TACK 
 N'MHX 
 
 o 
 
 070 WHAT DOE CHRISTIANITY 
 
 999 
 
 TO QIVE I THE 
 
 TO IT FOLLOWERS? 
 
 95fo0 
 
 fKKACHED AT 
 
 ST. AUGUSTINE'S CHURCH, 
 
 HIGHBURY, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. GORDON CALTHROP, MA, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO A 
 
 QUESTION IN THE "JEWISH PULPIT.' 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED AT THE 
 
 HEP, REW CHRISTIAN HOUSE OF INDUSTRY, 
 
 39i, HACKNEY ROAD, E. 
 
 PRICE ONE PENNY.
 
 PREACHED AT 
 
 J3T. AUQUTINE' CHURCH, HIQHBUF(Y, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. GORDON CALTHROP, M.A. 
 
 (Vicar.) 
 
 ANSWER I. 
 
 TO A 
 
 Question proposed in " Jewish Pulpit" 
 
 Wfl/IT DOEg CfH^IgTI^NIW PROFE^ 6IYE 
 IN fflE PRESENT TO FFJ5 
 
 GENESIS iv. 4. "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of 
 Ids flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect 
 unto Abel and to his offering" 
 
 fHE chief incident recorded in the fourth chapter of the 
 Book of Genesis, is that of the murder of Abel by his 
 brother Cain. It is not necessary to suppose that that sad 
 event happened when Abel and Cain were very young men. 
 In fact, we mi<rht sil'ivst venture to fix the date of it, at about 
 one hundred and thiri\ y.-.irs after the creation of Adam. For 
 we are told in one aae, that a child called " Seth " was
 
 4 "WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIVE 
 
 born to Adam and Eve, in such a way that he seemed sent 
 purposely by God to supply the place made vacant by the first 
 death in the family ; and therefore, we may infer, that he was 
 born at a time when the murder of Abel was a comparatively 
 recent thing'. But we are told also, a few verses after, that 
 Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when Seth was 
 born. Putting then these two statements together, we seem 
 at liberty to conclude that the first century passed by without 
 the loss of any human life, and that it was not until the 
 earlier years of the second century had dawned upon the world, 
 that the first blood-mark was made upon the hitherto unsullied 
 page of human history. 
 
 I do not know that the point is one of any real importance ; 
 but, seeing that great crimes are of gradual growth, and are 
 usually at least the sudden outbreak of forces of evil that 
 have been accumulating for long, the view just taken may 
 enable us the better to understand the nature of the terrible 
 tragedy, to which our attention is directed in the chapter 
 before us. 
 
 The whole subject presents itself to my mind in the follow- 
 ing way. 
 
 Cain, the elder child, was, probably, of a moody, and self- 
 willed disposition, from his birth. It may be, that the shadow 
 of the fall if he was born soon after the expulsion from 
 Eden, rested upon him, and tinged his character. At all 
 events, he was very unlike his brother Abel in disposition and 
 habits; possibly, in his obedience to his parents; and, cer- 
 tainly, in his feelings towards God. In early days, when they 
 were boys in their father's house, the difference between them 
 would not be so apparent. They would receive the same in- 
 struction; they would join in the same family worship ; they 
 would take their part as far as children could do so in 
 the more important religious solemnities, whenever those 
 solemnities occurred. But when they had grown up to man- 
 hood, and had married wives, and children were born to them, 
 and when their habits had become fixed, and their characters 
 consolidated, then it would be clearly seen that the two bro- 
 thers had entered upon widely divergent paths ; and, indeed, had 
 constituted themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, 
 the heads and representatives of two very dissimilar sections 
 of the human community. There was one occasion on which 
 the dissimilarity between the men displayed itself in a very 
 marked, and, as the result showed, in a very distressing manner. 
 That was, when sacrifice had to be offered. Both men, it 
 appears, built altars ; and laid a sacrifice upon them. But
 
 IN THE PRESENT TO ITS FOLLOWERS?" 
 
