of human affairs;" and he "encouraged the practice of divination, under the notion that the gods sometimes discover future events to good men."* Plato supposed that there were "subordinate divinitiesand that the Supreme Being appointed them to the charge of forming animal bodies, and superintending the visible world."+ Xenocrates, a disciple of Plato," taught that the heavens are divine, and the stars, celestial gods; and that besides these divinities, there are terrestrial demons, of a middle order between the gods and man, which partake of the nature both of mind and body, and are, therefore, like human beings, capable of passions, and liable to diversity of character."+ Aristotle, who believed in no particular providence, yet supposed that there are "intelligent natures inferior to the first mover,-who preside over the lower celestial spheres."§ Though Democritus rejected the doctrine of a Supreme Deity, he admitted "the popular belief of divinities inhabiting the aerial regions, teaching that they make themselves visible to favoured mortals, and enable them to foretel future events." He said, "they are in form like men, but of a larger size, and superior nature; that they are composed of the most subtle atoms, and less liable to dissolution than human beings, but are nevertheless mortal." || According to the Stoics, "Portions of the ethereal soul of the world, being distributed throughout all the parts of the universe, and animating all bodies, hence arise-inferior gods or demons, with which all nature is peopled." They conceived them, however, to be "limited in their duration," returning at length to their original, and losing "their separate existence."¶ Enfield (B. ii. Ch. iv.), I. pp. 175, 176. "Admire the goodness of the Gods,' said Socrates, and consider, that as there is in the world an infinite number of excellent things, but of very different natures, they have given us senses that answer to each, and by whose means we enjoy all of them.-As we cannot always foresee what is to happen to us, nor know what it will be best for us to do, they offer us their assistance by the means of the oracles; they discover the future to us when we go to consult them, and teach us how to govern ourselves in our affairs.' Here Euthydemus, interrupting him, said, And, indeed, these Gods are, in this regard, more favourable to you than to the rest of mankind; since, without expecting you to consult them, they give you notice of what you ought, or ought not to do.' You will allow, therefore, that I told you true,' said Socrates, when I told you there were Gods, and that they take great care of men.' " Memorabilia, B. iv. Trans. 1722, pp. 156, 157. See Leland, C. R., I. pp. 267-270, 301. Enfield (B. ii. Ch. viii. Sect. i.), Ï. p. 231. Ibid. (B. ii. Ch. viii. Sect. ii.), I. pp. 241, 242. Ibid. (B. ii. Ch. ix. Sect. i.), I. p. 282. Ibid. (B. ii. Ch. xiii.), I. p. 432. Ibid. (B. ii. Ch. xi, Sect. i,), I. pp. 334, 335. · DISCOURSE VIII. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HEATHEN PHILOSOPHY COMPARED WITH THOSE OF REVELATION. 1 COR. i, 20: The world by wisdom knew not God. HAVING given you a comparative view of the religion of the Hebrews, and that of the ancient idolatrous natious, I began, in my last Discourse, to give you a similar view of the principles of the Heathen philosophy, that it might not be said that I took an unfair advantage, in relating nothing more than the opinions and practices of the vulgar among the Heathens, instead of the real sentiments of the wisest among them. These, however, I shewed you were, in several respects, far less rational than those of the Scriptures. I mentioned their universal opinion of the impossibility of creation out of nothing, of the eternity and indestructibility of matter; its necessary evil tendency; the doctrines of many of them, of the production of all inferior beings by emanation or protrusion from the substance of the Deity, and their absorption into it again: the absolute denial of the being of a God, by many, and those some of the most eminent of the Greek philosophers; their various and unsatisfactory opinions concerning the origin of evil; their denial of a Divine Providence, their belief of the existence of intelligent beings, inferior to the Supreme, who at their pleasure, and contrary to the will of the Supreme Being, interfered in the direction of human affairs. I now proceed to observe, 7. If the Heathen philosophers became so vain in their imaginations, when they speculated concerning the nature of God, and the origin and government of the universe, and were not able to retain the great truths which mankind had received by tradition, relating to them, much more did they wander in uncertainty and error with respect to the doctrine of a future state, concerning which, as I have observed, the light of nature gives us no information at all. On this subject, so important that without it the doctrine concerning God and providence is merely a curious speculation, of no practical use, the principles of those philo sophers who admitted a future state are totally discordant with those of the Scriptures, which alone are agreeable to reason, though not discoverable by it. On this subject, I must be excused if I advance some things which will not be approved by the generality of Christians, who, in my opinion, have not entirely got rid of doctrines introduced into Christianity from a Heathen source, from which have been derived almost all its corruptions. According to the Scriptures, the future state of man depends entirely upon a resurrection, to take place at a distant period, called the last day, and nothing is said concerning the rewards of the righteous, or the punishment of the wicked, antecedent to that time. Our Saviour, recommending acts of charity, says, (Luke xiv. 14,) "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just," and on no occasion did he refer his hearers to any state of things prior to this. When he speaks of being cast into hell, it is with hands and eyes, which are members of the body; and the rich man in the parable is represented as with a tongue, tormented with burning thirst, though for the sake of some circumstances in the parable, the future state is represented as taking place before the proper time. [Luke xvi. 23, 24.] The apostle Paul, comforting the Thessalonians on the death of some of their friends, refers them only to the resurrection, and gives no hint of their enjoying any degree of happiness at the time that he was writing, which would have been unavoidable, if, in his opinion, they had been happy then. 1 Thess. iv. 13, 14, 16: "I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so also them that sleep in Jesus will God bring with him-and the dead in Christ shall rise first," that is, before any change take place on those who will be then alive. Why, indeed, did he use the term sleep, if, in his idea, the dead were not in a state of insensibility, and not to be awaked to life and action, but at the resurrection?