can or cannot teach correctly respecting a Future State, and Moral Duties; for he unavoidably and almost imperceptibly imbibes information from common acquaintance with Christians and Christian writings, so that he is not left entirely to his own natural reason and dictates of conscience. Therefore satisfactorily to ascertain whether natural reason and a man's own conscience really be sufficient in these matters, we must look at those individuals and nations who have never possessed or heard of a divine Revelation. And in doing this we learn, that although many of the heathens entertained a glimmering hope, and had some faint ideas of a future state of existence, yet that they held them in much doubt and anxiety; for some of the most virtuous and enlightened among them declared that additional light was necessary to dissipate the darkness and uncertainty which existed in their minds upon this subject. So that experience proves that natural Reason alone, even when highly cultivated by study and literature, is not able to satisfy the mind respecting a future state. And that conscience, unassisted by divine Revelation, is not able to teach man his moral duties, is equally evident from the exceedingly immoral practices of those nations which have not been favoured with such light from heaven. Besides, the CONSCIENCE does not absolutely teach, but secretly, in the heart excuses, or else accuses, an individual in the performance of actions, the good or evil nature of which such individual has been previously made acquainted with; and, therefore, where a person has not been made acquainted with the WILL OF GOD, his conscience will commend as virtuous, or condemn as evil, practices which his natural and depraved mind and heart may conceive and teach to be either the one or the other, to whatever extent, or otherwise, they be in accordance with the will of God. It is clearly manifest, therefore, that unaided by Revelation, neither natural Reason is able to teach satisfactorily the doctrine of a Future State, nor a man's own conscience to teach him his Moral Duties.* * Horne's "Introduction," Vol. I. ch. 1. Watson's (Bishop) "Apology for the Bible," Letter X. Gibson's (Bishop) "Second Pastoral Letter," throughout. III. With respect to the early History of the Jews, even supposing it to have been written by Moses, he is his own witness, and his testimony is uncorroborated. Moses wrote his history either under inspiration or not. If under inspiration, his testimony must of course be received as credible;-if not, then he obtained his information through human means alone, which he might easily have done from the great length of man's life in those times.* But he would never have dared to record anything for the truth of which he had not sufficient proof; for the Jews, whose history he wrote, and amongst whom his books were circulated, had equal opportunity with himself of knowing the truth or falsehood of any statement he made, and most certainly they would not have received, and especially have venerated his works, without being fully satisfied of their authenticity. And, moreover, although these books contain many statements Temline's "Theology," Vol. I. pp. 64-66. derogatory to the character and conduct, and repugnant to the feelings of the Jewish people, yet they have acknowledged the truth of the Mosaic records from the very age of Moses down to the present day; which is unquestionably sufficient to satisfy any candid and unprejudiced mind. Besides, the testimony of Moses is corroborated by the discovery of certain traditions among many ancient and distant nations; which traditions are too ancient to have been derived from the history of Moses, for they existed at the very time in which it was written: neither could Moses have composed his history from them, they being too much intermingled with heathen fable and mythology.* The very existence of these traditions, and the impossibility of their having been derived from the Mosaic history, or the Mosaic history from them, shew this history to have originated in FACT, and consequently to be true. * Tomline's "Theology," Vol. I. pp. 43-48.-See Vol. I. ch. 1, throughout. IV. It is far more consonant to experience that human testimony should be false, than that Miracles should have been really worked. Undoubtedly it is more consonant to general experience, but that can only then be said to be contrary to experience which is reported to have occurred at a time and place, at which time and place, we being present, did not ourselves perceive it to occur; but that Miracles were really performed on the establishment of the Christian religion, is confirmed by evidence which surmounts every preceding improbability. Suppose that twelve men, of acknowledged probity and good sense, should circumstantially and seriously relate such miracles to have taken place before their eyes, and in a manner in which it was impossible for them to be deceived, and who, when examined separately, should suffer the most excruciating torture, and even death itself, rather than acknowledge there was any imposture in the case:-the credibility of such testimony no man would question; and yet such is the evidence in favour of the Christian Miracles.* • Paley's "Evidences," Vol. I. Preparatory Considerations. V. Even admitting that Histories of Christ and of His Religion may have been written at the time in which He lived, who can pretend to say, at the distance of 1800 years, that those Histories have remained to this time without alterations and additions? That the Histories of Christ, and of His religion which we now possess, are those written about the time He lived, and by the persons whose names they bear, appears from evidence of the same nature, and of at least equal authority as that by which the genuineness and authenticity of any ancient book is proved, viz. the testimony of both friends and enemies from the age in which such book was originally published down to the present time. And that the Christian histories have descended to us without alteration, further than a few letters and words not affecting the sense, and therefore immaterial, is placed beyond all doubt by the collation of the modern copies with the most ancient MSS. and versions extant. More satisfactory evidence than which cannot be produced in favour of any, even the most generally received, ancient profane author whatever.* * Paley's "Evidences," Vol. I. Part 1. prop. 1. ch. 7.8, 9.- -Horne's "Introduction," Vol. I. ch. 2. pp. 36-115.-Porteus's (Bishop) "Evidences," prop. III.