out the most powerful motives to obey his law, which is not an arbitrary institution, but is founded on the relations subsisting between him and his

creatures.

The inference from the preceding reasoning is, that the priesthood of Jesus Christ was necessary, if God was to pardon sinners, and receive them into favour. It is this hypothetical necessity alone which we assert; as his susception of the office was voluntary, so his investiture with it by his Father was an act of his sovereign grace. God was under no obligation to renew the intercourse between himself and man, which had ceased at the fall.

"No man," says Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." The necessity of a divine call is manifest from the nature of the case. A priest ministers before God in the name of men, to effect a reconciliation between them. Now, although it is their interest which is connected with the office, and no advantage can redound from it to God, yet they have not the power of appointing the priest, for two reasons; first, because it depends solely upon the will of God whether a priest shall be admitted at all; and secondly, because it is his prerogative to declare who is acceptable to him, and proper to be entrusted with so important a work. "So also," the apostle adds, "Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Great as his love was to sinners, he interposed in their behalf only in concurrence with his Father, and in obedience to his will.

With respect to the time of his investiture with this office, it was coincident with his appointment to the general office of mediator. At that time, he was constituted the prophet, the priest, and the king of his Church. The manner of his consecration has been explained in different ways. He was consecrated, it has been said, at his baptism; and this is so far true, because he was then solemnly dedicated to the service of his Father; but he possessed the office before, and performed its duties, both by bearing our griefs and carrying our infirmities, while yet, in a private character, he led a life of poverty, labour and suffering of various kinds, and by the intercessory prayers which he no doubt offered up for the salvation of his people. It is the opinion of that eminent and learned divine, Dr. Owen, that he was consecrated by the shedding of his own blood, as Aaron and his sons were by the blood of the sacrifices; and this he conceives to be the import of the expression, "made perfect through sufferings." But this notion we can by no means admit, because it seems to be absurd to suppose a person to be consecrated to an office, by doing the duties of it; to hold it, and proceed to perform its most important functions, before he is properly invested with it. His being "perfected through sufferings" evidently means, that, by his death upon the cross, he became the Captain or the Author of our salvation, having offered that atoning sacrifice, which obtained eternal redemption for us. It appears that he was consecrated by the oath of God, of which we shall afterwards speak, because it is an important fact in the history of his priesthood, and, as such, is mentioned in Scripture. "The law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."§

The two great duties of the sacerdotal office, are sacrifice and intercession; to which may be added a third, the blessing of the people, as Aaron and his sons were commanded to do. I do not think it necessary to take any farther notice of the last in relation to our Saviour's office, because it does not appear that, as a priest, he blesses us in any other way than by dying to procure, and

⚫ Heb. v. 4. † Ib. 5. VOL. II.-7

Heb. ii. 10. Owen on Heb. in loco, § Heb. vii. 28.

E

by obtaining, through his intercession, the communication of blessings to us. It is properly in the character of a king that he bestows them.

66

The first duty of his office he performed upon earth, when he presented to God the immaculate oblation of himself upon the cross. He that loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour. This would be the place to prove that the death of Christ was a true and proper sacrifice for sin; but I shall postpone this discussion to another occasion, as my design, in this lecture, is merely to give you a general view of his priesthood. There are some who deny that he offered a sacrifice for sin, namely, those who were formerly called Socinians, but now have taker the name of Unitarians. The doctrine of that heretical sect is, in substance. the following:—that Jesus Christ is called a priest, but is not such in reality; that he receives this title, on account of some resemblance between what he does, and the ministration of the priests under the law; that he is a priest, in the same metaphorical sense in which all Christians are said to be priests; and, that his priesthood solely consists in the good offices which he performs towards us, and on our account. He properly entered upon it when he ascended to heaven, and received power from his Father to assist men in working out their salvation; his death upon the cross was no part of his duty, but merely a preparation for the services of the heavenly sanctuary; his priestly office is virtually the same with the kingly, both implying authority and ability to bestow blessings upon men, and differing only in this respect, that, as a king, he has power to help us, and, as a priest, he is willing.This was the doctrine of the elder Socinians, and has been generally adopted by their successors. I know not well what are the sentiments of the Unitarians of the present day; but some of them, "waxing worse and worse," like other "evil men and seducers," are actively employed in reducing the character of our Saviour lower and lower, and seem not to be able to tell where he now is, or what he is doing. I content myself, at present, with simply stating their doctrine, as an opportunity will afterwards occur, of showing its contrariety to Scripture.

There is another Socinian notion, which, however, has been adopted by some who are not Socinians, but believe that the death of Christ was a sacrifice for sin, namely, that he did not offer his sacrifice on earth, but in heaven, by appearing before God in the body in which he suffered on the cross. You will find this notion stated and defended by Dr. Macknight, in the notes on the epistle to the Hebrews; an author, I may take this opportunity of saying, from whose work on the Epistles a cautious and discerning reader may derive considerable advantage, but who is a dangerous guide to young students, not only because he dogmatises in rather an unusual manner in matters of great importance, giving only his own affirmation for proof, but also, because many of his principles are false, and there are few who have distinguished themselves more by wresting and misinterpreting the Scriptures. This notion is at direct variance with the language of Scripture, which uniformly speaks of the sacrifice of Christ as having been offered before he entered into heaven. "Christ was once offered," says Paul, "to bear the sins of many," evidently meaning, that he was offered upon earth, because he contrasts this act with his future revelation from heaven. "When he had by himself, purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." His sitting down at the right hand of God was immediately consequent upon his entrance into heaven, before which he had purged our sins by his sacrifice. "By his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption." The obtaining of eternal redemption is put in the past tense,— Heb. i. 3. § Heb. ix. 12.

* Eph. v. 2.

† Heb. ix. 28.

up,—and preceded his entrance into the holy place. But he obtained it, as all will acknowledge, by his sacrifice, which, therefore, was offered not in heaven, but upon earth. Great stress is laid upon these words of Paul," If he were on earth, he should not be a priest."* But, if they furnish any evidence in favour of the present opinion, they prove more than its patrons would be willing to grant, namely, that while our Saviour was in this world, he was not a priest at all. This no man who believes the Scriptures would affirm. The meaning certainly is, that, if his office had been of the same kind with the priesthood which already existed upon earth, he could not have been a priest, because the office was vested in a family of which he was not a member; or that, if his whole office was to be executed upon earth, he must have been excluded, because, not belonging to the family of Aaron, he had no access to the holy of holies in the temple, in which alone his blood could be presented. The notion, that Christ offered his sacrifice in heaven, is one of those niceties which are sometimes brought forward as mighty discoveries, but which, although they were founded on truth, are of no practical utility. As it is, it overturns the ideas respecting sacrifices which men have entertained in all ages and nations, making them consist, not in the death of the victim, as has been always believed, but in the sprinkling of its blood; and it furnishes a pretext for those who are so minded, to deny that Christ offered any proper sacrifice, and to affirm that his whole work consists in intercession.

The second duty of his office is intercession. It was typified by the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, where he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices, and burned incense before the mercy-seat; and it is carried on in heaven, of which that place was a figure. What is the nature of his intercession, how it is conducted, who are its subjects, and what is its design, are points, the consideration of which I shall reserve for another occasion. According to the scheme of the elder Socinians, his priestly office was executed in heaven alone; but, although they could not deny that intercession belonged to his office, they explained even it away, as well as his sacrifice, and affirmed, that it signified merely that he obtained from God the power by which he is able to help us, as if he had prayed for it. A similar scheme has been contrived by some modern Socinians, which may be stated in the words of a celebrated writer. "Jesus Christ has not only taught the pure doctrines of the gospel; manifested, by rising from the dead, the certainty of a future state, and proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon and final happiness upon all who will accept them on the terms of sincere repentance. That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a mediator; the mediation conducted through intercession; and that intercession successful, in recompence of the meritorius obedience of our Redeemer." In this scheme, the atonement is left out, and our salvation is owing to the death of Christ only remotely, as it constituted the ground on which he obtained, by his prayers, power to save such as should sincerely embrace his religion. But his intercession has a different object, as we shall afterwards show.

Our Lord was made a priest "after the order of Melchisedec."§ The apostle Paul explains what is meant, when he says of Melchisedec, that he was "without father, without mother, without descent," and that “ having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, he abideth a priest continually."[] It is certain that, being a man, he was born and died like other men, and had a genealogy which was known to his contemporaries; but Paul refers to his

Heb. viii. 4.

+ See Lecture LIX.
§ Heb. v. 6.

Magee on Atonement, vol. i. p. 20. Heb. vii. 3.

history, which on these subjects preserves profound silence, and speaks of him only in his public character, and in relation to his office. He is an insulated individual, like a man fallen from the clouds, who had no earthly connexions, except that, as he was a priest and a king, there must have been persons for whom he ministered, and over whom he reigned. The similitude between our Saviour and Melchisedec may be traced in the two following particulars.

First, He had no predecessor in office. He was indeed made a priest after the order of Melchisedec; but you are not to understand that he was a priest of the same order, because, on this supposition, the resemblance between them would be destroyed in an essential particular. Christ did not succeed Melchisedek, but he is like him; and like him in this respect, that none was before him. Aaron and his sons were not his predecessors; for he could not have succeeded them unless he had belonged to the family to which the legal priesthood was confined by the express commandment of God. "It is evident," says Paul, "that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." He succeeded them, indeed, as the antitype succeeds the type; but his priesthood was of a different kind. Theirs was a shadow, but his was the truth; theirs consisted in offering animals upon the altar, but his in offering himself; theirs averted temporal punishments from the Israelites, but his has delivered mankind from the guilt of sin, and from eternal perdition.