 Cain's offering was an offering of .the fruits of the earth ; 
 whilst Abel's was a victim, a firstling of his flock, which 
 had, of coarse, been previously slaughtered ; for we are in- 
 formed that the "fat" was presented to God. And what 
 was the result ? If the two men had been left to be guided 
 by their own judgment, or preferences, and Cain, as a hus- 
 bandman, had brought as he naturally would have done 
 fruits of the earth; and Abel, as a shepherd, had brought a 
 kid, or a lamb, both presenting, as it were, samples of tkeir 
 worldly wealth, and acknowledging that they received all 
 temporal good from the bounty of the Most High, it would 
 be difficult to understand why any favour would have been 
 shown to one brother over the other. And yet a distinction, 
 and a marked one, as you know was made. God rejected 
 the sacrifice of Cain. He accepted the offering of Abel, 
 possibly, though we are not so informed, by sending the light- 
 ning-flash from Heaven to consume the sacrifice, and to 
 reduce it to ashes. " The Lord had respect unto Abel aud 
 his offering." We seem driven, then, to the conclusion, that 
 there had been some intimation of the Divine will in the 
 matter ; and that whilst that intention had been regarded by 
 one brother, it had been entirely disregarded, and set at nought 
 by the other. 
 
 But I would as-k you, brethren, to look into this matter, a 
 little more- carefully, and closely, before we proceed any 
 further. 
 
 I. It is perfectly true that we have no direct information in 
 the narrative as to the Divine origin of sacrifice ; by which I 
 mean, sacrifice attended with the shedding of blood, and with 
 the consequent death of the victim offered ; but the indirect 
 evidence on the subject given in this passage, seems to be 
 exceedingly cogent. 
 
 In the first place, there is an intimation of a Divine sugges- 
 tion in the fact that Abel brought of the firstlings of his 
 flock ; and after slaughtering them, offered the fat. 
 
 You may say Abel a shepherd would naturally offer 
 sheep ; in fact, he had nothing else, and nothing else of im- 
 portance, to offer ; and as naturally he would offer the best 
 and the choicest of his flock, and the best and the choicest 
 parts of them, to show his gratitude and devotion to the Lord. 
 True ; but w/iat suggested to him, that the Lord would be 
 pleased with bloodshedding ? Is there not something revolt- 
 ing in the idea of cutting the throat of an innocent victim," as 
 part of a religious service, and pouring out its blood ? And 
 could such a act be justified by anything short ot absolute
 
 6 "WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIVE 
 
 necessity? A man, like Abel, would surely shrink instinc- 
 tively, as you and I would, from such a procedure. What 
 reason, then, had he to believe if he had no special intima- 
 tion on the point that the Lord would be pleased with blood- 
 shedding ? 
 
 And again, why was the Lord pleased with bloodsheddincf ? 
 Would it not have been more natural to suppose, apart from 
 any direct revelation to the contrary, that the good and loving 
 God would have been better pleased with Cain's offering, 
 with fruits and flowers, the produce of the earth, which He 
 had adorned with His bounty, and given for a possession to 
 the sons of men ? Or shall we say that Cain was a stingy 
 fellow, and gave as little as he could help of his property, as 
 an offering to God ; whereas, Abel was thankful and liberal ? 
 It seems hardly likely. The whole narrative conveys the im- 
 pression, that the difference between the two men's sacrifices, 
 lay in the character of the offerings, and not in the amount of 
 the thing offered. 
 
