hands imphed nothing vicarious, considered, 204-208-his denial that the
scape-goat was a sin-offering, examined, 206-208, 252, 253—refers to a
text, as proving decisively that N signifies removing or taking away,
which makes directly against him, 247, 248-his theory of sacrifice, 40,
41, 276-shown to be erroneous, 41, 276-280, 282-289-contends for
the permission of animal food before the flood, 283-this notion refuted,
282-289.
Taylor, (Henry)-see Ben Mordecai.
Taylor, (Dr. John, of Norwich)-his scheme of atonement, 110-112-
sum of his scheme, 112-falls in with some of the principles of the So-
cinian, 110, 112, 113-his whole scheme but an artful accommodation
of scripture phrases, 110, 112-his key a false one, 465-his works im-
prudently recommended by Bishops, 112- -the errors of his scheme fully
refuted by the author of the Scripture account of Sacrifices, and Dr. Richie's
Criticisms on modern notions of atonement, 112-and well pointed out in
the Christian Observer, 463—difference between his scheme and that of
H. Taylor, 113-his familiar illustration of his scheme, 119, 120-his
unjustifiable mode of investigating the nature of the Levitical atonement,
182, 183-his endeavour to do away the force of the phrase, bearing sine,
fully examined, 228-258-his erroneous criticism on the word
and the weakness of his endeavour to show that it merely signifies removal,
and not sustaining the penal consequences of sin, 239-247-is referred to
by Mr. Belsham, but turns out too orthodox for him, and is afterwards re-
linquished by him, 508.
Texts of Scripture-supporting the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ,
54-texts, proving the plan of atonement to have arisen out of the divine
mercy, 29texts wrongly urged by Priestley, Sykes, and Taylor, in proof
of the sufficiency of obedience per se, 116, 117-texts representing man
as forgiven freely, how to be understood, 116-119-texts representing us
as reconciled to God, not God as reconciled to us, misunderstood by Crellius,
Sykes, H. and J. Taylor, and others, 30, 31, 121-123-texts proving the
displeasure of God against the sinner, 31, 123, 186-texts proving the
'death of Christ to have been a propitiatory sacrifice, 32, 132, 219-texts
proving the sacrifice of Christ to resemble the paschal sacrifice, 169-175
-texts proving that atonement, in the Old Testament, included the idea
of averting the divine displeasure, and obtaining forgiveness, 1861 WO
important ones cleared from the erroneous criticisms of Dr. Priestley,
132-141-celebrated one in Isaiah liii. particularly examined, and its
application by St. Matthew vindicated, 219--253-texts ascribing the
bearing of sins to Christ's sacrifice, and explaining the manner in which this
phrase is used in scripture, 219-258-texts in Isaiah liii. fully explana-
tory of the doctrine of atonement, 219–226, 252-255-text in 1 Pet. ii.
24. erroneously referred to Isaiah liii. 4. 228, 255-texts announcing the
principle of atonement, 254, 255, 258- -texts proving the sacrifices of the
Law to be typical of that of Christ, 41, 42-texts erroneously supposed
to support the idea of the human invention of sacrifices, 307-309-
proving Abel's sacrifice to have had a reference to that of Christ, 43-
text in Gen. iv. 7. explained, 45, 384-392--texts evincing the piacular
virtue of the animal sacrifice, 46, 47--texts referred to by Justin Martyr
and the Apostolical Fathers, 502--508.
Tillotson's unjustifiable idea of the origin of the plan of redemption by
the sacrifice of Christ, 399- -confuted, 399-406-his mistaken sup-
position of a Religion of Nature, 399-403-his writings recommended
by Locke as supplying a model of perspicuity, 399.
Tindal,-his absurd objection, 41, 42, 267
-the use to which it may be
Townson, (Dr.) gives a good account of St. Matthew's peculiar mode of
citing the prophecies, 239.
Unitarians-brief view of their scheme, 23—their notion of the suffi-
ciency of the promulgation of forgiveness on repentance, erroneous, 23-25
-adopt a principle of reasoning in common with the Deist, 23- are
equally unassailable, on the ground of scripture, with the Deist, 25, 26-
their strange explication of texts of scripture, 55-61-and Appendix
ubique-mode of reasoning subversive of every possible interpretation of
scripture, 61, 62, 107-called by Mr. Howes, Humanists; and by Mr.
Hobhouse, Humanitarians, 93——favourers of Mahometanism, 85, 86-pre
tend to be exclusively worshippers of one God, 93, 461-their scheme fully
explained by Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, but most compendiously by the
latter, 93, 461, 473, 510, 511-their scheme difficult to describe, why,
461- -they disclaim the title of Socinians, 94, 95—go far beyond Soci-
nus, 94-96-explain away the meaning of scripture, 25-27, 81-83-
represent the sacred writers as erroneous and unphilosophical, 105-107
-differ little from the Theophilanthrope Deists, 107, 474cannot
form any canon of scripture, why, 108-have lately published a version
of the New Testament; nature of that version, 491-497-in that version
admit the substitutive force of the word ung, 146—reject humility, 26,
98 agree with the Stoics in their proud notions of virtue, 109-refer
to each other boldly for proofs which have not been given, 231--233, 242,
246, 489 said to hold a pure Christianity, 476 said to be persecuted,
ibid. said to be a progressive cause, 480—likely to decrease in num-
ber, 480, 482-do not all follow up their principles, 481, 482-in one
way seem to increase in number, 483-naturally pass to Deism, 480—
485-how contrive to retain the bible, 485, 486-they alone sound cri-
tics, and why, 486, 488-disingenuous in their treatment of ancient au-
thorities, 501.
