« PreviousContinue »
part of this epistle, with which my text is evidently connected, as an obvious iuference and practical conclusion.
There we are informed, that the correspondence with the God of Israel, in all the public exercises of religious worship, was maintained and conducted by the intervention of the high-priest. None of the other Jews, of whatever rank or office, were permitted in person to approach the symbols of the divine presence. To him alone it belonged to pass through the curtain or vail, which separated the first tabernacle, wherein the ordi. nary priest ministered, from the second tabernacle, or holiest of all, wbich had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, with the cherubims of glory over it, shadowing the mercy-seat.“ Into this second tabernacle," saith the Apostle, at the 7th verse of the preceding chapter, “ went the high-priest alone, once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.” He then proceeds to observe, that the office of high-priest, the worldly sanctuary, and the various ordinances of divine service which belonged to it, were only figures for the time then present; and plainly shows, that they were all typical of, derived their significancy from, and received their full accomplishment in, the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ; who “ by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with bands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." After wbich, he goes on to prove, with great force and perspicuity, that what he calls the first covenant, or the Mosaic constitution, carried in its very form or aspect the most legible marks of imperfection and decay. No permanent high-priest belonged to it, that office being
exercised by men compassed about with infirmities; each of whom, by death, gave place to bis successor, Besides, the gifts and sacrifices they offered were, in their own nature, so mean and inconsiderable, “ that they could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; for it was impossible that the blood of goats and calves should,” by any intrinsic virtue, “take away sin.” Nay, the repetition of these sacrifices was a plain confession of their weakness and insufficiency; as the Apostle reasons most conclusively in the begiuning of this chapter. “ For the law," saith he,“ having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never, with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then," adds he in the form of a question, “ would they not have ceased to be offered ? because that the worshippers, once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins once every year.” Whereas Christ is an
. ever- living and unchangeable high-priest. The blood which he offered is of infinite worth and efficacy, being the blood of Emmanuel, God in our nature. Accordingly there is no repetition of bis sacrifice; for thus the Apostle proceeds at the 11th verse, “ Every high-priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but this man,” this God-man, " after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till bis enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” He is now gone to the heavenly sanctuary, “ having finished transgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity,
and brought in everlasting righteousness.” And nothing remains for him to do but to bless his people with the free and irrevocable remission of their sins, accor. ding to that promise of the covenant, quoted verse 17. their sins and iniquities will I remember no more; and to dispense to all who are willing to receive (and to hold it by his right) that fulness of life which is lodged in his hand, as the “Saviour of the body," and the “ King and Head over all things to the church."
This short review of the Apostle's reasoning serves to throw light upon the passage I am further to discourse upon. We see how the blood of Jesus gives bold. ness or freedom to enter into the heavenly sanctuary, even by removing that guilt which separates us from God, and renders us incapable of holding friendly communion or intercourse with him. We likewise see a reason, wby the way of admittance into the holiest is called not only a new but a living way. The entrance into the worldly sanctuary was indeed by blood; for, as the Apostle had observed at the 22d verse of the preceding chapter, “ almost all things,” under the old dispensation, “ were purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission." But then it was the blood of animals, inferior to man; which, after they were slain, were utterly consumed, and could live no more: Whereas the blood by which we now enter into the heavenly sanctuary, is the blood of him who hath life in himself; who, though he voluntarily submitted to death for a season, yet soon rose again from the grave by his own power; “ who is now alive, and behold, he liveth for evermore, and hath the keys of hell and of death.” We further learn upon what account his flesh, or human nature, gets the name of a vail, through which the new and living way into the holiest is consecrated
for us. It was by becoming man that he was qualified to suffer in our place for the expiation of our guilt. In him we behold God clothed with the character of a re. conciler, as the God of love, the God who is love. His flesh then is such a vail, as doth not exclude from, but opens to give us admittance to a throne of grace; nay, Christ himself is the true propitiatory or mercy-seat: the sacrifice, the altar, and the high-priest, are all united in his wonderful person. In short, “he is the way, the truth, and the life;" the true, the living, and the only way to the Father.
Here then we are furnished with a clear and satisfying answer to the first question proposed, viz. What warrant or encouragement hath a guilty creature to draw near to a holy and righteous God? Jesus the high priest over the house of God, who suffered for us in his flesh, or human nature, hath, by " that offering and sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour,” consecrated a new and liv. ing way of access, whereby we have boldness to enter into the most holy place, and draw near to God under the sprinkling of his blood.
II. The answer to the second question, which regards the manner of our approach, is no less clearly expressed in the following words: “Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
The 1st qualification is a true heart.
Truth is directly opposed to dissimulation or falsehood. A true heart, then, in drawing near to God by the blood of Jesus, must be a heart that corresponds to the profession we make: and what that profession is, in the case before us, may, with ease and certainty, be collected from what was delivered under the former head.
When we profess to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, we explicitly renounce all pretensions or hopes of obtaining admittance by any other means. We acknowledge the forfeiture we have incurred by our guilt, and subscribe to the justice of the sentence that condemns us; we confess, that we have done, and can do, nothing to recommend us to the favour of God, or that may found the remotest claim to pardon and acceptance. All our own righteousness we throw aside as filthy rags. In short, we plead guilty at a tribunal of justice, and adopt the language of the publican, as expressing our true character, and the only form of address that befits our state, God be merciful to me a sinner!
When the Jew brought the sacrifice which the law had appointed for his offence, to the door of the tabernacle ; when he laid his hand upon the head of the victim, confessing his sin over it, and then delivered it to the high-priest, that its blood might by shed for the expiation of his guilt; what was the true meaning and intent of that service? Did not the offender present the victim that it might be substituted in his place ? Did he not thereby acknowledge that he had incurred the penalty of death; and that the dying agonies of the devoted animal were only a faint representation of what was strictly due to himself? Was not this a virtual renunciation of any right to the continuance of life, but what arose from the acceptance of the sacrifice in his room, and the gracious promise of remission annexed to that acceptance? And can any thing less than this be meant by drawing near to God by the blood of Jesus? Was there more virtue in the typical than in the real atonement? Or is less to be expected from the substance than from the shadow? Did the offending Jew, when he made his confession over the head of the victim, look