 But there is, brethren, a stronger argument still. If we 
 are justified in supposing that the "faith" displayed in the 
 younger brother's sacrifice was that which made it accept- 
 able to God, (and about this point we are not very likely, I 
 think, to disagree), we are entitled to ask, what was the ob- 
 ject of the faith ? what was the thing that the faith laid hold 
 of, if it was not some revelation on the subject, or some in- 
 struction, however slight, given to men by God Himself? 
 Belief in a God ? both brothers had that. Belief that God 
 was the Author of their being, and the Sustainer of their 
 lives? that, too, both brothers had. Belief that they were 
 bound to acknowledge that they were tenants at will, and that 
 it was their duty to render gratitude and thanks for all the 
 benefits they had received, and were receiving of this, both 
 the brothers were possessed. What then was the faith which 
 Abel was characterized by, and which made him superior to 
 Cain, if it did not attach itself to some statement which God 
 had made ? to some specific revelation of God's will, concern- 
 ing the method, by which He was to be approached which 
 Abel was induced to accept, and obey, and which Cain saw fit 
 to reject ? And as to that supposed revelation itself, the 
 whole history of the chosen people may very well help us to 
 conjecture what it was. Turn upon this early chapter of 
 Genesis the light of the teachings of the Levitical Law. The 
 system which Moses established there is nothing, if it be not 
 sacrificial. Look at the account of the day of atonement, and 
 read of the "transgressions and the sins of the people of
 
 IN THE PRESENT TO ITS FOLLOWERS ?" 
 
 Israel being laid on the head of the scape-goat." Remember 
 the blood of the victim sprinkled upon the mercy-seat and 
 before the mercy-seat; and thus "atonement" being made 
 for the holy place, because of " the uncleannesses of the child- 
 ren of Israel." Cast your glance on into the seventeenth 
 chapter of Leviticus, and read the words, " the life of the flesh 
 is in the blood ; and I," i.e., the Lord, " have given it to you 
 upon the altar to make atonement for your souls : for it is 
 the blood that maketh atonement, by reason of the life." 
 
 Do I say, brethren, that Abel had the clear and distinct 
 understanding of the Divine meaning that was vouchsafed 
 to the children of Israel ? Of course not. But I do say that 
 the intimation of God's will as to sacrifice, which Abel received 
 and acted upon, was in the same line as the fuller revelation 
 given in the Mosaic Law. Doubtless, the patriarch saw very 
 dimly the truth, that sin was deserving of death. It required 
 a long and laborious process of education to bring Israel up to 
 that point. Doubtless, Abel could not very easily trace the 
 connection between the rite which he was enjoined to perform, 
 and the promised deliverer, who was to crush the serpent's 
 head, though at the expense of the bruising of his own heeh 
 That, too, took time to reveal clearly to the children of men. 
 But he did see, and he did see distinctly enough, that God 
 was to be approached in only one way and that the way of 
 sacrifice ; and that, if he did not come, bringing as his ground 
 and plea of acceptance the life-blood of an innocent victim, 
 he might as well not come at all. Observe, then, brethren, 
 if the interpretation I have given be the correct one observe 
 what follows. It follows, that to approach God in a way of 
 your own, bringing something of your own your good deeds, 
 your alms, your prayers, your praiees, or anything else, for the 
 purpose of recommending ) r ourself to His favour is to take 
 the most certain method of ensuring your rejection. We must 
 come to Him on quite another footing, bringing with us an 
 offering of atonement. And this is precisely what we Chris- 
 tians do, if we are Christians indeed. The blood of bulls and 
 of goats, of kids and of lambs, has passed away. All that 
 was preparatory, and educational. But the thing which they 
 signified, and to which they pointed, that remains behind. 
 That lasts and lasts for ever the precious blood of Christ, 
 the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 
 We do not then dare to approach God unsheltered, and offer 
 Him our gifts. To act so, would be to act like Cain. We 
 take Abel's line ; we come with the blood. All that the offer- 
 ing of the blood means, we mean. And we believe and are
 
 8 "WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIVE 
 
 sure, that Dot for our own sake, but for the sake of Him Who 
 died upon the Cross of Calvary, the Holy and Just Lord God 
 Almighty forgives as our sin, and accepts us into the family 
 of His own reconciled, and loving children. 
 
