# The Collected Works of Theodore Parker/Volume 01/Book 1/Chapter 6

CHAPTER VI.
I. Of the Primitive State of Mankind.
Various theories have been connected with Religion, respecting origin and primitive condition of the human race. Many nations have claimed to be the primitive possessors of their native soil; Autochthones, who sprang miraculously out of the ground, were descended from stones, grasshoppers, emmets, or other created things. ​Others call themselves Children of the Gods. Some nations trace back their descent to a time of utter barbarism, whence the Gods recalled them; others start from a golden age, as the primitive condition of men. The latter opinion prevailed with the Hebrews, from whom the Christians have derived it. According to them, the primitive state was one of the highest felicity, from which men fell; the primitive worship, therefore, must have been the normal Religion of mankind.
This question then presents itself, From what point did the human race set out; from civilization and the true worship of one God, or from cannibalism and the deification of Nature? Has the human race fallen or risen? The question is purely historical, and to be answered by historical witnesses. But in the presence, and still more in the absence, of such witnesses, the à priori doctrines of the man's philosophy affect his decision. Reasoning with no facts is easy, as all motion in vacuo. The analogy of the geological formation of the earth; its gradual preparation, so to say, for the reception of plants and animals, the ruder first, and then the more complex and beautiful, till at last she opens her bosom to man,—this, in connection with many similar analogies, would tend to show that a similar order was to be expected in the affairs of men; development from the lower to the higher, and not the reverse. In strict accordance with this analogy, some have taught that Man was created in the lowest stage of savage life; his Religion the rudest worship of nature; ​his Morality that of the cannibal; that all of the civilized races have risen from this point, and gradually passed through Fetichism and Polytheism, before they reached refinement and true Religion; the spiritual man is the gradual development of germs latent in the natural man.
Another party, consisting more of poets and dogmatists than of philosophers, teaches the opposite doctrine, that a single human pair was created in the full majority of their powers, with a perfect Morality and Religion; that they fell from this state, and while some few kept alive the lamp of Truth, and passed it on from hand to hand, that the mass sunk into barbarity and sin, whence they are slowly emerging, aided of course by the traditional torch of Truth, still kept by their more fortunate brothers.
​Now in favour of this latter opinion there is no direct historical testimony except the legendary and mythological writings of the Hebrews, which have no more authority in the premises than the similar narratives of the Phænicians, the Persians, and Chinese. If we assume the miraculous authority of these legends, the matter ends—in an assumption. The indirect testimony in favour of this doctrine is this: The opinion found in many nations that there had once been a golden age. Now, if this opinion were universal, it would not prove the fact alleged, for it can easily be explained from the notorious tendency of men, in a low state of civilization, to aggrandize the past; the senses delight to remember. That opinion only serves to illustrate this tendency. The sensual Greek often looked longingly backward to the Golden Age; but the more spiritual prophet of the Hebrews looks forward to the Kingdom of Heaven yet to be. But the opinion prevails among many nations, that they have slowly advanced from a ruder state.
Again, it is often alleged, that no nation has ever risen out of the savage state except under the influence of tribes previously enlightened—an historical thesis which has never been proved. No one knows whence the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Peruvians, derived assistance. We have yet to be told who taught the Greenlander to build his boat; the Otaheitan to fashion his war club; the Sacs and Pawnees to handle the hatchet, cook the flesh of the buffalo, and wear his skin. Besides, it is begging the question, to say the civilization of Rome, Athens, Tyre, Judea, Egypt, Babylon, Nineveh, came from the traditionary knowledge of some primitive people. If a savage nation in seven centuries can learn to use oil and tallow for light, in a time sufficiently long it may write the Iliad, and build the Parthenon.
​Again, it is said that traces of Monotheism are found even in the low stages of our religious history. This must necessarily follow from the identity of the human race; from the Sentiment and Idea of God, expressing themselves spontaneously. If Man is the same in all ages, differing only in degree of development, and this element is natural to him, then we must expect to find such expressions of it in the poets and philosophers; in the religion of India, Greece, and Rome. Men of the same spiritual elevation see everywhere the same spiritual truth. If this doctrine of Monotheism proceed from tradition alone, then it must be more clear and distinct as we approach the source of the tradition. But this is notoriously contrary to facts.
The opposite doctrine has no more of direct historical testimony in its favour; but is supported by many indirect testimonies: by the fact, that the greater part of the human race are still in the condition of Fetichism and Polytheism, and that the further we go back in history the worse is this state, and the ruder their religion. In the days of Herodotus, the proportion of rude and savage people was far greater than at this day. Even in that nation alleged to be most highly favoured, we find their social, moral, and religious condition is more rude the further we trace it back. They and other nations, at the time we first meet them in history, bordered close upon the Fetichistic state to which their mythology refers. No nation has ever been found in a normal state of religious culture.
If we reason only from established facts, we must conclude, that the hypothesis of a golden age, a garden of Eden, a perfect condition of man on the earth in ancient times, is purely gratuitous. The Kingdom of Heaven is not behind but before us. No one can determine, by historical evidence, what was the primitive state of the human race, or when, or where, or how mankind, at the command of God, came into existence. Here our conclusions can be only negative.
II. On the Immortality of the Soul.
The doctrine that Man lives for ever seems almost as general as the belief in a God. Like that, it comes naturally from an eternal desire in the human heart; a longing after the Infinite. In the rudest nations and the most civilized, this doctrine appears. Perhaps there has never been but a single form of Religion among civilized men under which it was not taught plainly and distinctly, and here it was continually implied. It seems we have by nature a sentiment of immortality; an instinctive belief therein. Rude nations, in whom instinct seems to predominate, trust the spontaneous belief. They construct an ideal world, in which the shade of the departed pursues his calling and finds justice at the last; recompense for his toil; right for his earthly wrongs. The conception of the form of future life depends on the condition and character of the believer. Hence it is a state of war or peace; of sensual or spiritual delight; of reform or progress, with different nations. The notion formed of the next world is the index of man's state in this. Here the Idolater and the Pantheist, the Mahometan and the Christian, express their conflicting views of life. The Sentitiment and Idea of immortality may be true, but the definite conception must be mainly subjective, and therefore false. In a low stage of civilization the doctrine, like the religious feelings themselves, seems to have but little moral influence on life. It presents no motive to virtue, and therefore does not receive the same place in their system as at a subsequent period.
In rude ages men reason but little. As they begin to be civilized they ask proofs of Immortality, not satisfied with the instinctive feeling; not convinced that infinite Goodness will do what is best for all and each of his creatures. Hence come doubts on this head; inquiries; attempts to prove the doctrine; a denial of it. There seems an antithesis between instinct and understanding. The reasoning ​of men is then against it, but when an accident drives them to somewhat more fundamental than processes of logic, the instinctive belief does its work. Here then are three distinct things: a Belief in a future and immortal state; a Definite Conception of that state; and a Proof of the fact of a future and immortal state. The two latter may be fluctuating and inadequate, while the former remains secure.
Now it may be considered as pretty well fixed, that all nations of the earth, above the mere wild man, believe this doctrine; at least, the exceptions are so rare, that they only confirm the rule. However, it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to determine the popular conception, and the influence of this belief at a particular time and place. But the subject demands a more special and detailed examination. Let us look at the opinion of the ancients.
1. Opinion of the Hebrews respecting a Future State.
It has sometimes been taught that this doctrine was perfectly understood, even by the Patriarchs; and sometimes declared altogether foreign to the Old Testament. Both statements are incorrect. In some parts of the Hebrew Scriptures we find rude notions of a future state, but a firm belief in it; in others doubt, and even denial thereof. In the early books, at least, it never appears as a motive. It has no sanction in the Law; no symbol in the Jewish worship. The soul was sometimes placed in the blood, as by Empedocles; sometimes in the breath; the heart, or the bowels, were sometimes considered as its seat. The notion of immortality was indefinite in the early books; there are cloudy views of a subterranean world, which gradually acquire more distinctness. The state of the departed is a gloomy, joyless consciousness; the servant is free from his master; the king has a shadowy grandeur. ​The dead prophet can be called back to admonish the living. Enoch and Elijah, like Ganymede with the Greeks, being favourites of the deity, and taken miraculously to him. Other passages deny the doctrine of immortality with great plainness.
After the return from exile, the doctrine appears more definitely. Ezekiel and the pseudo-Isaiah allude to a resurrection of the body, a notion which is perhaps of Zoroastrian origin. Perhaps older than Zoroaster. But it is only a doubtful immortality that is taught in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, though in the Wisdom of Solomon, and in the fourth book of Maccabees, it is set forth with great clearness. The second book of Maccabees teaches in the plainest terms the resurrection of all; the righteous to happiness, the wicked to shame. They will find their former friends, and resume their old pursuits. Nothing is plainer.
​At the time of Jesus, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body; a state of rewards and punishments. Some of them connected it with the common notion of the transmigration of souls; perhaps with that of preëxistence. The Essenes, still more philosophically, taught the immortality of the soul, and the certainty of retribution, without the resurrection of the body. The soul is formed of the most subtle air, and is confined in the body as in a prison; death redeems it from a long bondage, and the living soul mounts upward rejoicing. We find similar views in Philo. Perhaps they were common in reflecting minds at the time of Jesus, who always presupposes a belief in immortality. The Sadducees alone opposed it. Such were the beginning and history of this dogma with the Jews. Its progress and formation are obvious.
