whereof we speak." This was speaking to the Jews in their own dialect; for they stiled the more glorious dispensation that was prophecied of, to succeed the Mosaic, the world to come, which was the apostle's present subject, whereof, says he, we now speak. The MESSIAH was to be LORD and ruler over it. Its doctrines, ordinances, institutions, privileges, and blessings, were all to be derived from him. But that the argument might have its full force, he proceeds to explain the doctrine of his humiliation, and gives reasons for his incarnation and sufferings. He shews that in their own scriptures, the old testament, he is spoken of as man and the son of man; and that his state of humiliation was prophetically told in his being "made a little lower than the angels"-or rather as it is in the margin,-" for a little while lower than angels." I know that this is generally thought to mean Adam, or his posterity in general, but this it cannot do; for it would render the apostle's argument useless,-while he was proving that CHRIST was superior to angels, to wander from his subjeet to an account of Adam and his posterity. And besides, the words are nothing for his purpose unless they are understood of CHRIST,

They must be inverted to make them suit Adam's case, whose honor was before his fall,and read thus: "he was crowned with glory and honor, and made a little lower than the angels." It would suit his case better to say, he was a little while crowned with glory and honor,-than that he was a little while made lower than the angels; since his honor was only for a small space, and his dishonorable or fallen state continued. But the text is literally and plainly applied to CHRIST, who after being long in a state of honor and glory, and made for a little while, a few years, much lower than angels, in his abased and humbled state upon earth: and is now crowned with

glory and honor in his exalted state for ever. Those parts of the passage which relate to dominion, in their complete and highest sense, can belong to none but CHRIST, the universal LORD and GOVERNOR of all creatures.

The last words of verse 8, seems to be an objection against the doctrine of CHRIST's universal dominion, which the apostle sets himself to answer, by giving the reasons of his humiliation unto death -or being made for a little time lower than angels -for the suffering of death-that he might taste death-be made perfect through sufferings.-All which are reasons for his taking a body; but HE who took that body is through the whole supposed to exist before HE took it.

By taking flesh and blood he consummated his relation to his people as brethren, having assumed that part of their nature in the same state and condition of weakness, affliction, and mortality with them; that he might have something to offer for them; and they might have the benefit of it; therefore, says the apostle," they are all of one.' They are also of one Father, under one wise, holy, and gracious constitution,-whereby they are legally one, and included in one covenant. And therefore, however great and glorious CHRIST is, and mean and contemptible they are, he is not ashamed to call them brethren. And in proof of this, the apostle cites his own words from several psalms, wherein HE avows the relation to them, and HIS dependence upon God for what HE would need in finishing the work of their salvation.

Having pointed out the relation that CHRIST, as elder brother, stood in to all the children of GOD, the apostle more especially declares the reasons why he took flesh and blood. "For as much

then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death," &c. &c. Pray let me ask who took the flesh and blood?-JESUS certainly, who is mentioned in the seventh verse, for there is not another antecedent.-What was JESUS when he took flesh and blood?-for it is abundantly evident he existed before he did so.-This question I must leave with them who are not ashamed to tell the world, that this chapter destroys the pre-existent scheme.

From the above remarks, the following verses of the chapter will appear so plain to our purpose that they need no comment, as it is almost impossible but every unprejudiced reader must see their force and energy. Verse 16th, "For verily he

took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Or as the text as properly reads, he did not take hold of angels,perhaps fallen angels, to help or rescue them ;"but he took hold of the seed of Abraham,”—to help and rescue them. The word nature is not in the text. But whatever way it be read, it answers the same purpose in the present argument.

Verse 17, 18. "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he 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 hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." It was necessary he should have a body like his brethren, that in all things he might be duly qualified to answer the great design of his offices as their Redeemer and Savior: that by his own experience of their trials and sufferings he might, as far as possible, be in the same condition with his brethren whom he was

to save and succor; and might act the part of a feeling, compassionate, and tender-hearted high priest, as well as faithfully discharge every part of his great undertaking for them who were given him from among men, not only to redeem by his blood, but make them, as the dear objects of his sympathy and compassion, triumph over all trials and temptations, and bring them at last victorious to endless glory with himself,

GIVE me leave, dear reader, to crave your patience a little further. I am surprised at the method a very ingenious author takes to shew his opposition to this doctrine, in his preface to Notes on Scripture Texts, he says, "That notion never came originally from the scriptures, but owes its first rise to the vain imaginations of the philosophers." He falls foully on Dr. Watts for what he had said in favor of it. But instead of shewing that the texts brought to prove it were misapplied, and the arguments in its defence were weak or inconclusive, he takes a much easier way, by setting this doctrine in opposition to some parts of the scholastic doctrine of the trinity, and because it will not, in his opinion, agree with them, therefore it is false; whereas he never cites a single text in proof of the one, nor against the other: but in place of this, he says, he must forget such things before he can believe this doctrine. He mentions three things which we must forget, and confidently says to each of them-We have learned from the scripture; but forgot not to tell us what part he had learned them from.-I am persuaded that no such ideas are in the sacred book.

How strong are the prejudices of education, that hinder men from receiving clear and manifest

truth, because they perceive it to be inconsistent with what they have been formerly taught, which things they have long believed, without taking the trouble of examining them impartially! I am pretty confident, that had this gentleman's very extraordinary talents been as impartially employed in examining the scholastic doctrine of the trinity, as they have been in many parts of the scripture system, by which laudable industry, he has brought many truths to light which were hid under the rubbish of human explications; he would not have sustained himself any sufferer by the loss of these ideas which he opposes to this doctrine, nay, would never have retained things so unscriptural, and self-contradictory.-No man is perfect here.

One of the things which he says he learned from the scriptures, and must forget if he believe this doctrine is, That there is a foundation in the same one divine nature or Godhead for such a distinction as is between the sender and the sent among men, which is commonly called personal.—Strange doctrine this, to be fathered upon a revelation from the GoD of truth!-Distinctions in the divine nature! Such a distinction as between the SENDER and the SENT!-Yea, of the SAME KIND as AMONG MEN! Every one must know that the ideas which naturally arise from a sender and sent among men, are those of master and servant-superior and inferior, &c.-But is it possible for a christian to carry such ideas into the divine nature, or Deity? The believer of this needs find no fault with Arians. No Arian ever pretended to fix such an inconsistency in Deity;-no, they will rather suppose two Gods, a supreme and subordinate.-But our gentleman's distinction undeifies DEITY itself! -Does he not boldly answer the question which JEHOVAH himself put, and sustained unanswer