 II. I have a second thought, brethren, to commend to your 
 consideration. It seems necessary that God should secure a 
 man's heart, before He accepts the man's gifts. The person 
 first, the gifts afterwards, is the Diviae order. And yet, 
 if we endeavour to win the Divine favour by our own perform- 
 ances, we are really inverting the proper order, and offering God 
 something else at the time when He is asking for our heart. 
 Brethren, do let us begin at the right end. Our gifts, what 
 does God care for our gifts, considered in themselves ? Is God 
 poor, that He requires us to enrich Him ? The gold and the 
 silver are His ; the unseen and unimagined treasures of count- 
 less worlds, are His ; and so are the cattle upon a thousand 
 hills. He openeth His hand, and filleth all things living with 
 plenteousness. Or, is He weak, that He needs our help, and 
 calls upon us to strengthen His hands ? What says Isaiah 
 "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created 
 these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He 
 calleth them all by name by the greatness of His might, for 
 that He is strong in power ; not one faileth." Why, brethren, 
 it is simply absurd to suppose that God wants anything at 
 our hands. And shall we believe that the way to secure His 
 favour, is to heap up our gifts, our gold and our silver, or our 
 prayers and our praises, or our fasts and our self-mortifica- 
 tions, until we have done enough to make Him our friend ? 
 The very thought is discreditable discreditable both to man, 
 and to God. And yet, brethren, there is one thing that God 
 wants from us, and one thing that we, strangely enough, have 
 the power to deny Him. I mean our hearts. God is love ; 
 and Ho yearns for the love of the creatures He has made. He 
 cannot be satisfied without it. It is not our offerings that He 
 cares for, however many, and however costly they may be 
 but our love. And so, as we Christians thankfully believe, 
 He has set Himself to win our love. He went the right way 
 to work, if I may dare to say so, when He gave His own Son, 
 for our salvation. Our souls, oppressed with a sense of sin, 
 and alienated from God by reason of it, cry out loudly for an 
 atonement. Moses, in every page of his law, adds His strong 
 voice to that cry. He tells us, that sin cannot be put away 
 except by sacrifice. The patriarch Abel comes forward and 
 corroborates that testimony. When he approached God, he 
 tells us, that he approached Him with the firstlings of his flock,
 
 IN THE PRESENT TO ITS FOLLOWERS ? " 9 
 
 and with the fat thereof; and that the Lord had respect unto 
 his offering. Yes, we crave a sacrifice, by which our sins 
 shall be put away. \Ve want a victim. And that victim hangs, 
 for us, on the blood-stained Cross of Calvary, to which not 
 the Jew only, but the Gentile also, not the sins of others 
 only, but our sins affixed Him. And looking to what was 
 done there, and trusting to what was done there, we know 
 that we have forgiveness, forgiveness full and free, and we 
 enter into peace. More than this, the old enmity is, at the 
 same time, and by the same means, done away. Who will 
 not love a God, whose love for us, is so great, so intense, so 
 consuming, that He sends His own Son to die for us ; not a 
 man; not an angel ; not an archangel; but His own Son 
 His own co-equal, and co-eternal Son ? There is nothing in 
 fact, that God could give up that He would not give up, for 
 the purpose of winning us over. And the belief of this, when 
 we do believe it, rushes in like a strong {Irresistible tide into 
 the heart, sweeps away the old distrust and dislike and 
 hatred, and replaces it with gratitude and love. 
 
 From this point, brethren, I pray you mark me, begins 
 a new career. Everything is changed. A fresh character is 
 given to everything we do. The relation between God and 
 man is righted. Now, the offering is acceptable, because it 
 comes from a heart full of love. It was nothing before ; it is 
 much now. Now, for the first time, the worship is acceptable, 
 because it is offered in the right way, and from the right 
 motive. We do not work for salvation ; we work from salva- 
 tion. And the life henceforth is ono worthy both of God and 
 of man, because it is the expression of the feelings of a soul 
 which has thankfully consecrated itself to a loving God, in 
 the Gospel of His Son. Yes, brethren, as I said before, let 
 us begin at the beginning. "The Lord had respect unto 
 Abel, and his offering;" unto the person of Abel first; unto 
 what Abel did, afterwards. 
 