2. Of this Doctrine among the Heathen Nations.
Among savage nations this belief is common. It appears in prayers and offerings for the dead; in the mode of burial. The savage American deposits in the tomb the bow and the pipe, the dress and the tomahawk of the de​ceased warrior. The Scythian, the Goth, the Indian, and the half-barbarous Greek, burned or buried the horse, or the servant, the wife, or the captive of a great man at his decease, that he might go down royally attended to the realm of shades. Metempsychosis; the deification of the dead, ceremonies in their honour, gifts left on their tombs, oaths confirmed in their name, are all signs of this belief. The Egyptians, the Gauls, and Scandinavians spoke of death as the object of life. Lucan foolishly thinks the latter are brave because they believe in endless existence.
Each savage people has its place of souls. Death with them is not an extinction, but a change of life. The tomb is a sacred place. No expense is too great for the dead. The picture of Heaven is earth embellished. At first, the next world is not a domain of moral justice; God has no tribunal of judgment. But with the advance of the present, the conception of a future state rises also. The Pawnees have but one place for all the departed. The Scandinavians have two, Nifleheim and Nastrond; the Persians seven; the Hindoos no less than twenty-four, for different degrees of merit. With many savages, the good and evil become angels to bless, or demons to curse mankind.
To come to the civilized states of antiquity, India, Egypt, Persia, we find the doctrine prevalent in the earliest time, even in the ages when Mythology takes the place of History. In India and Egypt it was most often connected with ​transmigration to other bodies. Herodotus says, the Egyptians first taught the doctrine. But who knows? Pausanias is nearer the truth when he refers it to India, where it was taught before the birth of Philosophy in the West. It begins with the beginning of the nations.
In Greece we find it in a rude form in Homer; connected with Metempsychosis in Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Pherecydes; assuming a new form in Sophocles and Pindar, and becoming a doctrine fixed and settled with Socrates, Plato, and his school in general. In Homer the future state is a joyless existence. Achilles would rather be king of earthly men for a day, than of spirits for ever. Like the future state of the Jews, it offers no motive, and presents no terror. The shades of the weary came together from all lands into their dim sojourn. Enemies forgot their strife; but friends were joined. The present life is obscurely renewed in the next world. But the more especial friends or foes of the Gods are raised to honour, or condemned to shame. The transmigration of souls is perhaps derived from the wondrous mutation in the vegetable and animal world, where an acorn unswathed becomes an oak, and an egg discloses an eagle.
In Hesiod, the condition of the dead is improved with the advance of the nation. The good have a place in the Isles of the Blest. In the latter poets, the doctrine rises still higher, while the form is not always definite. Pindar ​celebrates the condition of the Good in the next life. It is a state where the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished until sin is consumed from their nature, when they come to the divine abode.
To pass from the Poets to the Philosophers; the Immortality of the Soul was taught continually, from Pherecydes to Plotinus. There were those who doubted, and some that denied; yet it was defended by all the greatest philosophers, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Plutarch, Epictetus, and by the most in​fluential schools. No doubt it was often connected with absurd notions, in jest or earnest. But when or where has its fate been different? Bishop Warburton thinks it no part of Natural Religion; Dodwell thinks immortality is only coëxtensive with Christian baptism, and is super-induced upon the mortal soul by that dispensation of water. Could a heathen be more absurd? If the popular doctrine of the Christian Church, which dooms the mass of men to endless misery, be true, then were immortality a misfortune to the race. The wisest of the Heathen taught such a dogma as little as did Jesus of Nazareth. We must always separate the doctrine from its proof and its form; the latter is often imperfect while the doctrine is true.
Since the time of Bishop Warburton, it has been common to deny that the Heathen were acquainted with this doctrine. “It was one guess among many,” has often been said. But a man even slightly acquainted with ancient thought and life, knows it is not so. God has not made truth so hard to come at, that the world of men continued so many thousand years in ignorance of a future life. Before the time above named, it was taught by scholars, even scholars of the clerical order, that the doctrine was well known to the Heathen. Cudworth and ​More, Wilkins, Taylor, and Wollaston, to mention only the most obvious names, bear testimony to the fact.
To sum up in a few words the history of this doctrine, both among Jews and Gentiles: it seems that rude nations, like the Celts and the Sarmatians, clung instinctively to the sentiment of immortality; that the doctrine was well known to the philosophers, and commonly accepted; that some doubted, and some denied it altogether. A few had reached an eminence in philosophy, and could in their way demonstrate the proposition, and satisfy their logical doubt, thus reconciling the instinctive and reflective faculty. From the first book of Moses to the last of Maccabees, from Homer to Cicero, there is a great change in the form of the doctrine. All other forms also had changed.
