« PreviousContinue »
ing to Dr. Priestley's conje&ture, that he did not receive that account from a particular divine inSpiration. How it is to be interpreted. Jujfifiçation of this' way of interpretation, from similar instances in fcripture, especially Christ's temptation. A farther confirmation of the probability, thai Mofes drew up his history of the fall, in the manner here ftated.
Dr. Priestley's freedom in mentioning some defeits
in St. Paul's reasoning, and in criticising other parts of scripture, countenanced by other chriftians of acknowleged eminence; by Erasmus; Caftellio; Luther; Mr. 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 such a strange' assertion. Throughout the bebrew fcriptures, 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 expected bin, and those who received him, believed in him, in that charaEter only. The three former evangelifts, and Luke in his 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 doctrine concerning Christ. The tefiimony to it of the late Dr. Le Courayer.
Christ's power necessarily limited. How far it is to
be supposed, that be 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 saviour 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 necesfary to recommend finners to the divine mercy and favour. Christ's Intercession, what intended by
The late bishop Butler's great error, that repentance
alone is not sufficient 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, for better than his System would make them.
Dr. Priestley's assertion, that men bave no fouls
distinɛt from their bodies, concerns not at all our living again in another world. Dr. Horne miltaken in his proof from scripture relating to it. The popular language there concerning it, how to be understood. Luther's sentiment of the sleep of the foul, little different : The doctrine revived by bishop Law; defended
Law; defended by Archdeacon Blackburne ; agreeable to true philosophy, and the scriptures. 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. Difficulty of the prophetic writings. A caution con
cerning them. Dr. Horne's wrong method of interpretation. Various instances of it. Remarks on them.