris.
f Sciendiisn eft tamen non in omnem difputationem philofophos admittere fabulofa vel licita, fed his uti folent, vel cum de anima, vel de airiii atheriifve poteftatibuj, vel Ae cetcrii Dis, loquuntur. Ceterura cum ady}immu:a ct princlfim onmhim Dcuyn, qui apud Grxcos TayaBcv, qui wpTw aiTio nuncupatur, traflatus fe audet attollere ; vel ad. mentcm quam Grici >§» appellant, originales rerum fpecies, qua I^ict difta; funt, contineruein, ex fummo natam et profeftam Deo r cum de his^ inqunm, loquuntur, fnmmo Deo ct mente nihil fabulofum penitus attingunt. Sed fi quid de his aflignare conantur, quae non fermouem tantummodo, fed cogitationem quoque humanam fuperant, ad fimilitudines et exemphi confugiunt — De JDih autem, vit dixi, cettrh^ et de anlma non fruftra fe, nee, ut obleftent, ad fabulofa convertunt ; fed quia fciunt inimicam efle naturae apertam nu- damqne expofitionem fui : quce ficut vulgaribus hominum fsnfibus intelleiThihi fui vario rerum tegmine opsrimentoque fubtraxit ; ita a pmdentibus arcana fua voluit per fabu- lofa traftari. Sic ipla myjleria figurarum cuniculis operiuntur, ne vel haec adepti« nuda rerum talium fe natura prxbeat : fed fummatibus tantum viris, Sapientia interprete, veri arcaiii confciis ; ccntenti fint reliqui ad venetationem figuris defendeatibus a vilitate fscretum. In Somn. Scip. lib. i. c, 2.
From
•Ssc-T. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 19
From all this it appears, that a right conception of the nature of ■the DouBr.fe doctrine was deemed the true key to the ancient Greek philoiophy.
On which account feveral writers of the lower ages compofed difcourfes ON the hidden doctrines of the philosophers*. But as thefe, which would have given much light to the fubje6t, <are not ("(Come down to us, we muft be content to feel out our way •to the original and end of the double doBrine as well as we are able. For it is not enough, that this method of teaching was general amongft the Greek philoiophers : to bring it to our point, we mull prove it was invented for the good of Society.
The original is little underflood. It hath been generally fuppofed ■owing either to a barbarous love of myflery ; or a bale difpofitioii to deceive. Toland, who made it the ftudy of a wretched life, to ■Ihed his venom on every thing that was great and refpedable, fomctimes + fuppofes this double doclrine the ilTue of craft and roguery ; at other times, a grave and wife provifion againft the bigotry and fuperftition of the vulgar. And a diiFerent fort of man, the celebrated Fontenelle, when he calls myjlery, which is the con- fequence of the double dodrine, the apanage cf barbarity y does as little juftlce to Antiquity.
I Ihall fhew firjl, that thofe, from whom the Greeks borrowed this method of philofophifing, invented it for the fervice of Society, Audi fecondly, that thofe who borrowed it, employed it for tha^ purpofe ; however it might at length degenerate into craft and folly +.
Firjl, then, it is confeffed by the Greeks themfelves that all their learning and wifdom came from Egypt ; fetched from thence either immediately by their own Philofophers, or brought round
* Zacynthus fcripfit rx. airoffr% n; piXorofiV;, referente Laertio, Porphyrius rut ifiXo3-o+«j» Ta aasp/iiJa, telle Eunapio in ejus vita.
f See his Tetradymus, In what he calls, Of the Exoteric and Efoteric Philofophy. J S«e note £G], at the end of this Book.
Da to
20 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book IH.
to them by the Eaftern Sages, by the way of Afia. In this, the Greeks are unanuTious. Now Merodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Plu*- tarch, all teftify that the Egyptian priefts, with whom the learning of the place relided, had" a twofold philosophy, the one hidden and facred, the other open and vulgar *.
To know their end in this way of teaching, we muft confider their charadler. ^lian tells us t, that in the mofl early times-, the Priejis, amongft the Egyptians, were Judges and Magijlrates: So that the care of the People muft needs be their chief concern under both titles: and as well what they divulged as what they concealed, muft be equally for the fake of Society. Accordingly we find them to have been the firft who taught an intercourfe with the Gods, a future ftate of rewards and puuilhments, and initiation into mysteries, inflituted for the fupport of that belief : The ^TTcpprJcc of which was the dodtrine of the- unity..
Plutarch aflures us of this truth, where he tell& us, that it was chiefly to their Kings and Magiftrates, to whom the. secret doc- trines of the College were revealed. "The Kings were chofen *' (iiiys he) either out of the priefthood, or the foldiery : as t/jis «' order for their valour, and l/jai for their wifdom, were had in " honour and reverence. But when one. was chofen out of the *' foldiery, he was forthwith had to the college of the Priefts, and " inflrudled in their fccret philofophy ; which involves many things ♦' in fables and allegories, where the face of truth is feen, indeed ; " but clouded and obfcured J."
And in the fame manner, and with the fame view, the Magi of Perfia, the Druids of Gaul, and the Brachmans of India,
Tlifi 'itriJ. k; 'Oa-if .
+ Var. Hift, 1. xiv. c, 34.
t oi oi 0a:^l^i^,- avthlnyvtla ^liv Ix Twy li^iat ti Tut ix»X}UMf, t5 ftjv oi' avj^i'at, rS ii Jii a-of *«»,
jT»jl IS. >sJ 02. Steph. ed.
the
Sect. 2, OF MOSES I>E xMO NST R A TE D. 21
the genuine offspring of the Egyptian priefbs, and who, like them, Uiared in the adminiftration of the State, had all their externaL and intetnal do^rines*.
What hath mifled both ancient and modern writers to -think tlic double doSlrine to be only a barbarous and felhfh craft of keeping up the reputation of the teacher, was a prevailing. opinion, that moral and natural truths were concealed under the ancient fables of the Gods and Heroes. For then, thefe fables mufl: have been invented by the an- cient Sages; and invented for the fake of explaining them, and nothing more. So the learned Mailer of the Charter-houfe, taking it for granted that the Sages were the inventors of the ancient mythology, concludes that one of thefe two things was the original of the double doSIrine: "It arole either from the genius of Antiquity, efpecially *-" of the Orlentalifts ; or elfe from the affedation of making impor- *' tant things, difficult, and not ealily underflood at tirfl; light f." But that way of allegorizing the ancient fables was theinventlon of the later Greek philofophers. The old Pagan mythology was only the corruption of hiftorical tradition ; and confequently arofe from the People; whofe follies and prejudicies occafion the double doctrine, ^ to be employed for their fervice. But what it was that facilitated its ufe, w-e fliall fee hereafter, when we come, in the fourth booky to fpeak of the Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Secondly, We fay, the Greeks, who borrowed this method of the double doBrine, employed it, like the Egyptians, wh-o invented
k, TO THE USE OF SOCIETY.
I. The firfl: who went out of Greece to learn Egyptian wifdom,. were the legislators: Or fuch a?, projeding to reduce the fcattered tribes, which then over-ran Greece, i..to civil Societ^r,
* Orig. cont. Cc'fnm, 1. i.
t Sive id facflum fuerit pro ingenio prifcnrum hominiim, maxime orientafiiun ; (Tve ut ea, qu:E pulchra erant, difficilia rcdderent, ncque primo innijtu difccincnda. Ar- chsol. Phil. 1. i. c. 3.
travelled
s-2 THE DIVINE LEGATION Boo tc III.
t-travelled thither to learn the art of la^vgiving, from a natioa the moll: celebrated for that knowledge. Ofthefe, were Orpheus, Khadamanthus, Muics, Lycaon, Triptolemus, and others; who concerned themfelves with nothing of the Egyptian wlfdom, but their public morals or Politics ; and received the double doctrine along with it; as appears from their inflituting the mysteries (where this doclrlne was praftifed) in their feveral civil eftablifhments.
2. The next fort of men who went from Greece to Egypt for in- flrudllon (though the intereourfe of the Lawgivers with Egypt was not interrupted, but continued down to the times of Draco, Ly- curgus, and Solon) were the naturalists ; who, throughout their whole courfe, bore the name of sophists. For now Greece being advanced from a favage and barbarous ftate, to one of civil Policy, the inhabitants, in confequence of the cultivation of the arts of life, began to refine and fpeculate. But phyfics and ina- thematics wholly ingroffed the early fophifts, fuch as Thales, Anaxlmander, Anaxlmenes, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Leu- cippus. For as thefe ftudles were managed fyftematically and fitted to the vain and curious temper of that people, this, as the port of honour, would be firft feized upon. Befides, Greece being at this time over-run with petty tyrants*, the defcendants of their ancient heroes, it was found unfafe to turn their fpeculations upon morals ; in which politics were contained, and made fo emi- nent a part. All then that this fecond clafs of Adventurers learnt of the Egyptians, was physical and mathematical knowledge : and as, in the cultivation of this, there was little occafion for, fo their character of mere Naturalifts made them have lefs regard to, the double doSirine And in eftefl, we find little mention of it amongft the firft Greek Sophifts, who bufied themfelves only ia thefe enquiries.
2- The
Sect. 2. OF MOSES DExM O N ST R ATED. 23
3. The laft fort of people, who went to Egypt for inftrudion, were the philosopher?, properly fo called. A oharafter exaftly compounded of the two preceding, the Lawgiver and the Natiiral'/Jl. For when now, after various ftruggles, and revolutions, the Gre- cian States had aflerted, or regained their liberties, morals, pub- lic and private, would become the fubjeifl moft in fafliion. From this time, the Grecian Sages became violently given to Legiflation, and were adlually employed in making laws for the feveral emerg- ing Common-wealths: Hence Ariftotle oblerved, that " the beft *' Lawgivers in ancient Greece, were amongfi: the middle rank of *' men." The firft (as well as mofl famous) of this clafs, and Vv'ho ^MQ. phlhfophy its name and character, was Pythagoras. He, and Plato, with others, travelled into Egypt, like their predeceilbrs. But now having joined in one, the two different ftudies of Politics and Philofophy, a flight tinfture of Egyptian inftrudtion would not ferve their purpofe : to complete their Charafter, there was a neceffity of being thoroughly imbued with the moft hidden wif- dom of Egypt. Accordingly, the Ancients tell us *, of their long abode there ; their hard condition of admittance into the facred Colleges ; and their bringing away with them all the fecret fcience of the priefthood. The refult of all was, and it is worth our ob- fervation, that, from this time, the Greek Sophj/Is (now called Fhilofophers) began to cultivate the belief of a future Jlate of rewards and punijhtiients, and, at the very fame time, the praSlice of the double do5lrine : which two principles were the diftinguifiiing bado-es of their Charadf er.
Thus, "by an intimate acquaintance with the Egyptian priefthood, the Greeks, at length, got amongft themfelves a new fpecies of SAGES, whofe charafter much refenibled that of their maflers. But with this difference, that amongri: the Egyptian Priefts (and fo- amongfi the Magi, the Brachmans, and the Druids) Philofophy was
* Porph. De vita Pyting. — Strabo c!e Platone, !. xvii. Geogr. Origin. Comm. in
£p. ad. Rom. c. iii.
an
24 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book HI.
.an appendix to Legiflation ; while amongft the Greeks, Legiflation
was but the appendix to Philofophy. For philofophy was the firjl
acquert of the Greek Sages ; and legiflation, of the Egyptian. There
was yet another difference; which was, that, in X.\\&Greek Soph'Jl, the
two charadlers of legislator and philosopher were always kept
diilin6t, and condiifled on the contrary principles : whereas in the
E^vptuin Frieft, they were incorporated, and went together. So
that in Greece, the hiddeyi do^nne of the Ahjicries, and the aVcp-
■pijT« of the Schools, though fometimes founded by one and the fame
iperfon, as by Pythagoras, were two very different things; but iii
J.gypt, ftill one and the fame.
Greece was now well fettled in popular Communities; an-d yet this legiflating humour flill continued. And when the Philolb- phers had no more work, they ftill kept on the trade; and from pra«£lical, became fpeculative Lawgivers. This gave birth to a de- luge of vifionary R'publics, as appears from the titles of their works preferved by Diogenes Laertius ; where, one is always as fure to find a treatife De legibuSf or De republican as a treatife, De Jeo, De anlma^ or De miindo.
But of all the feds, the Pythagoreans and Platonifts continued longefl: in this humour. The Academics and Stoics, indulging to the difputatious getaius of the Greek philofophy, ftruck out into a new road ; and began to cultivate the laft great branch of philofo- phy, LOGIC ; efpecially the Stoics, who, from their great attach- ment to it, were furnamed DuikSlki.
The reader hath here a (hort view of the progrefs of the greek PHILOSOPHY ; which Plato aptly divided hito physics, morals, and LOGIC *. We hr.ve fhewn that this was the order of their birth : the ftudy of phyjics and maihematics began while Greece groaned under its petty tyrants : morals public and private arofe with their civil liberties : and logic^ when they had contraded a habit of difputation and refinement.
* .M/j!) l\ <fi>.ii<r<i(fiiti T{{x, "PrriKON, H©IKON; AIAAEKTIKON, Diog. Laert. Proaem.
But
Sect. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 25
But when now the liberties of Greece began to be again fhakca by Tyrants of greater form and power, and every nobler province of Science was already poflefled and occupied by the Seits above luentioned; fome ambitious men, as Epicukus, attempted to re- vive the Iplendor of ancient physics by an exclufive cultivation of them ; reje^llng logic, and all xht public part of morals, Politics and hegijlation : and, with them, in confequence, (which deferves our notice) the ufe of the double doctrine *, as of no fervice in this reform. An evident proof of its having-been employed only for the fake of Society : for were it, as Toland and his fellows pre- tend, for their own, it had found i.ts ufe chiefly in Phvfics ; becaufe the celeftial bodies being amongft the popular Gods, enquiries into their phyfical eflence would hardly efcape the public odium : Plu- tarch tells us how heavily it fell both on Protagoras and Anaxa- goras t» Notwitlifta'nding this, the Jir/l and the /ij/i of the Sophi/Is, who dealt only in Fbyjics, equally rejeded the double doclrine While on the other hand, the kgijlating philofophers employed thi& very dodrine even in natural enquiries. We are told, that Pytha- goras's popular account of earthquakes was, that they were occa- lioned by a fynod of ghofts affembled under ground %. But Jam- blichus § informs us, that he fometimes predidled earthquakes by the tafte of well water |j.
* Clemens Alex, indeed (Sti-om. ;,) fay?, that " the Epicureans bragged they had " their yi-frf/i which it was not lawful to divulge ;" but this was only arrogating to thernfelves a mark of Philofophy, which thofe, to whom it really belonged, had made venerable.
Tare xa^a/aiva; w; ti; kiti«; aAo')B{ ^ Juva^Ei; aTfO»o>!TS? j^ XLlijraJxaa-uei'o- ina.in ^loJf t?o»i« ; to
Nicix.
X iElian. Var. Hift. 1, iv. c. 17.
§ Jamblicus Vit. Pythag. 1. 1. c. 33.
B See note [HJ at the end of this Book.
Vol. II. E ft
26 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book IIL
It appears' then, on the whole, that the double doSlrine was ufed for the fake of Society ; their high notions of which made them con- clude the practice not only to be innocent, but laudable : whereas, were the motive either love of myjlery, of fraud, or of tbernfches, it cannot be reconciled to any of their feveral fyftems of private morals.
III. My third general reafon was, that the ancient Sages feejtted to fratt'tfe the double doctrine, in the poitit in qtiefion. I have ob- served, that thofe Sedls which joined legijlation to philojophy, as the Pythagoreans, Platonifcs, Peripatetics, and Stoics, always profeffed the belief of a future flate of rewards and punifhments : while thofe, who fimply philofophifed, as the Cyreniac, the Cynic, and the Democritic, publicly profeffed the contrary. And juft as thofe of the legiflating clafs were more or lefs in the pradlice of that art, fo were they more or lefs in the profeflion of a future fiate; as oa the one hand, the Pythagoric and Platonic ; and on the other, the Peripatetic and Stoic. Nay in one and the fame fe6l (as the Peri- patetic, or the Stoic), when a follower of it fludied legiflation, he profeffed this belief; when he confined himfelf to private morals, or abll:ra£l fpeculations, he rejefted it. Thus Zeno, amongft the Stoics, was a great affertor of it ; while Epiftetus openly denied it. And Seneca, who was but a mongrel, feems willing to expofe the whole myflery. For in thofe parts of his writings, where he ftriftly philofophifes, he denies a future flate ; and in thofe, where he afts the preacher or pohtician, he maintains it; and having in this charader, faid what he thought fit in its behalf, is not afhamed to add : " H;ec autem omnia ad mores fpedant, itaque fuo loco *' pofita funt ; at qu^e a dialecticis contra banc opinionem di- '* cuntur, fegreganda fuerunt : et ideo fepofita funt *." As much as to fay, the dodtrlne w^as preached up as ufeful to Society, but intenable by reafon. One might pufli this obfervation from fedts to particulars. So Xenophon and ifocrates, who concerned them-
* Ep. 103,
felves
Sect. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 27
felves much la the pubHc, declared for it ; and Hippocrates and Galen, who confined themfelves to natural fludies, are inclined to be agalnft it.
This totally enervates what might be urged in fupport of the common opinion, from thofe many profellions in the writings of tlie Theifticai philofophers, in favour of a future ftate of rewards and punifhment ; as it fiiews that thofe profeffions only made part of the EXTERNAL or popular doctrines of fuch facts*. It may likewife help to explain and reconcile an infinite number of dif- cordances in their works in general ; and more efpeclally on this , point, which are commonly, though I think falfly, afcribed to their inconflancy. How endlefs have been the difputes amongft the learned, fince the revival of letters, about what Plato, Ariftotle, and the Stoics held of the Soul ? But it was not the Moderns only who found themfelves at a lofs ; fometimes the Ancients them- felves were embarrafled. Plutarch complains heavily of the Repug- nances of the Stoics: and in his tradt fo intituled, accufes Chryfip- pus, now, for laughing at the dodlrine of a future flate of rewards and punifhments, as a Mormo, fit only to frighten women and children ; and now again, for affirming ferioufly, that, let men laugh as they pleafed, the thing was a fober truth.
IV. ^ly fourth general reafon is gathered from the opinions ivhicb Antiquity itflffeems to have had of its philofophers on this point. The gravefl writers (as we fee in part, by the quotations above, from Timceus, Polybius, and Strabo) are full of apologies for the na- tional Religions ; that is, for what was taught in them, concern- ing a Providence here, and efpeclally concerning the doftrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments, hereafter. They pre- tend that thefe things were neceifary to keep the People in awe ;
* Yet neither could a truth fo obvious, nor the notice here given of it, prevent the Jiumerous writers againft this book from perpetually urging, one from another, thofe profeffions in the exoteric writings of the Philofophers, as a confutation of what is here delivered concerning their real sentiments.
E 3 but
28 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book IIL
but frankly own, that were Society compofed all of wife men, the RELIGION OF THE PHILOSOPHERS, whicli enforccs morality by con- fiderations drawn from the excellence of virtue, the dignity of our nature, and the perfedlion of the human foul, would be a fitter and more excellent way to good. Now, the national Religions, as they taught a do£lrinc of a future ftate, being here oppofed to the Reli- gion of the philojophers, which employed other motives, I conclude, that, in the opinion of thefe apologias, the Philofophers did not really believe this dotlrine.
