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 Egyp‐ tians. Moses might be let into a knowledge of BOTH by being initiated into those Mysteries where the secret doctrine 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 superstitious 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 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 Oeconomy, 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 Kingdom. 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 question of subjection to an unknown Sanction, we should do well to consider his words, "The servant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." Now the will of a Master or Sovereign, declared in his Laws, never includes in

Luke xii. 47, 48.

it more than the Sanctions of those Laws. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly distinguishes the sanction of the Jewish law from that of the Gospel; and makes the difference to consist in this, that the one was of temporal punishments, and the other of future. He that despised Moses's Law DIED without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how MUCH SORER PUNISHMENT, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the son of God? Which appeal is without common sense or honesty, on a supposition that the Apostle held the Jews to be subject to future punishments, before that Sanction was promulged amongst them. From the GOSPEL therefore it cannot be inferred, that the Israelites, while only following the Law of Moses, in which the sanction of a future state is not found, were liable or subject to the punishments of that state.

Let us see next, Whether NATURAL THEOLOGY, or natural Religion (as his Lordship is pleased, for some reason or other, to distinguish the terms), hath taught us, that a people, living under an extraordinary Providence or the immediate government of God, to whom he had given a Law and revealed a Religion, both supported by temporal sanctions only, could be deemed subject to those future punishments, unknown to them, which natural Religion before, and revealed Religion since, have discovered to be due to bad men living under a common Providence.

NATURAL RELIGION standeth on this Principle, "That the Governor of the Universe REWARDS and PUNISHES moral Agents." The length or shortness of human existence comes not primarily into the idea of Religion; not even into that compleat idea of Religion delivered by St. Paul, in his general definition of it. The Religionist, says he, must believe that God is, and that he IS A REWARDER of those who seek him.

While God exactly distributed his rewards and punishments here, the light of reason directed men to look no further for the Sanctions of his Laws. But when it came to be seen, that He was not always a Rewarder and a Punisher here, men necessarily concluded, from his moral attributes, that he would be so hereafter: and consequently, that this life was but a small portion of the human duration. Men had not yet speculated on the permanent nature of the Soul: And when they did so, that consideration, which, under an ordinary Providence, came strongly in aid of the moral argument for another life, had no tendency, under the extraordinary, to open to them the prospects of futurity: because, though they saw the Soul unaffected by those causes which brought the body to destruction, yet they held it to be equally dependent on the Will of the Creator: Who, amongst the various means of its dissolution (of which they had no idea), had, for aught they knew, provided one, or more than one, for that purpose.

:

In this manner was a FUTURE STATE brought, by natural light, into Religion and from thenceforth became a necessary part of it. But under the Jewish THEOCRACY, God was an exact Rewarder and Punisher, here. Natural light therefore evinced that under such an administration, the subjects of it did not become liable to future Punishments till this sanction was known amongst them.

Heb. x. 28, 29.

Thus NATURAL and REVEALED RELIGION shew, that his Lordship calumniated both, when he affirmed, that, according to the hypothesis he opposed, MOSES DECEIVED the people in the Covenant they made, by his intervention, with God: Or that, if Moses did not know the doctrine of a future state, then GOD DECEIVED both him and them.

Should it be asked, how God will deal with wicked men thus dying under the Mosaic Dispensation? I will answer, in the words of Dr. Sam. CLARKE, on a like occasion. He had demonstrated a self-moving Substance to be immaterial, and so, not perishable like Bodies. But as this demonstration included the Souls of irrational animals, it was asked, "How these were to be disposed of, when they had left their respective habitations?" To which he very properly replies, "Certainly, the omnipotent and infinitely wise God may, without any great difficulty, be supposed to have more ways of disposing of his Creatures" [I add, with perfect justice and equity, and with equal measure, to all his creatures as well accountable as unaccountable]" than we are, at present, let into the secret of."*—But if the Author of the Divine Legation has not promised more than he can perform (as his long delay gives his well-wishers cause to suspect and his illwishers to hope) this matter will be explained at large, in his account of the SCRIPTURE Doctrine of the REDEMPTION, which, he has told us, is to have a place in his last Volume.

Nothing now remains of this objection but what relates to the sanction of future rewards: And I would by no means deprive the faithful Israelites of these. His Lordship therefore has this to make his best of: and, in his opinion, the bestowing even of a reward, to which one has no title, is foul dealing; for he joins it with punishment, as if his consequence, against God's justice and goodness, might be equally deduced from either of them: -A covenant, says he, was made, wherein the conditions of obedience and disobedience were 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. Though it be hard on a generous Benefactor to be denied the right of giving more than he had promised; it is still harder on the poor Dependant, that he is not at liberty to receive more. True it is, that, in this case, the conditions are not FULLY stated; and therefore, according to his Lordship's Logic, BY CONSEQUENCE NOT Fairly. To strengthen this Consequence, his Lordship concludes in these words-And their whole History seems to show how much need they had of these additional motives [future Rewards and Punishments] to restrain them from Polytheism and Idolatry, and to answer the ASSUMED purposes of Divine Providence.

