« AnteriorContinua »
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 nor 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.
END OF THE FIFTH BOOK,
A P P E N D I X.
LATE noble and voluminous Author *, who
hath written with more than ordinary spleen against the RELIGION OF HIS COUNTRY, as it is founded io 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 omnission 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 NOT BE
LIEVE THE IMMORTALITY OF THE Soci, nor the “ rewards and punishments of another life, though it " is possible he might have learnt these Doctrines * froin the Egyptians, whO TAUGHT TIEM VERY
" EARLY, EARLY, perhaps as they taught that of the Unity of “ God. When I say, that Nloses did not believe the
innmortality of the soul, nor future rewards and pu" nishments, my reason is this, that he taught neither, “ when he had to do with a people whom 'a Theocracy “ could not restrain; and on whom, therefore, terrors " of Punishment, future 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. Here we have a DOCTRINE, confessed to be plausible in itself, and therefore of easy achnittance; most alluring to human 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 eflicacy on the minds of an unruly People, and therefore of indispensable usc; Yet, all this notwithstanding, Moses did not believe it, and, on that account, would not touch it.---But then, had Moses's integrity been so severe, How came he to write a History which, my Lord thinks, is, in part at lcast, a fiction of his on'n? Did he belicte that? How came he to leave the Israelites, as my 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; wbich 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 as present, ETERNAL as well as temporary, could never be too much multiplied, or too strongly inculcated. No matter for that. Moses, as other men may, on a sudden grows • Vol. iii. p. 2892
scrupulous; scrupulous; and so, together with the maxims of common politics, throu's aside the principles of common sense; and when he liad employed all the other inventions of fraud, he boggles at this, which best served his purpose; was most innocent in itself; and was most important in its general, as well as par. ticular use.
In his Lordship's next Volume, this mission comes again upon the stage; and then we have another reason assigned for Nioses's conduct in this matter. " MOSES would not teach the Doctrine of the im. “ mortality of the soul, and of a fulure state, on “ account of the many superstitions which this Doc“ trine had begot in Egypt, as we must believe, or “ believe that he knew nothing of it, or ASSIGN SOME
WHIMSICAL REASON FOR HIS OMISSION*."
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 begat superstitions ; or becalise he knew nothing of it; or you will allow neither of these, you must have recourse, he tells you, to Warburton's WHIMSICAL REASON, that the Jeu's were under an extraordinary Proridence.
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, omitted a future stute an account of the many supersti!ions, which this doctrine liud 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 nunber of which were distinction between things clean und unclean; an hereditary Priesthood; sacerdotal habits; and Rites of sacrifice.
2. Ilowever, he has another reason for the omission: Moses might linow nothing of it. To which, if I only opposed bis 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 inrocation of the dead; which necessarily implies, 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 Lordslip's two reasons, we are now abandoned by him, and left to follow our own inventions, or to take up with some WADUSICAL REASON FOR THE OJISSIOX; that is, to allow that, as the Jews were under an extraordinary Providence, Moses in quality of Lawgiver had yo 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.