ercife; nor, indeed, do they do it, it being like fearching after jewels, that lie concealed in the bowels of the earth, which require much labour and inspection to find them; whereas, if the belief of this doctrine be fo abfolutely neceflary to human happiness, as is fuppofed, and if it was intended to be the grand fpring and principle of action to men; then, it certainly would, because the case manifeftly requires that it fhould, lie naked, and open to every one's view, that, thereby, it might be always prefent to the mind, to answer the purposes aforesaid.

I ALSO farther obferved, that if the belief of the doctrine of futurity was wanting, among the Jews, or if this was generally the case, the former of which you maintain, and which, I apprehend, is analogous to what Mr. Warburton hath advanced, in his di

vine

opinion of thefe, that fuch things are, and perhaps, will, be, without any folid folid conviction of their truth. As for men's love to, and defire of life, the object of these, is this prefent life only; men's affection to their offspring, to their relations and friends, and their other attachments to this present world, make them very unwilling to leave it; especially, as they are to pafs into a state, they know nothing of, nor how they shall fare in it. And as every man may be conscious of fome impropriety of action, which is commonly called sin ; fo, when the mind is greatly enfeebled by pain, ficknefs, or the decays of age, then, even the best of men may have fome misgivings, fome perturbation, or uneafinefs, when death looks them in the face, whatever their thoughts of futurity may have been.

vine legation; then, furely, this is an evidence from fact, that the belief of the doctrine of futurity is not abfolutely neceffary to hold men together in society; and that there is fome other principle, in nature, befide the belief of that doctrine, which is fufficient for that purpose; seeing it is admitted, that the Jews were held together in fociety, exclufive of the belief of the doctrine of futurity. To this, you replied, that the Jews were under a Theocracy; that is, God was their king, or civil governor, which has not been the cafe of any other nation, or people; that God, by a particular and special application of his power and providence, ruled over, and governed them, and thereby held them together in fociety, or rendered them a sociable people, which, otherwife, they would not have been. And, as here our converfation ended, so I beg leave to re-affume the argument, and to obferve farther, viz. that if God governed the Jews, by a particular and fpecial application of his power and providence, and thereby held them together in fociety, then, I conceive, he must have done it in one, or other, of these ways? viz. either, first, he governed them, like the inanimate parts of the creation, forcibly, and ir

refiftably

refiftably, by destroying, or taking off, the force and strength of their appetites and pas

fions, and thereby rendered them fociable, which, otherwise, they would not have been; or elfe, fecondly, he governed them in a way that was fuitable to their intelligent natures, as free beings, by exhibiting fome moral Spring, or principle of action to them, which, when duly attended to, together with the incentives to affociation, that arife from the human conftitution, was fo far fufficient to curb and restrain their appetites and paffions, as to hold them together in fociety, which, otherwife, would not have been their cafe.

As to the first of these ways, by which God may be supposed to have governed the Jews, viz. forcibly and irresistably, by deftroying, or taking off, the ftrength and prevalence of their appetites and paffions, and thereby to have rendered them a fociable people, this, their history proves, was not the cafe; as it affords a variety of inftances, or facts, by and from which it appears, that the appetites and paffions of that people, were as strong and violent, as turbulent and ungovernable, as the appetites and paffions of other men; and, confequently, were not

under

under that forcible restraint as is here fuppofed. And if God did not govern the Jews forcibly and irrefiftibly, but dealt with them in a way fuitable to their intelligent natures, as free beings, by exhibiting to them fome moral Spring, or principle of action, which, when duly attended to, together with the excitements to fociety, that arise from the human conftitution, was fufficient to answer the aforefaid purpofe; then this deftroys Mr. Warburton's first propofition, viz. that there is no principle in nature, exclufive of the belief of the doctrine of futurity, that is fufficient to command and reftrain the appetites and paffions of men, fo as to hold them together in fociety; I fay, what was last admitted deftroys this propofition, as, by it, is admitted, that there is fome other principle in nature, befide the belief of the doctrine of futurity, which is fufficient for that purpose, which principle was exhibited by the Deity to the Jews, and was, in fact, fufficient to hold them together in fociety, even whilft (as is allowed) the belief of the doctrine of futurity was wanting among them.

AND this very naturally leads to the queftion, viz. what was that /pring, or prin

ciple of action, which was exhibited to the Jews, as aforefaid, and which was fufficient for that purpose? and the answer is most obvious, if it be collected from the pentateuch, and if it be allowed that Mofes was God's minister, or substitute,in all that he delivered to that people; I fay, if these points are admitted, then it appears, that the way in which God applied to the Jews, in order to command and reftrain their appetites and paffons, and thereby to hold them together in fociety, was by connecting, or, at least, by declaring the connection betwixt, their prefent happiness and their duty, or fociableness, which was the fame thing; and by making,or declaring, their present happiness and their breach of duty, or unsociableness, to be incompatible. And this he did, by giving them a body of laws, guarded with proper fanctions, and by promising, or declaring, that temporal bleffings would, or should, attend those who kept his laws, or were sociable, and by threatening, or declaring, that temporal evils fhould, or would, attend those who tranfgreffed them, or were unfociable. This was the state of the cafe, with respect to the Jews; they were applied to in the fame way, and their appetites and paf