 III. I have one thought more to suggest ; and with it, I 
 will conclude. 
 
 I will put it in the form of a question. "What certainty 
 have I about my soul, if I am not resting upon Jesus Christ, 
 and upon what Jesus Christ has done for me?" 
 
 Here am I, a sinful and imperfect and fallen being, with a 
 future world before me, of which I know but little, but for 
 which I do know that I must be prepared. Well, I prepare my- 
 self by doing what I call "good deeds," by almsgiving, by 
 prayer, by living a pure and conscientious life ; it may be by 
 tasts, and by mortifications. (Mark you, brethren, I say not a
 
 16 " WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIVE, &C." 
 
 word against these things, provided they are kept in their 
 proper place, and not made saviours of.) Well, I do these 
 things, do them earnestly, do them laboriously, do them 
 persistently, do them perhaps throughout the years of a long 
 life. But this is the thought that troubles me hotv can I 
 be sure, after all, that I have done enough to merit God's 
 favour? God, perhaps, may look upon these things with 
 different eyes from mine. He may see flaws in them which 
 I do not see, and which may render it impossible for Him to 
 accept them. How do I know ? 
 
 And again, what about my sins ? How are they to be 
 disposed of ? How are they to be put away? Man may tell 
 me that my good deeds are to be set off against my bad deeds, 
 and that so I shall be forgiven. But where does God say so ? 
 Not in the Scripture. And besides, even if there were a 
 striking of the balance in that way, how do I know that 
 the balance shall be struck in my favour? Oh, brethren, 
 where am I to find certainty, under such circumstances? And 
 what if, as the end draws nigh, and the world is receding from 
 my grasp, and old things, old occupations, old interests, are 
 fading away and becoming shadows, and the light of eternity 
 is beginning to break in upon me, and I feel myself sum- 
 moned before the judgment-seat to receive the award of deeds 
 done in the body, what if then the conviction should fasten 
 upon me, that I have taken, all along, the wrong course, 
 and that the offering of my life will, like Cain's, not be 
 accepted, because it has been made without the appointed 
 sacrifice ? God keep us all from self-delusion and mistake ! 
 God grant to us all to be amongst the number of those, 
 who, in the great day that is coming, shall hear, and hear in 
 peace, the solemn words " Gather my saints together unto 
 me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice"
 
 ANSWER II. 
 
 TO A 
 
 Question in " Jewish Pulpit.' 11 
 
 TO GIVE 
 IN TPE PRESENT TO PPg 
 
 PSALM ex. 4. " The Lord hath sworn, and mil not repent, 
 Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." 
 
 the clays when Jesus of Nazareth was living on the earth, 
 the Psalm from which my text has been taken, was re- 
 garded by the Jews first, as a Psalm of King David ; then 
 as having been composed by the monarch under Divine inspira- 
 tion ; and lastly, as having for its great theme and subject, 
 the expected Messiah Himself. In those days, too, as many 
 of us will remember, a certain memorable conversation took 
 place, about the meaning of the Psalm. The question was 
 put to the Pharisees, "What think ye of Christ? Whose 
 Sou is He ? Of course the answer was ready, " The Son of 
 David." "But if," was the rejoinder, "but if He is the Son 
 of David, and nothing more, how is it that David, speaking as 
 an inspired man, calls Him, Lord ? The words of David are 
 these: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right 
 hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." If David, 
 then, call Him, Lord, how is He his Son? " 
 
 The question, brethren, was a difficult one to answer under 
 the circumstances. 
 
 Say that the Psalm was not written by David ; or, say, that 
 it is not inspired; or, say, that it does not refer to Messiah, 
 but to somebody else ; and I suppose you can manage to 
 extricate yourself out of the difficulty. But the Pharisees 
 who were addressed, admitted all these three points. They 
 themselves held that the Psalm was inspired ; that it was 
 composed by David ; and that Messiah, and Messiah's king-
 
 12 "WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIVE 
 
 dom, constituted the subject of it. What then were they to 
 reply ? There was, as you will see, only one reply possible 
 that there is a mystery about Messiah's person ; that He is 
 partaker of a nature, which puts Him above David, and causes 
 David, whose descendant He is, to offer Him, anticipatory 
 homage. Were Messiah a mere man, the language of the 
 Psalm could not have been possible, and David could not have 
 called Messiah his Lord. What is Messiah then ? " He is 
 the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man." But this reply, 
 the only one possible under the circumstances, the Pharisees 
 were unwilling to make ; and they had nothing to do for it, 
 but just to hold their peace. 
 
