Over dit boek
Mijn bibliotheek
Boeken op Google Play
CONTENTS.
I.
A
Charge to the Clergy of the Arch-
deaconry of St Alban's,
II. Letters from the Archdeacon of St Al-
ban's in Reply to Dr Priestley,.
III. A Sermon on the Incarnation,
IV. Remarks on Dr Priestley's Second Let-
ters to the Archdeacon of St Alban's,
with proofs of certain facts asserted by
the Archdeacon,
V. Supplemental Disquisitions on certain
points in Dr Priestley's Second and
Third Letters to the Archdeacon of
PAGE.
91
349
373
CONTENTS
OF THE
Letters in Reply to Dr Priestley.
LETTER FIRST.
THE Archdeacon of St Alban's declines a regular con-
troversy with Dr Priestley.-Produces new instances of
Dr Priestley's inaccuracies and misrepresentations,
LETTER SECOND.
A recapitulation of the Archdeacon's Charge,
103
LETTER THIRD.
In Reply to Dr Priestley's introductory, and to part of
his first letter.-His defence of his argument from the
clear sense of Scripture confuted.-Of the argument
against our Lord's pre-existence to be drawn from the
materiality of man.--Of the Greek pronoun 1,
112
LETTER FOURTH.
In Reply to Dr Priestley's first letter.-His defence of
his argument from St John's first epistle confuted.—
The phrase "come in the flesh" more than equivalent
to the word "to come."-St John's assertion that
"Christ came in the flesh" not parallel with St Paul's
that he partook of flesh and blood,"
ΡΑΟΣ.
118
LETTER FIFTH.
The Archdeacon's interpretation of Clemens Romanus de-
fended. The shorter epistles of Ignatius genuine, .
...
130
LETTER SIXTH.
In Reply to Dr Priestley's second-The difference of the
Ebionites and Nazarenes no singular or new opinion of
the Archdeacon's.-The same thing maintained by Mo-
sheim and other critics of great name.-Dr Priestley's
arguments from Origen and Eusebius not neglected in
the Archdeacon's Charge.-Dr Priestley's conclusions
from the several passages cited by him from Epipha-
nius confuled.—The Nazarenes no sect of the apostolic
age.-Ebion not contemporary with St John.-The an-
tiquity of a sect not a proof of its orthodoxy, .
139