truth. And he is pleased to find that the method which he has pursued has been sanctioned by the approbation of learned and judicious writers, whose conclusions have not always coincided with his own. If this work should contribute in any degree, however inconsiderable, to promote a spirit of liberal and candid discussion among persons of different persuasions upon controverted points, it will so far fulfil the primary intention and the best wishes of its author..
Essex House, November 16, 1816.
Texts which are conceived to express in the most direct and un-
equivocal Terms the Pre-existence of Jesus Christ.
Six out of the eight writers of the New Testament say little or
nothing of the pre-existence of Christ, p. 10-not even the historians
of his life and ministry, p. 11-not even Luke himself, who writes
the history of the apostles' preaching and doctrine for upwards of
thirty years, ibid. How this silence is accounted for by the ancients,
ibid. John, a figurative and mystical writer, p. 12. The pre-ex-
istence of Christ seldom alluded to in the larger epistles of Paul, ibid.
Texts in favour of this doctrine very few in proportion; but their
frequent citation makes them appear to be numerous and prominent,
p. 13.
I. John i. 1-14, examined, p. 14. Different hypotheses con-
cerning the Logos, ibid. The interpretation of Grotius adopted by
many modern Unitarians proposed and examined, p. 15. That of the
Polish Socinians stated and defended, p. 17.—II. John i. 15, examined,
p. 26. Mr. Cappe's explanation approved, ibid.—III. John iii. 13,
examined,
examined, p. 26. The local ascent of Christ into heaven after his baptism maintained by the Polish Socinians, p. 27. This hypo- thesis modified by Mr. John Palmer, ibid. Explanation of Bishop Pearce and Archbishop Newcome, p. 29. To ascend into heaven'
is to be acquainted with the purpose and will of God, ibid. Proved
by Grotius, Beza, Whitby, Doddridge, and, above all, by Raphelius,
ibid. nole. To come down from heaven,' as the correlate phrase,
properly signifies a commission to reveal the divine will, p. 31. Re-
flections upon this explanation of the text, p.36.--IV. John iii. 31,
explained, ibid.-V. John vi, 25-62 expounded, p. 37. The de-
sign of Jesus was to drive from his society those who followed him
with selfish and secular views, p. 38. They first demand a sign from
heaven like the manna, ibid. Jesus promises true bread from heaven,
meaning his doctrine, p. 39. The Jews, understanding him literally,
eagerly desire this heavenly bread, ibid. Jesus declares that he is him-
self the bread from heaven, ibid. The Jews, knowing his extraction, are
offended at his pretensions to a heavenly descent, p. 40. Jesus persists in
declaring that he is the bread which they must actually eat to obtain im-
mortality, ibid. The Jews being still more confounded and offended,
ibid.-Jesus insists in still stronger language upon the absolute neces-
sity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, p. 41. The Jews seem
to suspect him of insanity, p. 42 ;—and Jesus having further intimated,
as they conceived, that after his body had been thus consumed they
should see him again return to heaven, his selfish followers, shocked
at the apparent absurdity of his doctrine, abandon his society, ibid. Je-
sus, in conclusion, declares that his whole discourse is to be taken figu-
ratively and not literally, p. 45.-VI. John viii. 42, explained, p. 45.
-VII. John viii. 58, explained, p. 46. Explanations of Guyse, Sherlock,
and Doddridge, p.47. Origin of the popular mistake of the words I AM,
p. 48. Arian interpretation, p. 49. Remarks of Dr. Clarke, Bishop
Pearce, Dr. Harwood, and Dr. Price, p. 50. Singular interpretation
proposed by the Polish Socinians, and revived in the Theological Repo-
sitory, p. 53. Interpretation commonly received by the Unitarians, p. 55;
-which best suits the connexion, p. 56;-and is justified by the lan-
guage both of the Old Testament, p. 57,-and of the New, p. 58.
Supported by Grotius, Beza, Hammond, Lardner, Cardale, Lindsey,
Wakefield, Simpson, &c., p. 62. Reasons for insisting so much at large
upon this celebrated text, p. 66.-VIII. John xiii. 3, explained, p. 67.
IX. John xvi. 28, explained, ibid.-X. John xvii. 5, explained,
p. 68. Trinitarian interpretation, ibid. Arian interpretation, ibid. Triumphant language of the Arians, p. 69. Unitarian interpretation, p. 70. Error of expositors concerning the nature of that glory for which Jesus prayed, p. 71. This prayer explained, ibid. The pro-
lepsis justified, p. 72. Mr. Lindsey the only expositor who has given
the true meaning of our Saviour's petition, p. 74. The proleptical
interpretation supported by Grotius, by Wolzogenius from Augustin,
by Le Clerc, Lardner, and others, ibid. note.-XI. John xvii. 24,
explained, p. 75. Strange interpretation of Dr. Guyse and Dr. Dod-
dridge, ibid. note. Rational comment of Calvin and Campbell, ibid.