But how far was the doctrine diffused among the people? We can tell but faintly from history. But what nature demands and Providence affords, lingers longest in the bosom of the mass of men. The doctrine was not strange to the fishermen of Galilee. Was it more so to the peasants of Greece? The early Apologists of Christianity found no difficulty from the unity of God, and the immortality of the soul; both are presupposed by Jesus and Paul. How far it moved men in common life can be told neither from the courtiers of Pagan Cæsar Augustus, nor from those of Christian Louis the Well-beloved. A Roman, and a Christian Pontiff—how much are they moved by the tardy terrors of future judgment? Juvenal could ​repeat his biting sneer in more ages than one. Was the argument of the Pagan philosopher unsatisfactory? It was never otherwise. Mr Strauss declares it has not yet been demonstrated; Mr Locke, that it cannot be proved. The spontaneous sentiment does its work with few words. Who shall demonstrate for us a fact of consciousness, or prove our personal identity? But the doctrine was connected with gross errors,—preëxistence and metempsychosis. Has the doctrine ever been free of such connection? in even a single historical case? It does not appear. The doctrine of inherited sin, of depravity born in the bones of men; the notion that the mass of men are doomed by the God of Mercy to eternal woe—immortal only to he wretched—is not a strange thing in the nineteenth century. Modern savages have foul notions of God; ancient civilization has sins enough on its head, hideous sins, unknown even in cur day, for the world has been worship,—but both are free from such a stain.
* ↑ Diodorus Siculus says, somewhere, all ancient nations claim to be the most ancient.
* ↑ See the heathen view of this in Hesiod, Opera et Dies; Lucretius, V. 923, et seq.; Virgil, Georg. I. 125, et seq., Ecl. IV.; Ovid, Met. I. 89, et seg.; Plato, Polit. p. 271, et seq. See Heyne, Opusc. Vol. III. p. 24, et seq.; Hesiod's Theog. 521–579. See other parallels in Bauer's Mythologie des A. T. &c , Vol. I. p.85, et seq. See also the curious speculations of Eichhorn (Urgeschichte ed. Gabler.), Büttmann (Mythologus), and Hartmann (über des Pentateuch). Compare Rosenmüller, Alterthumskunde, Vol. I. Part i. p. 180, et seq., and the striking passage in Kleuker’s Zendavesta, Vol. II. p. 211, 227, et seq.; III. p. 85. See Rhode’s remarks upon the passages, ubi sup., p. 388, et seg. See Bauer, Dicta Classica, § 52.
* ↑ See the opinions of Zoroaster on this point collected by Bretschneider, Darstellung der Dogmatik, &c., der Apoc. Schriften, Vol. I. § 52, p. 286, et seq.
* ↑ See Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Lond., 1844, 1st ed. p. 277, et seq., for some curious remarks.
* ↑ See Comte, Vol. V. p. 32, et al. Here arises the kindred question, Have all the human race descended from a single pair, or started up in the various parts of the earth where we find them? The first opinion has been defended by the Christian Church, in general with more obstinacy than argument. Pritchard, ubi sup., derives all from one stock, and collects many interesting facts relative to the human race in various conditions. But the unity of the race is not to be made out genealogically. It is essential to the nature of mankind. Augustine has some curious speculations on this head, De Civitate Dei, XII. 21, XIII. 19—23, XIV. 10–12, 16–26. Lactantius, Institut. II. 11, VII. 4. See the opinions of Buddeus, and the curious literature he cites, Hist. Ecclesiast. V. T. Vol. I. p. 92, et seq. On the other hand, Palfrey's Academical Lectures, Vol. II. Lect. xxi., xxii.; Kant, von der Racen der Menschen, Werke, Vol. VI. p. 313, et seq.; Begriff einer Menschenrace, ib. p. 33, et seq.; Muthmaaslicher Anfang der Menschengeschichte, ib. Vol. VII. p. 363, et seq. Even Schleiermacher departs from the common view. Christliche Glaube, § 60–61. See, likewise, the ingenious observations of Samuel S. Smith, Inquiry into the causes of different Complexions, &c., of the human Race. To make out the case, that all men are descended from a primitive power, it is only necessary to assume, philosophically, a principle in the first man, whence all varieties may be derived, and then, historically, to assume the derivation, and the vicious circle is complete. Kames has some disingenuous remarks in his History of Man, Preliminary Discourse. See Mémoires de l'Académie royale des Sciences morales et politiques, (Paris,) 1841, Tom. III. p. xxiii. et seq., and the literature referred to.
