Christ pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar; for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood, Heb. vii. 13, 14. and therefore, by being a priest of a different tribe from that to which the Aaronical order was confined, he disannulled that order, and erected another in the room of it, viz. the ancient order of Melchizedek, which was before the Aaronical. Hence St. Ambrose in loc. Et quomodo translatum est sacerdotium? Ex tribu ad tribum, de sacerdotali ad regalem, ut eadem ipsa sit regalis et sacerdotalis: et intuere mysterium; primum fuit regale sacerdotium Melchizedek, secundum consequentiam hujus sermonis; secundum etiam fuit sacerdotale in Aaron; tertium in Christo fuit iterum regale: i. e. "How was the priesthood translated? "Why, from one tribe to another, viz. from the sacer"dotal to the regal, that so it might be both regal "and sacerdotal: and this is the mystery; the first "priesthood of Melchizedek was regal; the second

66

was sacerdotal in Aaron; the third was regal again "in Christ." For that which distinguished the Melchizedekan from the Aaronical priesthood, was not, as some imagine, the difference of their sacrifice, viz. that Melchizedek sacrificed only inanimate things, whereas Aaron sacrificed animals also: for that Melchizedek sacrificed there is no doubt, because he was priest of the most high God; but that he sacrificed inanimate things only, such as bread and wine, there is not the least intimation in scripture: only it is said, that when he met Abraham, he brought forth bread and wine, Gen. xiv. 18. that is, to refresh Abraham's soldiers after their battle with

Chedorlaomer, as the manner was in those countries, (vide Deut. xxiii. 4. and Judges viii. 15. and vi. 15.) And what is all this to his sacrificing? But that he sacrificed animate as well as inanimate things, is evident, not only because animal sacrifices were generally used before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood, (and it is very improbable that he, who was so eminently the priest of the most high God, should never offer the accustomed sacrifices,) but also because Christ's sacrifice was an animate one, who was a priest after Melchizedek's order, and not of the order of Aaron, Heb. vii. 11. so that if the difference between these two orders consisted in this difference of their sacrifice, Christ must be rather a priest of the Aaronic than the Melchizedekan order. And how could the acts of the priesthood of Aaron be typical of our Saviour's, which is Melchizedekan, as the scripture all along makes them, if they were of a different nature from those of Melchizedek? how could Aaron's bloody sacrifice be typical of our Saviour's priesthood, which was after the order of Melchizedek, if Melchizedek's priesthood admitted no bloody sacrifice? As to the acts of their priesthood therefore, for any thing that appears to the contrary, these two orders were the same; but in this they apparently differed, that whereas the regal power was united to Melchizedek's priesthood, it was wholly separated from Aaron's, who, in all probability, was the first high priest in the world that was not a king as well as a priest. The priestly acts therefore of these two different orders being the same, we shall better understand the nature of our Saviour's priesthood, though it be of the order of Melchizedek, by the account we have of the Aaronical, than by that of the Melchizedekan order; because the former is far more

distinct and particular than the latter.

For of the

acts and functions of Melchizedek's priesthood there is very little mention in scripture, whereas those of Aaron's are described at large in all their particular rites and circumstances. The priestly office therefore in general consists in officiating for sinful men with God, in order to the reconciling of God to them, and obtaining for them his favour and benediction. To which end there are two offices necessary to be performed: first, to offer sacrifice for them, and thereby to make some fitting reparation to God for their past sins and provocations; secondly, to present that sacrifice to God, and in the virtue and merit of it to intercede with God in their behalf, in order to the restoring them to his grace and favour. And accordingly we read of the Jewish high priest, who of all their other priests was the most perfect type and representative of Christ in his priestly office; and this more especially in celebrating the mysteries of the great day of expiation, that on this day he was appointed to bring the beast to the door of the tabernacle, which was set apart to die for the sins of the people, and to kill it there with his own hands; by which action he did, as the people's representative, offer a life to God, as a reparation for those manifold sins, by which they had justly forfeited their own lives to him; after which he was to take the blood of it, and present it before the Lord in the holy of holies, sprinkling it seven times with his finger upon and before the mercy-seat, by which action he interceded with God to accept that blood in lieu of the forfeited lives of the people; and accordingly, the whole performance is called making an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year, Lev. xvi. 34. But for the fuller explication of

the priestly office, it is necessary we should briefly explain these two essential acts of it, viz. of sacrificing, and presenting the sacrifice to God by way of intercession for the people.

As for the first of these, the apostle tells us, that every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices, Heb. viii. 3. And that he is ordained for men in things pertaining unto God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin, Heb. v. 1. It is true indeed, to sacrifice, in a strict sense, i. e. to kill the sacrifice, seems not to have been so peculiar to the priestly office, as to present the blood of the sacrifice before the Lord by way of intercession, the latter of which was so appropriate to the priesthood, as that it was never allowed, upon any occasion whatsoever, for any but a priest to perform it; but as for killing the sacrifice, it seems that not only the priests, but sometimes the Levites, (vide 2 Chron. xxx. 17.) yea, and sometimes the people themselves, were allowed to perform it, (vide Lev. iv. 24, 29, 33.) though it is probable, that the Levites were allowed it only in cases of necessity, and the people only in private and particular sacrifice; but in the public and general expiation, wherein Christ's dying for the sins of the world was more eminently expressed and represented, not only the presenting the blood of the sacrifice, but the killing it too, was peculiarly appropriated to the priesthood. So that though in private and particular expiations, the people had a right to sacrifice, or kill the victim, yet in all public ones, such as our Saviour's was, that right was incommunicably inherent in the priesthood. Now the killing of those sacrifices which were designed for expiations of sin, was a transfer

ring of punishment from the people to the victim: for, you must know, the Jews had two sorts of laws, viz. civil and ritual; their civil laws were enforced, according to their strictest sanction, with the penalty of death, which penalty, in many cases allowed by God, admitted of this mitigation, that the life of a beast should be accepted in exchange for the forfeited life of the offender. Their ritual laws were enforced with the penalty of legal uncleanness, and being separated upon that account from the congregation and public worship; which penalty also was thus far relaxed, that if they offered the life of a beast in sacrifice, their uncleanness should be thereby purged, and themselves restored to the benefit of the public worship. In both which cases, the sacrifice was evidently substituted to suffer for the offender; and in the first case he was substituted to suffer that very punishment which the offender had incurred. And therefore you find that the greater crimes were no otherwise to be expiated, but by the blood of the offender himself, whereas for lesser ones the blood of a beast was accepted; which is a plain argument, that that punishment, which in greater sins was exacted of the criminal himself, was in the case of smaller sins transferred from the criminal to the sacrifice, and that the punishment of the beast was instead of the punishment of the man. And this is most evident in the case of the scape goat, who, upon the high priest's laying his hands upon his head, had the sins of the people transferred on him, and was thereby so polluted, that he defiled the man that led him into the wilderness; who was therefore obliged, before he returned to the camp, to lustrate himself by washing his clothes, and