 That we Christians adhere to the old interpretation, and 
 believe it correct, I need hardly remind you. To us, the 
 language of the inspired Psalmist presents no difficulty It is 
 consistent throughout; and perfect intelligible. Jesus of 
 Nazareth is the Son of David, according to the flesh, for He 
 was descended from him ; but He was also " declared to be 
 the Son of God, with power, according to the Spirit of holi- 
 ness, by the resurrection from the dead." I have no intention, 
 however, of dwelling upon this part of the Psalm, important 
 as it is. I merely allude to it. My purpose to-night is 
 rather to draw your attention to the particular statement of 
 the text, that the Messiah when He came, was to be " a priest 
 for ever after the order of Melchizedek." I say " Messiah, 
 when He came ; " for no one, I presume, whether he believes, 
 or does not believe that Messiah has already come, will con- 
 sider that these words refer to anybody else, but the Christ of 
 God. Let us proceed then, at once, to the subject before us. 
 
 I. If we turn to the fourteenth chapter of the Book of 
 Genesis, we find there the first mention of Melchizedek; and 
 the circumstances are these. Abram, the friend of God, the 
 father and prince of the Jewish people, had become a soldier, 
 for the first, and, I suppose, for the last time, in his life. His 
 nephew Lot had been taken prisoner by some powerful princes, 
 who had made an invasion into Palestine ; and had been 
 carried away into the neighbourhood of Damascus. When 
 Abram heard of what had happened, he armed three hundred 
 and eighteen trained servants, born and brought up in his 
 house, and with a few auxiliaries hastily gathered together, 
 pursued the marauding host. On this occasion, Abram, who 
 was not a soldier by profession, and had not been, in any 
 sense, educated to warfare, developed a fine military instinct. 
 With a small force, he had to cope with a host of disciplined 
 warriors ; but he seems to have known what is the effect of
 
 IN THE PRESENT TO ITS FOLLOWERS?" 13 
 
 a sudden surprise, especially upon an oriental army; and 
 accordingly, dividing his band, and fulling upon his enemies 
 by night, when they were sleeping in absolute security, prob- 
 ably after a carouse ia honour of the victory they had won, 
 he crushed, and scattered them, putting the princes and many 
 of their followers to the sword, and recovering all the captives 
 and all the goods that had been taken away. 
 
 As he was returning in triumph to the tents he had left, 
 and had arrived somewhere in the neighbourhood of what 
 afterwards became the famous city of Jerusalem, there met 
 him a reverend figure, who brought solemnly forth bread and 
 wine ; whether for the refreshment of the wearied fighters, or 
 for any other purpose, we are not informed. This man was 
 called " Melchizedek." He was king, and priest, uniting the 
 two offices in his one person ; King of Salem, and priest of 
 the Most High God. He bestowed upon Abram his priestly 
 blessing " Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possess- 
 or of Heaven, and earth." And Abram, recognising his 
 dignity and the claims of his official position, rendered Him 
 homage. He gave Him tithes of all. Why ? Clearly, be- 
 cause Melchizedek stood before him, as, in some true sense, 
 a representative of Jehovah Himself. 
 
