ftament, I think it may be proved beyond exception, that the Patriarchs believed a Future State, and acted upon that belief; so that the thing is rather taken as an allowed principle of natural Religion, than offered to be formally proved by the first revelation; which is a plainer evidence of its being anciently believed, than any explicit declaration of the truth of it would be. As for the Egyptian Invention I have mentioned it already; and as to the Sadducees, they were very far from being the most philosophical part of the Jewish nation, as he would have them; for Jofephus, who knew them well, reprefents them quite otherwife: But let them be as philofophical a Sect as they will, there were none of them in Solomon's time, for him to reafon like; though there might be fenfual people, as there are in all ages, that have but little regard for another life, (fuch as they afterwards were,) against whofe practices Solomon often argues. Nor have we any account extant, of any learned Philofophers in the neighbouring nations, except what are mention'd in holy writ, as far inferior to Solomon in wifdom. Men of learning were very few, among the Greeks especially, at that time; and if there were any, we have none of their writings to

know what their opinion was, or how they argued against another life. For Solomon is at leaft as old as Homer, who is the first heathen Author, whofe genuine works are come down to us; and he was certainly acquainted with the doctrine of a Future State, and took it to be generally believed, though he do not speak of it in a philofophical manner, or argue for it from the nature of the Soul, as Thales afterwards did. But the truth is, the great defign of Solomon in that book, out of which this Author pretends to make him argue against a Future State, is to establish the certainty of a Future Judgment, which he not only mentions in feveral parts of it, to keep up the sense of it in mens minds as they go along in it, but has made this the conclufion of the whole matter: a Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man: For God fhall bring every work into judgment, with every fecret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Now can any man of a common capacity, who reads this, believe that Solomon denied a Future State? And if this Author could, either ignorantly or wilfully, give fo grofs a misrepresentation, of what

z Vide Plutarch. de Placi. Philof lil. 4. cap. 2.

a Chap. 12. V. 13, 14.

what every English reader may so easily discover in him, we ought not to be furprized, if he have strangely perverted the fense of other writers, which do not lie fo much in the way of every common reader.

As to the opinion of Philofophers, which he would perfuade us to have been generally gainst a Future State, Tully has, in divers places of his writings, told us, that the ancientest of them, and all the wisest and best, did hold the Immortality of the Soul; and that the contrary was but a novel opinion among them. bI cannot, fays he, by any means come into their opinion, who have of late times begun to reafon, that the foul dies with the body, and that there is an end of all at death; the authority of the ancients is of much more value with me. And by ancients he means those that had philofophized upon the fubject, as appears by the opposition to thofe, who lately begun to philofophize otherwise; and by his adding over and above, as distinct arguments to perfuade him to the fame thing, the practice of the old Romans, the I 3 doctrine

b Neque enim affentiar iis qui hæc nuper differere cœperunt, cum corporibus fimul animos interire, atque omnia morte deleri. Plus apud me antiquorum auctoritas valet. Cic. in Lalie.

doctrine and fame of the Pythagoreans, who lived in part of Italy, and the conftant opinion of Socrates, who was, in the judgment of Apollo, the wifeft of men, and who did not fay fometimes one thing and fometimes another in this point, as in many others, but always afferted the fame, that the fouls of men were Divine, and returned to heaven when they departed out of the body. This indeed he says in the person of Lalius; but in the beginning of the book, or dedication of it to Atticus, he allows all that is faid to be his own fenfe of the matter; as he does likewife what he delivers in the book de Senectute, under the perfon of Cato Major; and in that he tells us, be was brought to this belief, not only from reafon and difputation but from the fame also and authority of the greatest philofophers. And towards the end of that book, he calls those that reasoned otherwife, meaning the followers of Epicurus, in way of contempt,

d

e

petty Philofophers.

2

And

-Qui non tum hoc, tum illud ut in plerifque, fed idem

dicebat femper, animos hominum effe divinos, iifque, cùm corpore exceffiffent, reditum in cœlum patere. ib.

è

d Nec me folùm ratio ac difputatio impulit ut ita crederem fed nobilitas etiam fummorum philofophorum & auctoritas. Cato Maj. cap. 21.

Quidam minuti philofophi. cap. ult.

And the very fame sentiments are expreffed in all his writings, where he delivers his opinion in his own person, and treats upon this fubject very largely, and from the fame topicks as he makes his Cato Major and Lælius do. It is obvious to any one, that reads his writings, what an high esteem he every where expreffes for the judgment of Socrates, in moral and religious matters, and how high a value he every where fets upon the writings of Plato, more than upon other authors; and fince their opinion is fo well known, it would be a strong prefumption what were the sentiments of Tully also, if we had nothing else to judge by; especially, confidering what a mean opinion he every where expreffes, of the understanding of Epicurus in matters of Philofophy, both Natural and Moral; and how little of common learning he supposes him to have had. But he has not left us to guess at his opinion from fuch inferences, but has given us, as I have obferved, plain declarations of it.

The reason why I take the more notice of this, as well as of what I observed out of him before, is, because the fore-mentioned author (p. 136.) has very unfairly reprefented the fense of this excellent writer; infinuating as if he had denied the Immortality of the Soul, I 4

even