Contains an examination of the Texts produced from the New Teftament, in which the nature of the The agreement of the Propofition of no future State in the Mofaic Difpenfation, with the VIth Article of the Church of England evinced. That the Old Fathers looked for more than tranfitory Promifes, illustrated in the famous cafe of ABRAHAM,where it is proved that the command to offer Ifaac was merely an information, in a reprefentative Action instead of Words, of the Redemption of Mankind by the great Sa- crifice of CHRIST. To fupport the foregoing Interpretation, The Origi- and likewife the Reafoning of Dr. Sykes against all double Senfes of Prophecies in his book intituled, The Principles and Connexion of natural and re- vealed Religion, &c. The Ufe and Importance of thefe Queftious to the fubject of the Divine Lega- tion, explained. -The CONCLUSION of the argu- A SECT. I. FTER fuch convincing evidence that a FUTURE STATE did not make part of the Religion of MOSES, the reader would not have suspected, he must once more be ftopt to hear a long Answer to a set of texts brought from the Old and New Teftament to prove, That the Doctrine of a future ftate of reward and punishment DID make the most effential part of the Mofaic Difpenfation: and this, not by a few fanciful Allegorists, or outrageous Bigots only, who will fay, or do any thing; but by many fober men of all Sects and Parties, of all Times, and of all Religions. I. Several of the ancient CHRISTIAN Writers were so perfuaded of this point, that not content to VOL. V. B fay, fay, the doctrine of a Futurè ftate made part of the Mofaic Difpenfation, they would be confident that the very Pagans learnt it all from thence. Some modern Chriftians have not been behind them in their Faith, but have far outstripped them in their Charity, while they treated the denial of this extravagant Opinion as a new fpecies of infidelity. It is true, they are all extremely confused and obfcure about the way, they reprefent it to have been taught: And there have not been wanting, at all times men of greatest eminence for parts and piety, who have not only doubted, but plainly denied this Future ftate to be in the Mofaic Religion; though, to be juft to all, with the fame inconfiftency and embar ras that the others have maintained it. However, the more current doctrine hath always been, That a future ftate of rewards and punishments was taught by the Law of Mofes. As furprizing as this may seem to those who have weighed the foregoing Evidence, yet indeed no less could be expected from fuch a number of concurrent and oddly combined Prejudices, which have ferved, till now, to difcredit one of the clearest and most important truths of Revelation. 1. The first was, that feveral Patriarchs and Prophets, both before and under the Mofaic Difpenfation, were certainly favoured with the reve a To give an example only in Bishop BULL, whofe words, in a latin tract, for a future ftate's not being in the Mofaic Difpenfation I have quoted in the fourth fection of this VIth book; yet in an English pofthumous fermon, he feems to speak in a very different manner. - I fhould not have illuftrated this cenfure by the example of fo refpectable a Perfon, but for the indifcretion of my Anfwerers, who, to fupport their own ill logic, have expofed his morals. 6 lation lation of man's Redemption; in which the doctrine of a Future ftate is eminently contained: And they think it utterly incredible that These should not have conveyed it to their People and Posterity. 2. They could not conceive how a Religion could be worthy of GoD, which did not propofe to its Followers a Future ftate of rewards and punishments; but confined their views to the carnal things of this life only. 3. The truth, here attempted to be established, had been received and abused by the Enemies of all true Religion and Godliness; fuch as the Sadducees of the old Jewish church, the Gnoftics of the old Chriftian, and Unbelievers in all Churches. 4. Laftly, men were kept faft within the error into which these prejudices had drawn them, by never rightly diftinguishing between a Future ftate of reward and punishment, as taught by what men call natural Religion, and a future ftate as taught by Christian Revelation; which is the CLUE, as we shall see hereafter, to conduct us through all the errors and perplexities of this region of darkness, till we come into the full and glorious light of the Gospel. But in Religious matters, combinations much. lefs ftrange are fufficient to defeat the credit of the plaineft Fact. A noted inftance of what OBSTINACY alone can do against the felf-evidence of Truth, will abate our wonder at the perverfity in queftion; at least it may be put to ufe, in the biftory of the human mind, towards which, will be found materials, neither vulgar nor few, in the B 2 courfe course of this work. There is a fect, and that no inconfiderable one, which, being effentially founded in Enthufiafm, hath, amongst other of its ftrange freaks, thrown out the Inftitution of wATER-BAPTISM from its scheme of Christianity. It is very likely that the illiterate Founder, while rapt in his fanatic vifions, did not reflect that, of all the inftitutions of our holy Religion, this of water-baptifm was leaft proper to be called in queftion; being most invincibly established by the practice both of PAUL and PETER. This latter finding that the houshold of Cornelius the GENTILE bad received the holy Ghoft, regarded it as a certain 'direction for him to admit them into the Church of Chrift, which he did by the initiatory Rite of water-baptifm. [Acts x. 47.] Paul, in his travels through the leffer Afia, finding fome of the JEWISH Converts who had never heard of the Holy Ghoft, and, on enquiry, understanding they had been only baptifed by water unto John's Baptifm, thought fit to baptise them with water in the name of the Lord Jefus, that is, to admit them into the Church; and then laying his hands upon them the Holy Ghoft came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophefied. [Acts xix. 4, 5, 6.] In spite of thefe two memorable tranfactions, the Quakers have notwithstanding rejected waterbaptifm. What is the pretence?" Water-baptifm (it feems) is John's baptifm, and only a type of baptifm by the Holy Ghoft or by Fire; fo that when this laft came in ufe, the former ceased and was abolished." Yet in the two hiftories given above, both these fancies are reproved; and in fuch a manner as if the ftories had been recorded for no other purpose: For in the adventure of Paul, the water-baptifm of Jefus is exprefsly distinguished from, |