66 gence, the second of the paffions, and the "third of appetite," and he affigned to each its proper place in the human body.

The Stoics thought very differently from each other concerning the duration of fouls. "Some of them were of opinion that they "would all remain till the general conflagra"tion'; fome that only those of the wife and "good would continue fo long; fome thought "that all fouls, on being released from their "bodies, would be immediately abforbed in "the foul of the world; fome that fouls, being of the nature of fire, would be extinguished at death; others that the foul was "fo confined in the grofs body, that it could

not find a paffage out even at death, but "must remain till it was entirely destroyed. "Some of the Stoics thought that, in the "univerfal restoration of nature, each indi" individual would return to its former body, "but others thought that then only fimilar "fouls would be placed in fimilar bodies." Uncertainty cannot be more ftrongly indicated than in this diverfity of opinion.

It does not appear whether Ariftotle thought the human foul to be mortal or immortal; but the former is the more probable, from

his opinion concerning the nature and origin of it. For he fays "it is an intellectual

power, externally tranfmitted into the hu "man body, from the common fource of ra❝tionality to human beings." He does not fay what he conceived this univerfal principle to be; but there is no proof that he suppofed this principle continued with any indi

vidual after death.

If we may collect the fentiments of Ariftotle from thofe of his followers, we may certainly conclude that he did not expect that men would, in any fenfe, furvive death. Dicæarchus, an Ariftotelian, held that "there "was no fuch thing as mind, or foul, in man

or beast; that the principle by which ani

"mals perceive is equally diffufed through "the body, and infeparable from it." Alexander Aphrodisœus, another follower of Ariftotle, faid that "the foul was not a distinct ❝ substance itself, but the form of an organiz"ed body," meaning probably, that it was a property that was the refult of organization. Theophraftus, an Ariftotelian, at the close of life, expreffed great regret at the shortnefs of it, and complained that "nature had given long life to ftags and crows, to whom

"it is of little value, and had denied it to

66

man, who, in a longer duration, might have "been able to attain the fummit of fcience,

"but now, as foon as he arrives within fight "of it, he is taken away." His last advice to his difciples was that, "fince it is the lot "of man to die, as foon as he begins to live,

66

they should take more pains to enjoy life, than to acquire pofthumous fame." Indeed the natural inference from this doctrine is, as the Apostle expreffes it, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.

The great father of modern unbelievers among Mahometans and Chriftians, was Averroes, a Saracen, devoted to the philofophy of Aristotle, whofe writings made all the unbelivers in the age of Petrarch, and that of Pope Leo X. He held the eternity of the "world, and the existence of one univerfal "intellect, the fource of all human intelli66 gence, into which every separate intelligence will finally be refolved, and confe

66

66

66

quently he denied the distinct existence, and proper immortality of the human foul." I need not fay how irrational this notion, fo long prevalent with those who ridiculed the fcriptures, is. Modern unbelievers will fmile at

the extreme abfurdity of it, as much as any Christians, and fo they will at all the systems of their predeceffors, the heathen philofophers; though in a general way, with a view to difparage the writers of the fcriptures, they, but with little real knowledge of them, occafionally cry them up.

I hardly need to mention any more of these vague opinions, altogether deftitute of proof, or probability. But I fhall observe that Democritus faid that "men were first produced "from water and earth, and that the foul, "or the principle of animal life and motion, "is the refult of a combination of round and

"the

fiery particles, and is mortal, and perishes "with the body." And Epicurus faid, foul is a fubtle corporeal fubftance, compofed of the finest atoms."

The principles of found reafoning and true philofophy have fufficiently exploded all these crude fyftems, the best of which never produced fuch a perfuafion concerning a future state as men could act upon, and suffer and die for; whereas the faith of Jews, and Chriftians, has unquestionably produced, and does ftill produce, these substantial fruits. And if the great end of theory, as it undoubtedly is,

be

>

be practice, a doctrine which is both rational in itself, and supported by fufficient authority, must be infinitely preferable to fuch wild and incoherent systems as those of the ancient philofophers, the knowledge of which, moreover, never extended beyond their own difciples, and which does not appear to have had any real influence even upon them.

And

But the great question before us at present is this; if Mofes, and the other writers of the Old and New Teftament, are to be claffed with philofophers or legislators, how came they to frame a system fo fundamentally different from any that other philofophers and legislators of the fame age had conceived? if they were not, but are to be confidered as perfons who had no advantage of learning or education, and therefore to be claffed among the vulgar, and the vulgar of a rude and barbarous nation, as the Jews are generally confidered, how came they to difcover fo much. true knowledge, and adopt a fyftem of religion, laws, and morals, which cannot be denied to be free from the crude conceptions, and grofs abfurdities, with which the systems of the boasted philofophers of the heathen world are chargeable? The only anfwer is,