V. My lajl general argument againft the common opinion, Is coUeded from an extraordinary circumftance in the Roman hijlory. C^SAR, in his fpeech to the fenate, to diffuade them from punifliJ- ing the followers of Catiline w*ith death, argues, " that death was ** no evil, as they, who inflicted it for a punifliment, imagined, ** and intended it fliould be made." And thereon takes occafion, with a licentioufnefs till then unknown to that auguft Aflembly, to explain and inforce the avowed principles of Epicurus (of whofe fedt he was) concerning the mortality of the fold *. Now when Cato and Cicero, who urged the death of the confpirators, come to reply to his argument for lenity ; inflead of oppofing the prin- ciples of that philofophy by the avowed principles of a better, they content themfelves with only faying, that " the do£trine of a fu- *' ture ftate of rewards and punifliments was delivered down to *' them from their anceflors +." From this cold manner of evad- ing the argument, by retiring under the opinion of their Fore- fathers, I conclude, that thefe two great patriots were confcious that the real opinion of ancient philofophy would not fupport them : for nothing was more illogical than their reply, it being evidently, that Authority of their Anceflors, which Ciefar oppofed
* De poena, poflum equidcm dicere id quod res habet ; in luftii atqne miferiis, mor- tem certimnarum requiem, non cruciatum effe ; earn cun£ta mortalium mala diflblvere; ultra nequecurs, neque gaudio locimi effe. Csfar apud. Sail, de Bell. Catilin,
j- See note [I], at the cud of this Book.
with
S^ECT. 2. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 29
with the principles of the Greek philofophy. Here then was a fair challenge to a philofbphic enquiry : and can we believe, that Cicero and Cato would have been lefs favourably heard, while they de- fended the do6lrine of a future flate on the principles of Plato and Zeno, fo agreeable to the opinions of their Anceflors, than Caefar was in overthrowing it on the fyflera of Epicurus ? Or was it of fmall iinportance to the State, that an opinion, which Tully, iu the words below, tells us was eftablifhed by their Anceftors for the fervice of Society, fhould be fliewn to be conformable to the conclufions of the moft creditable Philofophy ? Yet, for all this, inftead of attempting to prove Casfar a bad philofopher, they con- tent themfelves with only fhewing him to be a bad citizen. We muft needs conclude then, that thefe two learned men were fuf- ficlently apprized, that the doftrine of their Anceflors was unfup- ported by the real opinion of any Greek ^t"^ of Philofophy; whofe popular profeflion of it would have been to no purpofe to have iH'ged againfl Caefar, and fuch of the Senate as were inftrufted in thefe matters ; becaufe the prailice of the double doBrine, and the part to which this point belonged, was a thing well known to them.
It may be true, that as to Cato, who was a rigid Stoic, thfs obfervation on his condu£l will conclude only againft one fed; but it will conclude very flrongly : for Cato was fo far from thinking that the principles of that philofophy fhould not be brought into the conclufions of State, where it could be done with any advan- tage, that he was even for having public meafures regulated on the ftandard of their /'^r^^s.v^j; for which he is agreeably rallyed by Cicero in his oration for Muraena. He could not then, we muft think, have neglected fo fair an opportunity of employing his be- loved philofophy upon Casfar's challenge, would it have ferved l:rs purpofe in any reafonable degree.
But though Cato's cafe only includes the Stoics ; yet Cicero's, who made ufe indifferently of the principles of any fed to confute
the
30 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
the ref!:, includes them all. It will be fald perhaps, that the reafoii why he declined replying on any phiiorophic principle was becaufe he thought the opinion of their Anceftors the ftrongeft argument of all ; having fo declared it, in a more evident point ; the very being of a Go^itfelf :• In quod, maximum est majorum nostro- RUM SAPIENTIA, qui facra, qui ceremonias*, &c. But it is to be obferved, that this w^as fpoken to the People, and recommended to them as an argument they might bed: confide in ; and therefore urged with TuUy's ufual prudence, who always fuited his argu- ments to his auditors ; while the words under queftion were ad- dreffed to an audience of Nobles, who had, at that time, as great an afFedation to philofophife as Cicero himfelf. Hear what he fays in his oration for Mura^na : Et quoniam non efl: nobis h^ec oratio Iiabenda aut cum imperita multitudine, aut in aliquo conventu £igreji'ium, audacius paulo de studiis humanitatis quae et MiHi £t voBis NOT A ET jucuNDA funt, difputabo f.
SECT. III.
AVING premlfed thus much, to clear the way, and abate men's prejudices againft a new opinion, I come to a more particular enquiry concerning each of thofe Sects which have been fuppofed to BELIEVE the doctrine of a future ftate of rewards and punilhments.
The ancient Greek philofophy may be all ranged In the Elea- Tic, the Italic, and the Ionic lines. The Eleatic line was wholly compofed of Atheifls of different kinds j as the Democritic, the Pyrrhonian, the Epicurean, &c. fo thefe come not into the account. All in the Italic line derive themfelves from Pythago- ras, and fwear in his name. All in the Ionic, till Socrates, bufied themfelves only in Phyfics, and are therefore likewife ex- cluded. He was the firfl who brought philofophy out of the
* Orat, pro Milone, f Scft. 29,
clouds,
Sect.3. of MOSES demonstrated. 31
clouds, to a clearer contemplation of human nature ; and found- ed the Socratic fchool, whofe fubdivifions were the Platonic or Old Academy, the Peripatetic, the Stoic, the Middle, and the Vf.w Academy.
As to Socrates, Cicero gives this charafler of him, that He was the jirjl who called philojophy from heaven, to place it in cities, and introduce it into private hotifes *, i. e. to teach public and private morals. But we mufl: not fuppofe, that Cicero Jimply meant, as the words feem to imply, that Socrates w«j the firjl of the philofo- pbers, tvho fludied morals ; this being evidently falfe; for the Pytha- goric fchool had, for a long time before, made morals its princi- pal concern. He mull therefore mean (as the quotation below partly implies) that Hfi was the frjl who called off philofophy from a contemplation ol nature, to fx //entirely upon morals. Which was fo true, that Socrates was not only the frjl, but the laji of the Philofophers who made this feparation ; having here no followers, tinlefs we reckon Xenophon ; who upbraids Plato, the immediate fucceflbr of his fchool, for forfaking his mafter's confined fcheme, and Imitating the common pradlice of the philolophers in their purluit of general knowledge ; he being, as the fame Cicero obferves, varius et multiplex et copiofus.
However, This, which Socrates attempted in Philofophy, was a very extraordinary projedt : and, to fupport its credit, he brought in thofe principles of doubt and uncertainty, which fome of his pretended followers very much abufed; For while he retrained thofe principles oi doubt to natural things, whofe ftudy he reje6led ; they extended them to every thing that was the fubjed of philo-
* Primus Philofophiain devocavit e coelo, et in urbibns collocavit, et in domos etiani jntroduxit. Tufcul. Quaeft. lib. v. And again, Acad. 1. i. Socrates milii videtur, id fjuod conftat inter omnes, primus a rebus occultis, et ab ipfa natnra iHVolutis, in quibus omnes ante eum philol'ophi occuputl fiierunt, evocaviffe Philofophiam, et ad vitam com- inunem adduxifle, ut de virtutibus et vitiis, omninoque de bonis rebus &; malis quxreret; caleftia autem vel procul effe a noftra cognitione cenleret, vel, fi maxiine cognita eflent, nihil tamen ad bene vivendum conferre.
fophical
3-2 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III,
fbohical inquiry. This we prefume was Socrates's true charader: who thus confining his fearches, was the only one of all the an- cient Greek philofophers (and it deferves our notice) who really believed thedodtrine of a future flate of rewards and punifliments. How it happened that he was lo fingularly right, will be confidered hereafter, when we bring his cafe to Illuftrate, and to confirm the general pofitlon here advanced.
From Socrates, as we faid, came the middle and New Academy, as well as the Old, or Platonic. Arcefilaus was the founder of the middle ; and Carneades of the New. Between the principles of thefe two there was no real difference, as Cicero tells us ; and we may take his w^ord ; but both, I will venture to affirm, were as tt^\ Sceptics, as the Py/T^ow/^wj themfelves : I mean m thtn prin- ciples of philofophifing, though not in the profejfed co?icluJio?Js each pretended to draw from ihofe principles. For the Academics as ■well as Pyrrhonians agreed in this, " That nothing could be *' known ; and that, without Interfering with any fentlments of «' their own, every thing was to be dlfputed " Hence the Pyrrho- nians concluded, " that nothing was ever to be afTented to, but the *' mind to be kept In an eternal fufpenfe :" The Academics, oil the contrary, held, " that the probable, when found, was to be *« aflented to ; but, till then, they were to go on with the Pyrrho- «' nians, queftloning, dlfputlng, and oppofing every thing." And here lay the jeft :' they continued to do fo, throughout the whole period of their exiflence, without ever finding the probable in any thing ; except, in what was neceflary to fupply them with arms for dlfputlng agalnfl every thing. It is true, this was a con- tradiction in their fcheme : but Scepticifm is unavoidably deflruc- tlve of itfelf. The mlfchief was, that their allowing the probable thus far, made many, both ancients and moderns, think them uni- form in their conceflions : In the mean time they gave good words, and talked perpetually of their vcrifmile and probabile, amidfl a fituatlon of abfolute darknefs, and fcepticifm ; like Sancho Pancha,
of
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 33
of his ifland on the Terra Fh-ma. This was Lucian's opinion of ■the Academics ; and no man knew them better ; fpeaking of the happy ifland, in his true hijlory, and telling us in what manner it -was flocked with the feveral Se£ls of Greek philofophy ; when he comes to the Academics he obierves with much h.umour, tliat though they were in as good a difpofition to come as any of the refl:, they fl:ill keep aloof in the Confines, and would never ven- ture to fet foot upon the Ifland. For here truly they fluck ; they were not yet fatisfied whether it was an Ifland or not *.
This I take to be the true key to the intrigues of the Academy ; of which famous feft many have been betrayed into a better opi- nion than it deferved. If any doubt of this, the account which Cicero himfelf gives of them, will ilitisfy him. He, who knew them beft, and who in good earneft efpoufed only the more reafon- able part of their conduft, tells us, that they held nothing could be known, or fo much as perceived : Nihil cognofci, nih.il percipi,
nihil fcirl pofle dixerunt Opinionibus & institutis omnia te-
neri ; nihil veritati relinqui : deinceps omnia tenebris circum- fufa effe dixerunt. Itaque Arcefilaus negabat effe quidquam quod fciri poflet, ne illud quidem ipfum t '• That every thing was to be difputed ; and that the probable was not a thing to engage their aflents, or fway their judgments, but to enforce their reafonino-s. — Carneades vero multo uberius iifdem de rebus loquebatur : 7t07i quo aperiret fententiam fuam (hie enim mos erat pairius Academic ADVERSARI SEMPER OMNIBUS in difputando) J^d \, &CC. — Proprium fit Aczdem\2£ judicium fuum ?tullum inlerponere, tz probare quae fimil- lima veri videantur ; conferre caufas, & quid in quamque fenten- tiam dici poifit expromere, nulla adhibita fua audoritate, judicium audientium relinquere integrum & liberum § : That, though they
* Tm; J^ 'AxaJji/iatKS! fXeyoy iSjAtiv ^tiv \>SiCi, \'!:iyi\-) i' tri, >^ ^lacxsVlts-Sai' ju>) oi yxp avro tSts »5riii; itaIaXa(x€a»iiv, ei >^ vjcoj T15 roiaiTri lri». Vcr. Hift. 1. ii. f Acad. Quaeft. 1. i. c. 12, 13. X De Orat. lib. i. c. 18. § De Divin. lib. ii. fub fin.
Vol. II. F pre-
34 THE DIVISMi LEGATION Book III.
pretended their end was to Hnd the probable, yet, like the Pyrrho- fiians, they held their mind in an eternal fufpenle, and continued going on difputing againft every thing, without ever finding the probable to determine their judgments. OAcademiam volaticam& fui fimiiem, modo hue modo illuc *, lays the man whofe bulinels it was to ibew only its fair fide. And indeed how could it be other- wife, when, as he himfelf tells us, in the cafe of the fime /^ir^- /aus, thev endeavoured to prove, that the moment, or weight of
evidence, on each fide the queftlon, was exatlly equal Huic
rarioni, quod erat confentaneum, fiiciebat, ut contra omnium fen- tentias dies jam plerofque deduceret : [diceret] ut cum in eadem re par'ia contrar'iii in partibus momenta rationum invenirentur, facilius ab utraque parte adfentio fuftineretur. This they held to be the cafe, even In the moft important fubje6ls, fuch as the soul. And in the moft interefting queftions concerning it, as whether it was, in its nature, mortal or immortal. — Qu^od intelligi quale fit vix poteft : et quicquid eft, mortale fit, an a:ternum ? Nam utra- que in parte multa dicuntnr. Horum aliquid vcjiro fapienti certum vldetur : noJJro ne quid maxime quidem probabile fit, occurrit : ita funt in plerifque contrarium rationum Pari A momenta t-
Thus it appears, that the fe£t was thoroughly fceptical | : And Sextus Empiricus, a mafter of this argument, fays no lefs : who, though he denies the Academics and Pyrrhonians to be exaftly the fame, as fome ancients affirmed, becaufe, though both agreed that truth was not to be found, yet the Academics held there was a difference in thofe things which pretended to it (the myftery of which has been explained above) yet owns that Arcefilaus and Pyrrho had one common philofophy §. Origen, or the author of
the
* Ep. ad Att. 1. 13.
f See note [K], at the end of this Book.
X See note [Ll, at the end of this Book.
§ Oairt jKivIci Ti»s; on i 'AKaJtiftaVxi cpiXoimflcc i ciir>i £,-» t>j irxi-^it, 0 fts» ti 'Af>!£c^i^a®', S» T?4 HfV)); 'AKxittjjiit'a;, IXtyofiiv I'axt roforaTJin }^ w^Xiy*'} wavw juoi JokeV to"; Uvffiitsioi; xoitmut Xcyitir, «;/*;«» iT,ai ffp^ijJoj rh' xcr xvTQt i-fiiyyit >y rri) iilJ.{li^»y< HypOt, Pyih. lib. i. C. 33.
Agellius,
Sect. 3- O'F MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 55
the fragment that goes under his name, feems to have tranfcribed the opinion of thofe whom Sextus hints at. " But another feft of *• philofophers (fays he) was called the Academ'ic, becaule they " held their difputations in the Academy. Pyrrho was the head *' and founder of thefe ; From whom they were called Pyrrho- *' nians. He firft of all brought in the AK«7«Xijt|;/ci^, or incomprehen- *' fibility, as an inftrument to enable them to diipute on both *' fides the queftion, without proving or deciding any thing *."
But now a difficulty arifes which will require fome explanation. We have reprefented the Academy as entirely Jceptkal: We have reprefented Socrates a Dogmatift ; and yet on his fole authority, as we are affured by Tully, did tiiis fed hold its principles oi knowing nothing and di/puting all things. The true folution feems to be this :
I. Socrates, to deter his hearers from all ftudies but thofe of morality, was perpetually reprefenting the obfcurity, in which all other lay involved : not only affirming that he knew nothing of them, but that nothing could be known ; while, in Morals, he was a dogmatift, as appears largely by Xenophon, and the lefs fabulous parts of Plato. But Arcefilaus and Carneades took him at his word, when he faid he knew nothing ; and extended that principle of v^w- ctxtdimty ad omne fcibile,
Agellius, too, aflyres us, that the difference between the two fefts amounted to juft nothing. Vetus auteni qnceftio et a multis fcriptoiibus Giiccis traftata eft, in quid et quantum Pyrrhonios et Academics Philofophos interlit. Utrique enim i;K:EirnK.Oi, J^ExliJioJ, airojuliKoi, dicuntur, quoniam utrique nihil affirmant, nihilque comprehendi pu-
tant ditierre tamen inter fefe — vel maxime propterea exiftimati fiint. Acadcmici
quidem ipium illud nihil poffe comprehendi, quafi coni])rehendiint, et nihil pofle decern! quafi decernunt : Pj-rrhonii ne id quidem iiUo pafto vidcri vcrum dieunt, quod nihil cife verum videtur. 1. ii. c. 5,
* "A>.X>i ^i ai'^ici; ^l^o(rolp(ll^ ExXiSn 'AKSsJeftaViO), ii» to a Ti) Aitaff)i(/iss Taj ^<a7^i£a$ aiftii 'Vjom'iI- 6ai, ui a^^cti Q n</f(Ja.'V, »$ s lluffiiinoi liXifittaat ^y.iTa^,oi, rriv wxalaXvi-^iav aizatluv tr^i/T®' ticrij- •yayiv, ai; iTip^ii^iTy fif» sii kartpa, fiJi fts'ir'ioi a— o^aiviffSait /urioi'y. Orig. Philofophica, 'BUjl
Fa 2. Again,
36 THE DIVINE LEGATION" Book 111^
2. Again, the adverfaries, with whom Socrates had to deal, in his projeft of difcreditiag natural knowledge, and of recommending the ftudy of morality, were the Sophists properly fo called ; a race of men, who, by their eloquence and fallacies, had long kept up the credit of Phyfics, and much vitiated the purity of Morals : And Thefe being the Oracles of fcience at that time in Athens, it became the modeiliy and humility of his pretenfions, to attack them covertly, and rather as an enquirer than a teacher. This produced the way of difputing by interrogation ; from the inven- tor, called the Socratic : And as this could not be carried on but under a profefied admiration of their wifdom, and acquiefcence in their decifions, it gave birth to the famous Attic Irony*. Henc& it appears, his method of confutation muft begin in doubt ; be carried on in turning their own arms againfl them, and end in ad" vancing nothing cf his own.
Now Arcefilaus and Carneades having, as we fay, extravagantly- extended the Socratic principle of knowitig nothing -, eafily miftook this other, of advancing nothifig of his own, when difputing with the Sophfs, as a neceflary confequence of the former ; and fo made that a general rule for their fchool, which, in their mafter, w-as only an occafional and confined praclice.
On thefe two mllliaken principles was the New Academy eredled. 1. Omnia latere in occulto, nee efle quidquam, quod cerni aut in- telligi poflit. 2. Qulbus de cauCs nihil oportere neque profiteri, neque affirmare quemquam, neque affertione approbare \.
They of the Old Academy |, who came firfl after Socrates, did, with more judgment, decline their mafter's method of difpu- tation ; eafily perceiving that it was adapted to the occafion : and
* Socrates autem de fe '.pfe Jetrahens in difputatione, plus tiibuebat iis, quos volebat refellere. Ita cum aliud diceret atciue fentiret, libenter iiti folitus eft ea diffimulatione, quam Gnci u^onmi vocant. Acad. 1. ii, c. j.
f Acad. Quaft. lib. i. c. 12,
\ See note [M], at the end of this Book.
that
Sect. 3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 37
that"" to make it a general praftice, and the charafteriftlc of their fchool, would be irrational and abfurd. But the middle and new, inflead of profiting by this fage condu£l of their Predeceflbrs, made it a handle to extol their own clofer adherence to their Mafler ; and an argument that they were returned to his true principles, from which the old had licentioufly digreffed. A paflage in Cicero will juftify thefe obfervations ; and thefe obfervations will explain that pafTage, which, I prefume, without them would not be thought very intelligible. Thus the Roman Orator expreffes hlmfelf, under the charader of an Academic : Primum, inquam, deprecor, ne me, tanquam philofophum, putetis fcholam vobis aliquam expllcaturum : quod ne in ipfis quidem philofophls magnopere unquam probavi : quando enhn Socrates, qui parens philofophia jure did potejl, qtiidquam tale fecit ? Eorum erat ifte mos, qui turn Sophiftae nominabantur ;■ qtiorum e numero primus eft aufus Leontinus Gorgias in conventu pofcere quaeftionem, id eft, jubere dicere, qua de re quis vellet au- dire. Audax negotium ; dicerem impudens, nifihoc injlitutiimpojlea tranjlatum ad philofophos nojlros ejjet. Sed et ilium, quem nominavi, et ceteros Sophiftas, ut e Platone intelligi poteft, lufos videmus a Socrate. Is enim percun£lando atque interrogando elicere folebat eorum opiniones, qulbufcum differebat, ut ad ea, quae ii refpon- difl'ent, li quid videretur, diceret : Qui mos cum a posteriori-
EUS NONES3ET RETENTUS, ArCESIL AUS EUM REVOCAVIl , INSTI-
TUiTQUE, tit a, qui fe audjre -vellent, non Je quarerent^ fed ipfi dice' rent, quid fentirent : quod cum dixiffent, ilk contra *. Here Cicero has gilded the falfe, but fhewy pretences of his Sedl : which not only reprefented their fcepticifm, as a return to the true principles of Socrates ; but would have the dogmatic fe£ls of philofophy, againft all evidence of antiquity, the later producl of that race of Sophifts, with whom the venerable Athenian had to do. But the Old Academy, we may be fure, thought differently of the matter:
* DeFin. Bon. et Mai. ii. c, t.
