FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS PROVED

TO BE THE SANCTIONS OF THE

MOSAIC DISPENSATION:

IN A

SECOND SERMON,

ON

MARK xii. 24, 25, &c.

PREACHED BEFORE THE

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

AT

ST. MARY'S, DECEMBER 6th, 1741

FUTURE REWARDS

AND

PUNISHMENTS.

MARK Xii. 24, 25, &c.

And Jesus answering, said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

For when they shall arise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

And as touching the dead, that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the liv ing: ye therefore do greatly err.

66

IN a former discourse upon these words, I proposed to prove, "That future rewards and punishments were the sanctions of the Mosaic dispensation;" and it was shewn in the first place, "from the reason of "the thing," and from the scriptures of the New Testament, that a doctrine of a future state was taught by Moses, and known by the Jews-The second point then laid down, which is the matter of our present enquiry, is this

"That the doctrine of a future state actually is to ❝be found in, and doth make a very great part of, the

"writings of Moses; the obligation to observe every "law, rite, and ceremony being enforced upon the "sanctions of future rewards and punishments."

I. And here two things are asserted, viz. " that the "doctrine of a future state actually is to be found in "and doth make a very great part of the writings of "Moses." And this I shall prove by producing these texts from Moses wherein he expressly mentions it.

66

II. The other thing asserted is, "that the obligation "to observe every law, rite, and ceremony, is enforced by Moses upon the sanctions of future rewards and punishments." And this I shall prove from these texts wherein he expressly declares, that these were the sanctions of all his laws.

66

And in order to clear up the truth of these two assertions, no other method can be taken but to mention the very words of Moses, and to shew what they express intelligibly, and without a figure: for the view in which I shall consider the passages cited from him is this" The rites and services of the Mosaic law, pre"figured what Christ was to do and suffer for the sal❝vation of mankind." This is a point which cannot be debated among Christians, but that the Jews understood them in this sense, hath been denied: In what manner then a future state was contained under the types, will not be the subject of our present enquiry; not because arguments drawn from thence would be inconclusive, but because it would be more satisfactory and to the purpose to prove, “that there are such plain "and express passages in Moses, which treat of a "future state, and of future rewards and punishments, "that no Jew, who understood Moses' writings, could "possibly be ignorant of these doctrines." With this view then let us consult the living oracles of God. And

I. The first text I shall produce is from * Gen. ii. 7.

* Pererii Com. in Gen. Ludg. 1599, p. 425. "Non est dubitandum "ex his paucis verbis quibus Moses creationem animæ rationalis indi"cavit demonstrari & probari posse animam hominis esse immortalem,"

66

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of "life; and man became a living soul." Here the holy Spirit hath purposely treated of the nature and union of soul and body-" He hath revealed that man " was made up of two parts-He hath described the "original of each-and the essential attributes in which "they differed." The original of the body of Adam is said to be of the dust of the ground; the soul had a different original, and was created by the Father of spirits the one was formed out of matter, and was a living animal-the other, which the Lord God breathed or infused into Adam, was produced by his immediate creative act, and was an immaterial and immortal soul. Now these two attributes distinguish the soul from the body, the distinction between them consisting chiefly in these two things; that the soul is not material, and is not mortal. And how could the holy Spirit, when he purposely described the different nature of soul and body, make the distinction without mentioning the attributes of difference? As the reason of the thing proves. this could not be done, so neither was it done. For

II. The immortality of the soul, is in this text expressly revealed. By immortality I mean, "that the "soul doth not cease to exist with the body; but when "the animal frame is dissolved, it continues still in the "full enjoyment of all its faculties, and as susceptible "of pleasure and pain in a future state, as it was in "the present." And this immortality is here plainly expressed for the word rendered life, is in the origi nal * plural [Kiim], and used here by the holy Spirit, "quod etiam multifariam hoc libro & aliis suis libris Moses significayit." L. Marii Comm. in Bibl. Col. 1621, p. 23. "Inspiravit," additur hoc speciatim post descriptam corporis formationem, ut indicetur animam humanam non educi ex materiâ instar aliarum formarum sed extrinsecùs advenire a Deo, adeoque immortalem esse, & corpore independentem.

* Gen. xxiii. 1. § Crit. Sacr. Tom. i. p. 36. Fagius. "Et flavit "in nares, &c. Tria ergo hic sunt quæ anima immortalitatem sta-3. Vocabulum [Hajim]ut quidant volunt præsentis & "futuri seculi vitani, quod solúm anima hominis competit, designat.

tuunt