superstitious Rites and fabulous circumstances, which, he tells us, then attended the popular notion of such a State? If, for the hardness of their hearts, they were indulged in several observances and customs, which only led in consequence to Polytheism and Idolatry, Why, for the same hardness of heart, were they not indulged with the doctrine of a future state, which did not lead, but by a very remote consequence, to Polytheism and Idolatry? Especially since this hardness of heart would less bear denying them a pocTRINE SO alluring to the human mind, than denying them a RITE, to which habit only and old custom had given an occasional propensity. Again, those Rites indulged to the People, for the hardness of their hearts, had, in themselves, little use or tendency to advance the ends of the Jewish Dispensation; but rather retarded them: Whereas a future state, by his Lordship's own confession, is most useful to all Religions, and therefore incorporated into all the Systems of Paganism; and was particularly useful to the Israelites, who were, he says, both a rebellious and a superstitious People: dispositions, which not only made it necessary to omit nothing that might inforce obedience, but likewise facilitated the reception and supported the influence of the doctrine in question.

The Reader has here the whole of his Lordship's boasted Solution of this important Circumstance of the OMISSION, in the Mosaic Law. And he sees how vainly this Resolver of doubts labours to elude its force. Overwhelmed, as it were, with the weight of so irresistible a Power, after long wriggling to get free, he at length crawls forth; but so maimed and broken, so impotent and fretful, that all his remaining strength is in his venom. And this, he now sheds in abundance over the whole Mosaic Economy. It is pronounced

pronounced to be a gross imposture; and this very circumstance of the OMISSION is given as an undoubted proof of the accusation.

"Can we be surprised then (says his Lordship) "that the Jews ascribed to the all-perfect Being, on "various occasions, such a conduct and such Laws as

are inconsistent with his most obvious perfections? "Can we believe such a conduct and such Laws to "have been his, on the word of the proudest and

most lying Nation in the world? Many other con"siderations might have their place here. But I shall "confine myself to one; which I do not remember to "have seen nor heard urged on one side, nor ANTI.66 CIPATED on the other. To shew then, the more evidently, how ABSURD, as well as IMPIOUS it is to "ascribe these Mosaical Laws to God, let it be con"sidered, that NEITHER the people of Israel, nor "their Legislator perhaps, KNEW ANY THING OF "ANOTHER LIFE, wherein the crimes committed in "this life are to be punished. Although he might "have learned this Doctrine, which was not so much a secret doctrine, as it may be presumed that the Unity of the supreme God was, amongst the Egyp"tians. Whether he had learned both or either, or "neither of them in those schools, cannot be deter"mined: BUT THIS MAY BE ADVANCED WITH

ASSURANCE; If MOSES knew, that crimes, and "therefore Idolatry, one of the greatest, were to be punished in another life, he deceived the people in "the Covenant they made, by his intervention, with "God. If he did not know it, I say it with horror, "the consequence, according to the hypothesis I oppose, "must be, that God deceived both him and them. In "either case, a covenant or bargain was made, wherein "the conditions of obedience and disobedience were

"not

not fully, nor by consequence, fairly stated. The "Israelites had better things to hope, and worse to "fear, than those which were expressed in it: and "their whole history seems to shew how much need they had of these additional motives to restrain them from Polytheism and Idolatry, and to answer the "assumed Purposes of Divine Providence *.

66

This argument, advanced with so much assurance, his Lordship says, he does not remember to have seen, or heard urged on one side, nor anticipated on the other. A gentle reproof, as we are to understand it, of the Author of the Divine Legation: for none but He, I think, could anticipate an objection to an ARGUMENT which none but He had employed. However, though it be now too late to anticipate, we have still time enough to answer.

46

Let it be considered (says his Lordship) that perhaps Moses KNEW NOTHING of another life, wherein the crimes committed in this life are to be punished.-Considered by whom? Not by his Lordship, or his kind Readers for his former reasoning, which I will here again repeat, had brought them to consider otherwise. These are his words: "Many probable reasons might "be brought to shew, that this was an Egyptian doc"trine before the Exode; and this particularly, that it was propagated from Egypt, so soon at least after"wards, by all those who were instructed LIKE MOSES, in the wisdom of that People. He trans"ported much of this wisdom into the scheme of Religion and Government which he gave the "Israelites; and, among other things, certain Rites, "which SEEM TO ALLUDE, OR HAVE A REMOTE RELATION, TO THIS DOCTRINE." This possibly might have recurred to his Lordship, while he was + Vol. v. pp. 328, 9.

46

* Vol. v. pp. 194, 195.

boasting

boasting of his new and unanticipated objection; and therefore, in the tricking it up amongst his FRAGMENTS, to his perhaps, he adds, by a very happy corrective, although Moses might have learnt this Doctrine, which WAS NOT SO MUCH A SECRET doctrine, as it may be presumed that the Unity of the supreme God was amongst the Egyptians. But he had done better to leave his contradictions uncorrected, and trust to the rare sagacity of his Readers to find them out. He had ever an ill hand at reconciling matters; so in the case before us, in the very act of covering one contradiction, he commits another. He is here speaking of a future state, divested of its fabulous circumstances; Perhaps, says he, MOSES KNEW NOTHING OF ANOTHER LIFE -Which was NOT SO MUCH A SECRET doctrine as that of the Unity. Now, Reader, turn back a moment, to the long quotation from his 239th page, and there thou wilt find, that a future state, divested of its fabulous circumstances, WAS AS MUCH A SECRET Doctrine, as that of the Unity." There is reason to believe, "that natural Theology and natural Religion were "INWARD doctrines amongst the Egyptians. MOSES "might be let into a knowledge of BOTH by being "initiated into those Mysteries where the secret doc"trine alone was taught. But we cannot imagine, "that the Children of Israel in general enjoyed the

same privilege. No, they knew nothing more than "the outside of the Egyptian Religion: and if the "Doctrine we speak of [A FUTURE STATE] was "known to them, it was known only in the super"stitious Rites, and with all the fabulous circumstances, "in which it was dressed up and presented to vulgar "belief."-Is not this, now, a plain declaration, that a future state, divested of its fabulous circumstances, was as much a secret Doctrine as the doctrine of the Unity?

But

But his Lordship's contradictions are the least of my concern. It is his present Argument I have now to do with: And this, he says, he advances WITH ASSURANCE. It is fit he should. Modesty would be

very ill bestowed on such opinions.

He thinks he can reduce those who hold no future state in the Jewish Economy, to the necessity of owning, that MOSES, or that GOD himself, acted unfairly by the Israelites. How so, You ask? Because One or Other of them concealed that state. And what if they did? Why then they concealed one of the actual Sanctions of moral conduct, future punishment, But who told him, that this, which, he confesses, was no sanction of the Jewish Law, was yet a Sanction in the moral conduct of the Jewish People? Who, unless the ARTIFICIAL THEOLOGER? the man he most despises and decries.

And, even in artificial Theology, there is nothing but the CALVINISTICAL tenet of Original Sin, which gives the least countenance to so monstrous an opinion; every thing in the GOSPEL, every thing in NATURAL THEOLOGY, exclaims against it.

JESUS, indeed, to prove that the departed Israelites still existed, quotes the title God was pleased to give himself, of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and this, together with their existence, proves likewise the happiness of their condition: for the relation they are said to stand in with God, shews them to be of his Kingdoni. But we must remember, that the question with his Lordship is, not of reward, but punishment. Again, JESUS speaks (indeed in a parable) of the deceased rich man, as in a place of torment. But we must remember that the scene was laid at a time when the Doctrine of a future state was become national. To know our heavenly Master's sentiments on the VOL. V, question