LucuIIus
38 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book IIL
Lucullus favs of Arcefilaus, Nonne cum jam philofophorum difci- plina; graviffimas conftitiffcnt, turn exortus eft ut in optima Rep. Tiberius Gracchus, qui otium perturbaret, fie Arcefilaus, qui coa- ftitutam philolophiam everteret *.
However, thefe bold pretenfions of reftoring the Socratic SCHOOL to its integrity, deluded many of the Ancients ; and made them, as particularly Diogenes Laertius, to rank Socrates in the number of the Sceptics.
But this is not ftrange, for it was in the faftiion for all the Sefls to pretend relation to Socrates. Profeminatae funt familiac diffen- tientes, et multum disjunfls et difpares, cum tamen omnes fe phi- lofophi SocRATicos et dici vellent et efl'e arbitrarentur, fays Cicero. And again, Fuerunt etiam alia genera philofophorum fere qui fe oMNES SoCRATicos efl'e dicebant ; Eretricorum, Herilliorum, Ma- garicorum, Pyrrhoneorum +. The fame thing, I believe, j^pu-
leius meant to exprefs, when fpeaking of Socrates he fays, cum
nunc etiam egregii Pbilofophi fe£iam ejus fonSliJJimam prceoptent^ et fummo beatitudinis Jiudio jurent in ipjius nomen \.
On the whole it appears that the Academics, (jniddle and new) as diftinguifhed from the Platonifts, were mere Sceptics ; and fo, like the Pyrrhonians, to be thrown out of the account.
Thofe therefore which remain, are the Pythagoric, the Pla- tonic, the Peripatetic, and the Stoic: And if it be found that none of thefe fourj renowned fchools (the Philosophic Qua- ternion OF dogmatic Theists) did believe, though all feduloufly taught, the doftrine of a future ftate of rewards and punilhments, the reader, perhaps, will no longer difpute the conclufion, that it was not the real opinion of any Grecian sect of phi- losophy.
I. Pythagoras comes firft under our infpedlion. He is faid to have invented the name long after the exlftence of his trade ;
* Acad. 1. ij. c. 5. t De Orat. lib. iii. % ]Metam. 1. x.
and
Sect. 3' OF MOSE S DEMONSTRATED. 39
and was, as we may fay, the middle link that joined together the Lawgivers and Philofophers ; being Indeed the only Greek, who was properly and truly both : though, from his time, and In confor- mity to his praclice, not only thofe of his own fchool, but even thofe of the other three, dealt much in leglflatlon ; In which, his fortune was like that of Socrates, who was the firft and laft of the philofophers that conjined himfelf to morals ; though, in imitation of his conduft, morals, from thence, made the chief bufinefs of all the fubdivifions of his fchool.
In the fclence of leglflatlon, Orpheus *, for whom he had the hlgheft reverence, was his inafter ; and in philofophy, Phere- CYDES Syrus t-
After he had formed his charafler on two fo different models, he travelled into Egypt, the fountain-head of fclence ; where, after a long and painful initiation, he participated of all the Myfteries of the prlefthood.
He had now fo thoroughly imbibed the fplrit of leglflatlon, that he not only pretended his la'ws were infpired, which mofl: other Law-givers had done ; but that his philosophy was fo, like- wife \ ; which no other Phllofopher had the conlidence to do.
This, we may be fure, would incline him to a more than ordi- nary cultivation of the double doctrine. " He divided his dlf- " ciples (fiys Orlgeu) into two clafles, the one he called the " Esoteric, the other, the Exoteric. For to Thofe he intrufted ** the more perfe6l and fublime doctrines ; to Thcfe he delivered *' the more vulgar and popular §." And, indeed, he was fo emi- nent in this pradice, that the fecref or efoierk do£lrwe of Pythagoras became proverbial. For what end he did it, Varro informs us, in
* Jamblichus de Vita Pyth, c. 151. •)- Id. ib. c. 1S4.
X Id, ib. c. i.
§ O^T®- T«{ ftaMi? Ji£r>.E, ^ TS« flit EXnTEPIKOYS, t«; i\ ESr>TEPIKOYS iV.aA«<rj». Tors ft£« yx^ Ta TtXtaTija fi«G^,uala WW^vf, loTi ^ rx //tIjiiTSfa. Fragm, de Phllof. t^ipl
St.
40 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III,
St. Auftin, where he fays, that " Pythagoras hiftructed his au- " dltors m the fcience of legiflatlon last of all, when they *' were now become learned, wife, and happy." And on what fubjecl, appears from a common faying of the fed:, that " in " thofe things which relate to the Gods, all was not to be re- " vealed to all *."
The Communities he gave laws to, the Cities he fet free, are known to every one. And that nothing might be wanting to his legijlative character. He, likewile, in conformity to general prac- tice, Inflituted mysteries; in which was taught, as ufual, "the *' unity of the divine nature." So Jamblichus : "They fay too *' he taught luftrations and initiations, in which were delivered *' the most exact knowledge of the Gods. They fay farther *' that he made a kind of union between divine philojophy and re- *■'• ligious worjiyip; having learnt fome things from the Orphic "rites; fome, from the ^Egyptian priests ; fome, from the *■'■ Chaldeans and Magi \ and fome from the initiations cele- *' brated in Eleusis, Imbros, Samothrace and Delos', or wherever " elfe, as amongft the Celts, and Iberians t." Nay fo much did his legijlative Chara£ler prevail over his philofophic, that he brought not only the principles J of the Mvjleries into the fckooh^ but likewife many of the obfervances ; as abftinence from Beans and feveral kinds of animals ; which afterwards contributed not a little to confound the fecret doSlrines of the Schools and the Myjleries. This conformity was, without doubt, the reafon why the Crotonlates, or the Metapontines (for in this authors
j- — 'h^yiXKtn ti aiiTut T8j >ta9«ff*»i, K, rij Xefo/^/ra; TEAETAS, To» AKPIBESTATHN EIAHriN
fiaiit'lx tsafk twi OP<l>IKnN, k l\ tsaea. tZt AirYHTinN lEPEfiN, k Ti «?a^ Xa^Jai'ar >^ Mxywy, a. i\ laa^a, tS{ TEAETHS, t5s Ir EAETSINI yitofuvr,;, iv "laS^u ti, k, SapoSfaxi), j^ A^X«, >^ El Ti arafi Toti Xoi^cTj, J^ we^i raj KEATCXS i^ Te> 'ifiijlar. Jambl. de Vit. Pyth. § IS'-
X See Book II. Seft. 4. vol. I, p. iSi.
differ
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 41
differ*) turned his houfe ot fchool, after his death, into a Temple of Ceres.
Thus the fame and authority of Pythagoras became unrivalled over all Greece and Italy. Herodotus calls him, the mojt authorita'' iive of philofophers +. Cicero fays of him : Cum, Superbo regnante, in Italiam veniiTet, tenuit Magnam illam Graeciam cum Hon ore EX DisciPLiNA, turn etiam auctoritate +.
And this was no tranfient reputation : it defcended to his fol- lowers, through a long fucceflion ; to whom the cities of Italy fre- quently committed the adminiftration of their affairs § ; where they fo well eftabllfhed their authority, that St. Jerom tells us, very laft- ing marks of it were remaining to his time : Refpice omnem orara Italic, qu^e quondam Magna Griecia dicebatur ; et Fythagoreoruin dogmatiim Incifa publicis Uteris etra cognofces ||.
But there are two circumftances, which mud: needs give us the highefl; idea of Pythagoras's fame in point of legiflaticn.
1 . The one is, that almoft every Lawgiver of eminence, for fome •time before** and after., as well as during his time, was numbered
amongft his difciples : for the general opinion was, that nothing could be done to purpofe in the legiflating way, which did not come from Pythagoras.
2. The o//'£'r is, that the doftrine of the difpenfation of Provi- dence by a Metempsychosis, or tranfmigration of the foul, though taught in all the Myfteries, and an infeparable part of a future ftate
* Diog. Laert. lib. viii. § 17. Porph. de Vit. Pyth. N" 4.
f — Ol lij a.3^inri,tu o-«^ir>! JluSxyo^ri. lib. iv. § 95, literally, wot of the Icafi aum
thority : a common mode of exprelTion in the ancient languages. So Homer, in the 15th Iliad, calls Achilles, «» aipawjoTo!®- 'A;)(;aiw», not the worji foUier of tlje Greeks; meaning, we know, the hcjf.
j See note [M], at the end of this Book.
§ nfOa/oja; S' ixA* ^'''^^^ xala tw 'ircXiav ST«5 ISar/zctf/Io uItIk; te i^ ot aini',i: aijui iTar^oi, iri J^ ~a: -so^ilfiaj TOK ut' ainS Iot'^eVjif Taj Z}i?.iii> I'orph. de Vit. Pyth. N° 54. II Cent. Ruf. lib. ii. ** See the difcourfe on Zakucus's laws, B. II. Set^. 3.
Vol. II. G in
if2 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book HI.
in all the Religions of paganllm, becrane, la common fpeech, the peculiar doSfr'ine of Pj'thagoras.
And here the reader will pardon a fliort remark or two, not a little llluftrating the point we are upon.
There is net a more extraordinary book in all Antiquity, than the METAMORPHasis OF Ovid ; whether we regard the matter or the form. The fubjeft appears prodigioufly extravagant, and the compofition irregular and abfurd : had it been the produdl of a dark age, and a barbarous writer, one might have been content to rank it in the clafs of our modern Oriental 'Tales, as a matter of no confequence. But when we confider it as written when Rome was in its meridian of fcience and politenefs ; and by an Author, whofe acquaintance with the Greek tragic writers, had informed him of what belonged to a work or compoiition, we cannot but be fhocked at {o grotefque an affemblage of things : Unlefs we would rather diftrufl our modern judgment, and conclude the deformity to be only in appearance. And this, perhaps, wc fhall find to be the cafe : though it muft be owned, the common opinion feems fup- ported by Quintillan, the mofi: judicious critic of Antiquity, who thus fpeaks of our Author and his Work : Ut Ovidius lascivire in Metamorphofi folet, quern tamen excufare neceflitas poteft, res
DIVERSISSIMAS IN SPECIEM UNIUS CORPORIS COLLIGENTEM *.
But to determine on proper grounds, in this matter, we muft Confider the origin of the ancient fables in general.
There are two opiniom concerning It.
I. The firji is of fuch who think the fables contrived, by the ancient Sages, for repofitories of their myflerious wifdom ; and, confequently, that they are no lefs than natural, moral, and divine truths, fantaflically difgulfed. Greg. Naz. charadlerifes thefe alle- gories well, where he calls them monjirous explanations, "Without prin- ciples ; in which there is nothing frable, but a way of interpreta- tion which, if indulged, would enable you to make any thing out
* Inflir. Orat. lib. iv. c. i. fub fin.
of
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 43
of any thing *. But what muft eternally difcredlt the fancy, that the firft Mythologl{l:s were Allegorifts, is, that if they indeed in- vented thefe fables to convey under them natural, moral, and di- •vlne truths, they muft have been wife and virtuous men, lovers of Mankind, and the friends of Society. But how will this charac- ter agree to the abominable lewdnefs, injuftice, and impiety, with which moft of thefe popular fables abound ; and which they could not but forefee would (as in fa6l they did) corrupt all the prin- ciples of moral pradice. For both thefe reafons, therefore, we muft conclude that a fyftem which gives us nothing for the morale but what, as Greg. Naz. obferves, is uncertain, groundlefs and capricious ; while the Fable prefents nothing but what is abfurd and obfcene -f j muft be an after-thought employed to ferve a pur- pofe. However, it was well for truth, that none of thefe ancient Allegorifts were able to do better ; that none of them entered upon their taflc with any thing like the force of our Bacon \\ the cre- ative power of whofe genius fo nearly realized thefe inventions, as fometimes to put us to a ftand, whether we fhould not prefer the riches and beauty of his imagination, to the poor and meagre Truth that lies at bottom.
II. The other opinion of the origin of the fables, is that which fuppofes them to be the corruptions of civil hiftory ; and confe- quently, as having their foundation in real faifls : And this is unqueftionably the truth. But this fyftem did not find fo able an expofitor formerly in Palo'phatus, as the other more groundlefs conceit did of late in Bacon. It would lead me too far from my fubjeft, to ftiew, in this place, which of the fables arofe from the ambiguity of words, ill tranflated from fome eaftern languages ; which, from proper names ill underftood ; which, from the high figures of poetry, well invented to affeft barbarous minds ; and
EiT tirivoEio'Su TfyToi; aXXjiyopifiala ^ TipsiliiiJialx, yZ Tun WfOKitiJ-hur iKwlfnuf o Xiy®' ti; ^ana^fCt j^w^SiTo) K, xf/ijjttu; Scu^iz; «x lp(iiani To f-ao-iftov. Orat. i;i.
•f — if.r» Si STi TO foafiooy a^io^rtr** '^ to •w^obEtA'J/xii'ov oAtSgio*. lb,
J In his Book, De fapientia veterurn.
G 2 vi'hich,
U THE DIVINE LEGATION Book TIL
which, from the politic contrivances ofjliiiefmen, to tame and foften' flivage Manners: and how the univerfal fajfion of admiration procured an eafy admittance into the mind, for all thefe various delufions.
But we muft not omit, that the followers of this better opinion are divided into two factions ; One of which would have the an- cient fables the corruption of profane hiftory only ; the Other,
Onlv of SACRED.
This Lajl feems unfupported by every thing but an ill-dire(Sled zeal of doing honour to the Bible : For by what we can collecTt from Piigan, or even Jewifh writers, the hiflory of the Hebrews was lefs celebrated, even lefs known, than that of any other people whofe memory Antiquity hath brought down to us. But, known or unknown, it is fomcwhat hard, methinks, that Greece muft not be allowed the honour of producing one fuigle Hero ; but all muft be fetched from Palestine. One would have thought the very number of the Gentile worthies, and the fcarcity of the Jewilh, might have induced our critics, in mere charity, to employ fome home-fpun Pagans, for Heroes of a fecond rate, at leaft. But this, it feems, would look too like a facrilegious compromife. So, an expedient is contrived to leflen that difparlty in their number : and Mofes alone is difcovered to be Apollo, Pan, Priapus, Cecrops, Minos, Orpheus, Amphion, Tirefias, Janus, Evander, Romulus, and about fome twenty more of the Pagan Gods and Heroes. So fays the learned and judicious Mr. Huet * : who, not content to fcize, as lawful prize, all he meets within the wafte of fabulous times, makes cruel inroads into the cultivated ages of hiftory, and will fcarce allow Rome its own Founder f.
Nay, fo jealous are they of this fairy honour paid to Scripture, that I have met with thofe who thought the Bible much difpa- raged, to fuppofe any other origin of human J'acrijices than the com-
* See note [P], at the end of this Book.
t Si fidcm feijuiiiiur hiftoria', fabulofa pleraque de eo [Romulo] nanari. Prop. iv. c. 9.^8.
mand
SEcr.3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 45
mand to Abraham, to offer up his fon. The contending for fo extraordinary an honour being not unlike that of certain Gram- marians, who, out of due regard to the glory of former times, will not allow either the great ox fmall-pox to be of modern growth, but vindicate thofe fpecial bleffings to this highly favoured Anti- quity.
The other party then, who efteem the fables a corruption of Pagan hiftory, appear in general to be right. But the misfortune is, the fpirit of fyflem feems to pofiefs thefe likewife, while they allow nothing to Jewifli hiftory : For, that reafoning, which makes them give the Egyptian and Phenician a (hare with the Grecian, Ihould confequentially have difpofed them to admit the Jewifh into partnerfhip ; though it might perhaps contribute leafl: to the com- mon flock. And he who does not fee * that Philemon and Baucis is taken from the ftory of Lot, muft be, very near, blind : Though he t who can difcover the expedition of the Ifraelites from Egypt to Paleftine, in the fable of the Argonauts, muft certainly be gifted with xhefecotjd-fight.
Laftly, as it is the fault of thefe to allow nothing to JewiHi hiftory, fo it is the fault of both to allow nothing to the fyftem of the Allegorijls : for though without all queftion the main body of the ancient fables is the corruption of civil Hiftory, yet it is as certain, that fome few, efpecially of the late ones, were invented to cor.vey fhvjical and jnoral truths.
* La fable de Philemon et de Baucis — les perfonages font inconnus, et j'en ai rien d'intereffant a en dire : car de penfer avec Mr. Huet, qu'elle nous cache I'hiiloire des Anges qui allerent vifiter Abraham, c'eft une de ces imaginations hazardees dans lef- quelles ce favant prelat, Sec. Banier, les Metam. d'Ovid, explic. des fables ;, 8, 9, & 10. lib. viii,
t SeeLavaur, one of the bed and lateft fupporters of this fyflem, in his Hifloire de
la Fable conferee avec I'Hiftoire Sainte. Ainfi cette fnble eft toute coir.pofte des
traditions que les Chananeens ou Pheniciens avoint repandues dans leurs voyages. On y voit des traits defigurez par ces traditions, mais certainemewt pres de I'liiftoire des Ifraelites fous Moyfe et fous Jofue. Cap. Jafon Ss les Argonaiiies, a la fin.
Such
46 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book IIL
Such was the origuial of the fables in general: But we muft be a little more explicite concerning that fpecies of them called the Metamorphosis.
The metempjychojts was the method, the religious ancients * em- ployed to explain the ways of Providence ; which, as they were feen to be unequal here, were fuppofed to be fet right hereafter. But this inequality was never thought fo great, as to leave no foot- fteps of a fuperintendency : For the people of old argued thus : If there were no inequality, nothing zvoitld ivant to be fet right ; and if there were nothing but inequality, there would be no one to fet it right. So that a regular Providence, and none at all, equally de- ilroyed their foundation of a future fate.
It being then believed, that a Providence was adminlflered here as well as hereafter, though not with equal vigour in both ftates ; it was natural for them to fuppofe that the mode of it might be much the fame, throughout. And as the way of punifhing, in a different ftate, was by a tranfnigration of the foul ; fo in this, it was by a transformation of the body : The thing being the fame, with only a little difference in the ceremonial of the tranfaftion : the foul in the firft cafe going to the body ; and, in the latter, the body coming to the foul : This being called the metamorphofis ; and T'hat, the mctempfychofis. Thus, each made a part of the popular do£lrine of Providence. And it is remarkable, that wherever the doiS^rlne of tranf migration was received, either in ancient or modem times, there the belief of transformation hath prevailed likewife +. It is true, that in fupport of the firft part of this fuperftition, Rjafon only fuffered ; in fupport of the latter, the Senfes too were violated. But minds grofsly paffioned never want attefted fiicls to
* Birt this being the voice of our common nature, it is no wonder we (hould find the dodrine of the meUmpfychofis operating, as an old Opinion, amongft tlie uninftruiSed na- tives of South America. See Charlevoix's Hiil. of Paraguay, vol. II. p. 151.
f The modern Eaftern tales are full of metamorphnfis ; and it is to be noted that thofe people, before they embraced mahometanifro, v/ere pagans and believers of the mch-:ip. Xfchofis.
fupport
Sect.3. of MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 47
fupport their extravagancies. What principally contributed to fix their belief of the met amor phofis was, in my opinion, the ftrong and difordered imagination of a melancholy hahit ; a habit, more than any other, producing religious fear, and moft affedled by what it produces. There was a common diftemper, ariling from this habit, well known to the Greek phyficians by the name of the LYCANTHROPY ; where the patient fancied himfelf turned into a wolf, or other favage animal. Why the difordered imagination fhould take this ply, is not hard to conceive, if we reflect that the metempfychofis made part of the popular doctrine of Providence ; and that a metamorphcfis was, as we have faid, the fame mode of punifh- ment, differing only in time and place. For the religious belief, we may be alTured, would work flrongly on a difeafed fancy, racked by a confcioufnefs of crimes, to which that habit is naturally ob- noxious ; and, as it did in the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, make the patient conclude himfelf the objed; of divine juflice. Indeed, Daniel's prediction of that monarch's difgrace, evidently fliews it to have been the efFe£l of divine vengeance ; yet the circumftances of his punifhment, as recorded in holy Writ, feem to (hew, that it was Inflicted by common and natural means. And that the vul- gar fuperftltion generally gives the bias to the career of a diflem- pered mind, we have a familiar infl"ance. No people upon earth are more fubjeft to atrabilaire diforders than the Englifli : Now while the tales of magicians, and their transformations were believed, nothing was more fymptomatic in this diftemper, than fuch fancied changes by the power of witchcraft. But fince thefe fables loft their terror, very different whimfies, we find, poflcfs our m^elan- cholic people.
