believe it! Reader, the dish is well, that is, highly, seasoned; but I don't believe you will relish it, unless your appetite for the marvellous has been whetted by very pungent stimulants. The intelligent reader will help himself to the necessary details, and I will proceed with the consideration of our subject.*

The first question is, What have been the opinions of men respecting futurity? The reader is requested to consider this question as embracing the whole ground. For it follows, as a consequence, that if men are ignorant of the truth, as respects the nature of their present existence, and origin, etc., they will be ignorant of futurity, etc. And we can go back, only so far as we have a sure road to travel on, to antiquity. When the road becomes so indistinct that we cannot perceive any path, any certain imprint of man, and man's opinions, we must stop.

Now I have a position to lay down, and it will cover so large a space, that I am desirous of the reader's whole attention, so that he shall see this position constantly, in its proper place, and of its proper size or dimensions, and understand all its bearings. We learn from Sacred History, that after the earth was repeopled, by Noah and his family, and the inhabitants of the earth were scattered in tribes, or nations, and speaking divers languages, having no law, or rule to guide them, save their own perceptions of right and wrong, &c., the great Creator chose, or selected Abram, as the head of a new family, to whom, in successive generations, He communicated certain things, which have been handed down as a revelation from God to man, and are contained in what is now called the Old Testament. We learn that Abram, by command of the LORD, immediately left his kindred, save Lot, his brother's son, whom he took with him, and with Sarah his wife, journeyed to the land of Canaan. Here, with the exception of a short visit that he made into Egypt, Abraham, and his descendants, continued to dwell, until Jacob, and his son's with their families, went into Egypt; where they, and their children after them, continued to dwell, in their successive generations, until their deliverance

* That condition of the human mind that constitutes mental slavery, viz a timeserving subserviency to dogmatical opinions, is truly deplorable; and is, in amount, a "passive obedience" to human dogmas, and a state of "non-resistance" to sectarian ipsedixits. I am desirous of furnishing data to enable, and matter to stimulate, a certain description of readers to think for themselves!

from the bondage of the tyrant Pharaoh, by Moses and. Aaron, whom God had chosen for that purpose. And we learn, that after a journey of forty years, the Israelites arrived at the land of Canaan, the country of their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and continued to reside there, and in other parts of Palestine, until the destruction of their city of Jerusalem, and the Temple, by the Romans; when they were dispersed among all the nations of the earth.* Paul gives a lamentable account of the residue of mankind, who are contradistinguished as the Gentiles, or the nations, in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Profane history corroborates the Scripture account of the ignorance of God, and the gross idolatry of the Gentiles, or nations.

The first question, therefore, which we are to consider, is, What have been the opinions of ignorant and idolatrous men, respecting futurity? For I here lay down the position, that the Gentiles or nations, up to the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, by Jesus Christ and his disciples and apostles, were, without exception, ignorant of God, and idolatrous. And, as "life and immortality were brought to light" by Jesus Christ, at a certain period, within 1810 years, last past, it follows of necessity, that previously to that time, no nation, not even the nation of Jews or Israelites, had any certain knowledge or evidence of life, or immortality beyond the grave, in a future state. Let us now inquire,

What have been the opinions of men, respecting futurity? In order to a brevity that shall not tire the reader, I will state, without any ceremony, that it is my opinion, the Egyptians were the most ancient nation of whom we have any clear accounts, either from Sacred or profane history. I believe that both Sacred and profane history, award to the Egyptians the pre-eminence, in point of antiquity, of pretensions to a knowledge of the arts and sciences. The geographical position of Egypt, considered in reference to its proximity, or relative distance

* The occasional captivity of large numbers, or of a part of the Jews, etc., does not militate against my position. Palestine was the home, and the country of the Jews.

+ The reader is requested to consider the vast difference that exists, between a speculative opinion, that has no evidence for a foundation except conjecture, and exists only in sophisms; and positive facts, and testimony of an undoubted character. And this, Dr. Adam Clarke to the contrary notwithstanding. See Vol. I., note, p. 192.

from the plain of Shinar, where the dispersion of men happened, by the confusion of their languages, after the flood, taken into consideration with the fruitfulness, and advantages of the land of Egypt, anciently, go to corroborate this opinion. If any authentic history exists of a more ancient nation, skilled in the arts and sciences, etc., I am ignorant of such history.

What opinions did the ancient Egyptians have of futurity? They were rank idolaters in the day when Moses and Aaron led the Israelites out of Egypt. But they were learned, and had great experience in certain arts and sciences, appertaining to this world, at that time. We learn (Acts vii. 22,) that "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," &c. Having been educated under the patronage of Pharaoh's daughter, this account is a very reasonable one. Eusebius, and Diodorus Siculus,* both of whom flourished in the fourth century, have stated of the Egyptians, that they held to the opinion of the "immortality of the soul;" and also, that the Egyptians were the first who believed in, and advocated this hypothesis. This declaration goes to show that this opinion, in the fourth century, was considered a very ancient one, among the Egyptians of that day. The celebrated Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher, who was born about 586 years before Christ, resided twenty-five years in Eygpt; and there can be very little doubt of his borrowing the groundwork of his hypothesis of the transmigration of souls, from the Egyptians. They taught the dogma of the immortality of the soul; and Pythagoras devised a way of employing the immortal souls, after they had left their mortal bodies. This was an improvement on the Egyptian hypothesis. Lucian, a celebrated Greek writer, was appointed procurator of Egypt, by the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He was celebrated for his power of ridicule, and taking the hint from the Pythagorean and Egyptian hypothesis, etc., he condemned the souls of rich oppressors after they left their bodies, to be transmigrated into the bodies of asses, as a punishment. Mr. Balfour in his Essays, very properly remarks, that the Egyptians could not learn their hypothesis from Moses; and that this prophet never received this hypothesis from them as truth; for the reason that he has never