--XII. 1 Cor. xv. 47, explained, p. 77. Singular interpretation of
Crellius and the old Socinians, p. 78, note. Vulgate reading probably
true, p 78.-XIII. 2 Cor. viii. 9, explained, ibid. No allusion to our
Lord's pre-existence, ibid. Judiciously omitted by Dr. Clarke,
p. 79. Triumphant language of Arians and Trinitarians, ibid. Riches
and poverty of Christ simultaneous events, p. 80. In what sense
Christ was both rich and poor, p. 81.--XIV. Eph. iv. 9, explained,
p. 82-XV. Philipp. ii. 5-9, explained, ibid. Form of God inter-
preted by Trinitarians, p. 83 ;--by Arians, ibid. ;-high language of
the Arians, p. 84 Interpretation of Grotius and the Unitarians, p. 85;
-equal with God explained, p. 86. Robbery understood in an active
sense by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, and others, p. 87 ;-in a passive
sense by Vatablus, Clarke, Wakefield, and the ancients, ibid. Being
in the likeness of men no proof that he was not a human being, p. 91.
Recapitulation, p. 92.-XVI. Col. i. 15, explained, p. 94. First-
born how understood by Trinitarians, ibid.; by Dr. Clarke, ibid.;-by
Arians, p. 95 ;-by Grotius and the Unitarians, ibid.-XVII. Col.
i. 17, explained, p. 96.- XVIII. Rev. iii. 14, explained, ibid. Ge
neral reflections, p. 97.
Recapitulation of phrases already explained, p. 98. Explanation of
John vi. 46, ibid. John viii. 14, p. 99 ;-ver. 23, ibid. ;—ver. 38,
John xiv. 28, ibid. Trinitarian solutions of the Father's superiority,
ibid. This text the strong hold of Arianism, p. 100.
terpretation, ibid. Explanation of John xviii. 37, p. 101.
ibid. 1 Cor. x. 9, ibid. 1 Cor. x. 4, p. 102. Gal. i. 1,
ii. 14, ibid. This text does not prove the assumption of human na-
ture to be a voluntary act, p. 159. Heb. vii. 3, p. 103. Imaginary
analogy between Christ and Melchisedec, ibid. Heb. xi. 26, ibid.
The reproach of Christ explained, ibid. Heb. xii. 25, 26, p. 104.
Heb. xiii. 8, p. 105. 1 Pet. i. 11, ibid. 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20, ibid. Spirits in prison' are the heathen world, p. 106. 1 John i. 1, 2,
p. 107;-parallel to John i. 1-14, ibid. 1 John iv. 2, p. 108.-' to
Attributes supposed to be ascribed to Christ which infer Pre-
existence and Divinity.
Eternity, p. 110. Immutability, ibid. Power to lay down and re-
sume his life, p. 111. Irresistible power, p. 113. Omnipresence,
p. 114. Omniscience, p. 115. Remarks, p. 118. Christ alone
knows, and is known by, the Father, p. 119. Free from sin, p. 121.
Remarks, p. 122. The perfect character of Christ proves the truth of the evangelical history, ibid.
Alleged Superiority of Christ to Angels.
Preliminary remarks, p. 123. Various senses in which the word
angel is used in the Scriptures, ibid. Existence of angels as a superior
order of beings not a doctrine of revelation, nor to be traced in any
book previously to the Babylonian captivity, p. 125. The senses in
which Christ is represented as superior to angels, ibid. ;-as a mes-
senger of God, ibid. ; -as a judge, ibid. ;—and as the head of a new
and superior dispensation, p. 126. Texts cited, p. 127, Mark xiii. 32,
triumphantly appealed to by the Arians, p. 128. How explained
by Trinitarians, ibid. Texts from the Epistles, p. 129. Heb chap. i.
explained, p. 131. Angels in this chapter uniformly signifies former
prophets and messengers of God, ibid.
Titles and Characters attributed, or thought to be attributed, to Christ, which are supposed to imply Superiority of Nature. I. Jehovah, p. 136. This title not given to Christ in the New
Testament, ibid.-II. God, p.137. Mr. Lindsey and others deny
that this title is ever given to Christ, ibid. 'Partakers of a divine
nature,' a title applied to christians, but not to Christ, p. 138. Matt.
i. 23, Immanuel, does not prove that Christ is God, ibid. Luke i.
16, 17, if genuine, not applied to Christ, p. 139. John i, 1, ibid.
John x. 33, Christ denies that he calls himself God, though, as a pro-
phet, he might assume the title, p. 140. John xx. 28, various inter-
pretations of the exclamation of Thomas, ibid. Acts xx. 28, Blood
of God,' Dr. Doddridge thinks the phrase inspired, p. 141. Athana-
sius imputes it to the Arians, ibid. ;-certainly spurious, ibid.
ix. 5, God over all' not necessarily applicable to Christ, p. 222.
Slichtingius's very plausible conjecture, p. 142. 1 Tim. iii. 16, ‘God
« PreviousContinue » |