EXTRACT FROM DISCOURSE BY THE LATE REV.
HUGH MARTIN, D.D., EDINBURGH.
THE priesthood of Christ and the worship of the Church are so connected, that they stand or fall together; and the scene or locality of the one must be the scene or locality of the other. All our worship of God hangs on the mediation of Jesus in the execution of his sacerdotal office; and he who is unacquainted with the great leading truths concerning Christ’s priesthood cannot intelligently nor acceptably worship God. No worship is acceptable to the Father, no ascriptions of praise and glory, and no supplications and prayers can come into His presence, save through the hands of the one Mediator between God and men. And this does not merely imply that, on the one hand, God has regard to the sacrifice of Jesus, and that, on the other, the worshipper directs his faith to it also. There is more implied in it than that. For the sacrifice of Christ cannot be regarded as something that has passed out of His hands, so as that benefits may be solicited and bestowed on the ground of it, the continual personal and living intervention of Christ Himself being unnecessary. No: not only does the Father dispense the blessings of the covenant on the ground of the satisfaction rendered to divine justice on the cross of Calvary; but when He does dispense those blessings, it is only through the perpetual ministry, the gracious personal intervention, and the very hands of the living High Priest Himself. And not only does the acceptable worshipper proffer his faith, and love, and service, through the merit of the great propitiation, but his right to do so with acceptance he recognises as dependant on his making use of the ministry and service of the High Priest, as He personally and officially presents them at the throne. When we are invited to come boldly to the throne of grace, our privilege is rested on twofold ground: first, that we have “a new and living way into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, and by the rent veil,” which is to say, His flesh; and secondly, that “we have a great High Priest”—the risen Saviour Himself, as the leader of our worship—”over the house of God.” And assuredly no one will rise to the purity of a true heart, and to the privilege of the full assurance of an unshaken confidence, whose faith does not embrace the completeness of this double warrant for drawing near to God.
All our worship is dependent on the priesthood of Christ. Our worship, in fact, is nothing else than our communion with Christ in His priesthood. Our whole worship hinges on that priesthood: takes its colour and character, its spiritual life and substance, from it; gathers round it, and revolves about it. Inevitably the scene of His priesthood is the scene of our worship.
It is written in the opening statement of the chapter succeeding that from which our text is taken: “Then verily the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” And the contrast which the Apostle is carrying out between the old covenant and the new, suggests by antithesis the sure and implied counterpart and correlative truth, that the second covenant has ordinance of divine service, but a heavenly sanctuary as the scene of them. And this truth is either expressly asserted or implicitly involved in repeated statements throughout this epistle. When in the fourth chapter we are called on to hold fast our profession, on the ground that we have a great High Priest who has passed into the heavens—Jesus, the Son of God—it is surely the throne of God in heaven to which we are for the same reason invited to “come boldly, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” When in the sixth chapter we have a glorious description of the strong consolation which God is willing that the heirs of promise should enjoy in the city of refuge into which they have fled, it is a heavenly refuge-city—heaven itself—into which their hope is seen to carry them, or into which their souls, in the power of hope, are spiritually carried out; which hope “enters into that within the veil, whither the fore-runner is for us entered.” When in the tenth chapter we are invited into the holiest of all now pertaining to gospel worship— analogous to the holy of holies under the law—it is manifestly heaven itself into which we are, by this heavenly calling, summoned to enter by faith: “Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near.” When in the thirteenth chapter the writer asserts that “we have an altar of which they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle,” it is assuredly no earthly altar that he has in view, but one with which a heavenly and exclusively spiritual worship is connected, and in the virtues of which we are to offer no ceremonial, material, or sensuous sacrifice, or any worship of earthly pomp, but the pure and simple “sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.” And more decisive perhaps, than any of these, is the grand description of our Church-state and privilege under the gospel, which he expressly contrasts with that under the law; and in which he makes heaven so palpably the only scene and seat of worship, that readers are continually tempted to fancy that it is the estate of glory he is depicting, though it is manifestly our present condition under the gospel which he has in view:—”Ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and
church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”
Yes; as the holy place in the innermost recesses of Israel’s temple was the recognised scene of Israel’s worship under Aaron’s priesthood, heaven is the scene of our worship under Christ. We enter there, indeed, in this life, only by faith. But faith’s entrance is real. Faith’s entrance is not fanciful, but true. We enter by no effort of imagination, but by an effort and exercise of faith; and faith has the warrant of the word, and the call of the Father, and the quickening of the Spirit, and the ministry and priesthood of the Son to proceed upon, when it enters there. And when our case is called, and our petition to be considered—if reverently we may speak of these great mysteries in terms borrowed from the procedure of men and courts on earth—and if the question is put: Who appears on behalf of these petitioners, and in support of this petition? the answer is: “Christ hath entered into heaven itself, there to appear in the presence of God for us.”
In the grateful remembrance of this great truth—that God’s heaven of glory is the real sanctuary and scene of our unpretending gospel worship—with what perfect satisfaction, with a mind how calm and equal, may we be contented to resign all the grandeur and pomp of a ritualistic worship, and cleave to the simplicity of our Presbyterian order! We are but preferring heaven to earth when doing so. And though our forms may be accounted bald, and tame, and unimpressive, it can only be in the judgment of those that are comparatively carnal, and who, in default of spiritual ability to appreciate the heavenliness of New Testament worship, would lay earth and sense under contribution, where heaven and faith should rule. The truly spiritual worshipper, sensitive to the difficulty of maintaining his spiritual-mindedness, will be jealous of everything fitted to appeal to sense. To such, the grave sweet melody of Zion’s psalmody will be a congenial vehicle for spiritual feeling; while the artistic sounds of instrumental music thrilling the ear, awakening bodily sense to energies conflicting with those of the spirit, precisely where most of all the spirit should be free from all such conflict, will be felt intuitively as a great impurity, and a fundamental violation of the great principles of gospel worship.
It is remarkably confirmatory of these remarks to remind you that, in point of fact, the tolerating or desiring of such innovations and impurities in the worship of God, always goes hand in hand with false or defective views of the priesthood of Christ. A ritualistic worship is found to be historically connected with notions of an earthly priesthood. When the ministers of the gospel are accounted priests, as in Popish or Puseyite worship, the earthly house of prayer—and not heaven—comes to be
regarded as the scene and sanctuary of worship; its observances, in default of heavenly and unseen beauty, are decorated with materials of earthly splendour; and inasmuch as it is a principle of reason that the worship of God should be glorious, and priesthood and glory stand intimately related, the priesthood being on earth, the glory sought is an earthly pomp and glory too. The doctrine of Christ’s exclusive and celestial priesthood puts ritualistic worship to flight. And the believing worshipper, seeking in spirit to enter heaven, rejoices to resign every beggarly element of the world, which can only chain down his spirit, too prone to cleave unto the dust, and hinder his entrance within the vail.
I need scarcely remark, in this connection, that it is manifestly the deep appreciation of doctrine—a large, and sound, and rich theology, once highly valued in Scotland, when every peasant could confound the prelates—that will alone protect and conserve among us the worship and government of the Church of God according to His will. Doctrine, in all things, takes the lead in the Church; doctrine, held fast in the grasp of a living faith, a deep spiritual intelligence, and a loving, cordial appreciation. And where doctrine becomes corrupt, or shallow, or inefficient, neither the worship nor the government of the Church can long be safe from the follies of human wisdom, and the corruptions and impurities of human inventions. Nor is there any doctrine more distinguishing and glorious in Christianity than the many-sided and exalted doctrine of the priesthood of Christ. You will always find those deplorably ignorant of it, who desiderate or would welcome innovations and ceremonies in our worship.
Beinn Shinai.
‘S i Eachdraidh Israel, gun cheist is fiora, agus, air ioma doigh, is ro-thaitniche, do sheann eachdraidh, a tha lathair. Is beag nach ‘eil toiseach eachdraidh gach cinnich eile air a filleadh ann ‘n neo chinnteachd, na fiosrach gun bhi fior; ach feudaidh sinn am pobull Iudhach a lorgachadh air an ais gu aon athair, athair nan creidmheach, agus caraid Dhe. An so cha ‘n ‘eil teagamh no neo-chinnteachd, ach air ar stiuradh le foillseachadh neamhuidh, feudaidh sinn rannsachadh gu ‘s na bliadhnaichan ‘s faide air falbh do dh’ aimsir chein, agus sealtuin air Abraham, mac Thera, a fagail Ur nan Caldeach, ann an umhlachd do ghairm Dhe, agus le creideamh anns ‘s a ghealladh neamhuidh. Gun stad a chum a bhi toirt ‘n aire gu mionaideach air meudachadh comharaichte a shliochd, na air an saoradh grasmhór o ‘n Eiphit, agus aig a mhuir ruaidh, greasaidh sinn air ar ‘n aghaidh, gus an ain an d’ thanaig iad do dh’ fhasach Shinai, agus ‘n do champaich iad fa chomhair na beinne.
Tha cunntas an t’ sealladh, mar a tha e air a sgiobhadh ann a’ leabhar Ecsodus, a’ giulan seula FIRINN agus CINNTEACHD, agus
ann an tionndadh a thaobh, aig uair sam bith, a chum beach lachadh air, tha sinn a faireachdain mar gu ‘n cluineamaid na docail air an aithris, a chaidh a’ labhairt ri Maois aig uair eile, “cuir dhiot do bhroga bharr do chos, oir an t-ait air am bheil thu a’ d’ sheasamh is talamh naomh e.” Cha robh riamh, ann an eachdraidh an t-saoghail, foillseachadh cho uamhasach air lathair-eachd, agus naomheachd Dhe. ‘Bha tairneanaich ‘s tein-athair ann, agus neul tiugh air a Bheinn, agus guth trompaid, a rinn fuaim fhada, ‘s a dh’ fhas ni b’ airde ‘s ni b’ airde, agus bha Beinn Shinai air fad na deataich, oir thurling an Tighearna orra ann an teine, agus dh’fhéirich a deatach a suas, mar dheatach fuirneis, agus bha a bheinn uile gu ro mhor air chrith, ionnas gu’n do chriothaich an sluagh uile ann ‘s a champ:—Deanadh an sgiobhdair, agus an leughdair, greim air cuid do ‘n spioraid dhomhain sholaimte, a rinn an sin mosgladh ann an camp Israel. Labhair gu deimhin, comharan uamhasach na morachd a thug mi fainear, lathair-eachd Dhe Israel, ach ‘s e an Dia ris am bheil againne ri dheanadh. ‘S e an Dia neo-chaoclaideach, an de, an diugh, agus gu siorruidh an ti ceudna.
Tha na deich aitheantan a bha ‘n sin air an toirt do Mhaois, air a bheinn, a chum a bhi air an deanadh aithnichte do Israel, gu ro-fheumail gun atharrachadh, agus a deanadh a suas riaghailt beatha, airson a chinne-daona, anns gach aimsir agus dûthaich—annta tha briogh na riaghailt shiorruidh, ceart agus eucoir.
Tha spioradalachd lagh naomha Dhe air a dhearbhadh, le mineachd ioma cuid deth, le ar Tighearna Iosa Criosd, na shearmonn air a bheinn, agus na fhreagairt do ‘n cheist, “Cia i ‘n aithne ‘s mo san lagh?” ‘N uair a fhreagairt agus a thubhairt e, “Gradhaichidh tu an Tighearn do Dhia le t-uile chridhe, agus le t-uile anam, agus le t-uile inntinn. Is i so a cheud aithne agus an aithne mhor. Agus is cosmbuil an dara rithe so, Gradhaichidh tu do choimhearsnach mar thu fein” (Mat. xxii. 36-39).
Cia ioma mile a tha ann, a tha nochdadh le eusontas, agus mi-dhiadhachd fhollaiseach, an aite a bhi a’ gradhachadh Dhe os ceann gach ni, a tha fuathachadh ainn agus ughdaras, aoradh agus a luchd aoraidh, a sheirbhais agus a sheirbhaisaich—agus a tha, ‘n aite a bhi a’ gradhachadh an coimhearsnich mar iad fein, a sgrios socair, buannachd, agus cliu gach duine, a chum a bhi toileachadh am miann fein. Gu cinnteach cha ruig sinn a leas stad gu bhi comharachadh a mach meud cionta’n leithidibh so do dhaoine; tha i air a h’aideachadh leis na h’ uile, agus cha ‘n urrainn iad fein a h’aicheadh.
Cia ioma deich mile a tha ann, a tha trid inntinn shaoghalta, uabhar, fein-speis, na ceadachadh fealmhor, a ‘nochdadh gu ‘m bheil beartas, onoir, na solas na beatha so a toirt a suas a chuid is mo da ‘n aire, agus an ard mheas, ‘n uair nach eil Dia na ‘n uile smuinteanain; a tha do reir cleachdaidh ‘g aicheadh Dhe, a teachd beo gun Dia anns an t’ saoghail, gun mhothachadh air earbsa ann, gun toinig sam bith air an comain da, no aideachadh
air a mhaitheas; gun drughadh air a lathaireachd, aithneachadh air ughdara, iarruidh air fhabhar, gradh da ainm, iomagain airson a ghloir—gu h’ aithgearr, gun gheur-mhoothachadh eifeachdach sam bith air a Bhith. O, Cia Ciontach a tha ‘n leithidean so do dhaoine, ann an sealladh an Dia sin a tha ‘g iarruidh orra esan aideachadh na ‘n uile shlighibh, agus a thubhairt, “gach ni air bith a ni sibh, ann am focal no ann an gniomh, deanaibh iad uile ann an ainm an Tighearna Iosa, a’ toirt buidheachais do Dhia, eadhon an t-athair tridsan” (Col. iii. 17).
Ach far nach ‘eil aon chuid, mi-dhiadachd fhollaiseach, no cleachdadh dearmadach air Dia, feudaidd moran cionta eiridh, araon ‘o gun a bhi a co-aontachadh, agus a briseadh lagh Dhe. Treorachaidh gradh comhlionta do Dhia, mar a tha a’ lagh, gu ceart agus gu h’iomlan, ‘g iarruidh, gu umhlachd chomhlionta da ughdara, agus bhiodh teachd-gearr, an cuid sam bith dheth, gu h’ eufeachdach a briseadh an lagha, agus gu ‘m fagail buailteach do fheirg agus do mhallachadh an Uile Chumhachdaich, a thug seachad an lagh; oir mar so ata e sgiobhta, “Is malluichte gach neach nach buanaich anns na h’ uile nithibh, ata sgiobhta ann an leabhar a lagha chum an deanamh” (Gal. iii. 10).
Am bheil lagh Dhe a ceadachadh cionta ann an suidheachadh sam bith? Am bheil e a ceadachadh teachdgear? Cha ‘n urrainn e bhith: tha lagh Dhe coimhlionta; agus nam biodh a leithid so do ni air a cheadachadh, co a b’urrainn a chrioich gus m biodh e air a ghiulan a shocrachadh? A thuilleadh, a’ bheil Dia, ann a bhi ‘g iarruidh mor-ghradh, agus umhlachd choimhlionta d’a thoil, ‘g iarruidh tuilleadh ‘s na bha dligheach dha, no ‘n urrainn e bhi toilichte le ni ‘s lugha? Tha gach beachd araon neo-chomasach. Suarach is ge do smuaintaicheas cuid do dhaoine mu pheachd, agus searbh agus mar a shaoileas iad duais na doruinn shioruidh mar a pheanas, bu choir dhoibh a chuimhneachadh, gur e direach ar-amach an aghaidh uachdaranachd Dhe, agus nam biodh iad gun srian agus gun pheanas, chuireadh iad mi-raghailt air feadh an domhain, agus thilgeadh iad bun-oscionn cathair an Uile Chumhachdaich. O smuainticheach an leughadair uia ta air fein, mar ann an ceartas, airson a theachd gearr do aireamh, agus a chionta, buailteach do mhallachadh an lagh bhriste—”do ‘n fheirg ata ri teachd.”
Agus fuí ‘n mhothachadh so, tionndadh e aire gu Beinn Shinai, agus smuaintaicheadh e air comharan eagallach na morachd uamhasach, a bha air an nochdadh ann an sealladh Israel uile, ‘n am a bhi a mhaín a toirt seachad an lagha. O! Cia co mor ‘s uamhasaiche ‘s eigin doibh so a bhi, ‘n uair a thig ‘n Ti ‘s airde gu dioladh a dheanadh airson onoir a lagh bhriste! Gu cinnteach ‘s eigin gum bi e na ni eagallach, tuiteam ann ‘n lamhan an De bheo? Co ‘s urrainn e fein a chruadhachadh an aghaidh Dhe agus soirbheachadh? Co ‘s urrainn dol as o rannsachadh an Ti sin, a tha le lathuireachd a lionadh neamh agus talamh, agus o fhianuis nach ‘eil aig ifrinn fein comhdach? Co ‘s urrainn
cuir ‘n aghaidh neart ‘n Uile Chumhachdaich? Am bheil agadsa o pheacaich gairdean cosmhuil ri Dia, no ‘n urrainn thu tairnean-aich le guth cosmhuil risan? Nach d’ thubhaint e, “ma gheur-aicheas mi mo chlaidheamh lasarach, agus ma ni mo lamh greim air breitheanas, iocadh mi dioghaltas do ‘m naimhdean, agus duais dhoibhsan a dh’ fhuaithaicheas mi?”
Rinneadh an claidheamh lasarach sin a tharruing eadhon ann an Eden, agus a chuir ‘n sin gu bhi a coimhead na slighe gu craobh na beatha; rinneadh a gheurachadh mar an ceudna, agus a sgùradh air Beinn Shinai, agus ni e mort craiteach mu dheireadh, ‘m measg naimhdean an Tighearn.
O! Co ‘n intinn ‘s urrainn a smuaintachadh? Co ‘m peann ‘s urrainn cunntas a thoirt, air oilt uamhasach, a mhort sin? agus cia co claoidtheach ‘s a tha ‘n smuaintinn, gu ‘m bi iad gu siorr-uidh, far nach basaich a chnoimh, agus nach muchar an teine! Chaidh a radh gu ceart, “Ni so ifrinn na h-ifrinn.”
Feorucheadh an leughadair ma seadh deth fein, mar ann a’ lathair Dhe, nach d’ rinn mise ioma ni nach bu choir dhomh a dheanamh, agus nach d’ fhag mi gu ‘n deanadh, ioma ni a bu choir dhomh a dheanamh? Nach eil mise air mo dhiteadh mar chiontach, ann an smuainte, am focal, agus an gniomh, leis an lagh, agus air an aobhar sin a seasamh buailteach do ‘n mhallach-adh uamhasach so? O! na cuir ‘n fheoruich sholaimte so uait—O! na cuir dail innte—na cuir a’ faoinneas gnothuichean na siorruidheachd—na meall thu fein: Rinn Dia, ann ‘m mo throcair, aithnichte ar cunnart, a chum ‘s gu ‘n teicheamaid airson dion, a dh’ionnsuidh ‘n dochais a tha air a chuir fa ‘r combair anns ‘n t’ soisgeul.
Aon do na meadhonan gu muladach ‘s cumhachdaich a tha air an gnathachadh le namhaid anamaibh, a chum daoine a chumail fuidh a dhaorsadh, agus buailteach do ‘n mhallachadh eagallach so, se sin a bhi a folach o ‘n sealladh, reachd uamhasach agus gun-atharrachadh lagh naomha Dhe, agus mar so ga ‘n toirt gu bhi toilichte le sith bhreige, agus gu bhi ‘g altram dochas mear-achdach, a nochdadh sealladh sgriotaireal do Bheinn Shinai a bhi mealltach. Feudaidd nach bi e gun bhuannachd cuid do na beachdan neo-sgriobtaireal so ainmeachadh, leis ‘m bheil daoine a’dealbh ri’n cogais a chumail aig socair, fuidh bhi ‘g aideachadh peacadh.
Mar eisioimplair, tha moran a cumail an cogais ann an sith leis na smuaintean gu bheil Dia trocaireach, agus air an aobhar sin nach eil fath eagail doibh: Tha Dia gu deimhin “iochdmhor agus grasmhor, fad-fhulangach, agus pailt ann an caoimhneas agus am firinn, a’ gleidheadh trocair do mhiltibh, a’ maitheadh aingidh-eachd agus eusaontais, agus peacadh,” agus an fhirinn ghlormhor so rinn e aithnichte eadhon air Beinn Shinai, faic Ecsodus xxxiv. 6, 7, ach ris a sin chuir e, “agus nach saor air aon doigh an ciontach.”