Jew to give up his temple, his altars, his priesthood, his ritual, and all that made his nation peculiar among the nations; to consent to place himself upon the same level with the rest of mankind; and to submit to sacerdotal institutes, in the benefit of which every human being might share as fully as himself. Yet nothing short of this is the object of the Apostle's argument.

It is interesting to remark the address with which this delicate subject is conducted. The first allusion to it occurs in the beautiful discourse of the second chapter on the incarnation of Christ, and his consequent sympathy and tenderness. He did not, the Apostle reasons, lay hold upon angels, neither assuming their nature, nor contemplating their salvation; either of which had indeed been a striking illustration of beneficence. His condescension is yet more profound; for of the seed of Abraham he layeth hold, it being necessary that in all things he should 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.*

Nothing can be more inoffensive, nothing more likely to prepare the way for truth less agreeable, than such an introduction of the subject. Before he enters upon the contrast between Christ and Moses, the Apostle again, thus cursorily but impressively, invites the contemplation of his readers: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, attentively consider (xaravońσATE) the Apostle and HIGH PRIEST of our profession, JESUS."† A digression on the evils of obduracy and unbelief‡ may be supposed yet more fully to have awakened the affections suited to a discussion so weighty; and at

Heb. ii. 16-18.

† Ch. iii. 1.

Ch. iii. 7; iv. 11.

length he resumes the doctrine briefly touched at the close of the second chapter, and proceeds to argue this great and decisive question in all its bearings. His discourse commences at the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter, and, with digressions, illustrations, counsels, and inferences, continues to the end of the twentysecond verse of the tenth chapter. At present, however, we shall confine ourselves to the principle of his argument; the immediate discussion of which does not extend beyond the close of the seventh chapter, part of the fifth and the whole of the sixth being digressive.

The great doctrine of the discourse is, that the priesthood of our Lord was of an order different from and greatly superior to that of Aaron. This is founded on a passage in the hundred and tenth Psalm, "The Lord HATH SWORN, AND WILL NOT REPENT, THOU [Art] a PRIEST FOR EVER AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC;" and of so great importance to the argument is this oracle as to be cited, in part or entirely, not less than eight times; a circumstance without parallel in the sacred writings. In order, therefore, to a due appreciation of the subject, it is necessary to ascertain the peculiarity indicated in this striking but somewhat obscure prophecy.

Upon the personal character and history of Melchisedec, it has pleased the Holy Spirit to leave us in almost total ignorance. The man himself comes upon the stage of sacred history but for one moment, and for the performance of one act of blended piety and hospitality: a single glimpse of him we have in an episode of the patriarchal narrative; and the hand of God then sheds over him a cloud of impenetrable darkness and mystery. Men of imagined perspicacity in all ages have endeavoured to penetrate the obscurity in which he is involved; and conjectures have been multiplied to satiety. Yet in the present advanced era of the world, we are as much

at a loss as the first persons who speculated upon the subject; and traditions may be sought out and opinions compared in vain: for the secret remains securely concealed in the depth of the divine counsels. It is not till an advanced period of the prophetic age that we meet with any allusion, however cursory, to this singular person. Between the original narrative, and the developement of its signification, the long parenthesis of the Aaronic priesthood intervenes; and we are at length startled to find that in an individual so briefly named and so summarily dismissed we have the type of that everlasting and regal priesthood which is to shed its benign influence upon all nations, till the ages are consummated, and God is all in all.

In the types of Christ generally,—and let the paschal lamb be taken as a specimen,-the Holy Spirit delights to supply a minuteness of detail, which in all its parts we are probably not yet able to appreciate. Here, however, is an insulated individual in one solitary fact of his history,-whom apart from the expositions of the New Testament we should pass with but casual notice,―appointed, nevertheless, as one of the most illustrious symbolical exhibitions of Christ to the ancient and the Christian church. The patriarchal history, it is true, is necessarily cursory, and its typical institutions, in common with its other topics, are but briefly noticed; but they are in general resumed under the Mosaic economy, and most amply and variously illustrated. Yet this, though in interest inferior to none, is wholly omitted from the Jewish system; and till the age of David is left in silent obscurity, then to be adverted to in one instance only.

Contrast the elaboration of the rites and services of the Aaronic priesthood with the whole which the Old Testament contains on the subject of Melchisedec. In the one case, nothing is too minute for the special

direction of Jehovah. Down to the decorations of the Priests' garments, all is divinely ordained and divinely recorded. Every detail is written under the direction of the Spirit of God, and is to be preserved to the end of time. Yet this ritual, splendid and venerable and typical as it undoubtedly was, is of but secondary interest and importance. It is not that of the priesthood to which Christ was to belong. The patriarchal sovereign in the valley of Sodom is he whose special dignity it was to prefigure the royal priesthood of "the world to come. He who comes before us rather as a vision than a man,* he it is after whose order all nations of the earth are to be blessed. The Aaronic priesthood with its glorious shrines has passed away for ever; but the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec is to remain in that world of which God and the Lamb are the perpetual temple.

His

Of such a type there is no other example in the entire sacred history; and it would be irrational and unbecoming to suppose that its peculiarities are without significancy. Some mystery suggested by no other type, some doctrine of singular and weighty import, must be hid under the dim and holy cloud which Infinite Wisdom has cast around this eminent person. resemblance to, and adumbration of, the Messiah must be in respects wholly distinct from those of the general typical system; and that exposition of his relation to our Lord is materially erroneous or defective which supplies no such peculiarity, or places him in the same class as the other types of the old Testament Scriptures.

This is so little of a figure of speech, that the humanity of Melchisedec has frequently been questioned. Some have supposed him to be the Holy Spirit; others the Son of God; while a third class of speculators have contended that he is a created angel.

This is more than intimated in the epistle before us. St. Paul states that the discourse respecting Melchisedec, in which he is about to engage, is both ample (Tolvs) and of difficult interpretation, (dvoepμývevtos,) presenting a comprehensive field for contemplation; yet not of that obvious character suited to individuals slow in the apprehension of divine truth, or immature in spiritual attainment.*

The common opinion is, that Melchisedec was a type of the Messiah merely by the union in his person of the regal and sacerdotal offices. But such a combination was by no means unusual. In the patriarchal age it certainly was in substance an every day occurrence, since the rights of primogeniture included both the domestic sovereignty and the priesthood. And a patriarch of considerable property, as Abraham for example, was of little less importance than the petty Kings of that period. Nothing, it is well known, was more common among the Gentiles, from remote antiquity, than the union in one individual of the priestly and royal dignity; and, even in the Jewish church, though the priesthood was not held by the sovereigns of the line of David, yet in several cases it was so by the Asmonæan monarchs.

* Heb. v. 11, et seq. περὶ οὗ (Μελχισεδέκ,) πολὺς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος καὶ δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, κ. τ. λ. " Respecting him we have much to say, which it will be difficult to explain, since ye are dull of apprehension."-STUART's Version.

The criticism on the passage, by the same writer, is worthy of attention. “So Lysias in Panoc. πολὺς ἂν εἴη μοι λόγος διηγεῖσθαι. -Critics frequently couple the word λéyev which follows with dvoερμývevтos; but the example above, from Lysias, shows that it should be associated with the former clause of the verse. The grammatical construction or arrangement, I take to be this: TEρi οὗ [τὸ] λέγειν, πολὺς ἡμῖν [εἴη] ὁ λόγος; the infinitive λέγειν being used as a noun in the nominative, or as the subject of the sentence, according to a common usage."