and a perfect sacrifice, and as such was intended to take the place of all that existed before. The priesthood and sacrifices of the Jewish Church were but a shadow of this perfect priesthood and sacrifice, and even, as the author was writing, were ready to vanish away. We easily see how this great argument and revelation was calculated to meet the perplexities and anxieties we have spoken of as existing in the Church of Jerusalem. They might well be contented to go forth from the Jewish worship, considering that they had in the Priest and the Sacrifice of the New Covenant something infinitely better.

So far, there is no difference of opinion in regard to the meaning of the Epistle. But a divergence of view arises when we come to the mode of conceiving the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. According to the old Protestant view, the sacrifice of Christ was ended on the Cross, or at least on His Ascension, when, as our High Priest, he entered into the true or heavenly tabernacle to make atonement for us. He now manifests Himself as King by sitting at the Right Hand of God. In regard to His Sacrifice, it is maintained, all that the Church on earth has to do is to believe in it as an act past and finished, to feed the soul upon it, to apply it by a living faith for the remission of our sins and the sustaining of the new life. On the other hand, the view taken in the Catholic Church is that the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ still exist, that the sacrifice slain upon the Cross was carried by the High Priest within the veil, where even now He is making atonement. Just as Christ is a Priest for ever, so His sacrifice is εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. The Catholic view further maintains that the sacrifice of Christ is embodied in the Eucharist, and that by partaking of it we have access into the holiest. The view is expressed by St. Augustine when speaking of participation of the Eucharistic Table, he says that what is there received is that which the Priest Himself, the Mediator of the New Testament, exhibits after the order of Melchizedek, of His own Body and Blood. For this sacrifice succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were immolated as a shadow of that to come.' According to St. Augustine, therefore, the whole drift of the Epistle was to console the perplexed Hebrews for their exclusion from the temple worship by showing that they had in the Eucharist the perfect sacrifice.

If we look at the Protestant view, we see how imperfect would have been the consolation offered to the Hebrews if

1 St. Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxi. 19, 20, p. 639.

we can suppose that this was the idea in the author's mind. Instead of pointing them to a Christian altar, he was in effect telling them that altars and sacrifices were things of the past; for, so far as the Church on earth is concerned, there is neither altar nor sacrifice. We shall presently consider how far such a view is reconcilable with the express teaching of the Epistle. Here we would only remark that, historically speaking, it is inconceivable that such a view could either have been propounded to the Hebrews or accepted by them. How did the Protestant idea arise? What were the genetic circumstances out of which it grew? Clearly it grew out of medieval Christianity; and, as a tenet or system, it is quite inconceivable apart from mediæval Christianity. It has no meaning whatever; it has no substance or content except as a negation of the Roman Mass. It is therefore a pure anachronism to carry it back, as many do, and place it in the apostolic age. It will lead us to a more accurate and scientific view if we bear in mind that just as Protestantism grew out of medieval Christianity, so Apostolic Christianity grew out of Judaism. Now, what from this point of view might we suppose the change would be in respect of priesthood and sacrifice? It would not be the abolition of them, but the substitution for the imperfect, of the perfect; and this, in effect, is the great result which the author of the Epistle sets himself to show.

The fundamental error in the Protestant view is a wrong conception in regard to sacrifice. What is it that we mean when we speak of a sacrifice? Do we mean the act or ceremony of immolation, or do we mean the victim offered? It is clear that, in the ordinary use of the word, we may mean either. The word sacrifice may be applied indifferently either to the ceremony or to the victim. Both of them may be called the sacrifice. But there is this to be observed by way of caution, that, according as we have the one of these meanings or the other in view, the affirmation will be different. What is true of the ceremony is not always true of the victim. In the case, indeed, of the Jewish and heathen sacrifices there was little danger of mistake, because, as a matter of fact, with the end of the ceremony the victim was destroyed and ceased to exist. But the case would be very different in respect of Christ when viewed as our Sacrifice. He did not, and could not, cease to exist. He liveth for evermore. The question, therefore, in regard to Him is: Did He after His death upon the Cross and ascension into Heaven cease to be our Sacrifice? The Protestant view,

refusing to understand by sacrifice anything else than the ceremony or act of immolation, affirms that He did. The sacrifice, it says, was completed, brought to an end, with the Cross and Ascension. Did the writer of the Epistle take this view? This is really the crucial point in the interpretation of the Epistle. Does the author of the Epistle contemplate Christ as being now at this moment both our Priest and our Sacrifice? Or does he imply that the priesthood and sacrifice were accomplished, finished, at a given point of timeie. at the Ascension? We think there can be no doubt

whatever upon this point.

In regard to the priesthood of Christ, he not only affirms again and again that He is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, but he emphasizes it: This Man because He continueth ever hath an unchangeable (úraрáßaтov) Priesthood' (chap. vii. 24). And then he affirms that now at this moment He is acting as our Priest. 'Having,' he says, 'an High Priest over the house of God' (chap. x. 21). And again, 'We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man' (chap. viii. 1, 2). And then he specifies His work as High Priest: He intercedes for us, and makes atonement with His own Blood. He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them' (chap. vii. 25). And 'By His own Blood He entered in once into the holy place' (chap. ix. 12). And again, 'Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us' (chap. ix. 24).

