« PreviousContinue »
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
LETTER IV. The Author, in reply to the Divine's fourth letter, shows that Origen differed from him entirely, by absolutely denying that the Scriptures, apply the article to Jeos, when speaking of Christ, but to the Father only: and that both he, and Eusebius, lay it down, that Christ was not God over all; but that this was the peculiar title of the Father. p. 287. -The doctrine of the Trinity having made considerable advances in Origen's time, he believed Christ to be God, but to be inferior to the Father. The Trinity then very different from that of modern times. p. 288.-The author's quotation from Origen, a complete answer to the Divine's positions, that ó Isos, God, with the article, is applicable to Christ, and that the Fathers considered the absence of the article no evidence of the reading a God. p. 288.-Reply to the statement, that the author objects to the authenticity of the two first chapters of Matthew contrary to the evidence of MSS. and the testimony of history, and to Griesbach. p. 289. -The author opposes to their authenticity, not only earlier MSS. than those collated by Griesbach ; but the testimony of persons living at the time of our Saviour, who knew him well, and contradicted the story of the miraculous conception contained in them. If the statements in these chapters had been true, our Lord could never have been supposed to have been the son of Joseph, nor could his brothers and sisters have been ignorant that he was the Messiah. p. 289. 290.--He also opposes to their authenticity, the entire silence that prevails in every other part of the New Testament as to the whole of their contents. p. 291.
Also the absurd, ridiculous and puerile nature of many of the accounts contained in them, as well as their contradicting each other, and other parts of Scripture. p. 292.-The author vindicates his remark, that the title, The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, is not at all fit to be the title of the whole work, showing that the Divine's refe. rence to the book of Genesis is not at all in point, and why the five books of Moses were called by their present Hebrew names. p. 292-3.~That Matthew wrote but one Gospel, which had a little that suited the whole of it, if we reject the two first chapters, and their unnecessary and incongruous title. p. 294. -Absurdity of retaining them and following the rule adopted for the title of the book of Genesis. Ib.Setting aside these two chapters and the two first chapters ascribed to Luke, to which there are equal objections, it will appear that all the Gospels begin about the same time, namely, the preaching of John the Baptist, before which nothing was known of Christ personally as such, no not by John himself, who was not acquainted with his person, which is incredible if the two supposed first chapters of Lake are genuine. p. 295.
St. Matthew's Gospel, without the two supposed first chapters, may have proper commencement, and will begin at the same period as the other Gospels, namely, with the words, “ In those days came John the Baptist preaching," which words shew, that the two preceding chapters formed no part of the original Gospel, and why. p. 296.-Vindication of the author's remarks upon the statement relative to the fourteen generations. p. 297. The rejection of this account no reason for rejecting other parts of Scripture. p. 298. -Refutation of the hypothesis, that the genealogy of Matthew is not irreconcileable with that of Luke upon the imaginary ground, that they refer to dif. ferent views of the Saviour's descent, that from his less remote ancestor, by the supposed father, and that from the more remote, by his motảer, shewing that the first of these views gives no genealogy of Jesus at all, but that each of them gives a genealogy of Joseph, the former through the Royal line of Jewish kings, and the latter through a totally different line, without a single king ainong them. There is no proof that Mary was the daughter of Heli, por is Luke's genealogy the genealogy of Mary. p. 298.-Idle story of a Rabbi having called her the daughter of Heli. Improbability of any Rabbi having ever said so, or of Luke, who gives it expressly as the genealogy of Joseph, having intended it for the genealogy of Mary, whom he does not mention or allude to. p. 299.-Reasons for believing the words as svous Soto, in the third chapter of Luke, if rightly translated as was supposed,' to have been interpolated by the person who added the two first chapters. p. 300.-Luke's design to give the real, and not the supposed, genealogy of Jesus. The words ús svojiSsto, translated by some, as he was supposed,' and in opposition to what opinions. p. 301.-Extraordinary that any writer should give a supposed genealogy, he was well acquainted with, and could as easily have given, the true one. Not to be inferred that it was the genealogy of Mary in contradiction to St. Luke from a ridiculous story told of an unknown Rabbi. p. 302. ---The Greek Christians for whom Luke wrote, could never have conceived, that when tracing the genealogy of Jesus up to David from whose loins he was to spring, he would do it through Joseph his father in law, from whose loins he did not spring. If the Jewish custom was to trace their genealogies through the males only, it must have been violated in this instance.-How it ought to have been framed to prove him descended from David through a female. p. 303.-The genealogies irreconcileably at variance with each other. P. 304. As both cannot be true, we must make our election, which must be in favour of the undisputed part of Luke. Ib.-So as to the discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles. p. 305.-Importance and necessity of shewing both to Jews and Gentiles, that our Lord was in point of fact descended from David, and not merely acknowledged to be so upon record, though not so in reality. p. 305.-The records not shewing our Lord to be the son of David, except as the son of Joseph, if this be not true, they do not shew him to be so at all.—The genealogy in Luke says nothing of his mother, nor dues the supposed first chapter of Matthew say that she was descended from David. If Joseph's name was inserted only because he was the adopted son of Heli, the
genealogy only shews Christ to have been the son of David by adoption, and not to have been the fruit of his loins.The supposed records do not shew, that Mary was either the daughter of Jacob in Matthew, or of Heli in Luke, and therefore could not shew to the Jews that Jesus was descended from David in any way. p. 306.—Absurd to suppose that there were two different registers of one and the same person. p. 307.-The Divine has for this purpose translated ás svou SITO as was legally acknowledged,' which the original will bear; but if the record acknowledged him to be the son of Joseph, no doubt it was true, and he really was such.-Besides, as the original will bear both interpretations, the argument drawn from the former fails. p. 308.--No proof that Mary was known to be of the family of David. If any credit were due to the supposed first chapter of Luke, it would be more likely that she was a daughter of Aaron. p. 309.—Difference between omitting the miraculous conception, and other miraculous events in the four disputed chapters, and the omitting by one Evangelist a single miracle recorded by another. p. 309. Miraculous conception not mentioned by the earliest and most eminent Christians as a matter of notoriety, nor at all. p. 311.—The Divine's singular mode of accounting for none of the Jews having believed on our Lord when he came forward as the Messiah, on account of any of the miraculous events attending his birth, that most of those who were impressed by them were then dead. p. 311.-Reasons why this could not have been the case. p. 312.And why these supposed events had no existence. p. 314. -Utter inconsistency of the accounts given of these transactions in the two supposed first chapters of Matthew and the two supposed first chapters of Luke. p. 315.-Absurdities and impossibilities attending the narrative in the supposed second chapter of Luke of the taxation of the subjects of the Roman empire and of Joseph's going up to Bethlehem with Mary to be taxed, and her there bringing forth our Lord, which render it demonstrable that it never proceeded from the pen of the Evangelist, or any one writing true history. p. 317.-The passage John xii. 37-41, no proof that St. John believed Christ to be the Lord of Hosts.-Design of the Apostle in quoting Isaiah, not to prove that Christ was the Lord of Hosts, but to account for the unbelief of the Jews. p. 324.-Explanation of the passage. Ib.- Reasons however for considering the 39th and 40th verses to be an interpolation, p. 325.-Such an obscure reference made, if made at all, for a different purpose, and surrounded by suspicious circumstances, not to be dignified with the name of a proof; but if such an amazing doctrine, as Christ being the Lord of Hosts, be set up by mere inference, it may be rebutted, and thrown down again, by a clearer and stronger inierence, Heb. i. 1. p. 328.-The author still maintains, that a prophecy that a virgin should call her son Immanuel, would not be fulfilled by a virgin calling her son Jesus, even if they meant the same thing, wbich they do not. p. 329.-The nane Jehoshua not given to Oshea, when selected to become a type of Christ, or a distinguished instrument to save Israel, it not being shewn that he was selected to become a type of Christ at all. On the contrary, it was given to him, when selected to be a spy, and instead of saving Israel, the expedition
proved the destruction of all but two. p. 330.Saying that a prince shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, or the like, or that Jerusalem shall be called Hephsibah, or Judea Beulah, and saying that a child about to be born shall be called by his father or mother George or Charles, totally different things, -as our Lord's parents themselves shewed. p. 332.—The time for Jerusalem being called Hephsibah, and Judea Beulah, not yet arrived. p. 333.The sign said to have been given Is. vii. 14. was a sign given to Ahaz himself, and not to certain supposed pious Israelites then present, as imagined by the Diviné. p. 334.-This not a new, or any promise of the Messiah, nor did the supposed pious Israelites know that Palestine was to be secured to them, because he was to take our nature, nor was it in fact secured to them at all. p. 336. -Shear Jashub not the child alluded to. Ib.-Nor was it prophesied that be-fore a child to be born of a virgin should be as old as Shear Jashub was then, the land abhorred should be forsaken. P. 337.-That the mere repetition of an old promise not yet performed, and not to be performed for centuries, was proposed as a sign that a new promise should be performed very shortly, is quite a visionary conjecture. p. 338.--The author prefers the authorities he mentions for translating the word in Is. 