* ↑ See this, which the prevalent opinion, set forth by Knapp, ubi sup., Vol. I. § 54–57. Hahn, Lehrbuch des Christ. Glaub. § 74, 75. Tholuck, in Biblical Repository, Vol. II. p. 119, et seq.; Hopkins's System of Doctrines, &c., 2nd ed. Vol. I. Part. i. Chap. 5, 8.—Bretschneider, Dogmatik, 4th ed. Vol. I. § 112, et seq., gives the Lutheran view of this subject, but thinks Oken no heretic for maintaining (in the Isis for 1819, Vol. II. p. 1118) that man may have arisen from an embryo, with human qualities, in the slime of the sea! p. 812. See Jeremy Taylor, Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, Chap. VI., and the conflicting remarks in the Sermon at the Funeral of Sir George Dalston; Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, Part II. Chap. i., and Notes on Bible, Works, Lond. 1839, Vol. II. p. 689, et seq. More on the same subject may be seen in Faber's Horæ Mosaicæ; Edwards, On the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures; Collier's Lectures on Scripture Facts; Gray's Connection between Sacred and Profane Literature; Cormack's Inquiry; Fletcher's Appeal; Deane's Worship of the Serpent, &c. &c.; Sénac, Christianisme dans ses Rapports avec la Civilization moderne, Paris, 1837, Vol. I. Part i. ch. 2. See the opinions of the Ancients on the creation and primitive state of Man, collected in Grotius, De Veritate, ed. Clericus, Lib. I. § 16.
* ↑ Strauss, Die Christ. Glaubenslehre, 1840-1, Vol. I. § 45, seq., decides against the hypothesis of a single pair, and even ascribes the origin of man to the power of equivocal generation. But his arguments in favour of the latter have little or no weight. See Kames, ubi sup.
* ↑ Voltaire, Essai sur les Mœurs, &c., edit. 1785, Vol. I. p. 17, et seq., 29, et seq., has many just remarks on the ruder periods of society.
* ↑ Constant, Liv. I. Ch. vi. and x. Ch. vi. treats this subject with a superficiality unusual even with him. He thinks the doctrine of a Fall is a device of the Priesthood, at least, that it owes its importance and continuation to the sacerdotal class. See some admirable remarks on the savage state in de Maistre, Soirées de St Petersburg, Vol. I. See also Leroux's criticism on the opinions of Jouffroy and Pascal in his Réfutation de l'Eclecticism, 1840, p. 330, et seq. Leroux believes in the progress of all species, Man, the Beaver, and the Bee. M. Maret, ubi sup., p. 30, et seq., and 240, et seq., makes some very judicious observations.
* ↑ Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11; Deut. xii. 23. See Cicero, Tusc. Lib. I. Ch. 9, 10.
* ↑ Gen. ii. 7; Ps. civ. 29, et al.
* ↑ Deut. xxxii. 46; Ps. vii. 10; Ps. xvi. 7; Prov. xxiii. 16, et al.
* ↑ Gen. xxv. 8, xxxvii. 35; Num. xvi. 30, 33. In Job, Isaiah, and the Psalms this becomes more definite. Job x. 21, xxxviii. 17.
* ↑ Job iii. 13–19; Isaiah xiv.; Ezek. xxxii.; 1 Sam. xxviii. See Homer, Od. XI. Virgil, Æneid, VI.
* ↑ See also Ps. xvii. 15, lxxiii. 24. See the mistakes of Michaelis respecting this doctrine of immortality, in his Argumenta immortalitate, … ex Mose collecta, in his Syntagma Comment. Vol. I. p. 80, et seq. See his notes or Lowth, p. 465, ed. Rosenmüller. Warburton founds his strange hypothesis on the opposite view. See on this point, Bauer, Dicta classica, Vol. II. § 56, et seq.; De Wette, ubi sup., § 113, et seq.; Lessing, Beyträgen aus der Wolfenbüttelschen Bibliothek, Vol. IV. p. 484, et seq. See the moderate and judicious remarks of Knapp, ubi sup., Vol. II. § 149. See Henkes Mag. für Religion. Philosophie, Vol. V. pt. I. p. 16, et seq., and a treatise in the Studien und Kritiken for 1830, Vu II. p. 884, et seq.
* ↑ Eccles. iii. 19-21, ix. 10. In Job xiv. 10–14, et al., Job distinctly denies the immortality which he had previously affirmed, but this shows the exquisite art of the poem. See De Wette, Introduction to O. T., Vol. II. p. 556, 557, note a. Perhaps the opinions put into Job's mouth are not those of the Author, but such only as he thought the circumstances of his hero required.
* ↑ Ezek. xxxvii.; Isa. xxvi. 19. See Gesenius in loco.
