The word, as applied to the sacrifice of Christ, intimates that this great sacrifice was offered once for all, and that it required, and indeed allows, no repetition (Heb. ix. 26, x. 10). Thus, as high priest, Christ had something to offer: He offered Himself as the perfect high priest, and the perfect sin-offering, tasting death for every one in such a way that henceforth there was no need of further sacrifice for sin.1 Before passing from this text, two questions canvassed by theological writers demand an answer: 1. Was the Lord Jesus in reality a priest on earth? and, 2. Was He acting as a priest on the cross, and previously? We answer: The entire epistle affirms both, and assumes both. So obvious is this to unbiassed readers, that it might seem an extraordinary inconsistency to admit the canonical authority of the epistle, and explain away its testimony to both truths. But from the days of the first Socinians to our own time, many attempts have been made to establish this on two grounds: first, that the term priest, as applied to Christ, is metaphorical; next, that His priesthood began with His exaltation, and not before. These views tend to overthrow the vicarious sacrifice of the cross.

1. The allegation that Christ is called a priest metaphorically, without being a true and proper priest, is easily answered, if we admit -that biblical terms and analogies must be taken in their natural meaning. When we find a regular comparison between Christ's priesthood and the Aaronic high priesthood, in regard to qualifications, the necessary call by God, and sympathy to be exercised (Heb. v. 1-7), it is preposterous to allege that all this is compatible with the supposition of a mere metaphor.2 When the Messiah is described opponents of the vicarious sacrifice are indeed reduced to straits when it comes to this! Christ's sinless nature is incompatible with every shade of such ideas.

as invested with a priesthood according to a peculiar order, different from that of Aaron, and superseding it, this establishes the same fact. And it further appears, when it is announced that every priest was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices, and that this man must have somewhat also to offer (Heb. viii. 3). Christ is thus a priest in the real acceptation of the term " the truth of what was typical. In a word, He is spoken of as a priest when raised up among men (Heb. vii. 11); when He came out of Judah (ver. 14); during the whole period comprehended in the days of His flesh (v. 7); during His contact with human society, when He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

2. The allegation that His priesthood began not on earth, but at His ascension, has only to be placed in the light of this epistle to be fully refuted. Its entire teaching proves that He acted as a priest during His whole humiliation, and that His death was a sacrifice (Eph. v. 2 ; Heb. ii. 1 7, v. 7). A few arguments may suffice to put this truth in its proper light, without anticipating what will come before us in the sequel. a. The high priest under the law was not first constituted a priest when he entered the holiest of all: he had already, in his capacity as high priest, slain the sacrifice, the blood of which was carried within the veil. And, in like manner, Christ was already a priest when He gave Himself for His people. It was not, and could not be, a new sacrifice within the veil, when one part, and the principal part of it, was performed previous to His entry.

b. The passages which make mention #f Christ's one obla- tion, or of His offering Himself once, are conclusive as to the fact of His being a priest on earth; for that word once cannot be understood of what is done in heaven. It must refer to His death as a historic fact, completed and finished here below. It is against all reason to affirm that the sacrifice was offered once, if it still continues; for the expression once, or one offering, plainly contrasts the completed sacrifice with the

1 See Allinga on the Satisfaction of Christ.