Thefe fickly imaginations therefore, proceeding from the im- preftions of the religious notion of the 7netamorphGjis, would In their turn add great credit to it ; and then any trifle would keep It up ; even an equivocal appellation ; which, I do not doubt, hath given birth to many a fable ; though to many more, it hath ferved'
only
4S THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
only for an after-embellifhment. But it is remarkable, that fabu- lous Antiquity itfelf aflifts us to detedl its own impoftures. For, although it generally reprefents the punifliments for impiety, as aSfual tramjormations ; yet, in the famous ftory of the daughters of Proetus, it has honeftly told us the cafe ; that it was no more than a deep mthmcholy, inflifted by Juno, which made them fdficy them- fclves turned into heifers ; fo the poet,
" Proetides implerunt falsis mugitibus agros. and of this, Melampus cured them by a courfe of pbyfic*.
Thus the metamorphosis arofe from the dodrine of the mc- ietnpfychojis ; and was, indeed, a mode of it ; and, of courfe, a very confiderable part of the Pagan theology t : So that we are not to wonder if feveral grave Writers made colleftions of them ; fuch as Nicander, Boeus, Callifthenes, Dorotheus, Theodorus, Par- thenius, and Adrian the fophift. Of what kind thefe collections were, we may fee by that of Antonius Liberalis, who tranfcribed from them : Thence, too, Ovid gathered his materials ; and form- ed them into a poem on the moft fublime and regular plan, A po- pular HISTORY OF providence; Carried down in as methodical a manner as the graces of poetry would allow, from the creation to his own times, through the Egyptian, Phenician, Greek, and Roman hiflorles : And this the elegant Patercuius feems to inti- mate, in the chara£ter he gives of the poet and his work %. ■
* Pratides, Proeti, 8i Stenoboeas, five Antiopi fccundum Homenini, filix fuerunt, Lyfippe, Ipponoe, Cyrianaffa. Hx fe cum prxtuliilent Junoni in pulchritudine ; vel, ut quidam volunt, cum effent antiffites, aufxfunt vefli ejus aurum detraftum in ufum fuum convertere : iilairata hunc fitrorem earum immifit mentibus; ut putantes fe vaccas in faltus abirent, et plerumque mugirent, et timerent aratra ; quas Melampus, Amythao- Eis filius, pafta mercede ut Cyrianaflara uxorem cum parte regni acciperet, placata Junone, infefto fonte, ubi folita erant bibere, purgavit et in priftinum fenfum reduxit. Servius in Bucol. Virgilii vi. 48.
•f It plainly appears to have been in general credit by its making the foundation of tiie following epigram, one of the fineft in antiquity :
X Nafo pcrfeftiffimi in forma operis fui. Hill. Rom, 1. ii, c. 36,
Now
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 49
N o\v the proper introdu£lion, as well as foundation and fupport, of this kind of hiftory is a THEisTicAL cosmogeny. Accordingly, we find our Poet introduceth it with fuch a one. And this like- wife in imitation of his Grecian Originals. Theopompus, by the account Servius gives of him, feems to have compofed fuch a Hif- tory, and fb prefaced ; but on a more ingenious plan. He feigns that fome of Midas's fhepherds took the God, Silenus, afleep, after a debauch ; and brought him bound to their mafter. When he came into the Prefence, his chains fell from him of their own ac- cord ; and he anfwered to what was required of him, concerning NATURE and ANTiQiJiTY*. From hence (as Servius remarks) Virgil took the hint of his Silenus : the fubje61: of whofe fong is fo exa£l an epitome of the contents of the metamorphosis of Ovid, that amongil the ancient titles of that Eclogue, the name of Metamorphojis was one ; which therefore makes it worth con- fidering ;
" Namque canebat uti magnum per inane coadla
" Semina, &c.
*' ■ et ipfe tener mundl concreverit orbis.
*' Hinc lapides Pyrrh^e ja£los, Saturnia regna,
*' Caucafiafque refert volucres, furtumque Promethei— —
" Turn Phaeton tiadas mufco circumdat amarae
*' Corticis
*' Quid loquar aut Scyllam Nifi, quam fama fecuta eft,
*' Candida fuccinftam latrantibus inguina monftris,
" Dulichias vexaffe rates
*' Aut ut mutatos Terei narraverit artus :" Gfc". Here we have the formation of the world, the golden age, and the original and renovation of man ; together with thofe ancient Jaoles
* Sane hoc de Sileno non dicitur fiftum a Virgilio, fed a Theopompo tranflaturn. Is enim apprehenfum Silenum a Midse regis paftoribus, dicit crapula raadentem et ex ea foporatum ; illos dolo adgreflbs dormientem vinxifle ; poftea vinculis fponte labentibus liberatum et rebus naturalibus et antiqijis Midse interroganti refpondifle. Serv. ad, Eclog. vi. 13.
Vol. II. H which
50 TPIE DIVINE LEGATION Book IK
which taught the government of the Gods, and their punilhmenC of impiety, by the change of human, into brutal and vegetable forms. It is evident from hence, that both the Latin poets drew -from one fource ; and particularly from Theopompus : whom Vir- gil hath epitomifed ; and Ovid paraphrafed. And if Ovid negle(5led to borrow a great beauty from his original, to adorn his own poem; Virgil (which is much more furprifing) by deviating, in one material circumftance, from their common fource, hath com- mitted a very grofs blunder. Ovid, in negleding to lay the fcens of his Hiilory in the adventure of Midas's (hepherds ; and fo dif- abling himfelf from making Silenus the Narrator throughout, hath let flip the advantage of giving his facred Hiftory the fanc- tion of a divine Speaker, and, by that means, of tying the whole composition together in the moft natural and artful manner. But then Virgil, either in fondnefs to the philofophy of Epicurus, or in compliment to Varus, who was of that School, inftead of making his Cofmogeny theifilcal (as without doubt Theopompus did, and we fee, Ovid hath done) from whence the popular hifto- ry of Providence naturally followed, hath made it the produft of BLIND Atoms ;
" per inane coa61:a
*' Semina," from whence, nothing naturally follows, but Fate or Chance. And yet Virgil talks like a Thci/l (indeed, becaufe he talks after Tbei/is^ of the renovation of Man, the golden Age, and the punifliment of Prometheus. Servius feems to have had fome obfcure gllmpfe of this abfurdlty, as appears from his embarras to account for the CONNECTION between the Epicurean origin of the world, and the religious fables which follow. In his note on the words hinc lapides Pyrrha jaHos^ he fays, — quaeftio eft hoc loco : nam, rell6lis pru- " dentibus rebus de mundi origlne, fubito ad fabulas tranfitum fe- " cit. Sed dicimus, aut cxprimere eum voluifle fedam Epicuream, *' quae rebus feriis femper infeiit voluptates : aut fabulis plenis adml-
*♦ rationis puerorum corda mulceri."
The
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 51
The old Scholiafl-, we fee, was much a ftranger to that conceit of Catrous, that as Epicurus's Phyjics are followed m the origui of the World, fo his Morals are explained in the Fables. Without doubt Servius thought it abfurd to fuppofe, that the Poet would explain the moft obnoxious part of Epicurus's Philolbphy (his Phyfics) fo clearly, and the ufeful part (his Morals) fo obfcurely. — However, in other refpeds, the Eclogue is full of beauties.
On the other hand, Ovid not only found advantages in making his Cofmogeny theijl'ical, but improved what he found with won- derful art. Defcribing the formation of man to be from earthy he (huts up his account in thefe beautiful lines,
" Sic modo qu» fuerat rudis, et fine imagine Tellus " Induit ignotas hominum, converfajiguras ;"
Infinuating that this was the iirft of thofe changes which he had promifed to fpeak of; and thereby finely preparing his Reader for the following converjions of Men into brutes, flocks, ftones, and the feveral elements, by fhewing that they were only returned into that, out of which they had been taken, by a no lefs furprifing Met amor phojis.
But to go back to his Poem. Now although, to adorn and en- llveu his Subjeft, he hath followed the bent of his diipofition, in filling it with the love-ftories of the Gods ; which, too, their Tra- ditions had made facred ; yet he always keeps his end in view, by taking frequent occafion to remind his reader, that thofe punifli- ments were inflided by the Gods, for impiety. This appears to have been the ufual ftrain of the writers of metamorphoses. — Jls long as they frejerved theW -piety to the Gods, they were happy *, being the conftant prologue to a tragic ftory. So that, what Pala^- phatus fays of the mythologic poets in general may with a peculiar juftnefs be applied to Ovid : The poets (fays he) contrived fables of this kind to imprefs on their hearers a reverence for the Gods f.
* "A;(pi ftfj sv Stas mjiwn, iu^a'n>.oni ?t7av. Ant. Liberalis Met. c. xi,
■j- Tot? it (tvOcvs TBTB; g-vt(h<raii el wsmlaf, iittc of incouititet f*i iSjI^waiy sij To Sitii, De incred. Hift, c. 3.
H 2 But
52 THE DIVINE LEGATION Bock III.
But this was not all. Ovid, jealous, as it were, of the fecret dignity of his Work, hath taken care, towards the conclufion, to give the intelligent reader the mailer-key to his meaning. We have obferved, that though the metempfychofis was univerfally taught and believed long before the time of Pythagoras ; yet the greatnefs of his reputation, and another caufe, we fliall come to prefcntly, made it afterwards to be reckoned amongft his pecu- liar doftrines. Now Ovid, by a contrivance, which for its juftnefs and beauty may be compared with any thing in Antiquity, feizes this circumftance, to inftrudt his reader in thefe two important points : i. That his poem is a popular hijiory of Providence : And 2. That the Meiempfycl:wjis was the original of the Metamorphojis. For in the conclufion of his book, he introduceth Pythagoras, teach- ing and explaining the transmigration of things to the people of Crotona. This was ending his Work in that jufl: philofophic manner, which the elegance of pure and ancient wit required.
The Abbe Banier, not entering into this beautiful contrivance, is at a lofs * to account for Ovid's bringing in Pythagoras fo much out of courfe. The beft reafon he can affign, is that the poet having finifhed the /j'/y^or/c^/metamorphofis, goes on to the natural', which Pythagoras is made to deliver to the Crotoniates. But this is not fa6t, but hypothefis : The poet had not finiffied the hrjiorkal metamorphofis : for having gone through the epifode of the natural change of thi}2gs, he re-affumes the proper fubjedl of. his work, the hijlorical, or moral, meiamorpofs, through the remaining part of tlie laft book ; which ends with the change of C^far into a comet. Had not Ovid, therefore, Introduced Pythagoras for the purpofe here afligned, we fliould hardly have found him in this place ; but in the Greek divifion, to which he properly belonged. Where the famous circumftance of his golden thigh, and the exhibition of it at the Olympic Games, would have afforded a very artful and entertaining Epifode, in a narrative of a Change begun and left
* Met, de Ovid, et des Expl. Hift. torn. iil.
wnfinilhed i
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 53
iinfinipied ; a proof of the truth of the doftrine of the Metamorphofsy at leaft as ftrong as that which the Alchymifls bring for the reaHty of the tranfmutation of Metals, from the Nails, half gold and half iron, now to be feen in the Cabinets of the German Virtuofi.
What hath been faid, I fuppofe, will tend to give us a different and higher notion of this extraordinary work : and leflen our fur- prize at the Author's prefumption, in fo confidently predicting im^ mortality to his performance :
*' Jamque opus exegi, quod nee Jovis ira, nee ignis, " Nee poterit ferrum, nee edax abolere vetuftas."
To proceed with our fubje6l. From what hath been faid of Pythagoras's charafler, it appears, that he taught feveral doflrines which he did not believe ; and cultivated opinions merely on ac- count of their utility. And we have the exprefs teftimony of Timaeus Locrus, that, in the number oi ihefe latter ^ was the popular doftrine of the metempjychojis. This very ancient Pythagorean, after having faid*, that the propagating the do<5lrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifliments, was neceffary to fociety, goes on in this manner : " For as we fometimes cure the body with un- *' wholefome remedies, when fuch as are moft wholefome have no «' effeft •,, fo we reftrain thofe minds hy falfe relations, which will " not be perfuaded by the truth : There is a necefiity therefore of ** infilling the dread of thofe foreign torments. As that the ** foul fliifts and changes its habitation ; that the coward is igno- *' minioufly thrufl into the body of a woman ; the murderer im- ♦* prifoned within the furr of a favage ; the lafcivious condemned *' to invigorate a boar or fow; the vain and inconftant changed into " birds ; and the flothful and ignorant into fifhes. The difpenfa- " tion of all thefe things is committed in the fecond period, to " Nemefis the Avenger ; together with the infernal Furies, her " Affeffors, the Infpedlors of human actions ; to vvhoin God, the
• See the Firft Se(aion of this Book.
fove reign
5+ TFIE DIVINE LEGATION Book ITI.
*♦ fovereign Lord of all things, hath conunitted the government of
" the world, replenifhed with Gods and Men, and other animals ;
*' all which were formed after the perfeft model of the eternal and
" intellefl'ual ideas *."
Timaeus's teftlmony is precife ; and, as this notion of the me-
iempjycbofis was an infeparable part of the doftrine of a future flate of rewards and punifnments, if the Pythagoreans dlfbelieved the one., 'they mud neceflarily rejed the other.
But, here k may be proper to explain, and inforce zdij'tnclion, ■which, by being totally overlooked, hath much embarrafled the whole matter.
The dodrine of the met enipfy chops ^ as it fiignilied a moral defig' nation of providence^ came originally from Egypt, and was, as we have faid, believed by all mankind. But Pythagoras, who had it, with the reft of the world, from thence, gave it a new modifica- tion, aiid taught, " that the fucceffive tranfition of the foul into other bodies, was phyfical, neceflary, and exclufive of all moral confiderations whatever.'" Thi^ is what Diogenes Lueriius means, when he tells us, '* That Pythagoras was reported to be the first " who taught the migration of the foul, from one body to another, ^' by a PHYSICAL necessity +•" This dodlrine was, Indeed, pe- ctdiarly his, and in the number of the efoterics, delivered in his School, to be believed.
aTTEipyouE; tVevJecti Xiyoif, tlxa (*>! ayniat aXaflsVi- Xiyoiilo ^ ayafxaia; K^ TlMfiPIAI EENAI, w;
aipprnfiiit' aeyZ' is J^ aXfaitliii*, ajAa^wv T£ k^ onoiTut, sj run rSv ItLi^uv lasccV ccTdila Si ravTa h
oT; 5 tsriilwt ayinai Sfoj WiTci^i Jioix>i(riv Mcrft-u' (TVf/.i:iiT>^n^uui.itu ix. Siuu ti i^ atQ^uiiruv, Tun 71 oXXuv laiai' cax ^s^a(<tafi«lai stot' t'txovix. Ta» a^tj-tt' I'tSi®" aiuviw j<J coyila;. De Anima Mundi, fub fin.
-{• IlfwTM SI (paa\ ToZrot affof ?»«i th \vx'''' KYKAQN ANAIKHS AMEIBOTfZAN, aWiole a^Aoij hltX^^M ^aJwf. L. viii. § 14.
How
SEcr. 3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. ^^
How deflrucllve this proper pythagoric notion of the metempjycho' Jis was to the doftrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments, Ovid, who well underflood the fecret of the diJiin5lion^ evidently perceived, where he makes Pythagoras, in delivering the efoteric dotflrine of his fchool to the Crotoniates, reje(5l a future flate of re- wards and punifliments, on the very principle o{ his own metempjy- chojts, though the general metempfychofs was an infeparable and ef- iential part of that flate :
~ G genus attonitum gelid^e formidine mortis, Quid Styga, quid tenebras, et nomina vana timetis, Materiem vatum, falfique piacula mundi ? Corpora, five rogus flamma, feu tabe vetuftas Abftulerit, mala poffe pati non ulla putetls. Morte carent animce : SEMPERque priore relifla Sede, novis domibus * habitant vivuntque receptffi.
The not attending to this di/iinSiion hath much perplexed even the beft modern writers on the fubje(St of Pythagoras. Mr. Dacier, in his life of that philofopher, when he comes to fpeak of the dodlrine of the metempfychofis, advances crudely, that all Antiquity have been deceived in thinking Pythagoras really believed it. And, for his warrant, quotes the paffage from T/w^wj, given above. Mr. LeClerci', fcandalized at this affertion, affirms as crudely, that he did believe it ; and endeavours to prove his point by divers ar- guments, and paflages of ancient writers. In which difpute, nei- ther of them being aware of the two different kinds oi Metempfy- chofis, each of them have with much confufion, taken of the true and falfe in this queftion, and divided it between them. Dacier was furely in the right, in fuppofing Pythagoras did not believe the Metempfychojis, as delivered by his difciple Timceus; but as cer- tainly in the wrong to conclude from thence, that he believed none at all. And L.e Clerc was not miftaken in thinking the philofo-
* L. XV. f Bibl. Choifie, tom.x. art. ii. itSi. ^.
pher
56 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
pher did believe fome fort of Metempfychojis ; but apparently in an error in fuppofing that it was the popular and mornt notion of it. In a word, the proofs which Dacier brings, conclude only againfl Pythagoras's believing a moral tranfmlgration ; and thofe Le Clerc oppofes, conclude only for his believing a naiiiral one. While neither, as we fay, apprehending there were two kinds, the one common to all, the other peculiar to that Philofopher, they have both fallen into great miftakes.
Let me pive an inftance from Le Clerc ; as it will contribute in general to illuflrate the fubjeft, and, at the fame time, throw light on the latter part of the paflage, we have but now quoted from TimEeus. Dacier had urged that pafl'age to prove Pythagoras did not believe the Metempffchofis ; and Le Clerc had urged it, to prove he did ; becaufe the author in conclufion exprefsly affirms, that the difpenfation of the Metempfychojis is committed in the Jccond period to Nemfjis the avenger. "ATravjtz SI tuZto. Iv Seuj^cc ■wepw^M « Nsjwsinff 2TNAIEKPINE. Le Clerc fays, J have iranjlated thefe words ver- batitn, that the reader may Jee he talks ferioujly*. But whoever reads the whole paffage, which exprefsly fpeaks of the doftrine as ujeful and not as true, will be forced to own, that by the phrafe, Nemefis decrees^ is meant, it miijl be taught that Nemefis decrees. But this circumflance of Nemefis is remarkable; and enough to put the matter out of queftion. There were two kinds, as we have faid, of the Metempfychojis, which the Pythagoreans taught ; the mora/ znd the natural. The latter they believed, the firft they only preached. So that Timveus fpeaking here of the Metempfychojis as a fable, ufe- ful for the people to credit ; left the reader ihould miftake him as meaning the natural, he adds the circumftance of Nemefis, the poetical Avenger of the crimes of men, to confine all he had faid, to the moral Metempfychojis.
* J'ai traduit ces dernicres paroles de Timee mot pour mot, ;"ifin que Ton put voir, qu'ilparle ferieulement. Bibi. Choifie, torn, x, p. 193.
To
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. $7
To fupport what is here obferved, it may not be improper to infert the fentimetits of (bme of the moft confiderable of Pytha- goras's DISCIPLES on this point : which I fhall tranfcribe from my very learned Friend, the author of the critical Inquiry into the opinions and praSiices of the ancient philofophers : where the reader may fee them admirably well explained and defended from a deal of idle chicane. ' Plutarch tells us '* that Empedocles held death to be " a feparatlon of the fiery fubflance from the other parts, and there- *' for& fuppofed that death was common to the foul and body *."
Sextus Empiricus fays, " it is evident that Epicurus flole his *' principles from the poets. As to that famous tenet of his, that *' death is nothing to us, he borrowed it from Epicharmus, who *' fays, I neither look upon the aift of dying, or the Jlate that fuc" *' ceeds it^ as of any confequence and importance to me f."
Plutarch likewife, in his confolation to Apolloniiis, cites the fol- lowing words of Epicharmus; " The parts of which you are ** compofed will be feparated at death ; and each will return to the ** place from which it originally came. The earth will be reftored *' to earth, and the fpirit will afcend upwards ; what is there terrible ** or grievous in this % ?"
