looking in another direction, having their minds exclusively occupied with His throne and kingdom. It is only wonderful that their faith adhered to Him still through that dreadful hour of His crucifixion. But the whole truth burst upon their astonished vision after the resurrection, when their minds were opened to understand the Scriptures, and see how Moses and all the prophets had told of the sufferings of Christ, as well as the glory that was to follow-how He was first to accomplish His priestly work by being made a sin-offering, thereby preparing a people for himself; then, subsequently, to come a second time in His kingdom and glory, to fulfil all that was foretold of His dominion and triumphs.

But why did not Christ, as the great High-Priest of men, come of the tribe of Levi, to which this work and office pertained in Israel?

Because His priesthood was superior to theirs, it being predicted of Him, that He should be a priest "after the order of Melchizedec; "Ps. cx. 4. The superiority of this priesthood over that of Aaron consisted in two things one was, that the priesthood of the former was combined with the kingly office, Melchizedec being both priest and king, as Christ was designed to be, and as Aaron was not. In the Jewish system these two offices were most carefully kept distinct. The other point of superiority was, that the priesthood of Melchizedec was designed to represent a perpetual, ever-living intercessor. This it did in the fact that he stands alone, without any connection with a line going before or following after; or, as described by the Apostle, "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually;" Heb. vii. 4. We have no account of any beginning or end of his priesthood, or of its transmission to a successor. It stands, therefore, a

more fitting type of Christ's ever-living priesthood than Aaron's, of which we know the entire history-the beginning, succession, and end. Had Christ come of Aaron's line, it would not have been consistent for Him to hold the kingly office and occupy the throne of David, the same being forbidden to his priesthood; while the succession in that line implied a termination. Christ therefore came of another priesthood, one which involved the kingly office, and of which there was to be no termination.

The Revelation of John, which gives us the future of the Church, is deeply significant and instructive on this subject. The scene of those wondrous visions is laid in the tabernacle, as the whole scenic representation of the book shows. The opening vision presents Christ to our view standing by the seven golden candlesticks, and therefore in the first apartment of the sanctuary, or holy place, where He was performing His priestly work in taking care of the lights, and keeping them continually burning. In his epistle to the church of Ephesus, he describes himself, Rev. ii. 1, as He who "walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks "the priest of His Church. Here, as seen by John, He was clothed in the priestly robes-a white garment, flowing to the feet, and bound with a girdle. This is the character in which our Redeemer now appears-this the work which He is now executing. This solves the meaning of the dispensation of grace through which we are passing. The scene of the present economy is laid in the holy place of the sanctuary, where are the altar of incense and the candlesticks, of which Christ has the care. At a later period of those visions of John, we behold the inner apartment of that sanctuary opened, and the mysteries of the most holy place exposed to view, when we see Christ revealed in His kingly office, and coming to occupy the throne. This

was the typical meaning of that tabernacle with its two apartments. The Church of God is the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. The first apartment, with its altar, candlesticks, and table of shewbread, presents the history of the Church under Christ as its High-Priest, making intercession. The second, or most holy place, shows us Christ upon His throne, revealed in His glory between the cherubim. The opening of that apartment is yet a future event. We are now in the first tabernacle, where Christ is in the midst of the candlesticks. This is stated to be the summing up of that whole system. "Now 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 ;" Heb. viii. 1. Our Immanuel Jesus is both High-Priest and King.

How vain, then, for any to think of knowing Christ in His glory and kingdom, who have not known Him first in the fellowship of His sufferings, and secured His mediation as their High-Priest! Here the foundation is laid for the whole superstructure of redemption. Here is the corner-stone laid in Zion; and if this is rejected, there is salvation in none other. There is no other mediator to go in to plead for the sinner; neither can the transgressor find entrance himself. His place is at the door of the tabernacle; and if he refuses the mediation of God's anointed High-Priest, there is no forgiveness, no redemption for him. And when He comes to reign in His glory, it will be His then to say of all such, "I never knew you."

CHAPTER XXVIII.

PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

HAVING shown how and when the doctrine of mediator was introduced, we proceed to take up the facts as connected with the mediation of Christ, as fulfilled in His first mission.

I. Christ, then, is presented as the spotless lamb of God.

In all mediation for sinners, a clean animal, free from every blemish, and a firstling of the flock, was required, the very choicest being demanded for this sacred service. In this peculiar relation Jesus Christ is distinctly brought to our notice; and by the man sent of Heaven to herald His approach, and especially endowed to present Him to Israel, as well as to prepare His way. John appeared in the spirit and power of Elijah to announce the coming of heaven's great Anointed. His representations, therefore, are invested with peculiar significance and value. The character in which this new Elijah would hold Him up to His expectant nation, is to be unhesitatingly accepted; and the moment his eye fell upon Him, he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

What, now, did a Jew mean by a lamb taking away sin? He meant, beyond denial, a lamb offered in sacrifice a lamb over whose head confession of sin had been made by a transgressor-whose life had been taken and His blood shed in expiation of guilt. This was its uniform, unquestioned meaning. There was no other way in which a lamb had ever been known to take away sin; and this was the way of God's appointment, into which

He had been educating the race from the time of the martyr Abel, the blood of whose innocent victim had continued to speak and testify through all the generations, until the blood" which speaketh better things" was shed.

When John, therefore, under Divine inspiration, held forth Jesus as the lamb taking away sin-the sin of the world-he could be understood to mean only one thing: that here was the victim, the true Sacrifice appointed of God, by the shedding of whose blood expiation was to be made, and the forgiveness of sins obtained. The question here is not, what construction we might put upon these words of John, or what they might possibly bear in our day, when institutions and modes of thinking are all changed. They were not spoken in this nineteenth century, but in another age, and to a different people; and the only question is, What meaning did the author attach to them? In what sense did he know that they would be understood and accepted by those who heard him?

We often hear Christianity reproached because of the uncertainty of its doctrines, and the Scriptures for their Sibylline character, as if they could be made to teach any system. What, however, shall be said of the intelligence or honesty of those who change the position of words by eighteen centuries of time, placing them also among an entirely different people with other institutions and modes of thought, and yet never stop a moment to ask what their meaning was in the mouth of him who gave them utterance, or in the ears of those who heard? Under such treatment it is certain that the Bible can have no fixed meaning; God never could have given a revelation to mankind to be interpreted upon such principles, because its teachings would only change with the changing sentiments of every generation; and not only so, but with every nation in each generation. Every people would make the Bible to suit themselves. Men never deal