to every argument, which could support him in the hour of trial. Though addressed to others, the whole is in the spirit of soliloquy and deep abstraction. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." The inward conflict of his soul still goes on. "Shall I refuse the cup of shame and horror, and return at once to my Father's bosom? But if I do, where will be the harvest of immortal souls? On my death depends the only hope of a lost and ruined world. And if I avoid the cross, those who would fly to it for refuge, are of all men most miserable. No glad tidings will ever reach their ears. They will wander through the wide waste of eternity, as sheep having no shepherd." In the following verse another motive is appealed to, one which he had often impressed upon his followers. "He that loveth his life shall lose it: and he that hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal." That our Lord, in his character as man, looked forward to, and that he was cheered amidst his sufferings by the prospect of that immortal crown to which these sufferings led, is clearly set forth in Scripture. It was for the joy which was set before him that he endured the cross, and despised the shame. It was, moreover, as the reward of his obedience unto death, that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father." It is, then, in the strictest accordance with the assumption of our nature, that he should have called in the hopes of eternal glory, with which, as man, he was to be crowned, to arm his soul against the tremendous conflict with the powers of darkness.

In the 26th verse, we have a striking instance of that sympathy with his disciples, which the Saviour never failed to manifest, when contemplating his own trials. He knew that they were to be, in their degree, partakers of his sufferings. He knew that they were to be baptized with the baptism that he was baptized with, and to drink of the cup which he drank of. And, therefore, in proportion as he felt the terrors of the cross, his tenderness for those who were to bear it after him, was awakened.

In proof of this, I would point to the following instances. 1. In the garden of Gethsemane, we find him addressing the three apostles, who were witnesses of his agony, in these words, "Pray ye, that ye enter not into temptation." 2. In Luke xii. 50-53, he passes immediately from the contemplation of his own sufferings, to the trials and persecutions which awaited his followers. 3. In the 13th chapter of St. John, when that scene of horror which the traitor was on the point of acting, seemed for a time to absorb every faculty of his soul, he calls to mind, at once, with inexpressible tenderness, the bereavement to which his disciples were to be exposed, and says, "Little children, yet a

little while I am with you, ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say unto you." 4. In Luke xvi. from verse 24 to the end, we discover the same inseparable association in our Saviour's thoughts, between his own sufferings and those of his followers. The whole passage is too long to transcribe. I am persuaded, however, that any one who will carefully compare it with the verses we are now examining, cannot fail to be struck with a remarkable coincidence. Such a comparison will, I think, at least clearly prove that the emotion which our Saviour felt when saying to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan," was of the nature I have already suggested. But between these kindred passages one difference may be observed, namely, that in St. John, our Lord's feelings for himself are more detailed-and in St. Matthew, those for his disciples. And, therefore, the whole of the latter is, as it were, the opening out (and a most remarkable one I cannot but consider it,) of the 26th verse of the passage before us. To that I refer, and with no other comment shall repeat the words. any man serve me, let him follow me: and where I am, there shall my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."

"If

In the following verse, the inward conflict of our Saviour's bosom, seems, as it were, to reach its crisis. From the considerations he had called to mind, he had in a great degree calmed the agitations of his soul. But, as is well known, in extremities of suffering, the storm, if it rises again, rises with redoubled fury, and by surmounting every barrier we had erected, gives almost resistless demonstration that all further resistance must be vain. That the anguish which our Lord endured at Gethsemane thus intermitted; that it alternately rose and fell, and at its return swelled into a more overwhelming torrent than before, appears from the language of St. Luke: "Being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood, falling down to the ground." So in the present conflict, the keenest pang was felt at the crisis of deliverance. "Now," said the blessed Jesus, "is my soul troubled," (as if all before had been comparatively light,) "and what shall I say? Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? Shall I pray to him to send twelve legions of angels, and deliver me out of the hands of those who hate both him and me? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? Was it not to suffer that I came forth from God? And were not these mysterious terrors, and atoning agonies, from which human weakness is thus shrinking back, the price, and penalty, which I covenanted to pay, before the foundation of the world? YesFor this cause came I unto this hour. And, therefore, Thy will be done. Father, glorify thy name." Here the temptation ended. "Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."

H. W.

!

ON THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR-I beg leave through your columns to return thanks to your correspondent, J. C. L., for having kindly consented to publish a sermon preached in answer to my papers on the subject of the Priesthood of Christ. If I know myself, I desire nothing so much as truth, and upon important subjects I always feel an anxiety to hear the sentiments of those who differ from me. I never feel perfectly assured of the truth of an opinion I am led to adopt, until I have weighed what honest and intelligent opponents can say against it. I heard much of what J. C. L. had advanced in his sermon, and as I know that he is capable of giving force to any arguments that could be found to support his view of the question, I consider that the opinion which he holds has had every assistance which could be derived from an able advocate.

I confess J. C. L. has not convinced me that I have been wrong; and the absence of any one Scriptural proof for his view of the question, confirms me in my conviction that no such proof does exist. I have adduced numberless texts of Scripture, which speak of Christ as a Priest in heaven. J. C. L. has not adduced one single text which speaks of Christ as a Priest on earth, and certainly for no other reason but this, that there is no such text.

There remained, then, in the absence of direct Scripture testimony, only this course for him to pursue to endeavour to prove Christ to have been a Priest, or rather to have executed the office of Priest upon earth, by showing that he did upon earth things which none but a Priest could do. To prove it, then, by inference, is what J. C. L. attempts, with what success will appear as I examine his arguments.

He has abandoned, as unsound and indefensible, one argument used by others, who have maintained that earth was the scene of Christ's Priesthood; i. e. that he acted as Priest in the slaying of the victim. He admits, “as an established fact, that laymen were occasionally allowed to slay the victim, but never to sprinkle the blood upon the altar;" so that if he could prove that Christ slew the victim, it would not thence follow that he was acting in his character of Priest. But he refuses to admit my conclusion, deduced from this "established fact," "that we are to look for the date of Christ's entering on his Priesthood, not from any period previous to his death, but from the time when he entered in with his own blood, to sprinkle it before the mercy-seat in heaven."

J. C. L. says, there are in my reasoning two defects; the first of which is, (and I cannot find out in his sermon the second,)

N. S. VOL. III.

D

that the work of atonement is made to consist of the slaying of the victim, and the sprinkling of the blood.

1

I still, with all respect to J. C. L., say the same thing; the work of atonement consists of the slaying, including the previous sufferings of the victim, which is performed on earth, without the necessary interference of the Priest; and the sprinkling of the blood performed in heaven, to which was necessary and indispensable the intervention of the Priest.

He speaks of another part of the work. "There is an entire omission of what to my judgment formed a most important part of the ceremony, the consumption of the victim's body on the altar of offering" and this marked by him in Italics, to point out the stress he lays upon this position: and then, to prove the necessity of this "most important part of the ceremony," he refers to Lev. i. and quotes at length Lev. iii. 1-5, "And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace-offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering, an offering made by fire unto the Lord, the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards. And the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away." How could J.C. L. make such a strange confession here? Was it possible that he forgot that in the peace-offering there was not "the consumption of the victim's body on the altar of offering." The fat only was burnt upon the altar, the body of the victim was eaten as an eucharistic feast by the offerer, the priest having a part of it for his share. But this "most important part of the ceremony, the consumption of the victim's body on the altar of offering," took place but in one of the many sacrifices prescribed by the law, namely, in the whole burnt-offering. It did not take place in the sin-offering: the body of the victim was not burnt upon the altar of offering. On the great day of atonement, where especially was the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ typified, "the bullock for the sinoffering, and the goat for the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins and their flesh and their dung, and he that burneth them shall wash his clothes," &c. (Lev. xvi. 27.)

Here we see that it was not a most important part of that ceremony, by which atonement was made, to have the victim's body consumed on the altar of offering. The sin-offering, however, though not burnt on the altar, was burnt without the camp, and did typify, as the apostle in the Hebrews tells us, Christ suffering without the camp; but this will not assist J. C. L. in

finding something belonging to the atonement besides the sprinkling of the blood, which must be done by a Priest; for it was not the high priest that burned the sin-offering on the day of atonement. "The bullock and the goat shall one carry forth without the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, &c. &c., he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, &c." But there was one offering which the priest was to burn upon the altar; this was the whole burnt-offering. I entirely disagree with J. C. L. as to what was typified by this burning by the priest, upon the altar. He says this burning was to point out to the sinner the fearful consequences of sin, and the awful nature of God's wrath. I conceive, on the other hand, that the fire of the altar consuming the animal, represented God's favourable acceptance of the sacrifice, rather than his wrath upon the victim. The offering was supposed to ascend to God in the flame, and therefore, in the Hebrew, the whole burnt-offering has its name from a word that signifies ascending. This appears to be just the difference between the burning of the sin-offering by a person not the priest, without the camp, and the burning of the burnt-offering by the priest on the altar; the one signified God's wrath lying on the victim; the other God's gracious acceptance of the sacrifice: and both these have their antitype and fulfilment in Christ. He bore God's wrath when he suffered without the gate; He was accepted of his Father, and had the token and sign of acceptance when He was raised up and ascended into the heavens (John xvi. 10;) when the great choir of angels say, "Lift up your heads ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in."(Ps. xxiv.)

There is a confusion and error in these allusions of J. C. L. to the legal sacrifices, at which I am somewhat surprised. I feel assured that when he re-considers them, he will himself admit his error.

The only other argument which I find in the sermon is drawn from its being said in many places, that Christ offered a sacrifice -offered himself. From this his argument seems to be, that none but a Priest could offer. Christ did offer himself on the cross whilst on this earth, therefore he must have executed the office of a Priest upon earth. He quotes, besides other passages, Heb. x. 12. 14, and adds, "There is an express mention made of an offering by Christ somewhere. That this cannot refer to his intercessory offering, I think, because that is continuous, and must be a thing of unbroken recurrence until the conclusion of his mediatorial kingdom. It must have been, then, the great sacrifice of the cross that is here spoken of. According to St. Paul, then, Christ as a Priest (for it is admitted none other durst) CHRIST AS A PRIEST did offer himself, once for all, upon the cross, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, &c. According to the opinion of R. D. and such as hold with him, he did not. Which of these be right, judge ye."