Unitarian Version of the New Testament-of a latitude which embraces
opinions subversive of Christian doctrines, 491-insidiously professes to
found itself on Archbishop Newcome's translation, 491-effected by
means of the usual apparatus of Unitarian exposition, 491, 492-avows
the design of clearing away all the leading doctrines of the gospel, 492
is enabled to take the widest liberties of translation by its systematic
rejection of verbal criticism, 492-gets rid of the doctrine of the Incar
nation by rejecting the opening chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 492
-futile and contradictory grounds on which it attempts to maintain this
rejection, 492-494-quotes Lardner's authority in support of the oppo-
site of that which he maintains, 495-does this from a gross blunder in
confounding the true and vulgar eras of the nativity, 495, 496-falls into
another blunder concerning the age and character of Ephrem Syrus, 496
-gives a most extraordinary and absurd translation of the first chapter
of St. Jolin's gospel, 496-gives an equally extraordinary and absurd
explanation of St. Stephen's address to Christ, 497-the whole of this
new Version judiciously examined and exposed by Mr. Nares, 262, 497.
Universals-the various opinions concerning their nature, 289-294-
Aristotle's views on this subject, just, 290, 291-excellent remark upon
this subject, by Mr. Dugald Stewart, 291, 292.
Veysie, (Mr.)-his judicious remarks on the sense in which God is said
to forgive men freely, 119—his just distinction, on the subject of figura-
tive allusion, 116, 117.
Villers-gives, in his Essay on the Reformation, a dismal account of the
ignorance of scripture enforced by the Romish Church, 388, 389--con-
trasts the characters of the Protestant and Romish Churches, 389-con-
victs Hume of falsehoods in his charges against Luther, 434.
Walker, (Mr.)-has given, in his Letter to Mr. Belsham, an excellent re-
futation of his reasoning, 490.
Warburton, his strange position that repentance must necessarily enti
tle to forgiveness, 66, 401-his singular theory on the subject of Natural
Religion, 400, 401-his well-founded observations on Wesley, 103, 104
-his paradoxical position concerning the language of the New Testa
ment, 18-this well refuted by Dr. Leland, 138-140-his idea of
the scenical nature of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, 218——his theory of
Sacrifice, 40, 280-his objections against the divine institution of sacri-
fice considered, 304-307-his extravagant notion concerning the book
of Job, 315--his unjustifiable adoption of the opinions of Spencer and
Maimonides, 404, 405-his unmerciful laceration of Bolingbroke, 401
——characters given of him, 405, 406.
Ward's Errata-a meagre abstract of Gregory Martin's ancient refuted
work, 389-its recent republication a proof of the low state of scripture
criticism in the Romish Church, ibid--specimen of its miserable cavils
against the Protestant translations of the Bible, 389, 390-answered by
Dr. Ryan and Mr. Grier, 390--the danger to which these gentlemen are
exposed by their attempts to answer it, ibid.
Watson, (B. of Landaff)-his judicious observation on the position that
the doctrine of Atonement is inconsistent with the divine attribute of mercy,
265 his just expression of indignation against the presumption of op-
posing a fancied philosophy to apostolic authority, 512.
Wesley-his followers hold opinions of perfection, inconsistent with Chris-
tian humility, 98-speak contemptuously of the Clergy of the Establish-
ed Church, 98—not remarkable for the justness and accuracy of their
reasonings, 99-their numbers rapidly increasing, and the reason why,
ibid danger to the establishment from the injudicious countenance
given to them by some of its members, 99, 100-change of the Liturgy
and Articles, and rejection of the Catechism, two of the Creeds, and many
of the Psalms, by Mr. Wesley, 100, 101—the Articles rejected by him
inconsistent with his favourite doctrine of perfection, and the rejection de-
rogatory to the dignity of Christ, 100, 102, 103- -extravagant dogmas
maintained by him and his followers, 100-proofs of this in the writings
of Mr. Wesley, 102-104—his latitudinarian principles respecting doc.
trines, 102-104-mischievous consequences to true religion, 104
Wilberforce, (Mr.)—his Practical View, a book of high value, 63, 96———
defended against Dr. Parr, 455-his eloquent description of the corruption
of man's natural state, 96, 97—describes Unitarianism as a half way house
, to infidelity, 474.
Williams-in his Free Inquiry, asserts that there are no certain references
to the first two chapters of St. Matthew's gospel, till the days of Celsus, 499.
this assertion refuted, 499, 500-his strange assertion concerning the
silence of the apostolical fathers on those chapters fully examined and con-
futed, 500-507-this writer exhibits a striking specimen of the disinge
nuousness of Unitarian critics, 501.
|