Collins, &c. And he who can treat us with it at this time of day, has either never read CLARKE and BAXTER on the subject (in which he had been better employed than in writing upon it), or never understood them. So far as to the abstract truth. Let us consider next the practical consequences. Convince the philosophic Libertine that the Soul is a quality arising out of matter, and vanisliing on the dissolution of the form, and then see if ever you can bring him to believe the Christian Doctrine of the RESURRECTION! While he held the Soul to be an immaterial substance, existing, as well in its separation from, as in its con, junction with, the body, and he could have no reason, arising from the Principles of true Philosophy, to stagger in his belief of this revealed Doctrine.-Thou fcol, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die *, is good philosophy as well as good divinity: for if the body, instead of its earthly nature, were to have a heavenly, it must needs pass through death and corruption to qualify it for that change. But when this body died, what occasion was there for the Soul, which was to suffer no change, to fall asleep?

But their sleep of the Soul is mere cant: and this brings me to the last consideration, the sense and con *sistency of so ridiculous a notion. They go, as we observed, upon the Sadducean principle, that the Soul is a quality of body, not a substance of itself, and so dies with its substratum. Now sleep, is a modification of Existence, not of non-existence; so that though the sleep of a Substance hath a meaning, the sleep of a quality is nonsense. And if ever this Soul of theirs re-exerts its faculties, it must be by means of a REPRODUCTION, not by a mere AWA KING; and they may as well talk of the SLEEP of a mushroom turned * St. Paul. (1 Cor. xv. 36.)


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 qua

{ities repose:



A P P E N D I X.


LATE noble and voluminous Author *, wlio

hath written with more than ordmary spleen 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 rundicated.

I shall shortly find a sitter place to examine his reasoning against the Alliance. At present let us see what he has to urge against the argument of the Divine Legation, which is founded on these two facts, the. omission of the Doctrine of a futuré State of Rewards and Punishments in the Mosaic Dispensation; and the administration of an extraordinary Providence in the saine 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 Soul, nor the ** rewards and punishments of another life, though it “ is possible he might have learnt these Doctrines " from the Egyptians, WHO TAUGIIT TIEJ VERY

Lord Bolingbroke.




[ocr errors]

EARLY, perhaps as they taught that of the Unity of " God. When I say, that Moses did not believe the

inmortality of the soul, nor future rewards and pu- . “ nishn.ents, 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, eternul

well as temporary, could never be too inuch “ 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 admittance; 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 eficacy on the minds of an unruly People, and therefore of indispensable use; Yet, all this notwithstanding, Moses did not believe it, and, on that account, would not teach 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 Icast, a fiction of his own? Did he believe that? How came he 'to leave the Israelites, as my Lord assures us lie, 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 People 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 sụdden grows. * Vol. iii. p. 289



scrupulous; and so, together with the maxims of common politics, throws aside the principles of common sense; and when he had 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 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, 01? 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 SOM E WHIMSICAL REASON FOR HIS OMISSION*

We have seen before, that Moses onnitted a future state, because he did not believe it. This reason is now out of date; and one or other of the three follow's ing is to be assigned; either because it begot superstitions ; or because he knew nothing of it; or if you svill allow neither of these, you must have secourse, he tells you, to Warburton's WHIMSICAL REASON, that the Jews were under an extrącrdinary Providence.

Let us take him then, at his word, without expçeting however, that he will stand to it; and having shewn his two first reasons not wortir a rush, leave the last, established, even on his own concessions.

1. Moses, says he, omitted a future state on account of the many superstitions, which this doctrine had begot in Egypt." But if the omission stands upon this principle, Moses must have omitted an infinite number of things, which, Lord Bolingbroke says, he borrowed of

• Vol. iy. p. 470.


« ForrigeFortsett »