As for this afcent of the fpirit upwards, Lucretius will ex- plain it :
Cedit enim retro, de terra quod fuit ante.
In terras : et quod miflum eft ex cetheris oris.
Id rurfum coeli rellatum templa receptant. Lib. ii.
urtxulx tSro xo\»tiv tltat ri,f]Sa,toiiav auiiiihfi^ ^vx^i- De Plac. c, 25. Cicero fays Empe- doeles animum elFe cenfet cordi fuffufum fanguinem. i Tiifc. 9, alluding to Empe- docles's own words in that famous verfe :
At^a yap a>6fii7roi{ wEpxaf Jio'v sj-i >o»i/»a. • f 5 Jf 'EtiVsjO! ^i'faTai Ta xparira tS» ^offtartiv ma^x ■our^St itr.fTxxui to» ^1 Sdtalov
ad Gram. § 273.
^ouU. . I Teles,
58 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
Teles, another follower of Pythagoras, thus addreffes hlmfelf to one grieved and afflicted for the lofs of a deceafed friend ; " You *' complain (fays he) that your friend will never exill: more. But *' remember, that he had no exigence ten thoufand years ago, *' that he did not live in the time of the Trojan war, nor even in '* much later periods. This, it feems, does not move you : all " your concern is, becaufe he will not exift for the future*." Epicurus ufes the very fame language on the fame occafion :
Refpice item quam nil ad nos ante a£l:a vetuftas Temporis aeterni fuerit, quam nafcimur ante. Hoc igltur nobis fpeculum natura futuri Temporis exponit, poll mortem denique noftram.
Lucr. 1. iil.
So far, my learned friend.
II. Plato is next in order : He likewlfe greatly affe6led the charafter of Lawgiver ; and aftually compofed laws for feveral people, as the Syracufians and Cretans ; but with what kind of fpirit we may judge, by his refufing that employment for the The- bans and Arcadians, as foon as he underflood they were averfe to equality of pofleffions-j- The truth is, his philofophic charadler, which was always predominant (as in Pythagoras the legijlative) gave his politics a caft of refinement which made his fchemes of Government very Impraftlcable, and even unnatural. So that, though his knowledge of mankind was indeed great and profound, and therefore highly commended by Cicero %, yet his iiue-drawn fpeculations brought him at length into fuch contempt as a writer of politics, that Jofephus tells us, notwithftanding he was Jo high in glory and admiration amongji the Greeks, above the rejl of the Phi- hfophers, for his fuperior virtue, and power of eloquence, yet he "was
i' ir» fiu ThTui UK a%9ii. on J! «i; ire(o» a« frai, ^./<r;^Egai)tif. StobasUS Mor. Ec. C. 106.
f See jElian. Var. Hift. 1. ii. c. 42.
X Deus illc nofter Plato ia •srsXi'iia. See B. ii. § 3.
cpen/y
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 59
openly laughed at, and bitterly ridiaukd by thofe who pretended to any profound or high knowledge of politics *.
The only Greek mafters he followed, were Pythagoras and So- crates : Thefe he much admired. From the firft, he took his fondnefs for geometry, his fanaticifm of numbers, his ambition for lawgiving, and the do£lrine of the Metempfychojis : From the latter, the ftudy of morals, and the mode of difputing.
This was a monftrous mif-alliance t *• I mean, the incorporating into one Philofophy, the do6lrines of two fuch difcordant Schools : the firft of which dogmatized in the moft fublime queftions of na- ture ; the other gave up the moft vulgar, as Infcrutable.. The Philofopher of Samos aimed at glory ; the Legiflator of Samos followed utility ; but the fimple Moralift of Athens laboured after truth.
We need not therefore any longer wonder at the obfcurity which Plato's frequent contradictions throw over his writings. It was caufed not only by the double doSirine, a pradice common to all the Philofophers ; but likewife by the joint profeflion of two fuch contrary Philofophies. This effeft could not efcape the obfervation of Eufebius : Hear then (fays he) the Greeks thenifehes, by their bejl and tnojl powerful fpeaker, now rejcSling, and now again adopting the
FABLES |.
However it was the abftrufe philofophy of Pythagoras with which he was rroft taken. For the fake of this, he aflumed alfo the legiflative part ; and in imitation of his mafter, travelled into Egypt; where he was initiated into the Myfterles of the prieft- hood. It was this which made Xenophon, the faithful follower of
p^\tvu^ofiS>&', )^ xwfiuJsfiE*©- JiotlsAcT. Cont. Ap. 1. ii. § 31, f See note [P], at the end of this Book.
J 'AxBi i' u* atriy 'EXXiirov Ji l»o! Ts 'aciilut ajirSj Toie f»£» ]^u^S>l&; Toll ^ it 'EtixAiv i'^toiH'
H£»B T»; piieaj. Praep. Evang. p. 47. Steph. Ed. See above, p. 36 ; and what will be further faid on this matter, in note M, a' the end of this Book.
I 2 Socrates,
-6o THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
Socrates, fay, that Plato had adulterated the pure and fimple phi- lofophy of their Mafter ; and was in love with Egypt, and the fortent'ious ii^ijdom of Pytlaagoras *. And even occahoned Socrates hlmfelf, on reading his romantic Dialogues, to exclaim, Te Gods^ ivhat a heap of lyes has this young man placed to my account f ?
But of all the Egyptian Inventions, and Pythagoric praiflices, no- thing pleafed him more than that of the double do£lrine, and the divifion of his auditors into the exoteric and efotcric clafles : He more profefledly than any other, avowing thofe principles, on which that diftin£lion was founded; fuch as, — That it is for the benefit of mankind, that they Jl^ould be often deceived — That there are fome truths not fit for the people to know — That the world is not to be en- trufied with the true notion of God \ and more openly philofophizing upon that dlftinition, in his writings. Thus, in his books of Laws, (which we (hall fee prefently were of the exoteric kind) he de- fends the popular opinion, which held the fun, moon, ftars, and earth, to be Gods, againfl: the theory of Anaxagoras, which taught the fun was a mafs of fire, the moon an habitable earth, ^c. Here, his objeftion to the new philosophy, (as he calls it) is, that it was an inlet to atheifm ; for the common people, when they once found thefe to be no Gods which they had received for fuch, would be apt to conclude, there were none at all ; But in his Cratylus, which was of the efotcric kind, he laughs at their Forefathers for worfhiping the fun and ftars, as Gods.
In a word, the Ancients thought this diftinflion of the double do^rine, fo necefl'ary a key to Plato's writings, that they compofed difcourfes on it. Numenius, a Pythagorean and Platonift both in one, wrote a treatife (now loft) of the fecret doHrities (that is, the real opinions) of Plato \ ; which would probably have given much light to this queftion, had the queftion wanted it. But Albinus,
(in xalf^ivSti' i vianry.of. Diog. Laert L iii. § 35.
+ riifi TwF iTAardu©- a,~offr,Tut, Tefte Eufeb. 1. xiii. c. 4, 5. Pra;p. Evang.
an
OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED.
61
Sect. 3.
an old platonift, hath, in fome meafure, fupplied this lofs, by his introduSlion to the dialogues of Plato*. From which it appears, that thofe very books, where Plato moft dwells on the dodlrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments, are all of the exoteric kind. To this, it hath been faid, that fome of thefe were of the political and civi/ kind : and fo fay I ; but neverthelefs of the exoteric, called political, from their fubjedl, and exoterical from their manner of handling it. But if the nature of the fubjed will not teach thefe objedlors that it mufl: needs be handled exoterically, Jamblichus's authority mufl decide between us ; who, in his life of Pythagoras f, hath ufed political in the fenfe of efoterical : And in that clafs, Albinus ranks |. the Criton, Phsdo, Minos, Sympofium, Laws, Epiftles, Epinomis, Menexenus, Clitophon, and Philebus^
There is an odd paffage in Cicero §, which feems to regard the Phsdo in the light of a mere exoteric compofition, fo far as it con- cerns the dodlrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments. The auditor is advifed to read the Phasdo, to confirm his belief in this point : to which he replies. Feci tnehercule, & guidem fapius ; fed NEscio (iUoMODO, dum lego ajfentior : cum pofui librum, & mecum ipfe de immortaiitate animorum caepi cogitare, ajfenfo omnis ilia elahitur. The only reafonable account I can give of this refledion, (for to fuppofe it an imitation of fomething like it in the Phasdo itfelf, ap- plied to a very different purpofe, gives us none at all) I fay the only reafonable account is, that the Phaedo being an exoteric dia- logue, and written for the people, was held amongfl the learned^ in the rank of a philofophical romance : but while one of thefe better fort of readers, is very intent on fuch a woik, a mafler-piece, like this, for compofition and eloquence, he becomes fo captivated with the charms and allurements of thefe grace?, ihat he forgets, for a moment, the hidden meaning, and falls into the vulgar de- ceit. But having thrown afide the book, grown cool, and reflected
* Apud Fabric. Bibl, Grxc. lib. iii. c. a. 't Sea. 150. X Sea. 5.
§ Tufc. Difp. I. i, c. 5.
on
62 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
on thofe principles concerning God and the foul, held in common by the Philofophers (of which more hereafter) all the bright co- louring difappears, and the gaudy vifion fhrinks from his embrace. A paffage in Seneca's epiflles will explain, and feems to fupport, this interpretation, ^omodo molejius eji jucundum somnium viDENTi, qui excitat ; aufert enhn vcluptatem, etiamjifaljam, effeSiuvi iamen vera habentem ; fc epi/lola tiia mibi fecit injuriam ; revocavit tnim me cogitationi aptce traditum, & iturum, ft Ucuiffet, ulterius, Ju- nabat de asternitate animarum qucerere, imo mehercule credere. Cre- debam enim facile opinionibus magnorum virorum, rem gratiflimam promittentium magis quam probantium ! Diibam me fpei tanta. Jam eram faflidio mihi, jam reliquias atatis infraEia contemnebam, in mmenfum illud tempus & in pojfejfionem omnis avi trarfiturus : cum fubito experreSfus fumy epiflola tua accepta, ^ tam bellum ^o-ni- nivyi perdidi*.
The Platonic philofophy being then entirely Pythagorean in the point in queflion, and this latter rejedllng the doftrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments, we might fairly conclude them both under the fame predicament.
But as Plato is efteemed the peculiar patron of this doflrine ; chiefly, I fuppofe, on his being xhefirfl who brought reasons for the ETERNITY of thc foul \ : on this account, it will be proper to be a little more particular.
I. Firft then, it is very true, that Plato hath argued much for the eternity, or, if you will, for the immortality of the foul. But to know what fort of immortality he meant, we need only confider what fort of arguments he employs. Now thefe, which he was fo famous for inventing and inforcing, were natural znd metaphy- seal, taken from the eflence and qualities of the foul ; which therefore concluded only for its termanency : and this he certainly
* Epift. 102,
+ Tufcul, Difp. 1. i. c. 17. Prlmum de animorum JETERNITATE non folum fenjljfe iihm tiuod VrriiACORhs, fed rationem etiam attulijji,
believed.
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 6^
believed *. But for any moral arguments, from which only a fu- ture ftate of rewards and punifhments can be deduced, he refolves them all into tradition, and the religion of his country.
2. As the inventing reafons for the immortality of the foul, was 0f2e caufe of his being held the great patron of this do6trine ; fo another, was his famous refinement (for it was indeed his) of the natural Metempfychojls, the peculiar notion of the Pythagoreans. This natural Metempfychojis was, as we have faid, that the fuccejfive tranfit'ion of the foul into other bodies ivas phyfcal and necejfary, and exclufve of all moral dejignation whatfever. Plato, on receiving this opinion from his mailer, gave it this additional improvement ; that thoje changes and trarftions ivere the purgations of impure minds, unfit, by reafon of the pollutions they had contracted, to reafcend the place from whence they came, and rejoin that Svust at^ce from whence they 'were difcerped; andconfeque}itly, that pure immaculate fouls were exempt from this tranf migration. Thus Plato's Metempfychofis (which was as peculiarly his, as the other was Pythagoras' s) feemed in- deed to have fome (hadow of a moral defignation in it, which his mafter's had not : neither did it, like that, neceflarily fubjedl all to it, without difl^indlion ; or for the fame length of time. In this then they differed : But how much they agreed in excluding the notion of all future ftate of reward and punifhment, will be feen, when in the next feftion we come to fhew what a kind of exigence it was which Pythagoras and Plato afforded to the foul, when it had rejoined that univerfal substance, from which it had been difcerped.
We have now explained the three forts of Metempfychofis ; — The popular; — That which was peculiar to Pythagoras; and laflly. That peculiar to Plato. The not diftinguifhing the Platonic from the Pythagoric ; and both, from the Popular, has occafioned even
* Tot rationes attulit [Plato] ut velle ceteris, fibi certc perfuafifle videatur. Cic. Tufc. Difp. 1. i. c. 2 1, KaSaiif 5 »i/'f<©- 5 OTBTgi®- JiyEij as he exprefles it in his twelfth book of laws.
the
64 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
the Ancients to write with much obfcurity on this matter. What can be more inexplicable and contradidlory that the account Servius hath given of it? " Sciendum, non omnes animas ad corpora re- ** verti. AHqus enirn propter vitae merita non redeunt propter " malam vitam ; aliquse propter fati neceffitatem." In ^n. vi. ver. 713. Here, he has jumbled into 0//^, as the current doftrine of the Metempjychojis^ thefe three different and diftinft forts ; all quce propter •vita MERITA non redeunt , belonging to the popular notion ; allqiia: redeunt propter fati neceffitatem, belonging to Pythagoras's ; and aliqua propter malam vitamy to Plato's.
3. However it is very true, that Plato in his writings incul- cates the do£lrine of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments : but this, always in the grofs fenfe of the populace: that the fouls of ill men defcended into ajjes andfwine ; — that the uninitiated lay in mire and filth ; — that there were three judges of hell: and talks much of Styx, Cocytus, Acheron, ^c. and all fo ferioufly*, as fhews he had a mind to be believed. But did he indeed believe thefe fables ? We may be affured he did not : for being the moft fpiritualized of the Philofophers, had he really credited z future jiate of rewards and punifhments, he would have refined and purified it, as he did the doctrine of the eternity of the foul, which he certainly be- lieved. But he has as good as told us what he really thought of the matter, in his Epinomis; where, writing of the condition of a good and wife man after death, he fays, of whom, both in jest and in earnest, I conjiantly afirm, that when fuch a one fiall have fnijhed his defined courfe by death, he fall at his dijfolution be ftript of thofe many fenfes which he here enjoyed ; and then only par- ticipate of one fmple lot or condition. And, of many, as he was here^ being become one, he fall be happy ^ wife, and bleffed-f. In this
* In his Gorgias, PJiredo, and Republic. Sub fin,
pafTage,
Sect.3- of MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 6s
pafTage, I underftand Vhto/ecre/Zy to intimate, that, when he was in jejl, he held the future happinefs of good men in a peculiar and diftinft exiftence, which is the popular and moral ?iotion of a future ftate : but, when /;; earnejf, he held, that this exigence was not perfonal or peculiar, but a common life, without diftincl fenfations ; a refolution into the to 'iv. And it is remarkable that the whole fentence has an elegant ambiguity, capable of either. meaning. For •sroXXuy ixla-B'^jeuv may either fignify our many pajions and appetites^ or our many cogitations. To deny we have the Jiijl of thefe in a future ftate, makes nothing againft a diftin£t exiflence ; but to deny the fecond, does. His difciple Ariftotle feems to have un- derftood him as meaning it in this latter fenfe, when in earneft ; and has fo paraphrafed it as to exclude all peculiar exiftence *, There is the fame ambiguity in Ik 'stoXkZv eW, which may either lignify, that, of his many fenfations, he hath only one left, the feeling happinefs ; or that, from being a part, and in the number of many individuals of the fame fpecies, he is become one, and entire, by being joined to, and united with the univerfal nature. Plato affirms all this ftill more plainly, in his commentary on Tlmaeus, where he agrees to his author's dodrine of the fabulous inventioa
of the FOREIGN TORMENTS -j-
4. In confirmation of the whole, (/. e. of Plato's difbelief of the religious dodlrine of a future ftate, as founded on the will and pro- vidence of the Gods) we obferve, in the laft place, that the mofl: intelligent of the Ancients regarded what Plato faid of a future ftate of rewards and puniftiments, to be faid only in the exoteric way to the people.
The famous Stoic, Chryfippus |, when he blames Plato, as not rightly deterring men from injuftice, by frightful ftories of future puniftiments, takes it for granted that Plato himfelf gave no credit to them : for he turns his reprehenfion, not againft that philofo-'
* See hereafter, in Sefl. IV. of this Book, f See p. 53. % Plut. de Stoic, repug.
Vol. II. K pher's
66 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
pher's wrong belief, but his wrong judgment, in imagining fuch chiklidi terrors * could be ufefui to the caufe of Virtue.
Strabo plainly declares himfelf of the fame opinion, when, fpeak- ing of the Indian Brachmans, he fays, that they had invented fables in the manner of Plato, concerning the immortclity of the fuly and a future judgment in the fJiades below, and other things of the fame nature -j-.
Celfus owns that every thing which Plato tells us of a future flate, and the happy abodes of the virtuous, is an allegory. " But *' what (fays he) we are to underhand by tiiefe things, is not *' eafy for every one to find out. To be mafter of this, we muft *' be able to comprehend his meaning, when he fays, They cannot-^ *' by reafon of their imbccillity and fliiggifmefs, penetrate into the ** highefl region. But were their nature vigorous enough to raife itfelf ♦* tofo fublime a contemplation, they would then come to tinderfiandy ** that this u-as the true heaven, and the true irradiation |." To un- derftand this true irradiation, the aKvj9ivov tpwf, we mufi: confider that light was one of the moft important circumftances of the Pagaa Elyfium, as we may fee in the chapter of the Myfteries ; where a certain ravifhing and divine light is reprefented, as making thofe abodes fo recommcndable ;
Largior hie campos sether & lumine veftit Purpureo
But this remarkable paflage of Celfus, befides the general conch.^- fion to be drawn from it, confirms what we have faid of the pecir-
■f Yla^cfrXixan Si xijutfis?, So-jri/i >^ HAATfiN, ■Jiir-^i te af Oajs-Jaj ■i'Ux'is, J^ T*! x«9 aJs xjurtMr, j^ aWa totaiTa. Geogr. 1. XV. p. 1040. Gron. Ed.
J Ti Jt Sta TSTa)»t(<lfa»'^ii, a waili y»u»at fff.iiot' ii jn-j ori? hrauM dV'»ailp, t! itot' Wlr liCtt 0 <fr,7^^' Ja-'acSexia,- k, ^jaJ^Txl®' iy^ c'lKj It' J»«i J>j|sASt7» ■K tay(fiPi<» Tov at^a* «J it i ^!/cri; inain efij anuryisr- t» 3i0£?!r«, yiMat a» sVi htTtoi ir»» 0 a,>.nius 8^a>o< "sj To ah-nOitat fas. Orig. cont. Celf. 1. vii. p^
552. Sp, Ed.
liar
Sect.3. of MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 6;
liar Platonic Metempfychojls, For here Celfus refolves all Plato's meaning, in his reprefentations of a future flate of rewards and puniflimeuts. Into that Metempfychods : and we fhall fee hereafter, that thai was refolvable into the re-union of the foul with the Di- vine Nature, when it became vigorous enough to penetrate into the h'lghefi region*.
The emperor Julian addrefiing himfelf to Heraclius the Cynic, on the fubjedt of tliat feft, when he comes to fpeak of the double doSirine^ and the admiffion o^ fable into the teachings of the philo- fophers, obferves, that it hath its ufe chiefly in Ethics (in which he includes Politics t) and in xh-sApart of theology relating to initia~ iion, and the my/ieries ^. To fupport which, he prefently quotes the example of Plato, who, when he writes of Theology, or as a Theolo" ger, is full of fables in bis accounts of the infernal regions §. From hence it appears that, in the opinion of this learned emperor, Plato did not only not fpeak his real fentiments of thefe matters, but that when he did treat of them, it was not as a Philofopher, but as a Theologer ; in which charafter the ancient Sages never thought themfelves obliged to keep within the limits of truth. What thefe fabulous relations were, he intimates, when he pre- vioufly fpeaks of the fables taught in the Myjleries ; by which he could only mean their reprefentations of a future flate : The great Secret of the Myfleries, the dodlrine of the Unity, being, in his opinion, of a nature diredlly contrary to the other.