-a Tract already referred to, published by the Christian Knowledge Society, No. 171. VI. At the time when Christ lived there was a popular expectation of some extraordinary person: Christ took advantage of this, and assumed the character of the Messiah. Christ did appear and assumed the character of the Messiah at a time when there was a popular expectation of some extraordinary person; but if the character of Christ agreed with the descriptions given by the prophets of the Messiah, then what is this concurrence but a proof that Christ really was the Redeemer of Israel, the Anointed of God? And this was the case; for all the particulars relative to the person of the Messiah, the place where, and the time when, he should be born,--the various incidents of His life, death, and resurrection,-the wonderful works by which He was to be distinguished, were all fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. So that His appearance was not in consequence of this popular expectation, but this expectation itself was in consequence of the predictions respecting the Messiah, which the times were now explaining, and announcing His approach. And especially since there has not been any one pretending to be the Messiah, even to the present hour, in whom all these particulars and prophecies have been fulfilled, but Jesus only, we cannot be successfully contradicted in affirming that— He is the Christ.* ⚫ Horne's "Introduction," Vol. I. p. 352. Porteus's "Evidences," Prop. II, and IX. VII. The Religion of Christ and that of Mahomet stand on the same footing with respect to credibility: each laid claim to the character of a Teacher sent from God; each advanced proofs of his claim; and the Religion of each has been extensively propagated and believed. No religion is to be accredited because its author lays claim to the character of a teacher sent from God, or advances something in proof of his claim, or because of its extensive propagation, unless the proofs adduced be sufficient to establish the claim by being as conclusive as the nature of the subject will admit of, and unless the propagation be effected by the intrinsic merit and excellence of the religion itself. These, however, cannot be shewn in favour of the Mahometan religion, but they can in favour of the religion of Christ. Mahomet did lay claim to the character of a divine teacher, but endeavoured to support his claim by professing frequent interviews with angels, and secret revelations from God, concerning which, of course, no other person had an opportunity of judging; he, however, forbore to prophecy, and performed no miracles, nor publicly produced anything in proof of the divinity of his mission out of the common course of nature; and the only proof he professed to give, capable of being judged of by others, was the sublimity of the style in which the Koran, the book containing his religion, was written; but even the superiority of this above some other writings is questioned by many. Christ also laid claim to the character of a teacher sent from God; but He substantiated His claim by foretelling future events, which all literally came to pass, and by the performance of miracles, in such manner and at such times, as rendered them capable of being judged of by His friends and enemies alike; clearly shewing that he exercised a supernatural and divine power. The moral precepts too, of Christ, were as much opposed, and as superior to those of Mahomet, as light is to darkness, or holiness to sin. Mahomet allowed in this world, and promised to his faithful followers in the world to come, the indulgence of those carnal desires for which fallen man has the greatest propensity, and prohibited those only for which he has little or no inclination ; * while the morality taught by Christ was directly contrary to the carnal appetites and sensual delights of human nature, and was in every way agreeable to the immaculate holiness of Jehovah. Again, the Mahometan and the Christian religion were both extensively propagated and believed. The religion of Mahomet, however, was propagated by military conquest, and the influence of family eminence; and, although favourable to the "lusts of the flesh," it was only as his sword conquered that his religion flourished:-so that it was not extended upon its own merit and excellence. But Christianity spread widely without compulsion, without eminence of family in its teacher, and against all the natural depravities and unholy desires of men; as well as against many attempts to overthrow it both by civil authorities and public persecutions: now this can only be accounted for by admitting the real excellence of the religion itself, and the satisfactory evidence adduced in favour of its divine origin. From this comparison it is evident, that while the religion of Christ has every claim to credibility that Reason can desire or demand, that of Mahomet is loaded with suspicion, besides being destitute of those divine distinctions so observable in Christianity.+ *This refers more directly to the Inhabitants of the East, amongst whom principally Mahometanism was propagated. + Paley's "Evidences," Vol. 2. Part 2, ch. 9. Sect. 3.-Leslie on the "Truth of Christianity, Sect. VIII. See also Porteus's "Evidences," Prop. VIII. DOCTRINE. The answers to the following Questions are to be illustrated by as many quotations as possible from Scripture, and from the Articles and other Formularies of the Church of England. I. What doctrines of the Gospel is it the duty of a Christian Teacher chiefly to enforce ? The Fall of Man,-and consequent depravity of every human heart,-the necessity of Regeneration,-" Repentance towards God,"-" Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,"-His Atonement,-Justification,-Necessity of Good Works,-Sanctification, and Perseverance unto the end. II. What is meant in Scripture by “the natural man ?"-Distinguish between original and actual sin.—What is Regeneration ?-Does sin remain in a man after Regeneration ? What does St. Paul say of himself on this point? Man as he is born into the world,—the carnal or unregenerate mind,—the being "in the flesh," as St. Paul speaks,*—who cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.+ Original sin is that corrupt nature which every man brings into the world with him, and is not the mere following of Adam in his breach of God's commandments, but the "fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam:‡—Actual sin is the positive transgression of God's law, either by committing whatever is forbidden, or omitting whatever is commanded. Regeneration is a change of the heart and affections from sin to holiness,— a dying unto sin and a living unto righteousness,-produced by the influences of the Holy Spirit:—it is the being "in Christ Jesus," where we "walk no longer after the flesh, but after the Spirit."§ Yes:-"Sin remaineth in a man, yea after he is regenerated," || for "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit."¶ "I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.' ⚫ Romans viii. 7-9. + 1 Cor. ii. 14. Article IX. Rom. viii. 1. || Art. IX. **Rom. vii. 22, 23. 1 Gal. v. 17. |