not different to Aaron, but better; be was all that Aaron was, but he was more. We may learn from this ancient king-priest in what this "more" conHisted. 1. (Jhrist•~ priesthood is universal. Aaron's was for s limited circle,-the seed of Abraham ; but Melchizedek represented s priesthood which had a world-wide aspect, existing two thousand years before Aaron, Abel, Noah, Job, were priests of that order. So Christ is for all who will. Hie gospel is glad tidings, not for a few, nor for a. section of tho Church, nor for certain types of Christian character, but for all people. 2. C'hrist's priesthood is continuous. It is not mea.nt that Melchizedek had no end of day 8 , but tha.t ie true of him a.s far as the history is concerned. We do not read that he died or that hie priesthood terminated; and this serves to show the contrast between a c~n- tiuuous priesthood and one which, like the Aa.ronic, was continually chano-ino- • not begun till thirty years of age, nor continued after fifty, and only exercised at p':i;ts of the year. From the first, Jesus made intercession for the transgressors (" the Lamb slain before,n etc.), and ever liveth for this. We are always sure of him. He never sleeps, nor forgets, nor is weary, nor gives place to another. 3. Christ's priesthood is royal. Aaron was only priest; Levi was king. 1\felchizedek was both. So Jesus, even on the cross most truly fulfilling his priestly work, was "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews," a Priest upon his throne. A priest or a king could never satisfy us. We need both-priestly sympathy and the resources of royalty; the Jaw of the king proceeding from the love of the priest. Christ f ul.fils his priesthood royally ; he is no vain friend to sinful man. Christ fulfils his kingship mediatorially, holding all his power on behalf of his redemptive work. III. OBSERVE BOl!E OF THE INCIDE:S'TAL LESSONS WHICII .A COMPARISON OP CHRIST'S PRIESTHOOD WITH THAT OF MELOBIZEDEK SUGGESTS. 1. 1'hat righteo'USness and peace are the results of his priestly work. "Melchizedek "-king of righteousness; "King of Salem "-king of peace. Highteousness and peace are the end of the atoning, interced- ing work of the Son of God. 2. That he has a right to the priest's portion from his Church. 'l'he Jewish priesthood had a right to tithes from (not those who dissented from them, not idolaters, but) the sacred nation, but there was no such enactment bind- ing on Abraham; his was a free-will offering. Christ has a right to our offerings-and "how much owest thou? "-but he only accepts the free offerings of a grateful heart. 3. That Christ's priestly benediction is granted to his weary people. The great Priest not simply goes to God for us in intercession, but comes forth from God to us iu benediction. Christ is ever doing for us what Melchizedek did for Abraham when he came forth to greet him in his weariness with bread and wine.-C. N.
Vera. 11-25.-Pnrther proofs of the superiority of (Jhrist's priesthood involved in the symbol of Melchizedek. Note: The word "Law" in vers. 11, 12, 19 must not be understood to refer to the Jewish ~ystem, but simply to the code of regulations by which the priesthood was appointed. 'l'he apostle is thinking throughout the chapter, not of the Jewish dispensation, but of the priesthood. The expression," weak and unprofitable," does not imply that there was failure in God's former method. The regulations about the Jewish priesthood were intende1i to be" weak and unprofitable;" that was their benefit. Only thus could they lead on to the heavenly things they foreshadowed. I. CONSIDER THE PROOFS IN THIS PASSAGE OF THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST'S PRIEST- HOOD, They are all based on Ps. ex. 4. 1. Tlie Divine appointment of a second priest- hood by a different mode proves its superiority to the former. (Vers. 11-18.) Their Scriptures declared that the Messiah did come from a different tribe to .Aaron, and was appointed Priest on a different principle; not by a mere physical arrangemcnt-sonship to another, a "carnl\l commandment," or regulation 1 but by his own inherent life. Since God could not remo1·e what was perfect, or supersede a good arrangement by a worse, that which appeared to take the place of the old was necessarily suveriur tu it. 2, The greater solemnity of the appointment of this second priesthood _proves it$ superiority to the former. · (Vers. 20-22.) Aaron and his sons were nppornt~d by a simple revelation of the Divine will (Exod. :uviii. 1). The terms of the apporntmeut of Jesus are-" 'l'he Lord swarc, and will not repent." When God purposeJ what wa~ not to change he confirmed it by an oath, and probably th9 Jews umlcrstood that well. God is "never repreHeuted in Scripture llll swearing to anything but what is fixed aud 200 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEilREWB. [cu. vn. 1-28.