higher, being only a mere man, "for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he," though a mere man, "by the grace of God should taste death for every man ;" his single and temporal life, though he was of no higher nature or origin than others, being an adequate price for the redemption of the innumerable and eternal lives of all men. And, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself," a mere man, "likewise took part of the same;" not that it was possible he should have had it in his choice, whether he would take part thereof or not, having had no existence till he was formed in the womb, and grew up in flesh; "that through death he," a mere man, "might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he," a mere man, "took not on him the nature of angels," or did not take hold on and assume their nature into union with himself; "but he," the same mere man, "took on him," that is, assumed into union with himself, “the seed of Abraham,” namely, that particular seed born of Mary and descended from the patriarch Abraham: in other words, he, a mere man, became a mere man : "wherefore in all things it behoved him," a mere man, begotten by Joseph, and conceived and born of Mary, "to be made like to his brethren, that he," the same mere man, might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself suffered being tempted, he is able," though a mere man, and of consequence immensely removed from his followers, and entirely unacquainted with them, "to succour them that are tempted." Heb. ii. 1-3, 5, 9, 14—18.

66

Now what strange unintelligible jargon is this! how unworthy, I will not say of the tongue or of the pen of an apostle divinely inspired, but of a human creature endowed with common sense! How absurd, as well as false, was it to represent it as a much greater crime, and therefore, as a behaviour that would meet with much more exemplary punishment, to neglect the salvation revealed by a mere man, than to disobey the word spoken by glorious

angels! to speak of this mere man as made a little lower than the angels,-an expression which plainly implies that he once was higher,—in order that, by the grace of God, he might taste death to redeem every man; as partaking of flesh and blood, because we were partakers thereof,- -a manner of speaking from which it is natural to infer that he had it in his choice whether he would partake of them or not, and that he acted voluntarily in so doing, and therefore that he pre-existed; to magnify it as an astonishing instance of his love, that he passed by the nature of angels, and laid hold on sinking men, assuming the human nature into union with himself, and condescending to be "made in all things like unto his brethren ;" and to hold him forth to our view, as being therefore able not only to destroy the power of Satan, and to deliver mankind from his works, especially death and the fear of it; but also to sustain the office of a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, making reconciliation for the sins of the people, and succouring them that are tempted;" -an expression this which certainly implies his being perfectly acquainted with them, and ever at hand to help them, wherever they may be dispersed abroad over the face of the earth, which it is certainly inconceivable that any mere man should be! Methinks, I say, that as these things, if understood of a mere man, must be false, so to suppose them is very ridiculous, and sufficient to discredit any pretences, not only to a supernatural afflatus, but even to ordinary reason and understanding.

66

66

"This

Chapter iii. we meet with a passage still more extraordinary, if considered in a similar point of view. person," says the apostle, was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he that builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some one; but he," this mere man, built all things is God. And Moses verily," one mere man, 66 was faithful as a servant; but Christ," another mere män, as a son over his own house; whose house" or family we are, if we hold fast the confidence and the

66

"that

rejoicing of hope firm unto the end. For we are made

partakers of" this mere man "Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end." Verses 3-6, 14.

Respecting this remarkable passage, I shall only say, that as certainly as the author of it compares Christ to Moses, and asserts his great superiority to the Jewish lawgiver; so certainly does he signify that that superiority consisted in two things: Moses was but a servant in the family of God, Christ a son: Moses was the house itself, or rather only a part of it; but Christ was the builder of the house; yea, is the builder of all things, is God. Now, is it possible, on the principles of common sense, to reconcile this doctrine of the apostle with the supposition of his viewing Christ, whom he thus magnifies, as a mere man? Surely, if Christ be a mere man, he was and is God's servant, and a part of God's house, as much as Moses.

66

Pass we on to the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter, where we meet with another paragraph, which, on the principles of common sense, is almost equally irreconcilable with the same doctrine of Christ's mere humanity. The Socinian hypothesis requires us to understand it thus: Having therefore a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God," that is, a mere man, “let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities," although it must be granted that, being a mere man, he cannot be acquainted with them. "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews iv. 14-16.

Still more ridiculous, according to the same doctrine, is the apostle's language in the seventh chapter, where he discourses largely on one of the capital doctrines of Christianity, and holds forth the Lord Jesus as an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Comparing them together he observes, "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, first being, by interpretation, king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace, without father, without mother.

without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God," who, as Dr. Priestley teaches, is a mere man, and had both a father and a mother, and at least beginning of days, if not also end of life. "For he testifieth, Thou," a mere man, "art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore this" merè " man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore," though a

66

mere man," he is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, and" though a mere man, higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's for this he did once when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son," namely, a mere man, who, according to Dr. Priestley, had infirmity also, and was weak and peccable like others; but, nevertheless, it seems, "who is consecrated for evermore!" Hebrews vii. 1—3, 24-28.

17,

Now, here I would ask, on the supposition that the author of this epistle believed Jesus Christ, the great High Priest of our profession, to be a mere man, the proper son of Joseph and Mary, begotten, conceived, and born like other men, how came he to avail himself of the silence of the old testament respecting the genealogy of Melchizedek, in the comparison which he draws between him and Christ? How came he to take notice of his being "without" any "father" recorded in the scripture, "without mother, without descent," and his "having neither beginning of days nor end of life," mentioned in the divine oracles, as circumstances which rendered him a more complete type of the Son of God? Certainly, if the Son of God be a mere man, and the apostle had considered him as such, he must have seen that Melchizedek would have resembled him much more had all these particulars been otherwise; I mean, if he

had had a father and a mother spoken of in the Jewish scriptures, and if the beginning of his days had also been recorded there. For it must be allowed, that a man that has human parents, and whose days have had a beginning, is, in these respects, a fitter type of a mere man, conceived and born as all others are, than one who never had any progenitors, and whose days never began to be. And as it is probable that Melchizedek

was a real man, and therefore that he had both a father and a mother, though that circumstance be not mentioned in the short account Moses has given us of him, certainly the apostle would have taken no notice of these particulars, much less would he have enlarged upon them as he has done, had he viewed Jesus Christ in the light in which Dr. Priestley views him, as it is not to be conceived that any end could be answered by it, unless to mislead people, and make them believe that the Son of God, of whom this Melchizedek was an illustrious type, was not of this world, nor of any human origin.

I need make no remark upon divers other expressions in the passages quoted above. They speak for themselves, and make it evident, that if the apostle believed Jesus Christ to be a mere man, he strangely forgot his creed when he wrote these verses, and uttered things, to say the very least, very inconsistent with it. For, let common sense judge: how can a mere man, whose presence is and must be merely local, and who is immensely removed from our world, and confined in the third heaven; how can he, I say, be acquainted even with the persons, and much more with the infirmities, of all his followers, nay, and of all mankind in every part of the habitable globe? And how can he be present with, and assisting to, every one that shall apply to him, at whatever time or place, giving grace to help in time of need, directing, protecting, strengthening, and comforting all in general, and each individual in particular, as their wants and necessities require? I pass by many particulars also in the eighth chapter, in which the apostle's reasoning is very weak on the Socinian hypothesis. Indeed, there is