« 前へ次へ »
THE DEITY OF CHRIST :
IN REPLY TO DR PRIESTLEY'S HISTORY
OF EARLY OPINIONS, &c.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
BY JOHN JAMIESON, D.D. F. A.S.S.
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, FORFAR.
Bebold, this Child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Ifrael,
PARLIAMENT SQUARE, EDINBURGH.
PREF A C E.
The idea of this work was first suggested by a letter which appeared, under Dr Priestley's fignature, in one of the London prints, about four years ago. The design of this letter was to state that, although some years had elapsed since the publication of his History of Early Opinions com cerning Hesus Christ, no answer had been given to it; and that, if the fame silence should be observed during a certain time which he is pleased to limit, he would confider it as an acknowledgment, on the part of the whole Chriftian world, that it was unanswerable.
For a considerable time, I hesitater!, expectingthat some more able combatant would enter the lilis against this literary giant, who has defied the armies of the living God. But a full conviâion that I have truth on my side, emboldened me to engage in this work ; and, notwithstanding various discouragements, to proceed in it. The fatal influence of the Socinian scheme, in throwing open the suices to Infidelity, and in hurrying forward those whom this torrent has alIrady swept away; the fascinating power whici it invaa 2
riably di covers, in bereaving its vcraries of all that distin. guishes Chriftianity but the name; their u wearied asliduity in extending the delusion; with its ta, id progress in this 2e; undoubtedly lay the strongest obligations on every one wło really believes the gospel, to exert himself to the utmot, according to his place or ability, for the preservation and defence of the truth as it is in Jejus.
It seems to be the plan of modern Socinians, to carry the controversy as much as poñible out of the boundaries of Revelation. The voluminous and inaccurate works of the Fathers afford them a more ample field for misrepresentation, for cavilling, or at leaft fo: conjecture. Therefore, as far as the nature of the work would admit, I have e deavoured to restore the controversy to its proper limits. With this view, I have not only contidered the principal argu. ments from scripture contained in the History, but occafionally introduced others which Dr P. has published distinctly; especially as he refers to these for further illuItration.
Considering the many able replies that have been formerly made to writers of the same class, to fome this work may appear superAuous. But error, although still fubftantially the same, assumes a diver ty of forms in diferent periods. This has been remarkably the case with respect to the Socinian heresy. Those who now appear as its friends deny the force of the reasoning of many former writers, because they have renounced the grounds on which that rea. soning proceeded. In the last century, they acknowledged that the Logos was a person, and affirmed that this perfon was the mere man Jesus Christ. They now maintain that the same Logos is merely an attribute of God. Then they worlhipped the Son. Now they refuse that he is entitled