'young woman,' to the Divine's assertion, that he has no doubt it is properly translated 'virgin.' p. 339.--In the 7th chapter of Is. the child about to be born was to be called Immanuel as a sign that God was with his countrymen the Jews. Their land is called in the 8th chapter Immanuel's land for the same reason, and in a similar manner God is declared afterwards to be with them generally, whilst the only God spoken of was the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the only child referred to, a child then about to be born, who might be a sign that God was then with them and not a child to be born hundreds of years after, and not being then in existence, could not have been then with them. p. 339. -No allusion to any such imaginary person as a supposed pre-existing Divine Logos. p. 341.-Sense of the Hebrew word 7771, not shall conceive, but has conceived,' or takjpg it most favourably, 'is conceiving,' and therefore it cannot 'refer to a virgin, much less to a virgin and child who were not to exist till
700 years after. p. 341.-The prediction appears with increasing evidence to be no prediction of the Messiah at all. p. 312.-The author's objections are to the fact of the Incarnation. He has troubled himself but little about the mode of existence of what he considers a non-entity. Convenient to the Divine to pass over the author's arguments in opposition to the fact, which were the strongest, and confine himself to the mode. Remarks upon what he says in this respect. p. 342.-It would be no proof that the account of the Incarnation bears marks of genuine Scripture, that it does not attempt to explain the mode. It does however make some attempts to do this. p. 344.—The author denying altogether that the Incarnation is to be found in Scripturé, cannot admit its existence for any ends of discipline alleged to be assigned in Scripture, as he can account for our Lord's dependence upon his Fatherin a way much more easy and consonant to Scripture, namely, by his having been, wbat he appeared to be, and was called, even after his Resurrection and Ascension, a
man altogether, and by his Father then and still dwelling in bim, ard per. forming all the wonderful works then, and still in progress. p. 345. Our Lord, when he excludes himself, John vii. 16, from being the author of his doctrine, by saying that it is not his, excludes also the Holy Ghost, by declaring that it is His who sent him, which the Holy Ghost never did. p. 347. The Divine misled by the common version of Heb. ii. 16, in supposing it to prove that St. Paul was acquainted with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Remarks upon this version. The word nature, not in the original. Other and more literal versions of it, which destroy every vestige of an allusion to the incarnation or pre-existence of Christ, rendering sriden baveras succoureth', and explaining the Apostle's meaning more easily and naturally. p. 347.--Examination of the 1'/th verse, which does not prove his pre-existence, he being made like his brethren without having pre-existed, as man is made a little lower than the Angels, without having pre-existed. Design of the writer to shew that they were all made, and that all of them, that is Christ and his brethren, were made men. The distinction throughout between Christ and the Angels, and between the human race and the Angels. Reasons why Christ succoureth the former and not the latter. p. 349.---The second chapter of the Hebrews adverse both to the incarnation and pre-existence of Christ, all the texts in it proving him to have been a man, and nothing more. p. 351.-The word yontus here rendered - might be. In the 1st chapter of John, where the same verb is rendered “made,' if that were right, it should be observed that as in Heb ii. Christ is said to have been made a little lower than the Angels as other men are, so in John he might be said to have been made flesh as other men are; but sysveto requires no such meaning, but should be translated was. p. 352. — Other instances of its being so translated. p. 353.—The Divine, by adopting an erroneous translation of the 2nd chapter of the Hebrews, and quoting it inaccurately, has entirely, misrepresented the writer's meaning. True meaning of the 11th verse as it stands in the original. Ib.--No colour for requiring the admission that the Almighty God, who fills the universe, was incarnate in a man with all his glorious energies and attributes suspended, and doing nothing during the third part of a century. No revelation of such a monstrous pro position. Any system-maker might more plausibly pretend that the Father was incarnate, and quote our Lord's words: 'My Father who dwelleth in me he doth the works.' No colour for supposing that another infinite and almighty person, of whom our Lord says nothing, was incarnate, and consequently dwelt in him likewise. p. 354.-The Divine's remark on the author's observation that prayer is never offered to Christ. p. 355.--Difference between a request made to a person whom being present we see 'with the eye of the body, and requests made to an invisible Being, whom we see only with the eye of the mind. To the former we ascribe no attribute of Deity. To the latter we ascribe omnipresence and omniscience, and the requests made to Him are strictly prayers. p. 356.-Observations upon the case of Stephen, quoted by the Divine, Ib.The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus considered. The petitions addressed by the former to Abraham like thuse of