We now come to the Peripatetics and Stoics, who will give us much lefs trouble. For thefe having in fome degree, though not entirely, thrown off the legiflative charadler, fpoke more openly againft a future ftate of rewards and punifhments. Indeed the difference in this point, between them and the Plato-
* See note [Q^], at the end of this Book.
"I" — iflixoy* owoTOftixoi Si, to ffftf* X»«» otxiov* '^^o^l'llxi» Je, To wtpi w&fV. Orat. "J,
J Kai t5 S£o^ffylK5, Tu Ti^srixu, >^ fivs-ixa. lb.
5 — fTH x^ nx»T«>i wo^^» fiEf«v0e?io7>i1«i •ai^l rat It a^ m^xyjtoiTuii 9eo^o}'»»Il, lb.
K 2 nifts.
68 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book II L
nlfts, was only from lefs to more referve, as appears from their all having the fame common principles of philofophlling *.
III. Aristotle was the diiciple of Plato, and his Rival. This emulation, though it difpofed him to take a different road to fame, in a province yet unoccupied, and to throw off the legiflative cha- ra£ter j yet it fet him upon writing books of laws and politics^ in oppofition to his Mafter ; whom he takes every occalion to con- tradict.
He ftuck indeed to the ancient method of the double doSlrme, but with lefs caution and referve. For, whereas the Pythagoreans and Platonifts kept it amongft the Jecreis of their fchools, he feems willing that all the world Ihould take notice of it, by giving public direflions to diftinguifh between the two kinds -{•• Accordingly, in his Nicomachian Ethics, he expreffes himfelf without any cere- mony, and in the moft dogmatic way, againft a future ftate of rewards and punilhments. Death (fays he) h of oil things the mojl terrible. For it is the final period of exifience. And beyond that, it appears, there is neither good nor evil for the dead man to dread or
hope X-
And in another place he tells us, that the foul, after its repa- ration from the body, will neither joy nor grieve, love nor hate, nor be fubjedt to any paflions of the like nature. And left we fhould fufpeft that this was faid of the animal life only, he goes further, and obferves, that it will then neither remember, think, nor under- fiand%. It muft, therefore, according to this Philofopher, be ab- folutely loft, as to any feparate exiftence.
* Acad. Quaeft. lib. i.
•j- See Cic. Ep. ad Att. lib. iv. Ep. 16. in fingulis libris [de repubiica] utor . procemiis, ut Ariftoteles in lis, qiios l|iJ!f^i:<a; vocat
i <I)o?5fl»T»!o» J 0 Sosxnl©-' CE^a; yaj jjj kTvi eti t« teS^eJti tfox£~, are a/ctScy, art xaxi* tiia». Eth. ad Nicom. lib. iii. c. 6, p. 130. Ed. Han. 1610. 8vo.
§ T« Je ATANOE120AI, k. OIAEIN J MISEIN', i<i. sfiv ExEiia craGii, a^^a tSJe tS e';^o»]®- U-iito J txioo tp^fi, lil 1^ tSt8 f 9tipf«iVH, tin MNHMONETE, bti ?l^£^. De aiibia," Jt. v.
IV. Zeno,
Sect. 3» OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 69
IV. Zeno, the Founder of the Porch, followed the mode, In writing of Laws and a Republic. Agreeably to this part of his character, we find, by Ladlantius, that he taught a future flate of rewards and punifhments in the very terms of Plato : E[fe inferos Zeno Stoicus docuit ; & fedes piorum ab impiis ejfe difcretas ; ^ illos- qu'.dem quiet as ac dekSlabiles incolere regiones, hos vera lucre pcenas in tenebrofis locis atque in cceni voraginibus horrendis *. Yet, we know that he and the whole Porch held, that God governed the world only by his general Providence j which did not extend either to Individuals, Cities, or People f : And, not to infift that his fol- lower Chryfippus laughed at thefe things, as the moft childifh of all terrors, we know too, that the philofophic principle of his- School was, that the foul died with the body |. Indeed, to compli- ment their wise man, the Stoics taught that his foul held .it out till the general Conflagration : by which, when we come to fpeak- of their opinion concerning the nature and duplicity of the foul, we fnall find they meant jufl nothing.
However, it was not long before the i'/o/Vj entirely laid aflde the legiflative charader ; for which their Mafter appears to have had no talents, as we may judge by what he lays down in his Republicy that States fjould not bufy tbemfelves in creBing temples ; for we ou<rht not to think there is any thing holy, or facred, or that deferves any real ejleem, in the work of majons and labourers §. The good man had forgot that he was writing Laws for a People \ and fo turned impertinently enough, to philofophife with thefoical Sage. The truth is, this fed had never any great name for Legiflation : The
* Inft. lib. vii. fea. 7. f Nat. Deor. 1. iii. c. 39.
Plut. dePlac. Phil. lib. iv. c.7. — See the Criticallnquiry into the Opinions and Praftice of the Ancient Philofophers, p. 27 — 37, 2d ed.
U^lt ya( iih x^v yoni^w, eJs otoAXS a^to> i^'aym olxoiinutrit^oy >^ ^atxv<ruf, Apud Ori''. cent.
Cfjf.,p, 6. ■
reafou
yy THE DIVINE LEGATION BookIII.
reafon is evident. This part of Ethics, more than any other, re- ■quire-s the cultivation of, and adherence to, what is called common NOTICES. Whereas, of all the ancient fvftems of Philolbphy, the Stoical Morals moft deviated from Nature *- They foon felt the effects which the doftrines of their School had on common life, and therefore in good time laid the ftudy of Politics quite afide. After which, they wrote, without the leaft referve, againft a future ftate of rewards and punifhments.
Thus Epictetus, a thorough Stoic, if ever there was any, fpeaking of death, fays, " But whither do you go ? no where to ■*' your hurt : you return from whence you came : to a friendly *' confociation with your kindred elements : what there was of *' the nature of fire in your compofition, returns to the element •" of fire ; what there was of earth, to earth ; what of air, to air; *' and of water, to water. There is no Hell, nor Acheron, nor *' Cocytus, nor Pyriphlegethon f ."
In another place, he fays, "The hour of death approaches. Do ■*' not endeavour to aggravate, and make things worfe than they *« really are : Reprefent them to yourfelf in their true light. The *' time is now come when the materials of which you are compounded " will be refolved into the elements from ivhicb they were originally *' taken. What hurt or caufe of terror is there in this ? or what is *' there in the world that absolutely perisheth \ ?'*
Antoninus fays, " He who feareth death, either fears that he " fhall be deprived of all fenfe, or that he fhall experience different *' fenfations. If all fenfations ceafe, you will be no longer fubjeft «* to pain and mlfery ; if you be inverted with fenfes of another
* See note [R], at the end of this Book.
•j- n5 ; ti's a^in &(»o», fc?iX' ofifn i)/»a, ti; T» (p'iKa ^ aifyinyi, ti{ ra fOiX^''' '^"^ ^' " <''''
vhU *aJ>i«, »^£ 'a%e^wk, uJe KaxvToi, hSt UvfiphfyiQini. Apud Arrian. lib. iii. c. 13. fiv, 'w's Ikcha c^w^l^ »i»?it;»iiai, >^ Tt Sml*, Ti f*tMa »i!:a^^Ka■S»« tu> h Tu wV^u. 1. iv. 7. I.
*' kind.
Sect. 3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 71
*♦ kind, you will become another creature, and will continue to ** exift as luch *.'*
Seneca, in his confolation to Marcia, daughter of the famous Cremutlus Cordus the Stoic, is not at all behind hand, in the frank avowal of the fame principles. Cogita, nidlis defunSium mails affici; ilia qua mbh inferos faciunt terribiles, fabulam ejfe : nuUas imminere mortuts tenehras, nee career em, mc fumina Jlagrantia igne, nee obli- •vionis amnem, 7iec iribunalia, & reos £=? in ilia libertate tarn laxa ullos iterum tyrannos. Liijerunt ijla po'eta^ & vanis nos agitavere terrori" bus. Mors omnium dolorum z§ folutio ef, & finis : ultra quam mala nojlra non exeunt, qua nos in 11 lam tranquillitatem, in qua, ante- Qi^AM NASCEREMiTR, jacuimus, reponit ■\,
LuciAN, who, of all the Ancients, beft underftood the intrigues and intricacies of ancient Philofophy, appears to have had the fame thouglits of the Stoics upon, the point in queftion. In his 'fupiter Tragicus, or difcoiirfe on Providence, Damis, the Epicurean, ar» guing againfl Providence, (ilences the Stoic, Timocles, when he comes to the inequality of events ; becaufe the Author would not fuffer his Stoic to bring in a future Jiate to remove the difficulty. And, that nothing but decorum, or the keeping each Se€l to its- own principles, made him leave the Stoic embarraffed, appears from his fupiter cofuted, or dijcourfe on deftiny; where, when Cynifcus pieiTes Jupiter with the fame arguments againft Provi- dence, Jupiter eafily extricates himfelf : " You appear by this, " Cynifcus, to be ignorant what dreadful punishments await the " v/icked after this life, and what abundant happinefs is referved *' for the good +."
I will only obferve in taking leave of this fubjecft, that the famous STOICAL RENOVATION (whicli hath been oppofed to what is here
* O Toy cavenTM lpo€ujbiE>&', 5toi ivaiffSurfav (pcetTTai, \ aii^iicn Ir/poti), aW' iite y«"7> airSii-
viii. 50. t Cap. 19.
J Ov ya^ oiffCee, u Kvt'iaxt, r,}/ix.cci, ftsTa 7<' ^'m^ St ■aotn^a'i raj xeXacTH; vTou'tDjit, S Iv To-j)
reprefented)
^2 THE DIVINE LEGATION . Book III.
reprefented") feems to have been conceived on the natural Metempfy- ■chofis of Pj'thagoras. Origen gives the following account of it : *' The generality of the Stoics not only fubjedl every thing mortal *' to thefe RENOVATIONS, but the Immortals likewlfe, and the very *' Gods themfelves. For after the conflagration of the Univerfe, *' which hath happened already, and will happen hereafter, in in- <' finite fucceflions,. the fame face and order of things hath been *' and ever will be preferved from the beginning to the end *." It is true, the men of this School, to eafe a little the labouring ab- furdity, contend for no more than the moft exa£t refemblance of things, In one renovation., to thofe of another. Thus the next Socrates was not individually the fame with the laft, but one exaftly like him ; with exactly fuch a wife as Xantippe, and fuch accufers as Anytus and Melitus t. Which, however, fhews the folly of bringing this renovation for a proof, that the Stoics believed a future fiate of rewards and punilhments.
Having now gone through thefe four famous schools, I fhould have clofed the fedion, but that I imagined the curious reader •would be well pleafed to know what Cicero thought, on this im- portant point ; Cicero, who finifhed the Conquefts of his country- men in Greece, and brought home in triumph, thofe only remains <?f their ancient grandeur, their philosophy and eloquence J.
* TToiKwy of ■toXeiS; » ftotoy t\<i Tut S»)!T«v We^mJov Toiat/TKH utai ^xcrU, a>.\a >y tjjv t«» uSavurut j^ rui xecT airtii Ssir, (aetk yaj Tr,v tS tossitcs lif^ifua-n aTrw^axt; yitvij.ivr,s, j^ aTEi^ams Ei70ftE>»iv, n tttTn Ta|i? air afX^S f"XS' t/xs? vsiilm ysyote Tt >^ *rai» •anfaft.tiioi liitlot SijareiJiw ijSt Ta; aTrifi' AaiTEi; oJ aJTo t?5 Sraaj, fax oiJ' oVaj, a5rKjaXX»x1s{ fiairlv iiria^at xala. tnifnioi toT^ «ot Tut ^poiifm «»£fwJa» wccfleci' "ta jiv 2a.)tfaT>i; -n-aXm yiviiVi, affafaXXanli'; tk tu Xux^xtsi, yafj-tiainf axasaWaiLiai rw HatOi-a-ni', "^ Ka1))yoftiSiio-o;wy®' lito Ji.irx^a.'K'Ka.iiluii 'Atv\a >^ MeXitw. Origencs contra Celfiim, 1. iv. ed. Spen. p. 208, 209. The nature of this renovation is examined at large, and admirably developed, in the Critical Inquiry into the Opinions of the Ancient Philofophers.
-|- See note [S], at the end of this Book.
•r Tov i' ' A-JToWiyitit — iicrsiV, Xe y.\>, a Kixs'^uv, Irranu k, Saufta^i;, t^s Je 'EXXaJ©- oixIei'cu
9^» Tvx^i, o{ki>i a i^ita Twv xa'/.uy r.j^it iiitiKii-eio, k, ravra Panai'.t; itx eS «rjopy£Wf*j»« IIAIAEIAN
«•£ j^ AOrON, riut. Vit. Cic
But
Sect. 3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 73
But there are great difficulties in getting to his real fentiments. I ihall mention fome of the chief.
1. Firll:, that which arifes from the ufe of the double do5lrine\ a circumftance common to the Greek philofophy ; of its effence; and therefore, infeparable from its exiflence. The Ancients who lived after Cicero, fuch as Clemens Alexander, Origen, Synefius, Salluft the philofopher, Apuleius, do in fa£t fpeak of it as an in- ftrument flill in ufe; nor do any other ever mention it as a thing become obfolete. So that when Cicero undertook to explain the Greek Philofophy to his countrymen, he could not but employ io falhiionable a v^ehicle of fcience. But how much It contributed to hide the real fentiments of the ufer, we have feen above.
2. Another difficulty arifes from the peculiar genius of the Sedl he efpoufed, the New Academy ; which was entirely fceptical: ft profefled a way of philofophlfing, in which there was no room for any one to interfere with his own opinions ; or. Indeed, to hwoe any. It is true, were we to confider Cicero as zJlrlSl Academic^ In the Grecian fenfe of adhering to a Se6l, our enquiry would be prefently at an end ; or at leaft very impertinent : but he profefled this Philofophy in a much laxer way ; as we ffiall now fee.
3. And this leads us to another difficulty, arifing from the man- ner, in which the Greek Philofophy was received in Italy. The Romans in general were, by their manners and difpofitions, little qualified for fpeculative fcience. When they firfl: got footing, and had begun a commerce for arts, in Greece, they entertained great jealoufies of the Sophifts, and ufed them roughly : and It was long before they could be perfuaded to think favourably of a fet of men, who profefled themfelves always able and ready to difpute for or agalnfl: VIRTUE indifferently * : and even then, the Greek Philo- fophy was introduced into Rome, but as a more refined fpecies of luxury, and a kind of table-furniture, fet apart for the enter- tainment of the Great ; who were yet very far from the Grecian
* See note £T], at the end of this Book.
Vol. XL L humour,
74 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book UK
hnmowr f furare in verba magijlri : they regarded the doftrlnes of the Sedt they efpoufed, not as a rule of life, but only as a kind of Apparatus for their rhetoric fchools ; to enable them to invent readily, and reafon juftly, in the affairs of Hfe. Cicero, who beft knew upon wliat footing it was received, fays no lefs, when he ridicules Cato for an unfafhionable fellow. Htvc homo ingeniofiffinius M. Cato auclcribus erudltijfums indudtus, arrlpiiit^ neque disputan- Di CAUSA, UT MAGNA PARS, yt-^ ;'/j3 vivcndl*. The leall, then,. we may conclude from hence is, that Cicero, laughing- at thofe who efpoufed a Se6l vhendi caufa, did himfelf efpoufa the Acade* mic, caufa dijputandi r. which indeed he frankly enough confefTes to his adverfary, in this very oration : fatebor enhn, Cato, me quoque in adolefcentia, diffikim ingenio meo> qu-jefiffe adjumenta dodrina?.. Which, in other words, is, I my felf efpoufed a Secl of philofophy, for its ufe in difputation. Quintilian, having fpoken of Cicero as- a Philofopher, when he comes to Cato' s nephew, Brutus, (in his Philofophy, as much in earnefl: as his Uncle,) of him, by way of Contraft to Cicero, he fays, Egregius vero, multoque quam ia Orationibus pr^ftantior Brutus, fuffecit ponderi revnmvfcias enim Jmt'ire qit/v dicit. As much as to fay, *' in tlais he was like Cicerc^ that he was equal to his fubjeil ;: in this however he was unlike,, that he always faid what he thought."' This flippery way, there;- fore, of profeffing the Greek philofophy, mufl: needs add greatly to the embarras we complain of.
4. A fourth difficulty arifes from TuUy's purpofe in- writing his works of philofophy : which was, not to deliver his own opinion on any point of ethics or metaphj'fics, but to explain to hi-scoun*> trymen, in the mofh intelligible manner, whatever the Greeks had taught concerning them. In the execution of. which defign, no Sett could fo well ferve his turn as the New Academy, whofe principle it was, not to interfere with their oven opinions : and a paf- liige, in bis Academic queflions, inclines me to think, he entered
■* See note [U], at the end of this Book,
late
S-ECT. 3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. t^
late into this Se£t, and not till he had formed his projedl. Varro, one of the dialogifts, fays to him : fed de teipfo quid eji quod audio f Tully anfwers : quanam de re? Varro replies; reliclam a te vete- REM JAM, traSlari autem nov^am. Varro hints at it again, where fpeaking afterwards to Tully, he fays, tua funt nunc partes^ qui ah afitiquorum ratione nunc defcifcis, & ea, qut^ alf Arcejtla novatafunt probas, docere l£c, *. This further appears from a place in his Nature of the Gods-f^ where he fays, that his efpoufmg the Nevy Academy of a fudden, was a thing altogether unlooked for. Multis etiam fenfi mirabile videri, earn nobis potifjhnum probatam ejfe philofo" phiam^ qua; lucem eriperet & quaji noSlcm quandam rebus offunderet^ defertaque difcipUncv, ^ jampridem reliSlce patrociiiiurn NEC opinatum a nobis eJfe fufceptum. The change then was late ; and after the ruin of the Republic ; when Cicero retired from bufiuefs, and had leifure, in his recefs, to plan and execute this noble undertaking. So that a learned Critic appears to have been miflaken, when he fuppofed the choice of the New Academy was made in his youth.. 27>/j SeSi (fays he) did bejl agree with the vafl genius and ambitious. fpirit o/* YOUNG Cicero |.
