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 ftate.

However, his Lordship diffatisfied, as well he might, with the folutions hitherto proposed, returns again to the charge; and in his Corona operis, the book of FRAGMENTS, more openly oppofes the doctrine of the Divine Legation; and enlarges and expatiates upon the reafon before given for the omiffion; namely, the many fuperftitions this doc trine bad begotten in Egypt.

"ONE CANNOT SEE WITHOUT SURPRIZE (fays "his Lordship) a doctrine fo useful to ALL Reli"gion, and therefore incorporated into ALL the "Systems of Paganism, left wholly out of that "of the Jews. Many probable reafons might be "brought to fhew, that it was an Egyptian doc"trine before the Exode, and this particularly, "that it was propagated from Egypt, fo foon, "at least, afterwards, by all those who were in"ftructed like Moses, in the wisdom of that Peo

ple. He tranfported much of his Wifdom into "the fcheme of Religion and Government, which "he gave the Ifraelites; and, amongst other

things, certain Rites, which may feem to al«lude, or have a remote relation to, this very "doctrine. Tho' this doctrine therefore, had "not been that of ABRAHAM, ISAAC, and JACOB, "He might have adopted it with as little fcruple, "as he did many customs and inftitutions merely VOL. IV.

Cc

66

Egyp

"Egyptian. He had to do with a rebellious, "but a fuperftitious, people. In the first Charac"ter, they made it neceffary that he fhould ne"glect nothing which might add weight to his or

te

dinances, and contribute to keep them in awe. "In the second, their difpofition was extremely "proper to receive fuch a doctrine, and to be in"fluenced by it. Shall we fay that an hypothefis of future rewards and punishments, was USELESS among a People who lived under a Theocracy, and that the future Judge of other People, was "their immediate Judge and King, who refided "in the midft of them, and who dealed out re"wards and punishments on every occafion? Why "then were fo many precautions taken? Why "was a folemn Covenant made with God, as with "a temporal Prince? Why were fo many pro"mifes and threatnings of rewards and punishments, temporal indeed, but future and con

tingent, as we find in the book of Deuteronomy, "moft pathetically held out by MOSES? Would "there have been any more impropriety in hold

86

ing out those of one kind than those of another, "because the fupreme Being, who difpofed and "ordered both, was in a particular manner pre"fent amongst them? Would an addition to the catalogue of rewards and punishments more re"mote, but eternal, and in all refpects far greater, "have had no effect? I think neither of these " things can be faid.

"What shall we fay then? How came it to pafs, "this addition was not made? I will mention what "occurs to me, and fhall not be over follicitous "about the weight that my reflections may deserve. "If the doctrines of the immortality of the foul and "of a future ftate had been revealed to MOSES, "that

"that he might teach them to the Ifraelites, he "would have taught them moft certainly. But he "did not teach them. They were therefore not "revealed to him. Why they were not fo reveal"ed fome PERT DIVINE OR OTHER WILL BE 66 READY TO TELL YOU. For me, I dare not pre"fume to guess. But this, I may presume to ad

vance, that fince thefe Doctrines were not re"vealed by God to his fervant MOSES, it is highly "probable that this Legiflator made a fcruple of

teaching them to the Ifraelites, how well fo66 ever inftructed he might be in them himself, "and howfoever ufeful to Government he might "think them. The fuperftitious and idolatrous "rites of the Egyptians, like thofe of other "nations, were founded on the Polytheism, and "the Mythology that prevailed, and were fuf"fered to prevail, amongst the Vulgar, and "that made the fum of their Religion. It "feemed to be a point of policy to direct all "thefe abfurd opinions and practices to the fer"vice of Government, inftead of attempting to "root them out. But then the great difference "between rude and ignorant nations and fuch as

''

were civilized and learned, like the Egyptians, "seems to have been this, that the former had "no other system of Religion than thefe abfurd "opinions and practices, whereas the latter had "an inward as well as an outward Doctrine. There "is reafon to believe that natural Theology and "natural Religion had been taught and practifed "in the ancient Theban Dynafty; and it is pro"bable that they continued to be an inward doc"trine in the reft of Egypt; while Polytheism,

Idolatry, and all the MYSTERIES, all the impie-
ties, and all the follies of Magic, were the out-
Cc 2
"ward

"ward doctrine. MOSES might be let into a knowledge of both; and under the patronage "of the Princefs, whofe Foundling he was,

might be initiated into thofe Mysteries, where "the fecret doctrine alone was taught, and the "outward exploded. But we cannot imagine that "the Children of Ifrael, in general, enjoyed the "fame privilege, nor that the Mafters were fo lavifh, to their Slaves, of a favour fo diftin

guifhed, and often fo hard to obtain. No. "The Children of Ifrael knew nothing more than "the outfide of the Religion of Egypt, and if the "doctrine, we fpeak of, was known to them, it "was known only in the fuperftitious rites, and " with all the fabulous circumftances in which it "was dreffed up and prefented to vulgar belief. "It would have been hard therefore to teach, or "to renew this Doctrine in the minds of the Ifrael"ites, without giving them an occafion the more, "to recal the polytheiftical fables, and practise the "idolatrous Rites they had learnt during their "Captivity. Rites and Ceremonies are often fo "equivocal, that they may be applied to very dif"ferent doctrines. But when they are fo closely "connected with one Doctrine that they are not "applicable to another, to teach the Doctrine is, "in fome fort, to teach the Rites and Ceremonies, "and to authorize the fables on which they are "founded. MOSES therefore being at liberty "to teach this doctrine of rewards and punishments in a future ftate, or not to teach it, might 66 very well choose the latter; tho' he indulged the "Ifraelites, on account of the hardness of their

hearts, and by the divine permiffion, as it is "prefumed, in feveral obfervances and cuftoms "which did not lead directly, tho' even they did

"fo

"fo perhaps in confequence, to the Polytheism and "Idolatry of Egypt."

What a Babel of bad reafoning has his Lordship here accumulated out of the rubbish of falfe and inconfiftent Principles! And all, to infult the Temple of God and the Fortrefs of Mount Sion. Sometimes, he reprefents MOSES as a divine Meffenger, and distinguishes between what was revealed, and what was not revealed, unto him; and then, a future ftate not being revealed to Moses was the reafon he did not teach it. Sometimes again, he confiders him as a mere human Lawgiver, acquiring all his knowledge of Religion and Politics from the Egyptians, in whofe fecret Learning he had been intimately inftructed; and then, the reason of the omiffion is, left the Doctrine of a future ftate should have drawn the Ifraelites into thofe Egyptian fuperftitions, from which, it was Moses's purpose to eftrange them. All these inconfiftencies in Fact and Reafoning, his Lordship delivers in the fame breath, and without the leaft intimation of any change in his Principles or Opinions.

But let us follow him step by step, without troubling our heads about his real fentiments. It is enough, that we confute all he fays, whether under his own, or any affurned Character.

He begins with confeffing, that ONE CANNOT SEE WITHOUT SURPRIZE, a doctrine fo ufeful to ALL Religions, and therefore incorporated into ALL the Systems of Paganism, left wholly out of that of the Jews.

a Vol. v. p. 238—9—40—41.

Cc 3

At