being said, he was made like unto the Son of God, many have supposed he could not be the Son of God: for it would be inconsistent to say a person was made like unto himself. But would it not be more inconsistent to say, that a mere man was made like unto the Son of God, in His priestly office, and thus become an atoning Saviour and Redeemer? For it is to the unchangeable and efficacious priesthood of Christ, that the words like unto have a special reference. "Made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." Besides, we find the same expression used in describing the form of the fourth, in the fiery furnace," like the Son of God; and He was the Son of God.

The apostle then calls upon them, to "consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils." Paul knew that they considered Abraham the greatest man that ever lived. He was the honored father of their nation, the spiritual father of believers, to whom the promises of God were made, and who, by way of eminence, was called the friend of God. Yet great as he was, he acknowledged Melchisedec to bet his superior, by paying tithes to him and receiving his blessing; and without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better. They must, therefore, according to their own creed, acknowledge Melchisedec to be more than a mere man, since their father Abraham, the greatest and most Divinely honored of men, had thus acknowledged him to be his superior. Hence, the apostle labors to convince them, from their own Jewish sentiments, of the Divinity of Christ's priesthood. "For the Lord had sworn that He was a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec."

As the apostle proceeds in his argument, and seems to be drawing the two branches of it-Christ and Melchisedec-to the same point, he inquires, "If, therefore, perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For He of whom these things were spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar;" as was the fact respecting Melchisedec. "For it is evident," continues the apostle, "that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident; for that, after the similitude of Melchisedec, there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." Now, if Christ is made a priest, not after the order of Aaron, nor after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, and yet He be after the order and similitude of Melchisedec, can it be that Melchisedec was a mere man? If we affirm that He was, where are

'Heb. 1: 11-17.

we to look for the Divinity of Christ's priesthood, since it is after the order and similitude of a mere man?

The apostle now crowns the climax of his whole argument, by uniting the two great branches of it-Christ and Melchisedectogether, as being both one and the same person. He had already shown that Melchisedec abideth a priest continually, and that it is witnessed that he liveth; and, also, that Christ was a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. He then adds, as an inference, or by way of application: "By so much was Jesus made. a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able, also, to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." And all this was, because, as he had shown them, Metchisedec abideth a priest continually, and seeing it is witnessed that he liveth. This seems to be the wherefore Christ is able to save to the uttermost-a conclusive inference, that Christ and Melchisedec are both one and the same person. "Melchisedec, made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually;""Christ, a priest for ever, after the order and similitude of Melchisedec." "For," continues the apostle, "such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made 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."

But if Melchisedec was a mere man, he certainly stood in need of daily offering up sacrifice for himself as well as for the people ; for he could not have been holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Here then is a very essential branch of the priesthood of Christ, which cannot be after the order and similitude of Melchisedec, if he was nothing but a mere man, however great he may have been.

"Now," saith the apostle in concluding his argument, "of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: we have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." This, the apostle declares, is the sum of what he had said in his argument. Now, review his whole argument on this subject, and you will not find a single expression, direct or implied, by which he makes Christ, in any respect or degree, superior to Melchisedec; but only after his order and after his similitude; in nothing different from him, or superior to him." If, therefore, the apostle considered Melchisedec a mere man, and if the Hebrews so understood him, to what did his whole argument amount, according to his own summing up of it, toward convincing them of the Di

'Heb. 8: 8, 9.

vine mission and priesthood of Christ? But, supposing him to mean that Melchisedec was Christ, then his whole argument is pertinent and conclusive, and we feel the meaning and emphasis of the "wherefore Christ is able to save to the uttermost," because "Melchisedec abideth a priest continually, and seeing it is witnessed that he liveth."

Is it reasonable to suppose, that the apostle, in so lengthy and labored an argument, to illustrate and establish the Divinity of Christ's priesthood, would have set up a mere man, as a model from which to draw a perfect portrait? And then say, "Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum; we have such an high priest, precisely after the order and similitude of this human being; therefore he is Divine, and made higher than the heavens, and is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God by him." This would be a very poor specimen, indeed, of the profound logic of the great and learned apostle. And the Hebrews well knew, that if Melchisedec were nothing but a man, he must have had a beginning of days and an end of life; notwithstanding they had no record of it, yet they knew he must have died like those other priests, who were not suffered to continue by reason of death. How then could the apostle expect to convince them, that the priesthood of Christ was a Divine, unchangeable and everlasting priesthood-by so repeatedly asserting and confirming it by the oath of the Almighty, that it was after the order and similitude of a mortal creature?

There is another thing worthy of some consideration, in relation to this subject. We find no mention made in the Bible, but of two priesthoods, viz. the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Christ. And it is said, "If the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second ;" and abolishing the Levitical priesthood, is said to be, "taking away the first, that he may establish the second." But if Melchisedec was a man only, a king in Salem, and a priest of the most High God, then there must have been three separate and distinct priesthoods; and abolishing the Levitical priesthood, to establish the priesthood of Christ, could not be taking away the first to establish the second, but taking away the second to establish the third. Besides, it would be making a marked and very essential difference between two human priesthoods, and drawing a perfect parallel between a human and a Divine priesthood?

