did he introduce you here? did he not introduce you as subject to death, and as one to live on the earth with a little flesh, and to observe his administration and to join with him in the spectacle and the festival for a short time? Will you not then, as long as you have been permitted, after seeing the spectacle and the solemnity, when he leads you out, go with adoration of him and thanks for what you have heard and seen"?
Perhaps we may say that the conclusion of Epictetus about the soul after the separation from the body is equivalent to a declaration that he knew nothing about it; as he disclaims sometimes the knowledge of other things. We cannot assume that in the books which are lost he expressed any opinions which are inconsistent with those contained in the books which exist. He must have known the opinion of Socrates about the immortality of the soul, or the opinion attributed to Socrates; but he has not said that he assents to it, nor does he express dissent from it. Bp. Butler in his Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed (Part I. Of Natural Religion, Chap. I. of a Future Life) has examined the question of a Future Life with his usual modesty, good sense and sagacity. The inquiry is very difficult. He says at the end of the chapter: "The credibility of a future life, which has been here insisted on, how little soever it may satisfy our curiosity, seems to answer all the purposes of religion, in like manner as a demonstrative proof would. Indeed, a proof, even a demonstrative one, of a future life, would not be a proof of religion. For, that we are to live hereafter, is just as reconcileable with the scheme of atheism, and as well to be accounted for by it, as that we are now alive is; and therefore nothing can be more absurd than to argue from that scheme that there can be no future state. But as religion implies a future state, any presumption against such a state is a presumption against religion."
