the ministry of Moses as "for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;" he being the herald of the great truths which were to be developed in the era of the Gospel.

In the case both of Moses and of the Messiah there was also a special divine designation and mission: the one to be the deliverer of God's chosen people from oppressive servitude, and to assume the conduct of the Jewish church; and the other to provide means for the salvation of all men, and to be the federal head of a new and permanent economy. In this respect, most probably, it is that Christ, in the discourse before us, is described as "the Apostle of our profession."

Another point of resemblance between Christ and Moses is that each was a faithful servant in the dispensation to which he was appointed. Under the designation, "the servant of God," Moses was peculiarly distinguished among Jewish writers and speakers. In a similar way is the Messiah described in the prophetic Scriptures, as with equal explicitness in the New Testament. Not to go beyond this Epistle, he is here styled (Aroupyòs) a minister or servant of the sanctuary ; and his work, in comparison with the former dispensation, is called a more excellent ministry,† (diapopwrépa λɛɩTouρyía.) Nor, in the argument of the Apostle, is the fidelity of Christ insisted on to the disparagement of that of Moses. Both were faithful; and of the former nothing more is said than that he was faithful to him that appointed him, even as Moses in all his house."

Thus much, then, a Hebrew might admit without any material drawback from the eminence of his own lawgiver. An inferiority of degree is the utmost evinced in these points of comparison; and that, the Jew might

* E. g. Isai. xlii. 1, 19; xliii. 10; lii. 13; Zech. iii. 8, &c. Heb. viii. 2, 6.

possibly argue, was the result only of the earlier period in which Moses lived; the superiority of the Messiah, on the other hand, being ensured by his more perfect developement of the truths taught by Moses in their initial and elementary forms. Both were Prophets; but the one was the Prophet of the church's nonage, the other of its maturity. Supposing this, therefore, to be the amount of the Apostle's argument, it could not be said that he made out a strong case in favour of Christianity against Judaism; or one by which the religious preferences of the Hebrew Christians were likely to be much confirmed.

Happily, however, the subject is not left in a position so unsatisfactory. The great point of contrast here is precisely the same as in the former example; and the argument upon which the entire discourse depends is, that Moses was the servant, and that Christ is the Son.* The reasoning of which this is the principle assumes several subordinate forms. The first proposition in the Epistle, for instance, disposes of all prophetical claims, however exalted: " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by the SON."

Again in the previous argument the Apostle had

* Not, I conceive, a servant and a son, as in our version. The absence of the article in Greek is determined by grammatical reasons, and does not necessarily make any difference in the sense. In the Old Testament, Moses is known emphatically as "The servant of God;" and it was no part of the Apostle's design to abstract from his peculiar eminence. So, on the other hand, nothing is gained to the argument by representing Christ as a Son, as the partiticipator of the filial relation that is in common with any others. In order to the conclusiveness of the discourse, the title and distinction must be exclusively his own. The same remark is applicable to the omission of the article before viòg in chap. v., verse 8.

ascribed to the Son the work of creation, the absolute control over the universe, and especially the mediatorial sovereignty. Thus, "unto the Son [God said],-Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands." The Son" controls all things by the word of his power;" and to him, as distinguished from angels, the divine oracle is addressed by Jehovah, “ Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."*

66

Of these facts it was now the business of the sacred writer to avail himself, for the illustration more especially of the point in debate. Accordingly he argues, "Jesus -was worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as the builder† hath more honour than the house." The founder of a household or family, he who frames its regulations, arranges its grades of dignity or service, and maintains its order, has more honour than the entire household. The Son, inasmuch as he has universal control, is the framer and the founder both of the Jewish and of the Christian church, "the house of the living God;" and were the glory and dignity of every individual member combined, the aggregate would fall infinitely short of that possessed by him to whom the establishment owes its origin and continued being. Much less can the eminence of Moses, though himself the most illustrious of its members, be compared with the honour due to the founder of the house.

The principle here involved, the Apostle goes on to suggest, is one universally recognised. Every house is builded, every family is founded, every household is arranged and established, by some one; and in all such cases we see the same law of distinction and pre-emiBut in the example before us there is one

nence.

* Heb. i. 1, 2, 10, 3, 13.

to KаTασкεVάoaç, he who frames, or constructs, fits, makes ready, arranges.

sublime peculiarity. He that built all things, that constructed the vast universe, (and this, as the Apostle has already shown, was the work of the Son,) He Is GOD. That fact, therefore, by which our Lord is distinguished from Moses, that which, according to the common reason of mankind, constitutes his perfect and unapproachable glory, plainly is, that he is-GOD.

But this the Apostle immediately identifies with his filiation; adding, "And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as the servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ, as the Son, over his own house." Moses, indeed, as the servant, was faithful in the household, of which he was himself a part, and in which he was so distinguished a member; but Christ, as the Son, who framed all things, established the household, and is the true God, is over his house in absolute lordship and sovereignty.

We may add, what indeed the reader can scarcely have failed to remark, that any other exposition of the title "Son" would reduce this now inexpugnable piece of argumentation to the veriest trifling. Say that the term is an official designation, and all distinction is at an end between son and servant; since, with this exposition, the son is in fact but a servant of a higher grade. It is only on the admission that the title "Son" describes our Lord's transcendent glory and eminence, that the reasoning can be conclusive, either of this or of the first chapter.

SECTION IV.

THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

IN this interesting portion of holy Scripture, few things are more remarkable than the union of the most fearless advocacy of the truth with the most admirable wisdom and skill. It is without inscription, lest by the occurrence of the author's name those Hebrews who were prejudiced against him personally, especially such as were in a state of religious indecision, should be deterred from its perusal; or lest, in the affirmation of his own apostleship, according to his custom in such cases, attention should be needlessly directed to his more intimate connexion with the uncircumcision. He begins by proving the superiority of our Lord to the angels; and thus prepares the way for the contrast between him and Moses. At this it was not likely that his readers would conceive any offence, since he whose rank transcended that of the highest created intelligences might easily be admitted to be worthy of more glory than even their own venerable lawgiver.

Having thus disposed of two important comparisons, he proceeds to that subject which, of all others, was probably the most offensive to Jewish exclusiveness, the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood. A comparatively rigid Hebrew, with but a small measure of spiritual discernment, might possibly be content to exchange Moses for Christ, even though the kingdom of Christ did not come with the pomp and observation which were commonly anticipated. And, if so, he could scarcely hesitate to allow its due force to the argument in favour of the Messiah's superiority to angels. But it would require a more than common influence of Christianity to enable a