« AnteriorContinuar »
ing to Dr. Priestley's conjecture, that he did not receive that account from a particular divine inSpiration. How it is to be interpreted. JulifiÇation of this way of interpretation, from similar instances in scripture, especially Christ's temptation. A farther confirmation of the probability, thai Mofes drew up his history of the fall, in the manner bere stated.
Dr. Priestley's freedom in mentioning fome defeits
in St. Paul's recfoning, and in criticising other parts of scripture, countenanced by other chriftians of acknowleged eminence; by Erasmus ; Castellio; Luther; Mi. Whilton ; Dr. Durell.
Concerning the person of Christ.
The eternal God a feeble suffering man! How the
minds of many are capable of being reconciled to Juch a strange assertion. Throughout the hebrew scriptures, Christ uniformly spoken of as a man, a greet prophet, who was to be born of a particular tribe and family among them. The.
jews expeeted kiin, and those who received him, believed in him, in that character only. The three former evangelists, and Luke in bis second treatise, never seem to have had a thought of Christ being any other than a man like themselves, with extraordinary powers from God. The evangelist St. John, and the rest of the writers of the N. T. do not differ from the preceding. A fingular testimony to the spreading of this true doctrinė concerning Christ. The testimony to it of the late Dr. Le Courayer.
Christ's power necessarily limited. How far it is to
be supposed, that he passed through childhood and youth, without any fault or breach of duty. That he was of a nature liable to fall into lin, acknowleged by himself, and declared by his apostle. Of the limitations of Christ's knowlege, and the instances of it produced by Dr. Priestley. p. 189.
The sufficiency of Christ for his office of teacher and Javiour of the world, does not depend upon his miraculous conception. Dr. Priestley's reasons
for his opinion concerning it. How the question is to be decided.
Christ's shedding of his blood, how to be understood.
Sacrifices, their origin, and intent. Nothing done by Christ to atone for mens fins, or to make God more favourable and propitious to them than he was before. Repentance is all that is necessary to recommend finners to the divine mercy and favour. Christ's Intercefon, what intended by it.
The late bishop Butler's great error, that repentance
alone is not suficient to obtain pardon of God, without the interposition of Jesus Christ. The melancholy description given by him of the divine government. The sources of his unhappy mistake. His misrepresentation of the world we live in, and its inhabitants. God, and the world, men, and their expectations hereafter, far better than his System would make them.
Dr. Priestley's assertion, that men bave no fouls
distinet from their bodies, concerns not at all our living again in another world. Dr. Horne mistaken in bis proof from scripture relating to it. The popular language tbere concerning it, how to be understood. Luther's sentiment of the sleep of the foul, little different: The doctrine revisyed by bishop Law; defended by Archdeacon Blackburne ; agreeable to true philosophy, and the fcriptures. How easy to retaliate Dr. Horne's treatment of Dr. Priestley.
Of Dr. Horne's wrong interpretation of several
passages of scripture.
Of Dr. Horne's commentary on the psalms.
cerning them. Dr. Horne's wrong method of