* ↑ Rhode, ubi sup., p. 494, Nork, Mythen der alten Perser, 1835, p. 148, et seq.; Priestley, ubi sup., § XXIII.; Bretschneider, ubi sup., § 58, p. 325, et seq.
* ↑ i. 15, 16, ii. 22-iii. et seq., v. 15, vi. 18. It is connected with a preëxistent state, viii. 19, 20. The 2nd Book of Esdras is quite remarkable for the view it presents of this doctrine. See ii. 23, 31, 34, 35, iv. 40, et seq., vii. 13, 27—35, 42, et seq., viii. 1, et seq. et al. But the character and date of the book prevent me from using it in the text.
* ↑ xv. 3, xvi. 25, xvii. 18, et al. de Wette, ubi sup., § 180. See the remarkable passage in 4th Esdras, which Fabricius has added from the Arabic Version Codex pseudepigraphus, ed alt. Hamb. 1741, Vol. II. p. 235, et seq. However, it may have been added by a Christian. In the Psalter of Solomon, it is said they that fear the Lord shall rise again to everlasting life. See Ch. xiv. 2, et seq., and xv. in Fabricius, ubi sup., Vol. I. p. 926, 954, et seq. I do not pretend to determine the date of this apocryphal book.
* ↑ vii. 9, 11, 14, 23, xii. 43, et seq., xv. 12, et seq.
* ↑ See in Eichhorn, ubi sup., Vol. IV. p. 653, et seq., a valuable contribution to the History of this doctrine by Frisch. He make an ingenious comparison of passages from the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. The same doctrine is taught in both. See Flatt, in Paulus, Memorabil. st. II. p. 157, et seq.; Bretschneider, ubi sup., § 53–58.
* ↑ Acts xxiii. 6—8, xxiv. 15; Matth. xxii. 24, et seq.; Mark xii. 19, et seq.
* ↑ Josephus, Wars, II. viii. 14. Josephus may have added the metempsychosis to suit the taste of his readers.
* ↑ Josephus, Wars, II. viii. 11. Josephus himself seems to agree with this opinion, when he “talks like a philosopher,” in his pretended speech, Wars, III. viii. 5. See Buddeus, ubi sup., II. p. 1202, et seq.; Paulus, Memorabil., Vol. II. p. 157, et seq.; and De Wette, ubi sup., § 178, et seq.
* ↑ See also the views of Philo, De Somniis, p. 586; De Abrah, p. 385; De Mundi Opif., p.31. The soul is immortal by nature, but by grace. See Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der Judischen,-Alexand. Philosophie, &c., 1834, Vol. I. p. 330, et seq, 405, 485, et seq., who cites the above and other proof passages; Ritter, ubi sup., Vol. IV. See Weizel on the primitive doctrine of immortality among the Christians, in Theol. Stud. und Kritiken, for 1836, p. 957, et seq. Constant, Liv. IX. Ch. vii., makes some just remarks on this subject. On the state of opinions in the time of Christ, see Gfrörer, Jahrhundert des Heils, 1838, Vol. II. Ch. vii.; Triglandius de tribus Judæorum sectis, in quo Serarii, Drusii, Scaligeri, Opuscula, &c., 1703, Vol. I. Part I. Lib. II. and III., Part II. Lib. II.-IV., and Scaliger's Animadversions; and the very valuable treatise of Leclerc, Prolegomena ad Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. Ch. i. See Flügge, Geschichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, &c. &c., Leip. 1794, Vol. I. p. 112—160, 201—251, et passim; Bouchitté Mém. de l'Institut. Savans étrangères, Tom. II. p. 621, et seq.
* ↑ See Lafitau, ubi sup., Vol. II. p. 387, et seq., 410, et seq., 420, et seq., 444, et seq., Vol I. p. 359, et seq., 507, et seq.; Catlin, ubi sup., Vol. I. Bancroft's Hist. Vol. III. Ch. xxii.; Constant, Livre IX. Ch. vii. viii., Livre II. Ch. iv.; Martin, ubi sup., Vol. I. p. 18, 56, 329; Vol. II. p. 212, et seq.; United States Exploring Expedition, Phil. 1845-6, Vol. VII. p. 63, et seq., 99, et seq., et al. For the Fetichism of the Savages, see p. 16, et seq., 26, et seq., 51, et seq., 97, et seq., 110, et seq.
* ↑ On the belief of the Scandinavians, the Caledonians, the Parsees, Indians, &c., see Flügge, Vol. II. The ancient Lithuanians had some singular opinions and customs in relation to the dead, for which see Boemus, Omnium Gentium Mores, &c., Friburg, 1540, p. 182.
* ↑ Constant, ibid. Meiners, ubi sup., Vol. I. Book iii. See Leroux, De l'Humanité, &c., Vol. II. p. 468, et seq.
