How then, you will inquire, are we to judge of the intent of all these references to the mosaic law, in this epiftle to the hebrews, and what degree of inspiration are we to attribute to it?

With respect to the latter inquiry, it is to be observed, that in all thefe occafional writings of the apoftles, no new revelation is to be expected in them, unlefs when exprefsly pointed out by themfelves; which we do not find here done by St. Paul. But he, as well as the other apoftles, being fully informed of the gospel-doctrine, and deeply impreffed with the importance of it, would always be able, without any immediate divine affiftance, to ftate, and explain and apply it, to any particular purpose, cafe, or emergency, that called for it, either in preaching or writing. And their doctrine, thus delivered, could not be called mere human teaching, or the word of man, but that which Jefus Chrift received by inspiration, and communicated to his followers, the word of God.

The fpecial occafion of his inditing this epiftle, and the perfons to whom it was

fent,

1

fent, and their fituation, will unfold the reafon of that continual reference to the mofaic inftitution, which we meet with in this epiftle, beyond any other of his writings.

Addreffing himself then, as is generally acknowleged, to hebrew chriftians, refiding in Judea, in dangerous times, juft before the breaking out of their fatal war against the romans, when they were under many temptations to defert the gospel, his chief defign is to confirm them in their adherence to it. And the argument moft likely to turn them back to judaifm, being this, that the gospel tended to abolish their divine religion, their priesthood and facrifices, without giving them an equivalent in lieu of it, this eminent teacher makes it his bufinefs to fhew the fuperiority of Chrift, in character and office, to Mofes; and even.. to angels, by whofe inftrumentality they fuppofed their law to have been given; and teaches at large, by comparison, that Christ was a better high priest than any under their law, and his death, or facrifice, more efficacious and acceptable to God, than their legal facrifices.

Not

Not that Chrift was properly a prieft, or his death properly a facrifice: but our apof tle, a jew writing to jews, fpeaks to them in their own way, in terms of allufion to their old religion and its ceremonies; and intended to fignify this only by it, that whatever advantages they supposed that they had from their high priests and sacrifices, christians derived far more and greater from Chrift.

That this was the apoftle's intent, in applying fo much of the jewish history and ritual to his prefent purpose, I perfuade myfelf you will find on the matureft examination to be the truth; and that in this way of interpreting his letter to his countrymen, you have fome fure rule and plan by which to proceed; but in the method which Dr. Horne's prejudices leads him to embrace, you are wholly left to ingenious conjecture, and imagination.

And though there will foon be an opportunity of farther inquiry into the fuppofed priestly character of Chrift, his interceffion, and making atonement for us, you will perhaps at present fee caufe to agree with me, that there

H

there is no ground for that extreme diffatisfaction, in which you are made to join with the prefident of Magdalen, at the following paffage which he cites from the fequel to the apology on refigning the vicarage of Catterick, p. 88. 89. Our Lord never

⚫ called himself an high priest, nor is

fpoken of as fuch by any of the four his• torians of his life and of the first propagation of his religion among jews and gen

tiles; nor is he fo ftiled by any of the ' writers of the New Teftament, except the

author of this epiftle to the hebrews. From whence we may conclude, that neither Chrift, nor the evangelifts efteemed this

to be any real part of his character, or needful to be attended to by his followers.'

SECTION VI.

SECTION. VI.

Mofes's account of the tranfgreffion of our firft parents, much misreprefented, through the bias of wrong religious fyftems. It is probable, according to Dr. Priestley's conjecture, that he did not receive that account from a particular divine infpiration. How it is to be interpreted. Juftification of this way of interpretation, from fimilar inftances in fcripture, efpecially, Chrift's temptation. A farther confirmation of the probability, that Mofes drew up his hiftory of the fall, in the manner here ftated.

Dr. Priestley, in his letters to Dr. Price, p. 158. 159. remarks, that that worthy perfon had appeared to him, without any juft ground, to found, what he calls, the neceffity of Christ's incarnation, and the efficacy of his death, on the tranfgreffion of our first parents; obferving to him, that, if the 'fall of man, whatever it was, had been an event, on which the whole chriftian scheme was thus founded, we might have expected