Page Alleged necessity of the Deity of Jesus to his mediatorial character 112 This opposed to common sense ib. Opposed also to Scripture; Numbers xi, 1, 2, xiv, 19, 20; xxi. 7, xxxii. 30; Gen. xviii. 32; Jeremiah xxvii. 18; Deuteronomy v. 7 113, 114 The arguments of Hindoos for Polytheism more powerful than those of Christians for the Trinity 115 APPENDIX. No. 1. On the Quotations from the Old Testament contained in the New. Matt. ii. 15 116 Matt. iv. 4 117 Matt. iv. 7 2b. Matt. ix. 13 ib. Matt. xix. 19, xxii. 39 118 Matt. xxi. 42 ib. Matt. xxii. 44 ib. John x. 35 119 Matt. iv. 10 ib. Matt. xiii. 14 ib: Matt. xix. 5 ib. Matt. xix. 18, 19 ib. Matt. xxii. 32 120 Matt. xxii. 37 ib. Matt. xxvi. 31 ib. John vi. 45 121 John xiii. 18 ib. John xv. 25 Matt. xxi. 16 ib. Matt. xxi, 13 122 ib. Matt. xv. 7-9 Matt. xi. 10 Luke iv. 8 Luke iv. 18, 19 These quotations prove the subordinate nature of Jesus to God No. II. On the References made to the Old Testament in Support of the Deity of Jesus. John i. 14, compared with Isaiah ix. 6, explained Hebrews i. 8, 9, compared with Psalm xlv. 6, 7, considered The original of Jeremiah xxiii. 6, xxxiii. 16; Gen. xxv. 16; 137, 138 138 Rom. xiv. 10, 12, compared with Isaiah xlv. 23 2 Peter iii. 18, compared with Isaiah xliii. 3, on the term Saviour 139, 140 John x. 16, compared with Psalm xxiii. 1, on the term Shepherd 1 Cor. x. 9, compared with Psalm lxxviii. 56, on tempting John iii. 29, compared with Isaiah liv. 5, on the term husband Page 122 ib. 123 ib. ib. Revelation xxii. 13, compared with Isaiah xliv. 6, on the phrase "Alpha and Omega" Rev. xxii. 12, compared with Isaiah xl. 10, on the phrase "My reward is with me" 145, 146 Ephes. iv. 8, compared with Psalm lxviii. 18, on the phrase "Thou hast ascended on high" 124 135 136 137 ib. 140 141 142 143 146 John xix. 37, compared with Zachariah xii. 10, on the phrase "Whom they pierced" 1 Peter ii. 6-8, compared with Isaiah xxviii. 16, and viii. 13, 14, on the phrase "Stone of stumbling," &c. 149, 150 The Hebrew and other Asiatic languages full of metaphor, John x. 34-36 147 151 Page The Deity of Moses and of David cannot be proved from Deut. xxx. 15; 1 Chron. xxix. 30. 151, 152 Personal interest does not influence the author ; nor desire of fame 152 Nor the hope of success 153 But reverence for the author of Christianity, and a wish to raise it above all Polytheistical systems ib. The author's views derived from the Scriptures 154 The Old Testament should be studied before the New ib. Locke's testimony respecting the fundamental articles of Christianity ib. Extract from Sir Isaac Newton, pointing ouť the different natures of God and Christ 155 Argument in favour of the Trinity, from its analogy to the triangle, considered 156 Several arguments occurring in the beginning of Serle's Horæ Solitariæ considered 157 Conclusion 160 POSTSCRIPT. Page 162 Dr. Prideaux's assertion respecting the testimony of Jonathan's Targum on Isaiah ix. 6, 7, examined 163 Quotations from several ancient Jewish commentators ib. On the difference of meaning between “to be called" and " to be" 164 Passages illustrating the epithets employed in Isaiah ix. 6 ib. The terms “ Son” and “only-begotten” incompatible with the nature of the First Cause 165 The assertion respecting two sets of terms and phrases being applied to Jesus, examined No Hindoo can conscientiously prefer the doctrine of the Trinity to Hindooism 166 True Christianity is free from Polytheism ib. ib. SECOND APPEAL. CHAPTER I. General Defence of the Precepts in Question. The observations contained in No. I. of the Quarterly Series of “The Friend of India,” on the Introduction to “The Precepts of Jesus," as well as on their defence, termed “ An Appeal to the Christian Public,” are happily expressed in so mild and Christian-like a style, that they have not only afforded me ample consolation for the disappointment and vexation I felt from the personality conveyed in the preceding Magazines, (Nos. 20 and 23,) but have also encouraged me to pursue my researches after the fundamental principles of Christianity in a manner agreeable to my feelings, and with such respect as I should always wish to manifest for the situation and character of so worthy a person as the Editor of the Friend of India. The Reverend Editor labours in his Review to establish two points—the truth and excellency of the miraculous relations and of the dogmas found in the scriptural writings ; and, 2dly, the insuffi |