Over dit boek
Mijn bibliotheek
Boeken op Google Play
CONTENTS.
1. 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,
PAGE.
1
91
349
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
St Alban's, .
373
465
CONTENTS
OF THE
Letters in Reply to Dr Priestley.
Tu
LETTER FIRST.
HE 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 έτος,
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,"
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
LETTER SEVENTH.
ontinuati on of Reply to Dr Priestley's second.-Of the
argument from Origen.—That it rests on two passages
in the books against Celsus.-The first misinterpreted
by Dr Priestley in a very important point.-No argu-
ment to be drawn from the two passages in connexion.
-Origen convicted of two false assertions in the first
passage. The opinions of the first age not to be con-
cluded from the opinions of Origen,..
167
LETTER EIGHTH.
A positive proof still extant that our Lord's divinity was
the belief of the very first Christians.-The epistle of
St Barnabas not the work of an apostle-but a produc-
tion of the apostolic age. Cited as such by Dr Priest-
ley-The author a Christian of the Hebrews-a be-
liever in our Lord's divinity-writes to Christians of
the Hebrews concurring in the same belief,
182
LETTER NINTH.
The proof of the orthodoxy of the first age overturns Dr
Priestley's arguments from Hegesippus and Justin Mar-
tyr-Hegesippus a voucher for the Trinitarian faith.
Dr Priestley's own principles set aside his interpreta-