And as the priesthood is for ever, so the sacrifice is ɛis tò dinvekès. The sacrifice is indeed inseparable from the priestδιηνεκές. hood. If Christ is a Priest, 'it is of necessity that He have somewhat also to offer.' And that which He offers is 'Himself.' In the passage we have just quoted the author insists that Christ, when He was set down on the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, became a minister of the sanctuary (τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός) and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man.' In the view of the author Christ at this moment is ministering as our High Priest in heaven. But the ministry of the tabernacle was a ministry of sacrifice, and therefore in his view Christ is at this moment ministering His sacrifice. If we recur to his favourite illustration of the day of atonement, though we must not press it

VOL. XXXII.-NO. LXIII.

C

too far into detail, yet in a general way it yields this result: Christ the High Priest with the blood of His sacrifice is entered into the holy of holies, i.e. heaven itself. He is there at this moment making atonement, and we, His congregation, are waiting without. We are waiting till He comes forth, which will be at the second advent. Till that time the atonement goes on. Many of the Fathers, indeed, grounding on the words for ever,' thought that in some way it might not cease even then, but only enter upon a new phase. This idea we need not trouble ourselves about. It is enough to be sure that, in the view of the author, Christ as our High Priest is ministering His sacrifice in the sanctuary of heaven.

Bishop Westcott has said that the idea of Christ pleading His Passion, offering His Blood,' is a modern conception.' We think this assertion has been made on an imperfect induction. He has overlooked, for instance, St. Ambrose's words:

'The shadow in the law, the image in the Gospel, truth in the heavenly places. Before a lamb was offered, a calf too was offered. Now Christ is offered. But He is offered as a man, as capable of suffering; and He offers Himself as a Priest, to forgive our sins; here in image, there in truth, where He intercedeth for us an advocate with the Father.' 2

Whether the idea is ancient or modern is of small importance; the important thing is that it is imbedded in the Epistle. Instead, however, of speaking of it as 'pleading His Passion' or 'offering His Blood,' we should prefer to say simply 'ministering His sacrifice.' That that idea is in the Epistle there can be no doubt. The words of St. Ambrose, however, are suggestive, and they seem to warn

Christ's work in heaven must not be pressed too literally. We are not, for instance, to suppose a literal material mercyseat in heaven, and that Christ, like the high priest on the day of atonement, literally sprinkled it with His Blood. Rather, what the Epistle teaches is, that the reality in the heavens, so different are the conditions, transcends our comprehension. It can only be represented to us under a ‘pattern.” Such a pattern was shown to Moses, and it is according to it, as carried out in the Jewish worship, that we are to conceive the work of Christ. As a pattern it is a true representation of the heavenly reality, but not an exact or literal copy. It serves as a shadow of the heavenly thing, and a shadow is all

1

Epist. to the Heb. p. 230.

2 St. Ambrose, De Off. i. 48. Quoted in Pusey, Real Presence, p. 456

that we can understand. We know that Christ's sacrifice abideth, and that He is even now ministering it; but how He ministers it, in the heavenly reality, we cannot picture. If He embodied the mystery of His death in the Eucharist it may be that He is in some way manifested in the image of death before the Father. St. John saw in the midst of the throne a lamb as it had been slain.' But whether this also was but an image of the reality we cannot say.

The next point to be determined is whether, in the view of the author of the Epistle, we have any means of sharing in Christ's abiding sacrifice. We have seen that, according to the Catholic view, which was the view of the whole Christian Church down to the Reformation, the sacrifice of Christ is embodied in the Eucharist. By partaking of the Eucharist we have, as it were, an entrance into the heavenly sanctuary; or, looking at it from another point of view, the heavenly mystery is in the Eucharist brought down to us mystically, so as to be the possession and life of the Church on earth. Is there any reason to suppose that this was the idea also of the author? It is plain that, if it were so, his argument and consolation of recompense for the perplexed Hebrews would be quite complete. He could in this case say to them, Do not grieve over the loss of the old sacrifices; we have even now a Perfect Priest and a Perfect Sacrifice. Our Priest is now within the veil making atonement; and we also in the Eucharistic mystery, which is the centre of our Christian worship, have an εἴσοδος τῶν ἁγίων. We have a θυσιαστήριον which is far better than theirs, an altar whereof they who expel you have no right to cat. Surely we can see that such an argument, as compared with one in which he practically said that altars, priests, and sacrifices are things of the past, would be far more effective and to the purpose. The question, however, is, Was this his mind and idea?

In order to answer this question we must go outside the Epistle. We must try to recall ideas and practices which then prevailed in the Christian community, and of which the minds both of the writer and the readers of the Epistle were full. We have to inquire in respect of the present point whether such an idea as that the sacrifice of Christ might be embodied in a mystery which should form the central act of Christian worship was part of the possession of the Church. Here, however, the difficulty is very great. We have been so long accustomed to a system of glossing by which the plainest statements and most pregnant indications are dissolved and

1 Rev. v. 6.