Secondly, Jesus Christ has no successor in the priesthood. It is in the perpetuity of his office that the resemblance between him and Melchisedek principally consists. When Aaron died, Eleazar his son stood up in his room; and all the high-priests of that family were succeeded by their sons and relations, till the second temple was destroyed; but no person will ever succeed our Saviour and this difference between him and the priests of the law, was founded on two important circumstances:—

In the first place, "They truly were many priests," as Paul says, "because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death." Notwithstanding the great dignity of their office, and the solemnities with which they were installed in it, they were but men, subject to infirmity and dissolution, like the persons for whom they ministered. "But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." He likewise died; but the cases were totally dissimilar. The legal priests died, if I may speak so, out of office; but he died in it. Death was no part of their work, whereas to die was the chief duty incumbent upon him. When they fell under the power of death, they could not extricate themselves from it, and return to life and the service of the sanctuary; but he had power to lay down his life and to take it again. Death was so far from putting an end to his priesthood, that it did not even interrupt the exercise of it.

In the second place, A succession of the legal priests was necessary, because the sacrifices which they offered could not expiate sin. Notwithstanding their mortality, if any of them could have appeased divine justice by his oblations, there would have been no necessity that another should rise up in his stead. But the legal sacrifices could not atone for past sins, and still less for those which were future; the blood of an irrational animal was not equivalent to the blood and life of the transgressor himself. Our Lord Jesus Christ "hath by one offering for ever perfected them that were sanctified."§ His sacrifice removed the sins of his people in one day; it established, upon a solid basis, peace between God and his offending creatures; it is the ground of an everlasting dispensation of pardon and mercy. Hence it appears that † Ib. vii. 23. + Ib. vii. 24. § Ib. x. 14.

* Heb. vii. 14.

there was no reason why another priest should succeed him, and that no place was left for the ministrations of another, which could serve no valuable purpose, as the great design of the office had been already accomplished, namely, the expiation of sin.

The death of Christ was a sacrifice, not for one generation alone, but for men in every age. He ever lives to make intercession in the heavenly sanctuary; and hence he is able to save to the uttermost all them that come unto God by him."* No other priest, therefore, can arise. There remains nothing for him to do. Christ has made sacrifice and oblation to cease, and has gone into heaven to appear in the presence of God for us.

It is derogatory to the honour of Christ, and subversive of the doctrine of the Scripture concerning his priesthood, to maintain that any person is now invested with the priestly office, and performs its proper work. It implies that he did not fully accomplish the design of his office, and destroys the resemblance between him and Melchizedec. Yet the church of Rome calls her ministers priests; (and so likewise does the church of England, from an imitation which is the more inexcusable, as she rejects the doctrine upon which alone an argument could be founded for giving them this title ;)-the church of Rome calls her ministers priests, and affirms that they perform the proper work of the priesthood by offering sacrifice. Jesus Christ, into whose body and blood the bread and wine in the eucharist are transubstantiated, is offered up in the mass by the officiating minister, as a sacrifice for the dead and the living. If this opinion were true, the ministers of antichrist would be more truly priests than Aaron and his sons; because the latter offered only typical sacrifices, while the former daily repeat the great sacrifice which procures eternal redemption. But this superstructure rests upon a foundation of sand. The sacred supper is merely a commemorative ordinance. "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." The Christian religion acknowledges only one priest, who was consecrated by God himself, and is exalted to hea ven. Those who assume this character encroach upon his prerogative; and to suppose them to be what they pretend, would be to consider our Redeemer as a priest, not after the order of Melchizedec, but after the order of Aaron, which admitted successors.

Jesus Christ excelled all that were before him in respect of the order of his priesthood. There are other points of difference, from which it appears that, according to the words of an apostle, "he has obtained a more excellent ministry," and of which I shall briefly take notice in the sequel of this lecture. First, He was superior to all other priests in personal dignity. They were "men having infirmity," subject to disease and death, and not to these alone, but also to error and sin; and therefore they needed to offer for themselves as well as for the people. How much superior is our High-priest! Considered as a man, he is distinguished from all other men, not only by his miraculous conception, his sublime wisdom, and his stupendous works, but by his immaculate purity, which he retained amidst the strongest temptations. But besides his pre-eminence in moral worth, he was still more exalted above all who might be compared with him, by the dignity of his nature, for in consequence of his mysterious union to the second person of the Trinity, he was truly the Son of God, While he is said to have "purged our sins," he is described as "the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, and as upholding all things by the word of his power."§ Surely, he is the most glorious of all the ministers of God! and the office derives a lustre from him who sustained it.

Secondly, the manner in which he was invested with his office was pecu

Heb. vii. 25.

† Ibid. ix. 28.

+ Ibid. viii. 6.

§ Ibid. i. 3.