Messiah, who was to come of the tribe of Judah, and family of Jesse, be called a priest for ever, it is evident that his must be a priesthood quite different from that of Aaron; and accordingly He is constituted a priest after the order of Melchisedech.

But as the economy of the Messiah is the last and most perfect of God's dispensations to man, it follows, that every constituent part of that economy must be more perfect than the corresponding parts of those economies which preceded it; consequently, the Messiah's priesthood must be a more perfect one than that of Aaron, which belonged to a less perfect economy; and it must supersede, and set aside that priesthood, even as manhood supersedes infancy. Now, it is deserving of the most serious attention upon the part of the Jews, that this is precisely the character which is given in the New Testament Scriptures of the priesthood of Jesus. He is called an high priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech; and in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we have a compa

rison instituted at full length, between this priesthood and that of Aaron; and the conclusion drawn from the whole is as follows: (ver. 21.) For those priests (the Levitical) were made 'without an oath, but this with an oath, by ' him that said unto him, The Lord sware, and 'will not repent; thou art a priest for ever, ' after the order of Melchisedech. By so much

6

was Jesus made a surety of a better covenant.

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason ' of death; but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Where'fore 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. For

6

such an high priest became us, who is holy,

harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and 'made higher than the heavens; who needeth

not daily, as those high priests, to offer up 'sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for 'the people's, for this he did once, when he 'offered up himself. For the law maketh men

6

priests which have infirmity; but the word ' of the oath, which was since the law, (viz. in

the hundred and tenth Psalm,) maketh the

Son, who is consecrated for evermore. '

Such, then, is the doctrine of the New Testament, with respect to the priesthood and offering of Jesus; and if, as the Jew must admit, there is the most exact conformity between this doctrine and that of the hundred and tenth Psalm, and the fifty-third of Isaiah, it is incumbent upon him to account for this conformity, and to show how it consists with any other hypothesis but that of Jesus being indeed the Messiah promised to the fathers.

In vain shall we search in the pages of David Levi for any express acknowledgment of the two fundamental principles of the Levitical dispensation which have been mentioned. The legal sacrifices have ceased for nearly eighteen centuries; and the family to which the priesthood was attached is not now to be distinguished from the rest of the Jewish nation. The Jews have, therefore, no sacrifice to offer

for sins; they have no priest to make atonement for their transgressions. Levi, therefore, is reduced to the necessity of seeking some other way of atonement; and hence we find him, in Vol. I. page 232, mentioning, that at the period of the restoration of Israel they need not be under any apprehension of going into captivity again; for that all their sins are expiated by the severe punishment they will then have undergone. But if, as has already been proved, even sins of ignorance could not be expiated under the law without the shedding of the blood of a sin-offering, and without atonement made by the priest, how does David Levi's idea, that the sins of the Jews (which, according to his own account, are very great and aggravated,) are to be expiated by their own sufferings? how, I ask, does this idea accord with the above-mentioned fundamental principle of the Levitical law? It is quite evident that the law of Moses stands in direct opposition to David Levi's scheme. And, truly, if the Jews have no other expiation to look to but that of their own suf

ferings, they must (if the law of Moses be from God) remain for ever under the consequences brought upon them by their offences.

6

How can David Levi also reconcile this notion, that the sufferings of the Jews, during their captivity, are to expiate their sins, which he elsewhere mentions, in Vol. I. page 209, with the declaration of God in Ezekiel xxxvi. 22:

Therefore, say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, I do not this for your

sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy 'name's sake, which ye have profaned among 'the heathen, whither ye went?' And, in ver. 24, For I will take you from among the ' heathen, and gather you out from all coun

6

tries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, ' and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, ' and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A 'new heart also will I give you, and a new

spirit will I put within you?' &c.

From this passage it is quite plain, that neither the merit nor the sufferings of the

N