compares our Savior with mankind, that is, with men in all ages. His words are "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."* Here Paul found that the "rites of the law dispensation failed him, and to represent the character of our great High Priest perfectly, he had recourse to natural things; he compares him with the children of men generally. Again, he compares Jesus with mankind. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Here again, Paul referred to mankind to set forth the Savior's character in its proper light. But why did Paul leave the Mosaic dispensation? For this good reason; he found nothing in the rites of that dispensation which would answer his purpose on this point. And knowing that an undoubted fact drawn from any source, would answer his purpose equally as well, he referred to the constitutional infirmities of men, to show that our Lord was subject by nature to the same infirmity. And here the figure was complete. As men partake of flesh and blood, so Christ partook of the same. Thus it will be seen, that instead of confining himself to the "rites of the law dispensation," the apostle had recourse to any acknowledged fact, which would serve his purpose in setting forth our Savior's character and labors correctly. In the passages we have already cited, we have seen that he refers to mankind at large, to exhibit one trait in the Redeemer's character. And so in the passage in question. The death and appearing of Christ, are represented by men's suffering literal death, and appearing again at the judgment. It is also worthy of remark, that the passages we have quoted teach us that Christ took

*Heb. iv. 15.

+ Heb. ii. 14.

upon himself our mortal nature, that he might suffer death. He took flesh and blood, says the passage, "that through death, he might destroy the devil." This passage virtually tells us, that Christ took our mortal nature, that he might die like mortal creatures. Now as the apostle refers to mankind to represent Christ's taking his mortal nature, we may naturally suppose that he would refer to men to represent his laying it down. And this he has done in the passage before us. As men die once, so Christ once died.

But you say, the apostle "in the context draws a parallel between the high priest under the law, and the great apostle and high priest of our Christian profession."* This is readily admitted. But he finds his figure fail him. The high priest offered his sacrifices yearly; but Christ died but once; the high priest did not die literally, but Christ did. Here then was a great dissimilarity. The high priest as a figure failed him in two important particulars. This the apostle acknowledges when he says, verses 25th and 26th, "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year by the blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." It will be seen by this quotation, that the apostle confesses that the parallel between Christ and the high priest did not hold good in all cases. It failed him in two important particulars, viz. 1. The Jewish sacrifices were offered often, but the Christian but once. 2. The high priest offered the blood of others, but Christ offered his own. The Jewish high priest and sacrifice failing him, the apostle has recourse to another figure which would express the very thing he desired, viz. that Christ died literally, and died but once. And this he

* Sermon on Heb. ix. 27, 28.

finds in the condition of mankind. As in a former case, he refers to mankind to represent Christ's taking immortality, so here he refers to mankind to represent his laying it down. Accordingly in the verse next following those last quoted, he introduces the human kind as a figure to represent the process through which Christ had to pass. His words are "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Here the parallel is drawn, not between Christ and the high priest, but between Christ and mankind. As men die literally once, and after this appear at the judgment; so Christ died once literally, and after this, will appear again. Thus, Sir, the context, instead of supporting your exposition, goes directly to support the one for which we contend.

We will now attend to the language of the passage. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die." The comparison expressed by the conjunction, as, relates to the number of times. As men die once, so Christ died once. But on your exposition, the comparison is entirely lost, as we shall presently show. "As it is appointed unto men once to die." The scriptures represent man's continuance on earth as fixed; the time of his death as appointed. Job says, "Is there not an appointed time to man on the earth ?""* Again, he says, "Thou hast appointed his bounds which he cannot pass." Well then might the apostle say, it is appointed unto men once to die. The passage says, "it is appointed unto men to die." The word men is here used without any qualification or limitation, and consequently must apply to mankind at large. To limit this to a part of mankind,

and especially to the Jewish high priests alone, is to violate all just rules of interpretation. Who ever thought that the term, men, in scripture, meant the Jewish high priests? Your exposition violates the language of the passage. Suppose we should take this liberty with the scripture, and wherever the word men occurs should add, "who are high priests." Take Paul's language to Timothy for instance. "God is the Savior of all men ;" and then add by way of explanation, "men, who are high priests ;" and it would express a sentiment which you would be the last to admit. But still we have as much authority to make this addition here, as you have to make it in the passage in Hebrews. Besides, if we should admit this unauthorized and arbitrary addition, it would introduce absurdity into the passage. "As it is appoint ed unto high priests once to die, so Christ once died." Now the death of Christ was literal; he died a temporal death. But did the high priest die literally in your sense of the text? No-you yourself do not pretend this. The high priest in your sense of the text did not die at all, The apostle says, he entered into the holy place by the blood of others. Now what parallel is there between the high priest who did not die at all, and Christ who did die? As to your explanation, to die in their sacrifices, it is entirely arbitrary. To die in a sacrifice would be a strained figure indeed. Who ever thought of saying that a butcher was dead, simply because he had killed -an animal! But this would be no more unnatural than your explanation. And further; if we admit this strained interpretation of the term die, the difficulty would not be surmounted. The high priest died every year; he died often, as the apostle expresses it; and consequently there could be no propriety in saying that it was appointed to him once to die. Upon the whole, your interpretation destroys the whole force and harmony of the passage. It would come precisely to this;-As it is

e

रे

appointed to high priests to offer sacrifices often, so Christ died once! Now what resemblance is there between the high priests offering a sacrifice and Jesus Christ's suffer ing temporal death; or between the high priests offering sacrifices often, and Christ's dying once! We cannot ascribe a comparison like this to an inspired apostle.

We will now attend to your explanation of the word judgment. You think you "have proved beyond contradiction," that the word, judgment, means in this passage, holiness, light, and perfection, or in one word, justification. But to me this is far from being evident. For the quotation you have made from Exodus fails of its object. There is no evidence that the word, judgment, there mean justification. And if that should be granted, that passage has nothing to do in explaining the word judgment in Hebrews. The word judgment in the scriptures is almost invariably used to signify condemnation, trial, or punishment. This is particularly true of the New Testament. Now we ought by all fair rules of interpretation to explain the word judgment in the passage before us, in its general acceptation, especially as the passage and subject both require it. Let St. Paul be his own expositor, and the subject will be perfectly clear. St. Paul uses the word judgment very frequently, but I think not to signify justification. There is one passage, and one too which you quote as applying to this same subject, which we will notice. Paul says, "as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation."* But how would it answer here to say, justification came upon all men to condemnation! If we should substitute the word justification for judgment in the New Testament, it would make singular sense of nearly all the passages where the term occurs. St. Peter for instance, speaks of those who are "reserved to the day of judgment to be punished." But how would it answer

* Rom. v. 18.