 I ask you to notice, amongst other things, the mystery which 
 surrounds the person of Melchizedek. He comes into the 
 sacred narrative, without preface and without warning. All 
 that is told about him, is brought within the compass of three 
 verses. He appears suddenly, and disappears as suddenly ; 
 and, perhaps, if circumstances had been different, we should 
 have considered for a moment who Melchizedek was, and why 
 he was mentioned, and then should have dismissed the matter, 
 altogether, from our minds. But a thousand years passes by, 
 and Melchizedek's name emerges again in connection with the 
 Jewish Messiah, in an inspired Psalm of King David, which 
 depicts to us in a most graphic and striking way the anointed 
 one of God. As we read the Psalm, it is clear that Melchizedek 
 is a personage of no slight importance. He is a representa- 
 tive, a type of the coming Messiah. And we must look at the 
 one, if we are really desirous of understanding the character 
 and the work of the other. This, then, brethren, let us do. 
 Let us compare, as well as we can, the two figures ; Messiah, 
 and Melchizedek. 
 
 II. If they are to correspond, there must be found in Messiah 
 these things. First, profound mystery. Melchizedek, as 
 you have doubtless observed, is a priest without a genealogy.
 
 14 "WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIYE 
 
 But where else do you find a priest without a genealogy ? Do 
 you remember what Nehemiah says about some men, who 
 claimed to be admitted to the privileges of the priesthood ? 
 " These sought their register among those that were reckoned 
 by genealogy, but it was not proved; therefore were they, as 
 polluted, put from the priesthood." To be able to trace their 
 genealogy, was absolutely essential to the members of the 
 Aaronic priesthood. Melchizedek, then, was a priest of a 
 totally different kind from the sons of Aaron. But there was 
 mystery of another kind about Him. Ingenious men have ex- 
 pended a vast amount of ingenuity, in conjecturing who He 
 was. They might have spared themselves the trouble. It is 
 clear, from the manner in which He flashes into the sacred 
 narrative, and from the abrupt manner in which He quits it, 
 that we are not intended to know. Whence He came, and 
 whither He went, we are, purposely, not informed. There 
 is no mention of the beginning, or of the termination of 
 His priesthood ; or even whether it had a beginning, or a 
 termination at all. All is veiled in clouds. And this we 
 believe to be intentional, indicating that there was a marked 
 difference between the priesthood of this man, and the priest- 
 hood of those who are called after the order of Aaron. If, 
 then, Messiah is to correspond with Melchizedek, we should 
 expect to find a profound and unfathomable mystery about 
 Him. 
 
 Yet again, the priesthood of Melchizedek, as it is pre- 
 sented to us in Genesis, is an unchanging office; not trans- 
 ferred by one man to another; and not subject to succession. 
 And with this agree the words of the Psalm " Thou art a 
 priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Messiah, then, 
 if He is to correspond with Melchizedek, can be no mortal 
 man, holding an office which He drops at death, and hands 
 on to another. 
 
 Once more, He must not be merely a Priest, He must be a 
 King as well ; a Priest upon His Throne. 
 
 Once more, He must receive His office in a peculiar way. 
 The Aaronic priests were appointed by a Divine ordinance. 
 The privilege was placed in the family of Aaron. Aaron and 
 his successors held the office, by God's order. But, in this 
 case, there was the speciality of a solemn Divine oath. " The 
 Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever 
 after the order of Melchizedek.'' 
 
 And lastly, if the correspondence between Melchizedek and 
 Messiah is to be carried out, there must be superiority on the 
 part of Messiah to Abraham, and to all Abraham's seed, in-
 
 A 000 049 469 ( 
 
 IN* THE PRESENT TO ITS FOLLOWERS?" 15 
 
 eluding of course, the sous of Aaron. " Why ? " you ask. Look 
 (I reply) at the narrative in Genesis. Abraham receives the 
 blessing of JVIelchizeclek. Abraham therefore stands, officially 
 at least, below Melchizedek. Abraham pays Melchizedek 
 tithe ; and in so doing, acknowledges the superiority of 
 Melchizedek's position, from the spiritual point of view ; and 
 in Abraham, all who descend from Abraham of course, are 
 of necessity involved. 
 