* Again, when the same apostle exhorts Christians to live sober, righteous, and godly lives, Tit. ii. 13, he directs them. to look for that blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ," when he shall come again to raise the dead and judge the world. When our Saviour says that he will receive the apostles to * See Vol. II. p. 357; Vol. III. p. 257; Vol. XIV. pp. 17-19. himself, he refers them to the same time, and nothing prior to it. John xiv. 3: "I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also."* When, therefore, the apostle Paul speaks of being "absent from the body and present with the Lord," he must have meant the same great period, overlooking all that passed between the time of his death and his resurrection, which indeed will only appear as a moment: as in the case of a man awaking from a profound sleep.‡ When Moses describes the formation of man, he represents him as made wholly, and not in part only, "of the dust of the ground," and says after this, God put breath and life into him, thereby giving motion to the curious machine, which was before a lifeless mass.§ It is to this doctrine of Moses that our Saviour refers, when he says, that God "is able to destroy both body and soul," or the power of life, "in hell." For the word that is here rendered soul, is elsewhere rendered life; meaning that men, by killing the body which God has been pleased to put in their power, cannot prevent its returning to life, this being in the power of God only. There is not, in reality, any more reason to suppose life to be a real substance, than death, which we nevertheless personify, when we say that death comes, and surprises men, and takes them. In the Scriptures, both death and sin are personified. The Gnostics, who were the first of the philosophers who embraced Christianity, could not divest themselves of their prejudices with respect to matter, as the source of all evil; and thinking it the happiest state of the soul, to be entirely detached from it, they explained away the doctrine of the resurrection, as to be understood of something that took place during life. To them the apostle Paul alludes, when he says, (2 Tim. ii. 18,) that they erred concerning the faith; saying that the resurrection was past already, and overturned * See Vol. XIII. p. 314. † See 2 Cor. v. 8-10, Vol. II. pp. 360, 361; Vol. XIV. pp. 166, 167. See Luther and Layton, Vol. II. p. 60, Note. § See Gen. ii. 7, Vol. XI. p. 46. || Matt. x. 28. See Vol. XIII. pp. 134–136. "I am verily persuaded, and dare confidently aver it, that several persons of this, as well as other nations, do conceive death, as he is pictured, to be a form of dry bones; and that he strikes those who at any sickness are appointed to die, which have given the grounds to that vulgar saying, in any one who is seized with desperate symptoms at the beginning of a sickness, he or she is death-struck. Now if such opinions as these, because they have been generally received, should not be examined into and exposed, our religion would become only a pretty mixture of folly and superstition.' Dr. Coward's Second Thoughts, Ed. 2, 1704, p. 38. the faith of some.* Justin Martyr, the first Christian writer after the apostolic age, whose works are come down to us, enumerating the particular tenets of the Gnostics, who were deemed to be heretics, and not allowed to be properly Christians, says of them, "They also say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that immediately after death, souls are received into heaven. Do not take these to be Christians."+ This language of this ancient and venerable writer, is not a little remarkable. Think not, however, that I approve of his harsh censure of the Gnostics. Others will say, that they who reject the doctrine of a soul, are not Christians. Both are equally reprehensible. The Gnoctics as well as Justin, believed the divine mission of Jesus, and a life of retribution after death, and many of them were martyrs as well as himself. The doctrine of a future life is the most important article of Christian faith: the time, the place, or the manner, in which it will be effected, are all comparatively of little moment. Though after this, Christians in general adopted the doctrine of a soul distinct from the body, they thought that, after death, it remained in a place under ground, called Hades, where it waited for the resurrection of the body, when, and not before, it would be admitted to the immediate presence of God and of Christ, in heaven. This continued to be the faith of the Christian world for about a thousand years. They pretty soon, however, made an exception in favour of the souls of the martyrs, which they thought went directly to heaven.§ There are thought to be some traces of the doctrine of a resurrection, in the Heathen world, as among the Chaldeans and Zabians. But if this was the case, the doctrine was soon obliterated, and speculative persons, thinking a proper resurrection to be absolutely impossible, and yet unwilling to give up all hope of some future state, imagined that there was some spiritual, or ethereal principle in man, which having existed long before his birth, would subsist after his death. For, with the Heathens these two doctrines always went together; and Origen, one of the most learned of the early Christians, believed both the pre-existence of the soul, and its separate existence after death.|| Afterwards Christians See Vol. XIV. + Dial. p. |