* ↑ Meiners, p. 302, et seq. Farmer, On the Worship of Human Spirits, passim. I have mentioned a few books on this subject, which have furnished the facts on which the above conclusions rest. I can refer to books of Travels, Voyages in general, the Lettres Edifiantes, descriptions of foreign countries, which furnish the facts in abundance. The works of Meiners, Constant, and Lafitau are themselves but a compilation from these sources.
* ↑ Lib. II. Chap. 123. See Creutzer's note, in Bähr's edition.
* ↑ The date of all things is uncertain in the East. I cannot pretend to chronological accuracy, but see Asiatic Researches, Vol. V. p. 360; VII. 310; VIII. 448, et seq.; Priestley, ubi sup., § XXIII.; Ritter, Vol. I. p. 132.
* ↑ Stanley's History of Philosophy, Part XIII. Sect. ii. Chap. x. Hyde, ubi sup.
* ↑ Brouwer, Vol. II. Ch. xviii.; Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 440, et seq. Homer assigns to the Gods a beautiful abode not shaken by the winds, &c., Od. VI. 41, et seq. See the imitation of the passage in Lucretius, III. 18, et seq. Struchtmeyer, Theologia Mythica, sive de Origine Tartari et Elysii, Libri V., Hag. Com. 1753, 1 Vol. 8vo, Lib. I.
* ↑ See Iliad, XXIII. et seq, et al.; Odyss. XI. and XXIV. passim, and Heyne, Excursus on Iliad, XXIII. 71 and 104, Vol. VIII. p. 368, et seq.; Diod. &c., Vol. I. p. 86. See the similar views of the North American Indians, in Schoolcraft, Algic Researches; Wachsmuth, Vol. II. Part ii. p. 106, 244, 290; Potter, Antiquities; Görres, Mythengeschichte, passim.
* ↑ See Xenophon, Memorab., ed. Schneider, Lips. 1829, Lib. I. Chap. iii. § 7, and the Note of Börnemann.
* ↑ Opera et Dies, vs. 160, et seq., and the Scholia in Poet. Min., ed. Gaisford, Lips. 1823, Vol. II. p. 142, et seq.
* ↑ See the Gnomic poets in general, for the moral views of life; for the immortality of the soul, Simonides, Frag. XXX. (XXXIII.); Tyrtaeus III. in Gaisford, Vol. III. p. 160, 242. See the curious passage in Aristophanes, Ranae, vs. 449-460, Opp. ed. Bekker, Lond. 1829, Vol. I. p. 535, in which see B.'s note. See Orpheus, as cited by Lobeck, Aglaoph., p. 950; Cudworth, Chap. I. § 21, 22, and Mosheim in loc. See the indifferent book of Priestley, Heathen Philosophy, Part I. § 3, 5; Part II. § 3, 5; also p. 125, et seq., 197, et seq., 265, et seq.
* ↑ Olymp. II. vs. 104, et seq. (57–92, in Dissen.) See Cowley's wild imitation in his Pindarique Odes, Lond. 1720, Vol. II. p. 160, et seq. See similar thoughts in Propertius, Lib. III. 39, et seq.; and Tibullus, Eleg. III 58; Virgil. Æneid, VI. See also Pindar's Fragment, II. Vol. III. p. 34, ed. Heyne, Lips. 1817, Frag. I. p. 31, et seq., Frag. III. p. 36; and the notes of Dissen, in his edition of Pindar, Vol. II. p. 648, et seq., and Lobeck, ubi sup. See, who will, a treatise in the Acta Eruditorum for August, 1722, de Statu Animæ separatæ post mortem, &c.