From the foregoing considerations, which we have presented briefly, we are led, necessarily, it would seem, to the conclusion, that the personage who appeared to Abraham, on the signal occasion alluded to, and as God's appointed high-priest, received those tithes of him which He ever after required of His people, was none other than JESUS CHRIST, in that humanity in which He often appeared to the Old Testament saints, and in which he was ordained to make atonement for our sins, and bring in everlasting

righteousness. This was a clear and early intimation, that mankind stood in need of the services of a better and more exalted priesthood, than any mere creature could sustain; and that God had mercifully provided one, adequate to our wants, and fully equal to the service to be performed. And to convince his Hebrew brethren of this important fact; to set the priesthood of Christ before their minds in its true light, and persuade them to depend alone on His atoning sacrifice and efficacious intercession, for the pardon of sin and justification with God, is the sum and scope of this great argument of the apostle.

ARTICLE VI.

NICODEMUS.

By Rev. JAMES M. MACDONALD, Jamaica, L. I.

THE fact that Christ selected His disciples, and that a majority of His followers, were from the humbler class of mankind, has been often noticed. An inspired apostle thinks it worthy of special note, that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But the expression," not many," implies that a few of the class, or classes, which he excepts, became, in the apostle's day, the subjects of Divine grace. Paul himself must be regarded as having belonged to that class whom he styles, "wise men after the flesh." He had taken his lessons at the feet of Gamaliel, and in the schools of Grecian philosophy; and under his preaching, and that of the other apostles, there were some instances of conversion among men of rank and prominent standing. The gospel found its way even into the palace of the Cæsars. We find a little band of believers in the household of the infamous emperor, Nero, sending Christian salutations to their brethren in Asia Minor. And there are not wanting intimations, that, in the days of Christ, a few persons of rank and inflnence were numbered among His followers. We are expressly told, that, among the chief rulers, many believed on Him; i. e. were convinced that He was the Messiah, but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. Joseph of Arimethea, a rich man, was one of the disciples of Christ. He did not consent to the acts of the Sanhedrim, who condemned Jesus; and when He was dead, he had the boldness to go to Pilate, and request His body, that he might bury it. The rich and virtuous young ruler, although we

have no reason to believe, he became a decided follower of Christ, displayed a degree of moral courage, remarkable at that time, and among his class, in coming opely to Christ to consult him on the great question, What he must do, that he might have eternal life?

Nicodemus was also a ruler of the Jews, and a member of their great Council. The fact that he sought an interview with our blessed Lord, by night, has been frequently interpreted to his disadvantage, as if it were conclusive evidence, that he was influenced by fear of the Jews, and paid higher regard to the praise of men than to the praise of God. A Nicodemian spirit is sometimes attributed to those who do not possess sufficient moral courage to take a bold stand in favor of religion, but still wish to put in a claim to be the disciples of Christ. That fear of the world which bringeth a snare, and by which too many are actuated, is sometimes illustrated by the very case of Nicodemus.

"We may suppose him," says Bloomfield in his notes on John 3., "to have been a proud, timid, and, in a great degree, worldlyminded man: though at the same time, it should seem, that, in his character, the good preponderated over the evil; and his motives appear, upon the whole, to have been good. Not venturing openly to avow, what he secretly believed, he resolves, like most timid and selfish men, to steer a middle course; and with the usual expedient of cowardice, seeks to do that privately, which he was afraid to do publicly; and accordingly seeks an interview by night, in order to be privately admitted to His discipleship.

Whitby says: "The same came to Jesus by night, that he might not offend his colleagues." Rosenmuller, also, (NKTOS) "Ne offenderet collegas, Jesu jam male volentis." So, Kuinoel: "Accessit Nicodemus ad Jesum nocturno tempore, ut eo diutius et liberius cum ipso colloqui posset, et ne in odium collegarum incurreret, homo timidus et providus." Calmet's opinion was similar: "Il vint la nuit trouver Jesus; apparement pour la crainte des Juifs, qui haissoient deja Jesus, etc." Doddridge has no better opinion of him: "But, lest any offence should be taken at his conversing openly with him, he secretly came to Jesus by night.""

The same interpretation will probably be found to have been adopted by the majority of commentators, &c., &c., &c. Now this general opinion, so unfavorable to the character of Nicodemus, is wholly founded on the expression of the evangelist, that he came to Jesus by night.

What we propose, therefore, is, A VINDICATION OF NICODEMUS; or an attempt to form a true estimate of his character. Let us 2 Rosenm. Evang. Johan., cap. 3. Calmet, Saint Jean, chap. 3.

1 Whitby's Paraphrase, John 3.
'Kuinoel in Joann., cap. 3. 1, 2.
Doddridge's

Expos. John 3.