It feems not entirely confiftent in his Lordship, to affirm that no notion of a fu ture ceffe erat, fi modo de hac re omnino loqui et intelligi vellent! Lowth's Prælectiones Academicæ. P. 64, 65. Non eo quod permanere animos poft mortem NON CREDERENT, quod doctis quibufdam placuit. I would not willingly suppose the Author of the D. L. is here Squinted at; because he is fo far from afferting this opinion, that he afferts the direct contrary; and yet, notwithstanding his own plain and express Declaration, fome Writers have been profligate enough to charge him with this Doctrine. He talks, indeed, of fomebody who holds, hanc iis cognitionem INVIDERET divina Revelatio. But this is only, what, men call, and what Critics like him ufe, an expreffion ad invidiam. Nullam ibi animorum immortalium defcriptionem, aut explicate admodum factam mentionem reperiemus. Here he fuppofes that the facred Writers not only omit giving a defeription and particular account of future rewards and punishments, but that they never so much as mention them in plain and exprefs terms. But, Why not mention them in plain and exprefs terms? What hindered them from declaring, in fo many words, that good men were to enjoy a state of everlasting happiness in Heaven, and the wicked were to be configned to future punishments. The reafon, produced by the learned perfon, feems to be fhort and wide of his purpose. He obferves, that neither the People, nor their Teachers, had faculties proper to comprehend Ideas taken from the things fpiritual, or to understand the particular and precife nature of these ture life, but one that taught the post-existence of the Body, could be adapted to the fervice Admit they had future rewards and punishments. not. This holds only against a particular and defcriptive, but extends not to a plain, express, and general account of the state and condition of good and bad men after death. My Lord Bolingbroke pretends, that a fimple, general, and undefined Denunciation of future Punishments, would have been more for the honour of Revelation (a), than fuch a particular and defcriptive account as is given of them by Jefus Christ and his Apoftles, who represent them under the image of a Lake burning with Fire. Here then let the learned Profeffor tell us, why future punishments might not have been exhibited under the fame fenfible and material Image in the Old Teftament. To fay the Imagery was improper, would be arraigning Jefus Christ and his Apoftles, and saving the honour of the Law at the Expence of the Gofpel. It would indeed be confirming the objection which the noble Lord brought against the Gospel Doctrine of another life. On the other hand, if fuch material and fenfible images were not improper in the Gospel, why might they not have been ufed in the Old Teftament? For furely the grofs and carnal conftitution of the Law, did not require a more pure medium of conveyance, than the Spiritual one of the Gospel. As to the doctrine of future Punishments, we must recollect that the Jews were men of grofs imaginations and carnal appetites. Now a general undefined Denunciation of Hell, would not have had force enough to make the neceffary impreffion on persons thus difpofed, (a) V. 5. P. 187. fervice of Religion, and yet to affirm that this article of the Re-union of the Soul and pofed, or on a fenfual fancy agitated by Fear (a). Any account therefore of future punishments, which did not grow particular and defcriptive, would have had very little influence. To fuppofe therefore with the learned Writer, that the notion of future punishments was revealed; and yet not revealed under fenfible and material images, would be fuppofing that the Revelation was intended. to be of no real ufe or fignificancy. And, material and fenfible images, which were fo well adapted to the hear. ers, were no less natural to the Speakers. For the queftion is about the poetical Writers of the old Teftament. And what fhould make that language fuit the Hebrew, Poets fo ill, which, he fhews us, in this very page, fitted the Roman Poet fo well? Infernas referet fedes, et regna recludat Pallida, Dîs invifa; fuperque immane barathrum But, he seems to imagine, that the facred Writers were not to make ufe of material and fenfible images when they were speaking of things fpiritual, or to fay any thing but what was strictly true according to the Letter. Whence then is it, that they so often fpeak of the Out-firetched Arm, and the All-feeing Eye of God, and adopt other metaphorical and figurative Expreffions, which, according to the literal fignification, are abominable and impious. How can we fuppofe that any other fpiritual fubject would have been dishonoured by Metaphorical and Fi (a) View of L. Bolingbroke's Philosophy, Letter Ift. P. 53. fus Chrift. and Body was reserved to be revealed by JeSurely the publication of a circumftance, Figurative Expreffions, if the fupreme Being was not? The learned Writer maintains, that not only a future ftate, but the doctrine of the Refurrection, had been revealed to the ancient Jews (a). And to what purpose was it revealed, but to be taught and inculcated by the public Minifters of Religion? Why therefore do they not invite men to Obedience by the promise of an Inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, referved in the Heaven and by the Profpect of a Crown of Glory, which God had prepared for those that love him? And why alfo did they not inform them that the Body "was fown in "weakness, and raised in power, was fown in corrup ❝tion, and raised in Glory; was fown a natural Body, ❝ and raised a spiritual Body"? It is as natural to look for fuch Declarations in the old as in the new Teftament, on the fuppofition that the doctrine of the Refurrection, and a future ftate, was revealed to the ancient Jews. Cum itaque viderent corpora vita functa in terram cadere eoque modo quo dictum eft fepulchro condi, percrebuit apud Hebræos, ut apud cæteros etiam, Opinio quædam popularis, fub terra reliqua vitam agi mortuorum ; quam ut adfcifcerent vates facri etiam neceffe erat, fi modo de hac re omnino loqui et intelligi vellent, The opinion which fuppofed fub terra reliquam vitam agi mortuorum, is inconfiftent with the notion of the Rcfurrection. And can we believe, with this learned perfon, that the facred Writers would have been obliged to adopt a popular opinion, which, according to him, contradicted a revealed doctrine? Cer (a) Perfuafiffimum erat animos non interire, et cerpara etiam in vitam effe reditura, p. 63. cumftance, neceffary to be known in the very first ages, fhould not have been deferred to the laft. It Certainly they would not have encouraged good men in the perfuafion that their future Life was to be spent in fome fubterraneous Region; but have pointed out theCrown of Glory, and the Inheritance incorruptible, undefiled which was referved for them in Heaven. Nor would they have fuffered them to continue in the belief that their Bodies were to decay and moulder in the grave, without affuring them that they were to rife again; that they were fown in weakness and corruption, in order to be raised in Power and Glory? " It would have been very extraordinary indeed, if the people had been permitted to retain their old grofs no❤. tions, after more pure and fpiritual ones had been re-, vealed for their inftruction and use. But let us confider in what manner the facred writers accommodate themselves to the vulgar Conceptions of a future ftate. David declares, that the best men after death, were to go into a place of Silence and Forgetfulnefs, and to receive no further inftances of the divine favour (a). We are told too, that the righteous after this life were to dwell in a Land of darkness, and of the fhadow of death, without any order, and where the Light is as darkness (b)." And here, let us obferve, in oppofition to this learned Author, that the facred writers do fometimes fpeak plainly and explicitly of |