*He, the last named, was a Greek historian-he travelled into Egypt, and afterward settled at Rome.

mentioned it in all his writings. He quotes from Stanley, that "the Chaldaic philosophers taught the immortality of the soul, long before the days of Moses; and it seems universally allowed that the Chaldean, Egyptian, and heathen philosophers, in some shape or other, held it."

I will introduce one authority, which, I shall contend, is final on the subject, generally, viz: That the heathen, or pagan nations, or Gentiles, in ancient times, avowed the doctrine or opinion of the immortality of the soul of man. It is a matter of no consequence, whether the Chaldaic, or the Egyptian philosophers, first taught this opinion. That it was taught before any revelation was made to man, either in the Old or New Testament, of a future existence beyond the present life, is all I am desirous of proving; and this is done very easily. My witness is the divine Plato, as he has been called. Who has not read, "Plato, thou reasonest well!" &c., &c.*

PLATO was the most illustrious of all the Grecian philosophers; and the founder of the academic sect. He was born 430 years before Christ, and lived to the age of 80, or, as some authorities say, 83 years. His memory was honoured by statues and altars, and his birthday was long held as a festival. And it can be said of him, as an additional evidence of the esteem and regard of his countrymen, and posterity, that most of his works are extant. Plato travelled into Egypt, and learned the wisdom of the Egyptians. And he taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. I presume no one will call this fact in question.†

The reader is requested to remember, that the pagan doctrine is precisely the doctrine of our modern orthodox divines-pure, unadulterated heathenism! viz: "The immateriality and immortality of the soul of man." Neither the Old nor New Testament teach or admit any such doctrine; but on the contrary, the New Testament positively teaches a different doctrine, in clear language, viz: Luke xx. 35—37; John iii. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 46. And negatively, the Old Testament is full to the point, in contradicting the heathen hypothesis, that now constitutes the corner stone of the system of modern orthodoxy, viz: Gen. iii. 19; Ezek. xviii. 4, 20.

† Pherecydes, a Grecian philosopher, who lived as early as 600 years before Christ, on the authority of the Roman Cicero, was the first teacher of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. He also taught the metempsychosis. Pythagoras was a pupil of this philosopher; who, according to Josephus, studied in Egypt. Old Egypt appears to have been the hot-bed of ancient paganism; and is entitled to the credit of having originated some of the most prominent articles in the creeds of modern orthodoxy.

VOL. II.-9

My second question, From what sources have men's opinions of futurity been derived? will now come very apropos to the divine Plato, as his pagan contemporaries styled him.

"Plato, thou reasonest well!"

I never yet, however, obtained from Plato, nor from any other person, whether ancient or modern, so much as one reason, or any thing deserving the name of reason, for the opinion or hypothesis of the immateriality and immortality of the soul of man, as taught by Plato, and other pagans; and believed by modern orthodox infidels. Reader, don't be alarmed: keep your seat, "and let us reason together." If you catch me denying the revela tion of God, and the Gospel of Christ, call me an infidel. Mind what the Book says, "Read, then judge."* Please to take into your very serious consideration, one fact, which I will now present: Paul preached at Athens, the city where the divine Plato taught the doctrine of the immortality of the soul of man. At the time Paul preached to the Athenian philosophers, Plato's statues were standing erect on their pedestals, in sight of Paul and his hearers. And Plato's divine doctrine was the doctrine believed by Paul's hearers; or at least professed to be believed by them. And Paul, notwithstanding their or thodox faith, condemned them in toto; affirming, "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." Superstition signifies unreasonable hopes, or fears. Paul pronounced their hypothesis, of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul of man, unreasonable; and false, as a consequence of being superstitious. And Paul preached, as a substitute for their superstitious hypothesis, the doctrine of Christ, viz: "The resurrection of the dead." (Acts xvii.)

* There are two kinds of Infidels, viz: First-The honest Infidel, who openly avows his disbelief of the Scriptures, as containing or communicating any revelation from God to man. Second-There is a disguised Infidel, who cloaks his infidelity under a specious hypocrisy. (See 2 Cor. vi. 14-16; 1 Tim. v. 8.) A believer, by profession, in human dogmas, and the creeds and gospels of men, but an unbeliever and denier of the record that God hath given of his Son; (1 John v. 9-11,) and the testimony of Jesus, (John vi. 51; xii. 31, 32.) I am aware that this is dealing in plain English; and it is such that the reader is requested to receive; that the simple facts may be seen, stripped of the covering of hypocrisy, and naked, that the beast may be estimated justly.