Whoever puts all these things together—“ That Moses was himself of the race of Israel—was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt-and capable of freeing his People from their Yoke-that he brought them within sight of the promised Land; a fertile Country, which they were to conquer and inhabit that he instituted a system of Laws, which has been the admiration of the wisest men of all ages-that he understood the doctrine of a FUTURE STATE; and, by his knowledge gained in Egypt, was not ignorant ⚫ Octavo "Tracts against Dodwell and Collins," p. 103.

of the efficacy of it in general; and by his full experience of the rebellious and superstitious temper of his own People, could not but see how useful it would have been to them in particular."—Whoever, I say, puts all these things together (and all these things are amongst his Lordship's CONCESSIONS) and at the same time considers, that MOSES, throughout his whole system of Law and Religion, is entirely silent concerning a future state of Rewards and Punishments, will, I believe, conclude, that there was something more in the OMISSION than Lord BOLINGBROKE could fathom, or, at least, was willing to discover.

But let us turn from Moses's conduct, (which will be elsewhere considered at large) to his Lordship's, which is our present business.

1. First, he gives us his conjectures, to account for the Omission, exclusive of Moses's Divine Legation: but, as if dissatisfied with them himself (which he well might be, for they destroy one another),

2. He next attempts, you see, to prove, that the Legation could not be divine, from this very circumstance of the omission.

3. But now he will go further, and demonstrate that an EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, Such a one as is represented by Moses, and which, the Author of the Divine Legation has proved, from the circumstance of the OMISSION, was actually administered in the Jewish Republic, could not possibly be administered, without destroying free will; without making Virtue servile; and without relaxing universal benevolence.

4. And lastly, to make all sure, he shuts up the account by shewing, that an extraordinary Providence could answer no reasonable end or

purpose.

In his first and last order of evasions, he seems to be alone; but in the second and third, he had the pleasure of seeing many an orthodox Writer against the Divine Legation in CONFEDERACY with him, to use his Lordship's language, when he speaks of the good understanding between DIVINES and ATHEISTS.

I have examined his first and second order. The third and fourth remain to be considered; it is the last refuge of his infidelity.

1. His principal objection to the administration of an extraordinary Providence, such as MOSES promised to his people, on the part of GOD, is, that it would DESTROY FREE-WILL. But here let me observe, that he affects to disguise the immediate Object of his attack; and, in arguing against an extraordinary Providence, chuses to consider it in the general, as the point rises out of an imaginary dispute between Himself and the Divines; who, he pretends, are dissatisfied with the present order of things, and require, as the terms of their acquiescence in God's government, the administration of an equal Providence, here. But, this obliquity in disguising the true object of his attack, not being of itself sufficient to embarras the question, he further supports it by a prevarication: for it is not true, that Divines are dissatisfied with the present order of things, or that they require a better. All the ground they ever gave his Lordship for imputing this scandal to them, being only their assertion, "That if the present state be the whole of Man's existence, then the justice of God would have more

exactly dispensed good and evil here: but, as he has not done so, it follows that there will be a state of Rewards and Punishments hereafter."

This premised, I proceed to his first objection,-" In good earnest " (says his Lordship)" is a system of particular providences, in which the supreme Being, or his Angels, like his Ministers to reward, and his Executioners to punish, are constantly employed in the affairs of mankind, much more reasonable?" [than the Gods of EPICURUS or the morals of POLEMO]. "Would the JUSTICE of God be more MANIFEST in such a state of things than in the present? I see no room for MERIT on the part of Man, nor for JUSTICE on the part of God, in such a state." *

His Lordship asks, whether the Justice of God would be more manifest in such a state of things, where good is constantly dispensed to the virtuous, and evil to the wicked, than in the present, where good and evil happen indifferently to all men? If his Lordship, by the present state of things, includes the rectification of them in a future state, I answer, that the justice of God would not be more manifest, but equally and fully manifest in either case. If his Lordship does not include this rectification in a future state, then I answer his question by another: Would the justice of the Civil Magistrate be more manifest, where he exactly dispenses rewards to good men, and punishment to evil, than where he suffers the Cunning and the Powerful to carve for themselves?

But he sees no room for merit on the part of Man, nor Justice on the part of God. If he does not see, it is his own fault. It is owing to his prevaricating both with himself and his Reader; to the turning his view from the Scripture-representation of an equal Providence, to the iniquities of Calvinistical election, and to the partialities of Fanatics concerning the favoured workings of the Spirit; and to his giving these to the reader, in its stead. How dextrously does he slide Enthusiasm and Predestination into the Scripture doctrine of an equal Providence!-If some men were DETERMINED TO GOODNESS by the secret workings of the Spirit, &c. Yes indeed, if you will be so kind to allow him, that under an equal Providence, the Will is over-ruled, he will be able to shew you, there is an end of all merit and demerit. But this substituting ARTIFICIAL THEOLOGY (as he calls it when he is in an humour to abuse it) in the place of bible-theology, is his usual leger-de-main. So again,-I can conceive still less, that individual Creatures before they have done either good or evil, nay, before their actual existence, can be the objects of predilection or aversion, of love or hatred to God. Who, of the Gospel-Divines, against whom he is here writing, would have him conceive any thing of this at all? It is the ARTIFICIAL THEOLOGER, the depraver, as he says, of the Gospel, who would draw him into so absurd a system. But what has this exploded Theology, that abounds only in human inventions, to do with the extraordinary Providence, represented in holy Writ! To say, that this Providence takes away man's merit and God's justice, is confounding all our ideas of right and wrong. Is it not the highest merit of a rational creature to comply with that motive which has most real weight? And is not God's justice then most manifest when

Vol. v. pp. 425, 426.