Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

WESLEY, Charles, his sentiments respecting the ministry of angels. 1 Cor. xii. 10. No. 3..

[ocr errors]

Page

238

John, his practice of giving tickets, &c. 2 Cor. iii. 1. 269
sanctioned the practice of day-preaching. Gal. i. 1.
No. 2.

293

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

rules of the bands. Jamesv. 16. No. 3. 4 WHITEFIELD, introduced the practice of field-preaching. Matt. v. 1. (P. 13.) John vii. 38. (P. 132.) adopted Calvin's doctrine of election, &c. Rom. viii. 33. No. 3. (P. 201.) ix. 21. (P. 205.)

XENAIAS. 1 Pet. iv. 1. No. 2.

ZINZENDORF, his doctrine. Rom. iv. 5. (P. 179.) v. 1.
No. 4. (P. 182.)

[ocr errors]

decision relating to the separation from the Lutheran church. 2 Thess. ii. 15. No. 2..

application of the passage to his own followers. Rev. xiv. 1.

[blocks in formation]

458

$466

370

497

70

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

A summary of the principal errors detailed in this volume, and a refutation of them, by texts which support the tenets of the Church of England

. 549

ST. MATTHEW.

MATTHEW i. 17, 18.

"So all the generations, &c. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise," &c.

(UNITARIANISM,)

"THE remainder of this chapter and the whole of the second are of doubtful authority. They are, indeed, to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are now extant, but from the direct testimony of Epiphanius, and indirectly from that of Jerome (see Pope, on Mir. Concept. p. 93.) we learn that they were wanting in the copies used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew Christians; for whose instruction, probably, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written; and to whom the account of the conception of Jesus Christ could not have been unacceptable, if it had been found in the genuine narrative. Nor would it at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper Humanity of Christ, which was universally held by the Jewish Christians, it being a fact analogous to the miraculous birth of Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew Nation.

B

"The objection, so much insisted upon, that the authority of the Ebionites is to be admitted indiscriminately, because their testimony is appealed to in a particular case, is trifling in the extreme. Further, if it be true, as Luke relates, chap. iii. 23, that Jesus was entering upon his thirtieth year, (see Wakefield's translation) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, he must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod, a circumstance which alone invalidates the whole story. See Lardner's works, vol. i. p. 432. 432. It is indeed highly improbable that no notice should have been taken of these extraordinary events by any contemporary writer, that no expectation should have been excited by them, and that no allusion should have been made to them in any other passage of the sacred writings. Some of the facts have a fabulous appearance, and the reasoning from the prophecies of the Old Testament is inconclusive. Also, if this account be true, the proper name of Jesus, according to the uniform custom of the Jews, would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of Nazareth. Our Lord in the Gospels is repeatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without any intimation, on the part of the historian that this language is incorrect. See Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 23; John i. 45, vi. 42. The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early Gentile Convert, who hoped, by elevating the dignity of the Founder, to abate the popular prejudice against the sect. See upon this subject, Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, vol. iv. b. iii. c. 20. Pope, on the Miraculous Conception; Dr. Williams' Free Enquiry: Dr. Bell's Arguments for the Authenticity of the Narratives of

Matthew and Luke, and Dr. Williams' Remarks ; Dr. Campbell and Dr. Newcome's notes upon the text; Mr. Evanson's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3, chap. iii. sect. 2; Jones's Developement of Events, vol. i. p. 365, &c.; Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, p. i. chap. 7, 8."

Note to the Unitarian Version.

MATTHEW i. 20.

"That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

[blocks in formation]

Apollinaris, who lived in the fourth century, defended strenuously the Divinity of Christ against the Arians, but by indulging himself too freely in philosophical distinctions and subtilties, he was carried so far, as to deny, in some measure, his hu manity.

}

He maintained, that the body which Christ assumed, was endowed with a sensitive and not a rational soul; and that the Divine Nature performed the functions of reason and supplied the place of what we call the mind, the spiritual and intellectual principle in man.

Many of the followers of Apollinaris refined upon this, and affirmed, that one nature only existed in Jesus Christ, and that the flesh was of the same nature with the divinity. Others affirmed that Jesus Christ had taken his body from heaven, and that it was impassive and immortal; and his birth, passion, death, burial, and resurrection, only illusive appearances.

Apollinaris has been accused of asserting, that the Divinity suffered and died, &c., but these sentiments are rather conséquences drawn from the principles of Apollinaris, than the sentiments of that Bishop.

See Bayle's Dict. Art. Apollinaris; Mosheim and Gregory.

[blocks in formation]

At the commencement of the sixth century, Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, and Caianus of Alexandria, maintained, that the divine nature of Christ insinuated itself into the human in the conception thereof, changed its condition and rendered it incorruptible. They, and their followers, were called Caianists, Aphthartodocetæ, Phantasiasts, &c., as it was imagined their hypothesis inferred, that Christ had not a true manhood.

Severus of Antioch, and his party maintained, that Christ's body was corruptible of itself, but by reason of the Godhead dwelling in it, was never corrupted. Their enemies called them Phthartolatræ, Ktistolatræ, and Creaticolæ, i. e. Corruption Worshippers, Creature Worshippers, and Flesh Worshippers.

[ocr errors]

See Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. tom. iii. part 2, p. 457.

[blocks in formation]

The rigid Mennonites adopted the fancy of Menno, that our Saviour's body was not formed of the substance of the Virgin, but was brought from heaven, or created by the Holy Ghost.

(See Note to Ephes. iv. 5.)

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »