No. 64.]

[Price 1d.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

GENERAL SUMMARY.

THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS BOTH

(1.) THE TRUE PRIEST AND (II.) THE TRUE SACRIFICE. FOLLOWING up, then, the course of our explanations as commenced in our last Reading, we come next to the great facts of our Lord's sufferings and humiliation and death. St. Paul has already shown that Christ was superior to Moses in His own nature, and that the angels worshipped Him as their Divine Superior. Now there comes in the objection, that if this were true, how was it He did not "save Himself" from the sorrows and sufferings of His Ministry? Observe then, not only how St. Paul answers these objections, but the way in which he manages to make his answers serve as an introduction to the great subjects of his letter:

(1) The Priesthood of Christ :(2) The Atonement of Christ :"If Christ were GOD, why did He suffer?" So ran the objection.

"If Christ had not suffered, what kind of Priest would He have been ?" So runs the first part of the answer.

And, then, secondly-"If Christ is to be a Priest, He must offer some victim; and what other victim could He have to offer but Himself?"

Let us take the first point first:-The Priesthood of Christ. This-as St. Paul explains to us-this, of itself, is enough to explain the great Jewish difficulty about our Lord. The sufferings of Christ were no proof that the Founder of Christianity was less than Moses. The truth was

the other way. It was because of His greatness that suffering was necessary to Christ. Why? Because He came into our flesh to become our High Priest. And what has this to do with it? Simply this. That a priest is one who has to stand between man and GOD, one who has to speak and act towards GOD on man's behalf, and in man's name;-in one word, to "take our part." Now how could One Who was GOD "take our part" unless He actually went through all our experiencesorrow, suffering, temptation, death? So

the sufferings of Christ were what we may describe as the way in which He "qualified" Himself to fill the office of a Priest on behalf of human beings. Unless He had undergone all that we undergo, (sin excepted,) how could He be "qualified" to act and speak on our behalf, and in our name? So St. Paul shows the Jews that it was just because of Christ's own real exaltation as a Divine Being, that He was obliged to go through a certain process of humiliation before He could be qualified to act as Priest on behalf of creatures so infinitely below Him as we were. "Perfect through sufferings." _Perhaps there are few phrases in the New Testament oftener misquoted or more thoroughly misconceived than these. It does not mean that there ever was at any time any imperfection (in our usual sense of the word) in Jesus the Captain of our Salvation. But the phrase is intended to remind us that, until He had gone through suffering, He was not complete in the qualifications necessary for one who was to be a Priest for man. "Perfect" here means neither more nor less than ", complete ;"-complete in the necessary qualifi cations requisite for the due discharge of the priestly office which He had taken up. Now St. Paul is the great explainer as well as defender of the Christian Faith, both to the Jews and the Gentiles. To the Jews the great stumbling-block to believing in the Divinity of Christ was His humiliation. St. Paul explains that the humiliation is no inconsistency with the Divinity, but only the result of it. And thus it is that St. Paul glides-if we so may phrase it-glides into his mighty subject, the Priesthood of our Lord. Now he has broken ground, as you may say. Christ's humiliation is the necessary qualification for His Priesthood. The word Priest has been uttered. Through the mention of the word Priest you have the entrance to that which has been upon his mind all along-though not upon his lips-the exhibition of Christ's Priesthood as the complete fulfilment of the Jewish system, which occupies its ground and makes it needless for it to go on any longer. Still St. Paul will not hurry. He wants to make his case quite safe about CHRIST first, before he goes on to displace

the Jewish System. And so he keeps working at this idea of Priesthood for a long time yet. What is a priest? He falls back upon this question again. What is a Priest? And what makes a person to be a Priest? Can a person make himself a Priest? No doubt in all these questions-which St. Paul is so careful to make you see are fully auswered in the case of Christ's priesthood-St. Paul is following the regular routine of thoughts and ideas about priesthood, which the Jews of that day were wont to follow. And he makes you see that Christ does answer to them all. Even though He was Divine, Christ did not intrude Himself into this office of priesthood. It was GOD;- GOD the Father Who called Him to the office. It was GOD-the same GOD Who had called Aaron into his priesthood; so that nothing can be said against Christ's priesthood upon this score. And not this only; but the same passage which tells us that Christ's priesthood is of GOD the FATHER'S calling the same passage tells us that its commission is of a higher order than Aaron's. Here another point of superiority comes out. Moses and Aaron:-these were the two great names in the Jewish mind. Christ has been already shown to be Divine, and greater than Moses by reason of His Divine Nature. Now we are to see that in His Priesthood also He is superior to Aaron by reason of its precedence. This is the force of that mysterious argument about Melchizedek. The words of the Psalmist are, "called of God to be an High Priest according to Melchizedek's order." That is to say, Christ's priesthood is of Melchizedek's order as opposed to Aaron's order. Christ did not come by His priesthood through Aaron at all. He was called to it by GoD and the priesthood He was called to, was one which was altogether on a higher level than Aaron'snamely, Melchizedek's. And if anyone doubts that Melchizedek's priesthood did take precedence of Aaron's, let him remember that even Abraham, the father of Aaron, paid tithe to Melchizedek, and otherwise acknowledged his superiority. So St. Paul shows Christ's Priesthood to be superior to Aaron's, and therefore to all the Jewish system of priesthood and of priestly offices. As Christ sets aside Moses and the Mosaic Law; so Christ sets aside Aaron and the Aaronic Priesthood. Aaron's was only a temporary calling. Christ's Priesthood is an eternal office :-"not after the power of a carnal ordinance, but after the power of an endless life."

Still we hark back again upon the idea of priesthood, before we go on to the subject of the passing away of Temple and of Temple Ritual.

What was a Priest? What was a Priest

for? We have seen that Christ was caed to be a Priest; and we have seen that He was of an order of Priests altogether abor and prior to Aaron's. But what were Priests for? And what do they do? Briefly, then, a Priest is one who offerswho has offerings to make to God-some thing which he sacrifices. Every one to whom this letter was first sent knew thisknew what a priest was-knew that a Pries must have something to offer to God. knew moreover that so far as appearances went, Christ had never made any show of offering sacrifices like Jewish high press did. And this was just why they wond all think that now at last St. Paul wo be at a standstill for something to say, and quite without an argument. For this s just where the Jews thought the Christin Religion was so defective. It was all ver well to say that Christ was a Priest a so on; but "where was the lamb for burnt sacrifice ?" What did Christ effect A Priest without a sacrifice was somethin altogether unheard of. And therefore, be comes in St. Paul's next explanation, it is very curious to see how it runs pare with the explanation about His humiliari. Just as Christ's appearance in humihina was needful to qualify Him to be a priss for man-just so His Death was the c sacrifice which it was worthy and fing that He should offer. What other sacrif could be good enough for Him to cer Could there be anything rich enough aẻ valuable enough and pure enough for s a Priest as the Son of God to be e Offerer of? Here is the explanation the Death of Christ. It can no longer urged as an objection to the fact of fis being Divine, for it was a part of His c and Gon's own plan and purpose Him. God called Him to be a Priest for mankind. Christ came willingly to do the priest's office, and to offer for the sins of te But He "must have something to offer." WES could this offering be? It is the offering Himself; and He did it of Himself, willing), freely, as a proof of His Divine Love, ni not as a consequence of any inability to save Himself" from His enemies.

66

And thus we have completed the out of St. Paul's argument upon the nature and the Office of the Founder of the Christi Faith. He is GOD from all eternity. He became Man for our Redemption. Com into the world, He comes as a Son into Es own house, not as a servant (such as Meses into the house of his master. Coming s the world, the Angels do Him wy and not merely render Him aid, as they did to Moses, and as indeed they still to those whom Christ redeems, and w through Christ have become heirs of Goes salvation. So Christ is greater than Moses.

Then for His sufferings-it is they that qualify Him to be the Priest and Mediator between man and God. He could not be man's priest else: and yet if He be not our Priest, what is He? We know the Psalmist says Messiah is to be a Priest, and not of Aaron's order, but as much higher as Eternity is above time. So the sufferings which have puzzled the Jews are the Consecration of the Eternal Priest, Who supersedes the Aaronic priests and all their ministry. Then what is such a Priest to have to offer? Nothing surely less precious than Himself; and so His Death is now explained, as well as His humiliation and His sufferings. He is Victim as well as Priest:priceless Victim, Lamb unspotted ;-as well as perfect Priest;-one Whose Ministry is changeless and eternal.

We need not follow this part of the argument further, nor stop to show in detail how St. Paul works out the particulars in which the actual exercise of the ministry of Christ shows its superiority to that of the continually changing ministries of the successors of the High Priest Aaron. All these are plain and easy to be understood. The great point is that our readers should catch the leading points of the argument, those which like the mountain tops tower above all else, and which, if you have a clear idea of them, will enable you to group all else round them without risk of error. What we have come to, thus far, is this. It is a mistake to say that Christianity is a religion without a priest. Christ is its Priest. His calling by God was for that very purpose; to be the Priest of the New Religion. His great reply, "Lo I come," marks the supreme value of what He comes to offer. So Christianity is not a religion without a sacrifice. There is the heavenly Victim Christ Himself, the only Victim worthy of such an Offerer as Christ our High Priest is. Richer both as to priest and sacrifice is the religion of the Christian than ever was the religion of the Jew. Thus St. Paul turns the tables on the Jewish objectors who had denounced the new religion as a mere set of unsubstantial notions without body or consistence. Does aught yet remain? Yes, there does. The thoroughness of this last great controversial answer to the Jewish enemy is marvellous. And though one might think at first sight this reply is already full and crushing enough, yet St. Paul will not leave his work till he has done it even yet more thoroughly. You know how many a battle won is yet a barren victory because the victors do not follow up their victory and scatter as well as beat the enemy. The battle wins the fruits it may be; but the pursuit secures them or at least makes sure of the enemy being too disabled to attempt their re-capture. So it is here. Hitherto St. Paul has been

on the defensive. He has, so to speak, beaten off the antagonists. But he does not rest upon the success of his defence. He pursues his enemy. He forces you to admit, not only that Christianity has a Priest and Sacrifice, which the Jewish enemy denied, but that Judaism is really in the case it charges on the Christians, that it is Judaism which has neither Priest or Sacrifice, for all their boasting about Temple and Altar and Holy Place and Aaronic Priesthood. He is determined to cripple their arguments for ever, and make you see that if the Jews were faithful to their own religion they would be now coming over to that very Christianity which they despised;-and that, too, in order to obtain the very realities (of Priest and Sacrifice) which they vainly boasted about, but of which they had nothing but the now empty type and symbol which pointed them to Christ. But for the explanation of how St. Paul conducts his pursuit, and the arguments he uses, we must refer our readers to the coming section. A. R. A.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. GENERAL SUMMARY. (continued.)

THAT JUDAISM HAS NEITHER

(1.) Priest NOR (II.) SACRIFICE.

IN our former Reading we explained to our readers how St. Paul met the Jewish objection that Christianity had no Priest and no Sacrifice. Now a religion without a Priest is no religion. A religion without a Sacrifice is a dead religion. And it is very much to be observed that St. Paul at once

admits this. St. Paul admits that it must be no religion at all if this report were true. And therefore all his effort is to show that it is untrue, and that Christianity has Priest and Sacrifice, both, in their full perfection. Next it would seem that he has in view the taunt of those who years before had swelled the cry at Jerusalem, "This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the Law, and this place." (i. e. the Temple.) Was this cry true? Did St. Paul teach" against the Temple?" Remember that St. Paul had never been to Jerusalem since that memorable day. The recollection of those outcries was his last remembrance of the much-loved Holy City of his ancestors. Remember too that on that occasion he had, so to speak, temporized with his opponents, observing certain of the Temple usages, in order that, as the Jerusalem Apostles said, "all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the Law." It did not answer. St. Paul's action was misunderstood. The tumult followed, and all the long imprison

ments and troubles; after which, as we have said above, St. Paul was now once more journeying back to the Jerusalem which before had spurned him. The old question was sure to come up again-Did | he teach against the Temple? What was he to say now? And so he meets the question fairly face to face. Yes, he does teach against the Temple:-or at least he makes the Temple take up its own parable against itself, and teach its too-devoted guardians, by its own arrangements, that it is its own witness to its having only a temporary value. The controversial victory has been already won. Now St. Paul enters upon the controversial pursuit.

Let us therefore note the steps of this pursuit. St. Paul has shown his opponents that Christianity is free from the objections they alleged against it. Now he shows them that Judaism is open to the self-same objections:-that Judaism now is without a priesthood and without a sacrifice; and if priesthood and sacrifice are gone, what kind of religion is it, and of what good is the Temple any longer?

I. Of the Law and of the Friesthood. They are, of course, changed and swept away, because the very fact of Christ coming as a Priest of a superior order to Aaron's shows that Aaron's commission is resumed, or at least merges in the priestly office which is now discharged by his superior. This is clear and need not be dwelt on, and the same may be said of many minor arguments. But St. Paul's great argument of all is that supremely strong one from the structure of the Tabernacle itself, which every Jew would comprehend at once, and by which St. Paul makes the very arrangement of the Tabernacle a standing witness to the imperfection of the Mosaic System, and a perpetual prophecy that a time must come when it must be superseded. Now as this is an argument which many a reader passes by without perceiving its full significance, we will dwell the more emphatically on it.

II. Secondly, then, How about the Temple? St. Paul says boldly-Not I, but the Temple itself bears witness that it is to pass away. Look at its structure. There are two parts to it. The Holy Place is one part, and thereinto the Priests perpetually enter, making sacrifice continually. But this is not all. There is a Holiest Place besides the Holy Place; and into it who enters ? None-except the Chief Priest only, and he but once a year! making atonement for himself and the people too. What does this symbolism teach? That the way to God by the Mosaic System was open? No such thing--the symbolism was all the other way. The Holiest Place, the symbol of GoD's Presence, was a shut place, not an opened one, bearing witness

to shutness not openness; yes, shutness even to the priesthood itself, for even the priests are kept outside and are only allowed to offer in the Holy Place and not the Holiest And yet there is a "Holiest of all" to be a standing witness that there is something beyond. Something worth reaching-something to which the Jewish priesthood could not reach. So the stamp of imperfection and ineffectualness was stamped upon the Aaronic ministry even by the very structure of their Temple. How so? Let us repeat the argument. All the great bulk of the priestly ministrations was carried on in the outer of the two Holy Places-i.e. in the Holy Place, which did not symbolize the Presence of God. Now Priesthood, if it means anything, means the having acces to the Presence of God to offer sacrifice for someone else. Every time therefor that the Priest entered no farther than the Holy Place, he was a witness to the inperfection of the ministry he exercised This was what was meant by having tre compartments to the Temple; the one to which the priests had ordinary access being the one which did not symbolize God's Presence, while the one which was shatt did symbolize it, showing that the Most Priesthood had not free access to the Presence of God, but only to an outer sphere-the Holy Place.

But was not a free access to the Divine Presence a thing much to be desired? Ob yes! Free access to God is the very end and essence of Religion and Priest and Sacrifice. And this was just what the arrangemen were all meant to teach. For, once a year the Chief Priest did enter that mysterio Holy of Holies, which symbolized Go Presence. But how? Not as a perfect priest, for he had to offer for himself t well as for his people:-not as a mediator who accomplished any effectual mediation. for the ceremony was annually repeatedboth these two things witnessing to the imperfection of the act. Why then did he enter? Thus stands the answer. Each d the two compartments has its lesson. The Holy Place, ever thronged by its priests and sacrifices, witnesses (1) that mediation was wanted:-but (2) that at present it was not accomplished:-in short, that at prese the priesthood was but partial :—that there was no complete realization of the priestly office of mediation between God and mas The priests could not reach God's very Presence, and in so far they failed to be real priests at all. Thus the Holy of Holks has its lessons too. Its shutness repeats the lesson you have learned from seeing the Mosaic priesthood worshipping outside:before, and not within its sacred Veil But it is entered now and then, periodically, though with an ineffectual service, which wants repeating, and by an imperfect priest