Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX.

A

LATE noble and voluminous Author *, who hath written with more than ordinary 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 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 argument 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 NOT BELIEVE 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 TAUGHT THEM VERY

Lord Bolingbroke.

“EARLY,

66

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"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**

[ocr errors]

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 efficacy 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 least, a fiction of his own? Did he believe 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; 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 sudden grows, Vol. iii. p. 289.

scrupulous;

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 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

[ocr errors]

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 "believe that he knew nothing of it, or ASSIGN SOME WHIMSICAL REASON FOR HIS OMISSION*.

66

We have seen before, that MOSES omitted 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 because he knew nothing of it; or if you will allow neither of these, you must have recourse, he tells you, to Warburton's WHIMSICAL REASON, that the Jews were under an extraordinary Providence.

Let us take him then, at his word, without expecting however, that he will stand to it; and having shewn his two first reasons not worth 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. iv. p. 470.

the

the Egyptians; part of which, in his 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 has another reason for the omission: MOSES might know 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 LAWS 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 invocation 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 Lordship's two reasons, we are now abandoned by him, and left to follow our own inventions, or to take up with SOME WHIMSICAL REASON FOR THE OMISSION; that is, to allow that, as the Jews were under an extraordinary Providence, MOSES in quality of Lawgiver had NO 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.

doctrine

doctrine of the Divine Legation; and enlarges and ex patiates upon the reason before given for the omission; namely, the many superstitions this doctrine had begotten in Egypt.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"ONE CANNOT SEE WITHOUT SURPRIZE (says "his Lordship) a doctrine so useful to ALL Religion, " and therefore incorporated into ALL the Systems of Paganism, left wholly out of that of the JEWS. Many probable reasons, might be brought to shew, "that it was an Egyptian doctrine before the Exode, "and this particularly, that it was propagated from Egypt, so soon, at least, afterwards, by all those "who were instructed like MOSES, in the wisdom of

[ocr errors]

that People. He transported much of his Wisdom "into the scheme of Religion and Government, "which he gave the Israelites; and, amongst other

things, certain Rites, which may seem to allude, or "have a remote relation to, this very doctrine. Though "this doctrine, therefore, had not been that of ABRA HAM, ISAAC, and JACOB, he might have adopted "it with as little scruple, as he did many customs and "institutions mercly Egyptian. He had to do with

66

66

a rebellious, but a superstitious, people. In the "first Character, they made it necessary that he "should neglect nothing which might add weight to "his ordinances, and contribute to keep them in awe. "In the second, their disposition was extremely proper

[ocr errors]

to receive such a doctrine, and to be influenced by it. Shall we say that an hypothesis of future re"wards and punishments, was USELESS among a People who lived under a Theocracy, and that the "future Judge of other People, was their immediaté "Judge and King, who resided in the midst of them; "and who dealed out rewards and punishments on

[ocr errors]

every occasion? Why then were so many precau

« PreviousContinue »