 III. And if this be so, brethren, what follows ? Why clearly 
 it follows, that at the time when this 110th Psalm was written, 
 there was something beyond and above the Aaroiiic priesthood, 
 which had to be expected in the future ; a greater, a higher, a 
 nobler, a more enduring priesthood. And seeing that the 
 Aaronic priesthood has now, confessedly, passed away, is it 
 not, at least, probable, that this priesthood, which the Word 
 of God predicted when David wrote three thousand years 
 ago, and which was to be the successor and the complement 
 of tlie Aaronic priesthood, has actually come, and is even now 
 being fulfilled, to the unspeakable benefit and blessing of all 
 who will consent to take advantage of it ? We Christians 
 assert that it has come. According to our view, every feature 
 of the Melchizedek priesthood is reproduced in Jesus of 
 Nazareth, whom we call Jesus Christ ; and in Him alone. 
 
 Observe on what we ground this opinion. There is a 
 mystery about the " Priest after the order of Melchizedek," 
 which there could not be about a mere man. And our great 
 High Priest is the Incarnate Son of God. His Name is 
 Wonderful. Touching humanity on one side He is our 
 Brother ; bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh a simple, 
 homely, loving, genial man. Touching Deity on the other 
 He is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the ancient of 
 days, the Prince of Peace. Then the priesthood is everlasting. 
 " Thou art a priest for ever." And of whom is that true ? of 
 whom can it be true, but of Jesus Christ ? The superiority to 
 Abraham, we find in Jesus; and in Him alone. And again, 
 we believe Him to unite in His own person, the regal and 
 sacerdotal offices. He offered the sacrifice of Calvary. He 
 offered Himself; and the offering, so we are persuaded, was 
 accepted by God. With blood He entered, as the Aaronic 
 High Priest did on the day of atonement, into the Holiest 
 place the very presence of the Eternal. There He is ever 
 living to make intercession for us. But there He is also 
 reigning, a Priest upon His Throne exalted because of His 
 obedience unto death, the death of the Cross angels, and 
 principalities, and powers being made subject unto Him
 
 16 "WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY PROFESS TO GIVE, &c." 
 
 swaying the sceptre of the universe ; seated, as the Psalm 
 tells us, at God's right hand, until He makes His enemies 
 His footstool. Nowhere else, brethren, do we find, or can we 
 hope to find, the Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 
 
 Nor need we wait for Him. We have got him now. And 
 so for us (and we thank God for His undeserved goodness) for 
 us, Heaven is not empty. We need not construct an imaginary 
 advocate and representative, by sending up what we call 6*ur 
 "good deeds " to plead for us, before the throne of God. We 
 have a real person who represents us Jesus, the Son of 
 God. In Him meet all the lines, both of the Aaronic and 
 of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In Him we have everything 
 that we require, for our help here, for our blessing, in the 
 world of the hereafter. In' Him we have forgiveness. He 
 has made atonement for us. His blood cleanseth us from all 
 sin. Through Him our prayers ascend into the presence of 
 God. From Him comes down all life, and power, and grace, 
 and joy, all comfort in sorrow, and all strength in temptation. 
 More than this, He rules as King ; and we believe, that by 
 His almighty power, and by His unwatchful providence, He 
 makes all things, whatever they may be, work together for 
 our good. 
 
 Shall I stop here ? No ! I have more to say. Great as 
 He is, seated on the Throne of the universe, and engaged in 
 carrying out the vast and inscrutable purposes of the Most 
 High, He has an individualising knowledge of and care for 
 each one of us. He bears our names upon His heart before 
 God. He understands us. He consoles us. He upholds us 
 with His love. He is our Saviour, our High Priest, our King; 
 but He is also, of His infinite condescension, our companion, 
 and our friend. Yes ! we thank God for Jesus Christ. We 
 thank God, that for us, Heaven is not empty, because we have 
 there an advocate with the Father, " the Priest for ever after 
 the order of Melchizedek." 
 
 " Seeing, then, brethren, that we have a great High Priest, 
 who is passed into the Heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us 
 hold fast our profession; for we have not a High Priest, 
 which cannot be touched with the feeling of onr infirmities ; 
 but was, in all points, tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 
 Let us therefore come boldly unto the Throne of Grace, that 
 we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."