« AnteriorContinuar »
again into the substance of the dunghill from whence it arose, and from which, not the same, but another mushroom shall, in time, arise. In a word, neither Unbelievers por Believers will allow to these middle men that a new-existing Soul, which is only a quality resulting from a glorified body, can be identically the same with an annihilated Soul, which had resulted from an earthly body. But perhaps, as Hudibras had discovered the Receptacle of the ghosts of defunct bodies, so these gentlemen may have found out the yet subtiler corner, where the ghosts of defunct quafities repose.
EYD OF THE FIFTH BOOK,
A LATE noble and voluminous Author *, who
1 hạth written with more than ordinary splecn against the RELIGION OF HIS COUNTRY, as it is founded in Revelation and established by Law, hath attacked with more than ordinary fury the Author of The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated, and of The Alliance between Church and State vindicated.
I shall shortly find a fitter place to examine his reasoning against the Alliance. At present let us see what he has to urge against the argumeyt of the Divine Legation, which is founded on these two facts, the omission of the Doctrine of a future State of Rewards and Punishments in the Mosaic Dispensation; and the administration of an extraordinary Providence in the same Dispensation.
His Lordship begins with the OMISSION, which he acknowledges : and to evade the force of the argument arising from it, casts about for a reason, independent of the EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, to account for it.
His first solution is this,—“ Moses Did yoT BE“ LIEVE THE IMMORTALITY OF THE Soci, nor the “ rewards and punishments of another life, though it " is possible he might have Icarnt these Doctrines ** froin the Egyptians, WHO TAUGIT TIEM VERY
“ EARLY, perhaps as they taught that of the Unity of “ God. When I say, that Nioses did not believe the “ inmortality of the soul, nor future rewards and puis nishments, my reason is this, that he taught neither, “ when he had to do with a people whom al Theocracy
could not restrain; and on whom, therefore, terrors
of Punishment, futitre as well as present, eternal “ as well as temporary, could never be too much “ multiplied, or too strongly inculcated *.”
This reasoning is altogether worthy of his Lordship. Ilcre we have a DOCTRINE, confessed to be plausible in itself, and therefore of easy admittance; most alluring to hurnan nature, and therefore embraced by all mankind; of highest account among the Egyptians, and therefore ready to be embraced by the Israelites, who were fond of Egyptian notions; of strongest etlicacy on the minds of an unruly People, and therefore of indispensable use; Yet, all this notwithstanding, Moscs did not believe it, and, on that account, would not teach it. But then, had loses's integrity been so severe, How came be to write a History which, my Lord thinks, is, in part at least, a fiction of liis own? Did he believe that? How came he to leave the Israelites, as iny Lord assures us he did, in possession of many of the superstitious opinions of Egypt? did he believe these too? No, but they served his purpose; which was, The better governing an unruly People, Well, but his Lordship tells us, the doctrine of a future state served this purpose best of all; for having to do with a Prople whom a Theocracy could not restrain, terrors of punishment, FUTURE as well us present, ETERNAL as well as temporary, could never be too much Inultiplied, or too strongly inculcated. No matter for that, Moses, as other men may, on a sudden grows * Val. iii. p. 289.
scrupulous; and so, together with the maxims of cominon politics, throw's aside the principles of common sense; and when he had emploved all the other inventions of fraud, he bougles at this, which best served his purpose ; was most innocent in itself; and was most important in its general, as well as particular use.
In his Lordship's next Volume, this Omission comes again upon the stage; and then we have another reason assigned for Moses's conduct in this matter. " Moses would not teach the Doctrine of the im. “ mortality of the soul, and of a future state, on “ account of the many superstitions which this Doc“ trine had begot in Egypt, as we must believe, or “ beliece that he knew nothing of it, or ASSIGN SOJE “ WHIMSICAL REASON FOR LIIS OMISSIO3*."
We have seen before, that loses onnitted a future state, because he did not believe it. This reason is now out of date; and one or other of the three following is to be assigned; either because it begot superstitions ; or becalise he knew nothing of it; or if you will allow neither of these, vou must have recourse, he tells you, to Warburton's WIMSICAL REASOX, that the Jeas piere under an extraordinary Proria dence.
Let us take him then, at his word, without expecting however, that he will stand to it; and having shown his two first reasons not worth a rush, leave the last, established, even on his own concessions.
1. Moses, says he, cited a future state on account of the many supersti!icns, which this doctrine luud begot in Egypt. But if the omission stands upon this principle, Moses must have omitted an infinite number of things, which, Lord Bolingbroke says, le borrowed of
• Vol. iv. p. 470.
the Egyptians ; part of which, in bis Lordship's opinion, were those very superstitions, which this Doctrine had begot ; such as the notion of TUTELARY DEITIES : and part, what arose out of that notion; in the number of which were distinction between things clean and unclean; an hereditary Priesthood; sacerdotal habits; and Rites of sacrifice.
2. However, he lias another reason for the omission : Moses might knowo nothing of it. To which, if I only opposed his Lordship's own words in another place, where (giving us the reasons why Moses did know something of a future state) he observes, there are certain rites, which seem to allude or have a remote relation to this very doctrine *, it might be deemed sufficient. But I will go further, and observe, that, from the very LAW's of Moses themselves, we have an internal evidence of his knowledge of this doctrine. Amongst the Laws against Gentile Divinations, there is one directed against that species of them, called by the Greeks, NECROMANCY, or intocation of the dead; which necessarily implics, in the Lawgiver who forbids it, as well as in the offender who uses it, the knowledge. of a future state.
3. This being the fate of his Lordship's two reasons, we are now abandoned by him, and left to follow our own inventions, or to take up with souE WHIMSICAL. REASON FOR TIIE OMISSION; that is, to allow that, as the Jews were under an extraordinary Providence, Moses in quality of Lawgiver had vo OCCASION for the doctrine of a future state.
However, his Lordship, dissatisfied, as well he. might, with the solutions hitherto proposed, returns again to the charge; and in his Corona operis, the book of FRAGMENTS, more openly opposes the • Vol. v. p. 239. ,