5. But the principal difficulty proceeds from the feveral and va* rious charadlers he fuflained in his life, and writings ; which ha- bituated him to feign and dlffemble his opinions. He may be confidered as an Orator, a Statefman, and a Philofopher. i. As a Statesman', he difcharged the office of a patriot, urbis confer- vator & parens, in a Government torn in pieces by the diffenfions between Senate and People. But could this be done by fpeaking his real fentiments to either ? Both were very faulty ; and, as faulty men generally are, too angry to hear reafon. I have given an in- ilance below, in the cafe of the Catiline confpiracy. And the iffue of it declares the wifdora of his condu6l. He faved the Republic,
* Manutuis and Davies, who, I fuppofe, did not attend to what paflcd before, agree to throw out the word nunc, as perfedly ufelefs and infignificant. f Lib. i. c. 3, X Remarks \ipon a late difcourfe of free-thinking, Part II. Rem. 53,
L. 3 2. As
*76 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III;
a. As a Philosopher, his end and defign in writing was not to deliver his own opinion, but to explain the Grecian Philofophy. On which account he blames thofe men as too curious, who were for knowing his own- fentiments. In purfuance of this defign, he brings in Stoics, Epicureans, Platonills^ Academics new and old,. ill order to inftrucV the Romans in their various opinions, and fe- veral ways of reafoning. But whether it be himfelf or others that are brought upon the ftage, it is the Academic, not Cicero; it is the Stoic, the Epicurean, not Balbus nor Velleius, who dehver their opinions. 3. As an Orator, he was an Ad^cocate for his client, or more ^ro^txly perfonated K\m, Verum etiam (fays Quin- tilian) in his caufis quibus advocamur, eadem differentia diligenter- efl cuftodienda, Utimur &mm.f£lione perfotiariim, et velut ore alieno loquimur. In this- cafe, then, he was to fpeak the fentiments of3 his client, not his own. So that in all thefe cafes, though he adled neither a weak nor an unfair part, he becomes totally infcru- table. For thefe were Charaders, all equally perjonated : and no one more the real man than the other: but each of them taken iip, and laid down, for the occafion. This appears from the nu- merous iiiconfiflencies we find in him, tiiroughout the courfe of his fuf^aining thera. In his oration de Harufp, refpon. itii Jenatu, when the popular fuperflition was inflamed by prefent: prodigies, he gives the highefl character of the wifdom of their Anceflors, as Founders of their eflabliflied Religion : " Ego vero *' primum habeo auftores ac magiflros religionura colendarum " majores noflros : quorum mihi tanta fuifie fapientia videtur, ut ** fatis fuperque prudences fuit, qui illorum prudentiam, non dlcam *• aflequi, fed, quanta fuerit, perfplcere pofhnt." Yet in his trea- tife of Laws, as the reader has feen above*, he frankly declares, that the felly of their Ancefors had fuffered many depravities to he brought into Religion. Here the Phllofopher confuted the Statef- man : As, in another inllance, the Statefman feems to have got the better of thePhilofopher. He defends the paradoxes of the Stoics
* See book It. feft. 6.
in
Sect. 3- GF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 7;
in- a philofophlcal differtatlon : But in his oration for Murana, he ridicules thofe paradoxes with the utmoft freedom. Nor under one and the fame Chara£ler, or at one and the fame time, is he more confident. In the orations againji Catiline, when he opens the eon- fpiracy to the Senate, he reprefents it as the moft deep-laid defitrn, which had infe£led all orders and degrees of men in the Citv. Yet, when he brings the fame affair before the People, he talks of it as only the wild and fenfelefs efcape of a few defperate wretches ; it being neceflary for his purpofe, that the Senate and People, who viewed the Confpiracy from feveral ftations, (hould fee it in different lights.
We meet with numbers of the like contradiflions, delivered in his own perfon,and under his philofophic character. Thus, in his books of divination, he combats all augury, <o?c. and yet, in his- philofophic trealife of laws, he delivers himfelf in their favour; and in fo ferious and pofitive a manner, that it is difficult not to believe him in earnefl:. In a word, he laughed at the opinions of State, when he was amongfl the Philofophers ; he laughed at the ■ doftrines of the Philofophers, when he was cajoling an Aflembly ; and he laughed heartily at both, when withdrawn amongH: his friends in a corner. Nor, is this the worft part of the flory. He hath given us no mauk to diftinguifh his meaning : For, in his Academic quefiions *, he is ready to fwear he always fpeaks what he thinks : Jurarem per Jovem Deofque penates, me & ardere fludio veri reperiendi, 6c ea fentire quae dicerem t : Yet, in his Nature ef the Gods 'I, he has flrangely clianged his note : Qui autem re- quirunt, quid quaque de re ipfi fentiamus, curiofius id faclunt quara neceffe efl:.
If it be afked then, in which of his writings we can have any reafonable affurance of his true fentiments ? I reply, fcarce in any, but his epistles. Nor is this laid to evade any material
■* Lib. iv. feifl. 20.
f See note [X], at the ead of this Book.
X Lib. i. fea. 5.
evidence
A
7S THE DIVINE LEGATION Book IH.
evidence that may be found in his other works, in favour of a fu- ture fl:ate of rewards and punifliment : on the contrary, there arc many very glaring inftances of his difbelief, as fir as we can ha- zard a judgment of his mind. As in his Offices, which bids- the faired of any to come from his heart, he delivers himfelf very effec- tually againfl: it ; as will appear in the next fedion. And in his oration for Cluentius to the Judges, he fpeaks with yet more force on the fame fide of the queftion : *' Nam nunc quidem quid tan- " dem illi mali mors attulit ? nifi forte ineptiis zcfabuUs ducimur, *' ut exiftimemus ilium apud inferos impiorum fupplicia perferre, *' ^c. Quae fi falfa funt, id quod omnes Intelligunt^ quid ei tandem ■*■' aliud mors eripuit prater fenfum doloris ?"
Nor will moil of ihofe paflages, which are ufually brought in fupport of the opinion, that Tully did really believe the imrnortaliiy of the foul, ftand in any account againfl thefe : Becaufe, as will be (hewn in the next feftion, they befl agree to a kind of immortaUty very confiflent with a thorough difbelief of a future flate of rewards and punifhments. As to the celebrated argument of Plato for the immortality of tne foul, explained and in forced by Cicero, it is fo big with impiety and nonfenfe, that otie would wonder how any chriflian Divine could have the Indifcretion to recommend it as do- ing credit to ancient Philofophy ; or to extol the inventers and ef- poufers of it, as having delivered and entertained veryjuji, rational^ end proper notiom concerning the immortality of the human foul. If we examine this Philofophy as it is delivered us by Plato in his Pbedrus,- or as it is tranflated by Cicero in his firfl Tufculan, we .» fhall find it gives the human foul the attributes of the Divine
Beino-, and fuppofes it to have been from eternity, uncreated and felf-exiflent. Speaking of the principle of motion, or the foul. It fays, princlpii autem nulla efl origo : nam e principio oriuntur om- nia : ipfum autem nulla ex re alia 7iafci pot eft : nee enim effet id
principium quod gigneretur aliunde. Id autem nee ?;^c/potefl,
uec mori. Haec efl propria natura animi atque vis ; quae fi efl
una
Sect. J. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 79
una ex omnibus, quse fe ipfa Temper moveat, neque nata certe eft, et ceterna eft. i Tufc. c. 2, 3. It is plain too, that this argu- ment affigns the human foul a necessary immortality, or an im- mortality which arifes from it's nature and eflence, or from it's ori- ginal and inherent powers ; and not from the Will or appoint- ment of God. We are told that the foul is immortal, becaufe it is a felf-moving fubftance ; for that a felf-moving fubftance can never ceafe to be, fince it will always have a power of exift- ing within itfelf, independent of any foreign or external caufe. And what can be faid more of God himfelf ? fentit igitur ani- mus fe moveri, quod cum fentit, illud una fentit fe vi fiia, noa aliena, moveri ; jiec acc'idere pojje^ tit Ipfe unquam a fe deferatur. I Tufc. c. 23. Here it's immortality is not fuppofed to arife from the influence of any foreign or external caufe, but is re- folved into the natural and inherent powers of the foul itfelf. Plato
fays, iTreio/j OS. «y,ivv%lo-j Xj cioixf9o^ov uuto uvuyKti uvea tSto Ss y.'t£
aTtcXXvadai- hts yiyvio'Sei.i cvvoc'iovy i* Kvuyyc'fjg exysvvr^ov n ^ dOcivajo.' ^•JX,v »J "V The 7iecejfity here fpoken of was fuppofed to arile from, an internal faculty and power of the foul, or from the prin- ciple of felf-motion. The force of all this, has been fhufiled over by the writers againft the D. L. with only repeating, that, Cicero inferred the immortality of the foul from it's wonderful powers and faculties, on it's principle of felf-motion, it''s memory ^ invention, wit and comprehenfm. As to fe If- motion, the word is equivocal, and may either fignify the power given to a being to begin motion ; or a power inherent and eflential to a Being, who has all tliino-s within itfelf, and receives nothing from without. Now we have {hewn, that Plato and his followers \\(&di felf-motion, when applied to the foul, in this latter fen fe j and from thence inferred a ne- eEssARY immortality in that Being which had it, an immortality which implied increation and felf-exiftence. As to the other ■t>owers and faculties of memory^ invention, wit and coynprehenfon, wbatfoever immortality may be IcgicaUy deduced from them, it is not that w^hich Cicero deduces : For, as we fee, kis is a ftricl and proper im-
mortaiitv.
So THE DIVINE LEGATION Bo&k llf .
•mortality, an exi{\:ence from zl\ eternity, to all eternity : In a word, the immortality of the Supreme Being himfelf. Si cernerem (lays Tully) quemadmodum nafci pofTent [facultates animi] etiam quem- admodum interirent viderem. i Tufc. c. 24. And again, when he proves the immortality of the foul againfl Panaetius, he goes upon the principle that the foul cannot be (hewn to be immortal, but on the fuppofition of its being actually ungenerated. Volt enim
[Panaetius] quod nemo negat, quicquid naium lit interire ; nafci
autem animos, quod declaret eorum fimilitudo — — nihil neceflitatis
adfert cur nafcatur, animi fimilitudo. 1 Tufc. c. 32, 53. I
would therefore have the friends of reason, not to fay of reve- a^ATioN, Gonfider whether thefe extravagant notions of the human ifoul, do any honour to ancient Philofophy ? and whether Tully had not a£led a more decent and modeft part to have held con- ^iftently, ^e-ven with Epicurus, the mortality of ihe foul, than with Plato that it was wicreated, felf-exijhnt, and necejfarily eternal?
It is only tlien (as we fay) in his Eptstles to his friends, i^vhere we fee the man divefted of the Politician, the Sophijl, and ■^the Advocate : And there he profeffes his dilbelief of a future ftate of rewards and punllhments in the frankeft and freeft manner. To L. Mefcinlus he fays : " Sed ut ilia fecunda moderate tullmus, fic -*' lianc non folum adverfara, fed funditus everfam fortunam fortlter *' ferre debemus ; ut hoc faltem in maximis malls bonl confequa- ■*' mur, ut mortem, quam etiam beati contemnere debeamus, prop- «' terea quod nullum sensum effet habitura, nunc fic affefti, non «' modo contemnere debeamus, fed etiam optare*." In his epiftle to Torquatus, he fays : " Ita enim vivere ut non fit vlvendum, *' miferrimum eft. Mori autem nemo fapiens mlferum dixit, ne
•*' beato quidem. fed ha;c confolatio levis eft ; llla gravlor, qua
*' te uti fpero : Ego certe utor. Ncc enim bum erg, angar ulla ** re, cum omni vacem culpa : Et fi non ero, fenfu omnino carebo f." Some have taken the cro and non ero, in this paflage, to relate ^^-
* Fam. Ep. 1. v. Ep. 21. f Lib. vi. Ep. 3.
nericallvy
S^CT.3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 8i
nerically, to exiftence or non-exiftence abfolutely ; and not, as Tully certainly meant it, fpecifcnUy, to the ftate of exiftence or non-ex- iftence here, i. e. life or death. But if that were his meaning, that if he had no being he fiould have no fenfe, Torquatus, for fo won- derful a dlfcovery, might well have returned him his proverb quoted in this Epiftle, y\a.Z'A elg ''ASr,mg. On the contrary his meaning in all thefe pafiages is, thai he foould have nofenfe, becaufe he pould have no being. So in his Tufcul. L. I. C. ii. Quomodo igitur, aut cur, mortem malum tibi vidcri dicis ; quas aut beatos nos efficlet, animis manentibus ; aut non miferos, fertfii carentes, i. e. animis non rjianentibus. But the foregoing paffage from the epiftle to Mefcinius, in which we find the fame thought, and in the fame expreflion, puts the meaning out of doubt. Add to this, that it was the very language of the Epicureans, and ufed by Lu- cretius as an antidote againil the fear of death,
•' Scilicet baud nobis quidquam, qui non erimus turn, *' Accidere omnino poterit sensumque movere."
But let it be obferved, that when Cicero talks of death as of the end of man, he does not make this conclufion on the Epicurean principle, that the foul was a mere quality, but on the Platonic that it was refolved uito the fubftance from whence it was extracted and had no longer a particular exigence. Again, to the fame per- fon * he fiys ; " Deinde quod mihi ad confolationem commune " tecum eft, fi jam vocer ad exitum vitie, non ab ea republica " avellar, quacarendum effe doleam, pra^fertim cum id sine ullo *' sensu futurum fit." And again to his friend Toranius f : " Cura *' confilio profici nihil poffit, una ratio videtur, quicquid evenerit *' ferre moderate, praefertim cum omnium rerum mors ft extrcmum.'* That Cicero here fpeaks his real fentiments, is beyond all doubt. Thefe are letters of confolation, to his friends, when he himfelf by reafon of the ill ftate of Public Affairs, much wanted confola-
* Lib. vi. Ep. 4, •(• Lib. vi, Ep. 21.
Vol. II. M
tion ;
tz THE DIVINE LEGATION Book 117,
tion ; a feafon when men have leafl difguife, and are moft difpofed
to lay open their whole hearts :
" Nam verae voces turn demum peftore ab imo
" Ejiciuntur, & eripitur persona, manet res */' Lucret.
Here his real fentimeiits are delivered pofitively ; which in his Ttifculan d'i [put at ions he advances only hypothetically -, but with a clearnefs that well comments the concifenefs of the foregoing paf- fages. M. Video te alte fpeclare & velle in coelum migrare. A. Spero fore, ut contingat id nobis, " Sed fac, ut ifti volunt, ani-
" mos NON remanere poft mortem. M. Mali vero quid afiert
" ifta fententla ? Fac enim fie animum interire, ut corpus. Num *' igitur aliquis dolor, aut omnino poft mortem sensus in corpora «« eft ? — Ne in animo quidem igitur sensus remanet, ipfe enim •' nufquam eft. — Hoc premendum etiam atque etiam efl argumen- *' tum, confirmato illo, de quo, fi mortales animi funt, dubitare *' non poffumUs, quin tantus interitus in morte fit, ut ne minima *' quidem fufpicio sensus relinquatur t-" Now, this is the very language of the Epicureans, as appears from the following words of Pliny : " Pofl fepulturam alia? atque aliae man ium ambages. Om- *' nibus a fuprema die eadem, quae ante primum : nee magis a morte *' SENSUS uUus aut corpori aut anim:E quam ante natalem. Eadem
*' enim vanitas in futurum etiam fe propagat, alias immortali-
«' tatem animae, alias transfigurationem, alias fenfura inferis dando, *' & manes colendo, deumque faciendo, qui jam etiam homo eflfe
*' defierit, Quae (malum") ifta dementia, iterarl vitam morte ?
*• Quaeve genitis quies unquam, fi in fublimi sensus anim^ ma-
♦' net +."
Plutarch was amongfi: the Greeks, what Cicero was amongft the Latins, as far as concerned the bufinefs of delivering and di- gefting the various opinions of the Philofophers. In his famous
* See note [Y], at the end of this Book. + Tiirc. Difp. lib, i. c. 34 — 36. 1 Nat. Hift. lib. vii. c. 55.
fra6l
Sect. 3- OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 83
tra£t of SUPERSTITION he ufes their common arms to combat that evil ; and exprefles himfelf with uncommon force where he fpeaks of a future Jiate as an error eflentlal to fupe-rjlltion, and what the general voice of Reafon, Interpreted by found Philofophy, dlf- claims. " Death is the final period of our being. But Super-
" STITIOJJ fays >'o. She ftretches out life beyond life itfelf.
*' Her fears extend further than our exlftence. She has I'olned to "the idea of death, that other in confident idea of eternal life in " mifery. For when all things come to an end, then, in the opi-
*' nion of Superftition, they begin to be endlefs *."
I will beg leave to conclude this feftion with two obfervatious relative to the general argument, i. We havejuft given a paflage from the oration for Ciuentius, 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 hath death deprived him of, befdes a SENSE of pain t .«* 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 dlfbelief of the common notion of a future flate of rewards and punlfhments is im- plied, we have inferred the writer's dlfbelief of a future flate of re- wards and punlfhments in general. 2. We have feen the Philofo- phers of every Seft, one while fpeaklng diredlly for, and at ano- ther, as diredlly againft a future ftate of rewards and punlfhments, without intimating the leafl change in their principles, or making
* — Cf({«? hi ^18 crajiv avSfoiToi; • Savol®- T?,- St JiicriJai/iiojJa;, bJ' bt©- a\\' IxifQaWn rij ««f{ isriKdw tS f^», fxBx^oTJjoy tS ^I'a •croiSra Tot f i'Sov, ><J avtaTfiaax ra Sa»*T« xaxut E!n'»oiaii
•}• Qua: fi falfa funt, id quod omnes intelligunt, quid ei tandem aliud mors eripuic prater SEN SUM doloris? — Seneca reafons in the fame manner. Mors contenini debet magis quam folet : multa enim de ilia crediraus. Multorum ingeniis certatum eft ad augendam ejus infamiam. Defcilptus eft career infernus, & perpetua nodte opprefla regie, in qua
— — ■" ingens janitor orci, &c." Sed etiam cum perfuaferis iftas fabulas effe, nee quicqsam dcfun^ls fuperejji quod timeanf. fubit alius metus, aque eniin timor ne apud inferos fint, quam ne nufquam. Ep. 83.
M 2 the
«4 THE DIVINE LEGATION" Book III.
the leafl: hefitation in their profefiions : So that either we mufl: hold them guilty of the mofb grofs and impudent contradI£lIons, which their charafters will not fufFer us to conceive of them ; or elfe admit the explanation given above of the double doctrine, and the dif- ferent methods of their exoteric and ejoter'ic difcipllne.
Yet to all this it hath been faid, " If the Philofophers difbellev- •' ed the popular Divinities, and yet really believed the being of " a God ; why might they not rejeft the popular opinions of a " future fiate, and yet, at the fame time, hold a future ftnte of " real rewards and punlfhments? Now as they who did not be- *' lieve Hercules and ^fculaplus to be Gods, did not for that reafon *' difbclleve the exiftence of a governing MIndj fo they that did *' not believe ^acus or Mines to be judges of Hell, did not for that *' reafon difbelleve all future rewards and punlfhments *." I an- fwer, the two cafes are nothing alike ; tlie common fate of this Writer's Parallels.
1. At the very time the Philofophers difcard the popular Divi- nities 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, ivho co?iceive him to be a Soul, agitating and govcrnrng all things by his power and ivijdom -j-' But now, when thefe Philofophers exploded Styx, Acheron, and Cocytus, did they ever fubftitute any other future Hate of rewards and punlfhments in their place ?
2. The Philofophers give the popular florles of the infernal re- gions as the cn!y foundation and fiipport of future rewards and punKhments ; fo that, if they explode the popular {lories, they mufl: explode the things themfelves. And what is more, they
« Dr. Sytes.
t Qriae funt autem ill.i, qune prolata in muTtitiidinem nocent ? H:ec, inquit, non efle Deos Herculem, jEfculapium, Caftorem, Pollucem. Proditur enim a docStis, quod homines fuerint, et humana conditione defecerint. — But the fame Varro fays, — Quod hi foli ei videantur animadvertifle, quid clTet Deus, qui crediderunt eum efTe animam, jnotii et ratione mundum gubemantem, Apud Auguft, de Civ. Dei, 1. iv. c. 37 — 31.
TELL
Sect. 3. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 85
TELL US THAT THEY DID SO. But was this the Cafe concerning their popular Divinities ? Do they ever reprefent Z;^^^ as the only foundation and fupport of the belief of a Deity ?
3. Laftly, The Philofophers held a principle (and we are now about to enter upon that matter) which was inconfiflent with a future flate of rewards and punifliments : In confequence of which they formally, and in exprefs words, dilclaim and rejeft all Juch pate and condition. But I know of no principle they held, incon- fiftent with the belief of a God ; nor of any declarations they ever made againft fuch belief. We conclude, therefore, that the two cafes are altogether diffimilar and unrelated.
S E C T. IV.
"Otwithstanding this full evidence agalnfi: the Philoso- phers ; I much doubt, the general prejudice in their favour, fupported by the reafonablenefs of the doftrlne Itfelf, will be yet apt to keep the reader's opinion on this point fufpended.
I fhall therefore, in the laft place, explain the causes which withheld the Philofophersyrow believing : and thefe will appear to have been certain fundamental principles of the ancient Greek Philofophy, altogether Inconfiftent with the dodlrlne of a future flate of rewards and punifliments.
But to give this Its due force, It will be proper to premlfe, that the conilltution of that Philofophy, being above meafure refined and fpeculative, It was always wont to judge and determine rather on metaphysical than on moral maxims; and to flick to all confequences, how abfurd foever, which were feen to arlfe from the form.er.
