4 A Vieu of tbe DrisTIcAL Wrilers. Let. 25.
If we were to judge of the author's real ſentiments by ſuch paſſages as theſe, we might beapt to think, that though he was not certain of the immortality of the ſoul, and a future ſtate,
yet he was much inclined to favour that doctrine as not only uſe-
ful, but probable too. But there are other paſſages by which it appears that notwithſtanding theſe fair profeſſions, he did not really acknowlege or believe that doctrine himſelf, and as far as his reaſoning or authority could go, has endeavoured to weaken, if not deſtroy the belief of it in the minds of others too.
He repreſents this doctrine as at beſt no more than a uſeful invention. He expreſly ſays, that"the antient theiſts, poly- *theiſts, philoſophers, and legiſlators, invented the doctrine ¹*of future rewards and puniſhments, to give an additional ¹« ſtrength to the ſanctions of the law of nature k.“ And particularly that the invention of it was owing to Egyßt, the mother of good policy, as well as fuperſtitionl. The general prevalency of this opinion he attributes to the Sredominant pride ꝗf the human heart; and that“ every one was flattered by a *¹“¹F ſyſtem that raiſed him in imagination above corporeal nature, ¹mand made him hope to paſs an immortality in the fellowſhip of the Godsn.“ And after having ſaid, that it cannot be demonſtrated by reaſon, he adds, that, ‧it was originally an * hypotheſis, and may therefore be a vulgar error. It was ¹¹ taken upon truſt by the people, till it came to be diſputed ¹ and denied by ſuch as did examine.“ So that he ſuppoſes, that thoſe who believed it took it upon truſt without reaſon or examination, and that they who examined rejected it. He pronounces, that the reaſonings employed by divines in proof of a future ſtate are“ problematical and futile;“ and that «the immortality of the ſoul reſts on moral proofs, and thoſe «proofs are precarious, to ſay no worſe of them?.“ After ſeeming to ſpeak very favourably, in a paſſage cited above, of the hypotheſis of a future ſtate advanced in Butler's Analogy, he ſays,“It has no foundation in reaſon, and is purely ima- „ginary.“ He frequently ſuppoſes a connection between the immortality of the ſoul and a future ſtate; that the latter is in conſequence of the former; and he has endeavoured to ſub- vert the foundation of that immortality, by denying that the ſoul is a diſtincét ſubſtance from the body. This is what he hath ſet himſelf pretty largely to ſhew in ſeveral parts of his
k Vol. v. p. 288. 1Ibid. p. 352. 489. m Ibid. p. 237. a Ibid. p. 352. o Ibid. p. 323. 504. 1 b Eay