* ↑ Cicero, Tusc. Lib. I. Chap. xvi., says Pherecydes was the first who taught this doctrine. See the note in Lemaire's edition. See also Diogenes Laert. Thales, Lib. I. § 43, p. 27, et seq., and Plutarch, De Placitis Phil., Lib. IV. Ch. ii.-vii., Opp. Vol. II. p. 898, et seq. It has been thought doubtful that Aristotle believed in immortality, and perhaps it is not easy to prove this point. See De Anima, III. 5; but compare Ethic. Nicom. Lib. III. Chap. vi., which denies it. See again De Anima, II. 2; De Gen. Anim. III. 4. Plato teaches immortality with the greatest clearness. See the Phædo, passim; Georgias, p. 524, et seq. et al.; Apolog. Laws, (if they are genuine,) Lib. X. XII.; Epinomis, Timæus, Rep. X. p. 612, et seq. Plato makes the essence of man spiritual; Tim. p. 69, C. et seq., 72, D. et seq., Rep. IV. p. 431, A. He was opposed to the Materialists, Soph p. 246, A. However, he did not condemn the body. His argument in favour of immortality, like many later arguments on the same theme, creates more questions than it answers. The form of the doctrine, its connection with preëxistence and transmigration, like many doctrines still popularly connected with it, serve only to disfigure the doctrine itself, and bring it into reproach. The opinion of Cicero is so well known, that it is almost superfluous to cite passages; but see Frag. de Consolat. 12, et seq., 27, et al.; De Senectute, Chap. XXI., et seq., Tusc. I. C. 16; De Amicit., Ch. 3, 4; Somnium Scipionis, et al. See Seneca, De Ira, I. 3; Consolatio ad Helv., Chap. VI.; De Vita Beata, Chap. XXII. Ep. 50, 102, 117. Sometimes he speaks decidedly, at other times with doubt. See Lipsius Physiol. Stoic. Lib. III. Diss. viii.-xix. See Locke, Essay, Book ÎV. Chap. iii., and Letters to Bishop of Worcester. See Plutarch, De Sera Numinis Vindicta, Morals, Lond. 1691, Vol. IV. p. 197, et seq. See too the Story of Soleus the Thespesian, ibid. p. 206, et seq.; Plut. Vit. Quint. Sertorius, Opp. I. 571, 572, F. & B., for an account of the Fortunate Islands, with which comp. Diod. Sic. Hist. II. Vol. I. p. 137, et seq. It seems the Priests of Serapis distinctly taught the Immortality of the Soul. Augustine says, “Many of the Philosophers of the Gentiles have written much concerning the immortality of the Soul, and in numerous books have they left it on record that the Soul is immortal. But when you come to the resurrection of the Flesh, they do not hesitate but openly deny that, contradicting it to such a degree that they declare it impossible for this terrene flesh to rise to Heaven.” Expos. Psalms, lxxxviii. Justin M. says the doctrine of immortality was no new thing in Christ's time—but was taught by Plato and Pythagoras. The new element Christ added to the doctrine he thinks was the resurrection of the Flesh. Opp. ed. Otto. ii. p. 540. See the Literature collected on this subject by Kortholt in his Annotations on Athenagoras, Legat., &c. &c., ed. Oxon. 1704, p. 94, et seq.
* ↑ Epistolary Discourse, &e., London, 1706. He thinks that Regular Bishops have the power of making men immortal through the “divine baptismal spirit.” See for the history of opinions among the Christians, Flügge, Vol. III. pt. 1 and 2.
* ↑ Warburton has the merit of framing an hypothesis so completely original that no one, perhaps, (except Bishop Hurd,) has ever shared it in full with him. Part of his singular theory is this: A belief in a future state was found necessary in heathen countries to keep the subjects in order; the philosophers and priests got up a doctrine for that purpose, teaching that the soul was immortal, but not believing a word of it. Moses, who believed the doctrine, yet never taught it, controlled the people by means of his inspiration, and the perfect Law.
* ↑ See Cudworth and More, passim; Wilkins, Principles and Duties of Natural Religion, &c., Book I. Ch. xi.; see also Ch. iv. and viii.; Taylor's Sermon, preached at the Funeral of that worthy Knight, Sir George Dalston, &c.; Wollaston, Religion of Nature, Sect. IX. It would be easy to cite passages from the early Christians, testifying to the truth possessed by the Heathens B. C. I will mention but one from Minucius Felix. “A man might judge either that the present Christians are philosophers, or else that the old philosophers were Christians.” See likewise Brougham's Discourse on Natural Theology, Note VI.—IX. in Appendix. Polybius, ubi sup., Lib. VI. c. 53—56, seems to think the legislators got up the doctrine, with no faith in it, except a general belief it would make men submissive. See Timæus, De Anima Mundi, in Gale, ubi sup.
* ↑ The resurrection of the body seems to have been the doctrine that offended Paul's hearers at Athens; that of immortality alone was well known to the Stoics, some of whom believed it, and the Epicureans, who rejected it. Acts xvii. 16, et seq. See Wetstein in loc.
* ↑ See Horace, Epist. Lib. I. Ep. xvi.; Juvenal, Satir. XIII.; Persius, Satir. II. How far do these express the popular sentiment?
* ↑ Satir. II. 149, et seq.
* ↑ Leclerc, ubi sup., gives a bird's-eye view of the state of the world at the commencement of the Christian period, perhaps the most faithful that has been given of manners and opinions. The popular mythology was in about the same estimation among cultivated men as the popular theology at the present time with men of piety and good sense. Leroux de l'Humanité, Vol. I. p. 302, et seq., makes some observations on his doctrine among the ancients, not without interest. See a Sermon of Immortal Life, by Theo. Parker, Bost., 1846.