Of this, we have a famous Inflance in the ancient Democritic Philofophy : which holding, that not onlyfenfations, but even the cogitations of the m.ind, were the mere paffion of the Thinker ; and fo, all knowledge zndi underflanding, the fame thing Wixh Jenfe ;
the
86 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book riT.
the confequence was, that there could not be any error of falfe judgement ; becaufe all pafTion was true paflion, and all appearance true appearance. From hence it followed, that the fun and moou were no bigger than they feemed to us : and thefe men of reafoa chofe rather to avow this conclufion, tlian to renounce the meta- ^hvfic principle which led them into it.
So juft is that cenfure which a celebrated French writer pafTes
upon them : iiohen the Philcfophers once befot them/elves •with a pre^
judice^ they are even more incurable than the People thenifelves ; be*
caiife they befot them/elves not only with the prejudice^ but with the
falfe reafon'mgs employed to fupport it *.
The regard to jnetaphyfic principles being fo great, the Greek Philofophers (as we fhall fee) muft needs rejeft the dodrlne of a future ftate of rewards and punifhments, how innumerable and invincible foever the moral arguments are which may be brought to fupport it. For now we come to (hew, that there were two METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES Concerning God and the soul, univer- fally embraced by all, which neceflarily exclude all notion of a future ilate of reward and punifhment.
The FIRST PRINCIPLE, which led the Philofophers to conclude ao-ainft fuch a ftate was, that God could neither be angry NOR HURT ANY ONE. This, Ciccro affures us, was held univerfally; as well by thofe who believed a Providence, as by thofe who believed not: "At hoc quidem commune est omnium philosophorum, «« non eorum modo, qui Deum nihil habere ipfumnegotiidicunt, & «' nihil exhibere alteri : fed eorum etiam qui Deum femper agere <" aliquid & moliri volunt, numquam nec irasci Deum nec «' nocere t'" What conclufion the Epicureans drew from hence (thofe who, he here fays, held, Deum nihil habere ipfum negotii),
* Qnand les philofophes f'entetent une fois d'lin prejuge, ils font plus incurables que !e peuple meme ; parce qu'ils f'entetent egalement & du prejuge & des faufles raifons dont ils le foutiennent. Foutenelle, Hift. des Oracles.
•}■ Offic. lib. iii. cap. 38.J
Sect.4. op MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 87
he tells us in another place, by the mouth of Velleius their fpokef- man, " Intelligitur enim" (an expreffioa denoting that, in this point, the philofophers were agreed) " a beata, immortalique na- *' tura, Sc iram & gratiam fegregari : quibus remotis, nullos a •' fuperis Impendere metus *." And that the other Beds drew the fame conclufion (which infers the denial of a future Jlate of re- ivards and punif^menis'^ we fhall now fee by Cicero himfelf, who fpeaks for them alL
He is here commending Regiilus for preferring the public good to his own, and the bonefl to the profitable ; in difl'uading the re- leafe of the Carthaginian prifoners, and returning back to certain mifery, when he might have fpent his age at home in peace and pleafure. All this, he obfervesj was done out of regard to his oath. But it may, perhaps, fays he, be objected, what is there in an oath ? The violator need not fear the wrath of Heaven ; for all Philofophers hold, that God cannot be angry nor hurt any one. He replies, that, indeed, it was a confequence of the principle of God''s not being angry, that the perjured man had nothing to fear from divine vengeance : but then it was not this fear, which was really nothing, but juflice and good faith, which made the fanc- tion of an oath. The learned will chufe to hear him in his own words. " M. Atilius Regulus Carthaginem redlit : neque eum- " caritas patriae retinuit, nee fuorum. Neque vero turn ignorabat *' fe ad crudeliffimum hoftem, & ad exquifita fupplicia proficifci ;; *' Sed jusjurandum confervandum putabat. Quid efl: igitur, dixerit " quis, in jurejurando ? Num iratum timemus jovem? At hoc " quidem commune efl omnium philofophorum. — Numquam nec " iRAsci Deum, NEC NocERE. — HiEC quidem ratio non magis con- *' tra Regulum, quam contra omne jusjurandum valet : Sed in " jurejurando, non qui metus, fed qu^e vis fit, debet intelligi. Eft *' enim jusjurandum affirmatio religiofa : Quod autem affirmate, *< quafi Deo tefte, promiferis, id tenendum ell: : Jam enim non ad
* DeNat. Deor. 1, i. c. 17.
*' iram
88 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
" iram Deorum, quse nulla est ; fed ad juflitiam & ad finem *' pertinet *." It is true, the fame Tully fays ir, " deos placatos " pietas efiiciet et fandlitas," which looks as if he thought the Gods might be angry ; and that, therefore, by, quce nulla eji, in the words above, he did not mean, what the words imply, — qua vana et commentitia ejl ; but, what they do not imply — quce nihil ad rem pertinet. But placatos is not here ufed in the ftrifl: fpecific fen{e of appeafedj which infers preceding anger; but in the more loofe generic lenfe of propitious, which infers no fuch thing. And my reafon for underftanding the word in this fenfe, is, that, two or three lines afterwards, he declares it to be the opinion of the Philofophers (to which he 2igrees) Deos non fiocere : But this opi- nion was founded on that other, in queftion, Deos nonirafci.
Here then, we fee, Tully owns the confequence of this univer- fal principle ; that it overthrew the notion of divine punifhments : And it will appear prefently, that he was not fmgular in this con- ceffion ; but fpoke the fenfe of his Grecian mafters.
A modern reader, full of the philofophic ideas of thefe late ages, will be furprized, perhaps, to be told, that this confequence greatly embarrafl'ed Antiquity; when he himfelf can fo eafily evade it, by diftinguilhing between the human paffions of anger and fondnefs, and the divine attributes of juftice and goodnefs ; on which the dodrine of a future flate of rewards and punifliments is invincibly eftabliflied. But the Ancients had no fuch precife ideas of the divine Nature.
Dacier, who underftood the genius of Antiquity very well, was of the fame opinion, as appears from his comment on thefe words of Antoninus — If there be Gods, then leaving the world is no fuch dreadful thing ; for you may be fure they will do you no harm. — \i uXv d'soi ei<n-j, siSsv ^eivcv' kocku yap crs mc ocv "srBpiQuKoiev. — Comme les Sto'iciens n'avoient aucune idee ni de peines, ni de recompenfes eternelles apres la mort, et que le plus grand caradere qu'ils
» Cap. 26, 27, i8, 2(j. t Offic. ii. 3.
reconnoiflbient
Sect. 4. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 89
reconnoifloient en DIeu, efloit une bonte infiMie, lis cftoient perfuadez qu'apres cette vie on n'avoit rien a craindre, et que c'eftolt line chofe entlerement oppofee a la nature de Dieu, de faire du mal. La veritable religion a tire les hommes d'une fecurlte fi pernl- cleufe, &c. — ^The learned Critic, indeed, exprefles himfelf very ill, confounding the premifles and conclufion, the caufe and effetfl, all the way, one with another ; but his meaning is plain enough, that (in his opinion) the Ancients were very inexpert in their attempts to fever (if ever they attempted it) anger from God's juftice, and fcndnefs from his goodnefs. We fliall fhew, by an illuftrious in- ftance, that he was not miftaken ; left the reader fhould fulped that, of an obfcure fpeculative Principle, we have feigned o?ie of general credit and influence.
Lactantius, from a forenfic Lawyer, now become an Advo- cate for Chrijlianity, found nothing fo much hindered its reception with the Learned as the dodrine of a future judgement ; which, their univerfal principle, that God could not be angry, di- re£lly oppofed. To ftrike at the root of this evil, he compofed a difcourfe, which Jerom calls, pulcherrhnum opus, intituled, de ira Dei : For he had obferved, he tell: us, that this Principle was now much fpread amongft the common People * ; he lays the blame of it upon the Philofophers t ; and tells us, as Tully had done before, that all the Philofophers agreed to exclude the paffion of anger from the Godhead %•
So that the general fyllogifm, La£lantius propofed to anfwer, was this :
If God bath no affeSlicns of fondnefs or hatred^ love or anger ; he cannot reward or puni/Jj.
But he hath no affeFlions ;
'therefore-, £s'c.
* Animadverti PLURiMos exiftimare non irafci Deum.
\ lidem tamen a Philofophis irretiti, & falfis argumentationibus capti.
\ Ita omnes Philofophi de ira confentiunt.
Vol. II. N Let
9G THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
Let us fee then, how he manages ; For although his knowledge in the true genius of Chriflianity was, perhaps, very imperfeft^ he was exquliltely well (killed in the ftrong and weak fide of Pagan Philofophy- A modern anfwerer would certainly have de- nied the major ; but that was a Principle received by all parties, as La6l:antlus himfelf gives us to underfland, when he fays, that the Principle of God's not being angry deftroyed all religion, by taking away a future ftate *. He had nothing left then but to deny the tninor : And this, he tells us, is his purpofe to undertake +-
His bufinefs is to prove, that God hath human paflions : And though, by feveral expreffions, dropped up and down, he feems to be fully fenfible of the grofsnefs of this Principle; yet, on the- other hand, all Phllofophy agreeing to make it the neceffary fup-* port of a future flate, he fets upon his talk in good- earneft, avoids all refinements, and maintains that there are in God, as there are in man, the paflions of love and hatred, Thefe indeed are of two kinds in man, reajonable and unreafonahk ; in Gcd, the reafonahle only are to be found. But, to make all fure, and provide a proper fubject for thefe paflions, he contends flrongly for God's having a- human form: No dlfcreditable notion, at that time, in the Church; and which, if I might be indulged a conje<£ture, I would fuppofe, was firfl: introduced for that very purpofe, to which La£lantius here enforces it.
But it is very obfervable, that our Author introduceth this ir.onfl:rous notion of God's having a human form, with an artful attempt, fupported by all his eloquence, to difcredit human reafon > in order to difpofe the Reader to believe him, that nothing could be known of God but by Revelation. This is an old trick of the
* Qui fine ira Deum effe credentes, diflblvunt omnem religionem — Sive igitur gra- tiam Deo, five iram, five utrumque detraxeris, religionem tolli neceffe eft.
t H*c \_nempe ut irafcatur Bcial tuenda nobis, & aflerenda fententia eft: in ea enim tjnima omnis & cardo religionispietatifciue verfatur.
Difputers
Sect.4. of MOSES demonstrated. ^i
Difputers of all times, to make reprlfals upon Reafon ; which when found too upright to defleft, muft be reprefented as too weak to judge. And when once we find an Author, who would be valued for his logic, begin with depreciating Reafon ; we may be afl'ured he has fome very unreafonable paradox to advance. So when the learned Huetius would pafs upon his readers a number of flight chimerical conje«£lures for Demonjlratmis, he introduces his work by cavilling at the certainty of the principles of Geometrv.
I. Here we fee how the Orthodox evaded this conclufion of Pagan Philofophy, agalnft a flate of future punifhment. Would you know how the Heretics managed ? They went another way to work, which it may be jufi: worth while to mention. The Creator of the mv'ifibie world (or the firft Caufe) the Marcionites called the GOOD ; and the Creator of the vijible world, the just. Si de Mar- clonis argueris hsrefi, quce alterum bonum, zlteium Ju^um Deum ferens, ilium invifibllium, hunc vifibilium creatorem — Hiero?j. Ep. adPammach. Now they agreed In this, with the Pagans, that the Good could not punifh, but that the Just would ; whofe office it was to execute vengeance on the v^^icked. And, at the fame time, holding an evil principle, they called this y«/?, the middle, whofe office is thus defcribed in the dialogue againjl Marclon. — To thofe who conform themfelves to the good, the middle principle gives peace ; but to thofe who obey the evil, the middle infliSls tri- bulation and anguifi. 'H av ^ctrs? «f%?? yVij^iosfcr* ru uyxQui clvB(jiv ^louar^, vTrriKcua-i SI tw "srovvj^u ^xi^iv SiSuKri. Thus did thefe Heretics diveft the firft Caufe, or the Good, of his attribute of jujiice ; and gave it to the Middle Principle, becaufe they were not able to fever It from anger. Upon the whole, as Ladantius, himfelf a Philofo- pher, was admirably well verfed in all the pagan Syftems, he could not but underftand a Principle, which all the Philofophers held ; nor could he miftake a Confcquence, which they all drew from it. And as St. Jerom has dignified this tra£l de ira Dei, with the title of pulcherrimum opus, we muft need$ conclude that
N 2 the
^2 THEDIVINE LEGATION Book III.
the method La6i:antius took to fupport a future judgement was flriftly conformable to the old posture of defemce, and ap- proved by the Orthodox of that time.
I. But it may be objefted, perhaps, that this pnnciple, of God's vot being angry, only concluded againft a future ftate oi punijloments;- and not of rewards : Many of the philofophers holding the atfeclioii of grace and favour ; though they a!/ denied thzt of anger ; as Lac- tan tins exprefsly affures us : Ita omnes phtLfophi de ira confentiunt, da gratia dijcrepant. To this I reply,
I. That, when the fanftion of punipment is taken off, theflrong- eft influence of a future ftate is deflroyed. For while the Ancients made the rewards of Elyfium only temporary ^
« Has omnes, ubi mille rotam volvere per annos,'* Gfc.
they made the punifliments of Tartarus eternal \
*' Sedet, Eternumque fedebit " Infelix Thefeus."
This, Plato teaches in feveral places of his works *► And Celfus is fo far from rejefting it, that he ranks it in the number of thofe do(£lrines which fhould never be abandoned, but maintained to the very laft ■\.
It is true, that feveral paffages of Antiquity may be obje£led to what is here faid againft the eternity of rewards -, particularly this of Cicero ; " Omnibus qui patriam confervarint, adjuverinf, auxe-
r> fflo»8s »J''«as «; ■aXfOitojAHi tooXXks ileiffaicr/iewi, w aXXa o'tras Tvfxint Ola Tontvra, TaT8{ SI i wjo- crKHira iJicTect pVIsi ii; to» Tajlajci', oGej Kffole l^Qaitaaiv. PhaJo, p. 113. — "A?Mi Si otiavlou ot
Gorgias, p. 525.
x««or; (Tvn^otlat' jc tbtb St t5 Jo'y(*«l®' (AiiQ' uToi, fiW «A^©- a»0js;9r«iiy ftr.Jsi; otoIs kxof^i avolilittlis,
Apud Orig. cant. Celf. lib. viii.
*• rint.
Sect. 4. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED, 93
*' rint, certum effe in coelo ac definkum locum, ubl beat! jevo *' SEMPITERNO frunntur*." But we are to know, that the An- cients diiiinguifhed the fouls of men into three fpecies : the human, the HEROIC, and the demonic. The two lajl^ when they left the body, were Indeed believed to enjoy eternal happinefs, for their public fervices on earth ; not in Elyjium, but in Heaven ; where they became a kind of demi-gods. But all, of the JirJ, which in- cluded the. great body of Mankind, were underftood to have their defignation in Purgatory, 'Turiarus, or Ely/mm ; Thefrjl and laji of which abodes were temporary, and the fecond ouXy eternal. Now thofe who had greatly ferved their Country, in the manner Tully there mentions, were fuppofed to have fouls of the heroic or de^ monic kind f.
2. But fecondly, in every fenfe of a future ftate as a moral dejtg- nat'ion, rewards and punifhments neceffarily imply each other : So that where one is wanthig, the other cannot poflibly fubfift. This was too vifible not to be feen by the ancient Philofophers : Lac- tantius thus argues with them, on common principles. " If God '* he not provoked at impious and ivicked men, neither is he pleafed ^^ ivith the good and juji. For contrary objefts rnufl: either excite *' contrary affeftions, or no affeftions at all. So that he who loves " good men, muft at the fame time hate the ill ; and he who hates *' not ill men, cannot love the good : Becaufe both to love o-c d " men proceedeth from an abhorrence of ill ; and to hate ill men " from a tendernefs to the good |." And fo concludes, that the
* Somn. Scip. cap. 3.
f Eufebius, fpeaking of the political Gods of Egypt, fupports what is here delivered.
of thofe heroic or demonic fouls, a^As; Je « Tarwj In^jEia; ysiEffGai, (pxalt, i'^ap^ailag jui» S>r,1a,- hz Jt (Tt'»E!7Hi 1^ xoum <«»5=a5riiv liiffsa-'uxt 7iliv^iTx; tS; A©ANASIA2. — Pnp. Evanc. 1. iii, c. 3.
I Si Deus non iralcitur iropiis & injufiis, nee pios utique juflofque diliuit : la rebus enim diverfis, aut in utramque partem moveri necefle eft, aut in neutram. Itaque qui bonos diligit, & malos odit ; & qui males non odit, nee bonos diligit : Quia & diligere bonos, ex odio maloruni vcnit ; k malos odifle, ex bonorum caritate defcendit.
denying
94 THE DIVINE LEGATION Book III.
denying God's attribute of anger, which removes the puai/hme/i/s of a future ftate, overturns the 7?^/e irfelf. " Sive igitur gratiam " Deo, five iram, five utrumque detraxeris, reiigionem tolli ne- *' ceffe eft."
In all this (as we fay) he does not in the lead mifreprefent the common conclufions of philofophy. Plutarch delivering the fen- timents of learned Antiquity on this head, exprefly makes the de- nial o{ future mijery, to infer the denial oi z future Jiate. " Death *' is the final period of our being. But Superftition fays, 710. She *' ftretches out life beyond life itfelf. Her fears extend further *' than our exiftence. She has joined to the idea of death, that *' other inconfiftent idea of eternal life in mifery. For when *' all things come to an end, then, in the opinion of Superftition, *' they begin to be endlefs. Then, I can't tell what, dark and dif- *' mal gates of Tartarus fly open : then, rivers of fire, with all the *' fountains of Styx, are broken up, &c. — Thus doth curfed Su- *' perftition oppofe the voice of God, which hath declared death *' to be the end of fuffering ^." Death, fays he, is the end of Juffering, therefore the end of being. Only with the ZgB^ov zs-^oTspoy of the rhetoricians he has here, in the mofl rhetorical of all his dif- courfes, put the conclufion before the premifles.
3. But laftly, I fhall fliew (under the next head, to which we are going) that the Philofophers did not confider the attribute of grace and favour (which they allowed) to be a faffwn or affeSfion ; though they confidered anger (which they allowed not) under that idea.
II. As the foregoing obje(3ion would infinuate that the univerfal Principle of God^s not being angry, doth not prove enough ; fo, the next pretends, that it proves too much: For, fecondly, it may be objected, that this principle deftroys God's Providence here, as well as a future ftate of rewards and punifhments hereafter ; which
era; h xawJai/xwir Jjij-iJ»if«i>ia j^ Sew TO(*i w»9irr l<!rsffvyi»,— Dc Superft,
Providence
Sect. 4. OF MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 95
Providence feveral of the theiftical Philofophers, we know, did believe.
This will require confi deration.
Landtantlus fays : " All the philofophers agree about the arigcr ; *' but concerning the grace ov favour they are of different opinions*." And taki ig it for granted, that they confidered the grace ox favour ^ which they held, as well as the anger, which they denied, to be a fajfion or aJfeSiion, he atgues againft them as above : and adds, *' Therefore the error of tliofe who take away both grace and anger ** is the moft confident -f." But methinks, the abfurdity of the error here imputed, fliould have taught Ladlantius, that the Phi- lofophers, who had reje6led anger becaufe it was an human paffion, could never give their God favour or fondnefs, which is another human paffion : For though they fometimes dogmatized like lu- natics, they never fyUogized like ideots ; though their principles were often unnatural, their conclufions were rarely illogical. He fhould therefore have feen, that thofe, who held the gratia or be- nevolence of the divine Nature, confidered it not as a pajjion or affec- nan, but as an efflux from its ejl'fice | ; on which they built their notion of a general Providence. So that when he fays, concerning the grace or favour, they are of different opinions, we are to under- ftand no more, than that fome of them held a Providence, and others denied it.
Let us fee then what kind of Providence the theiftical Philofo- phers believed. The Peripatetics and Stoics went pretty much together in this matter. It is commonly imputed to Ariflotle, that he held no Providence to be extended lower than the moon : But this is a calumny which Chalcidias raifed of him. What Ariftotle meant by the words, which gave a handle to it, was that a particular providence did not extend itf If to individuals: For
* Omnes philofophi de Ira confentiunt, de gratia difcrepant,
•|- Ergo conftantior eft errj.v illorum, qui & iram fimul, & gratiam t